September 25, 2021
Analysis
1. What I did:
- Read the Rhetorical Context text
- Read Occasion, Exigency, and Kairos text
- Read Rhetoric is Synonymous with Empty Speech text
- Looked into the podcast
- Read the Navigating Genres text
2. What went well:
- Able to look at what rhetoric is
- Able to see rhetoric can be used in many different situations
- Able to see Rhetoric can come off as helpful or harmful, depending on the situation
- Able to see Rhetoric can have a great impact on society
3. What was hard:
- Getting time to finish these assignments, this is the first week that was hectic.
4. To-Do List:
- Look at what will be given next week so that I don’t feel crammed for time to do these assignments.
5. Where I left off:
- I left off finishing the readings explaining rhetoric and its use in society.
6. How do I feel?
I feel a little stressed. This may be due to the time that was given to me this week. I will try to do better in planning out my times so I don’t feel stressed or crammed for time. This weeks’ assignments were simple and there should be no excuse for feeling crammed for time.
7. Roberts-Miller describes the extreme consequences of negative rhetoric or rhetoric that intentionally misleads an audience (11). Think of a time you have seen rhetoric in action. Was it positive or negative? Was it used to get at the truth or to mislead? What were the consequences?
A time I have seen rhetoric in action was in a YouTube video, in which a lawyer shows the people watching how to persuade the judge to sentence your client as not guilty, even if he has committed the crime. This kind of rhetoric can go both ways due to the fact that court cases are all different in a way. For example a person can be innocent of murder, and the lawyer can use rhetoric in order to persuade the judge to take the side of his client, which can be shown as positive due to the lawyer not misleading the judge, the only audience member, which leads it to be positive, since he is giving the truth. However, this situation can be in the exact opposite, where the defendant was charged for murder and actually did do it. But, the lawyer, would want his client to win, so he would use rhetoric in order to persuade the judge to be on the side of the defendant. This is an example of rhetoric being used to mislead the audience, letting a guilty man go free. This would be described as negative rhetoric because we see the lawyer as the manipulator, in which he has a big impact on if the defendant goes free or not, even if he is guilty of such crime. This would obviously lead to the consequence of the defendant continuously repeating the same crime again. However the consequence of letting a non-guilty man go free is not there because we see the lawyer using rhetoric to get to the truth. These situations, said similarly by Miller, show that rhetoric will be in most parts of society’s writing, society’s speech, and society’s reading, however, people can choose to either to mislead or give the truth with the type of rhetoric they use.