{"id":1101,"date":"2018-05-25T17:11:53","date_gmt":"2018-05-25T17:11:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.ryerson.ca\/writehere\/?post_type=chapter&p=1101"},"modified":"2018-07-13T18:44:07","modified_gmt":"2018-07-13T18:44:07","slug":"dominating-the-conversation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/chapter\/dominating-the-conversation\/","title":{"raw":"Dominating the Conversation","rendered":"Dominating the Conversation"},"content":{"raw":"Let\u2019s look at some examples of these mistakes and then examine ways to remedy them.\r\n\r\nThe first mistake involves acting like a domineering, interrupting, and inattentive conversation partner\u2014the sort of person who finishes other people\u2019s sentences, most often in ways the interrupted person did not intend. This sort of mistake most often manifests itself in essays in which the student paraphrases the sources, making them say things they are not really saying for the sake of proving their own argument, or using minimal, even one-word citations and plugging them into their own argument out of context. In this way, the writer ignores what either source is saying because the primary concern is making the conversation arrive at the desired conclusion no matter what the cost. Here is an example of this sort of \u201cbullying\u201d of sources using our primary evidence and our secondary article:\r\n
\r\n

Example<\/h3>\r\nAs McCosker and Johns confirm in \u201cProductive Provocations: Vitriolic Media, Spaces of Protest and Agonistic Outrage in the 2011 England Riots,\u201d \u201caggressive, antagonistic behaviour\u201d like the \u201cunchecked flow of racial bigotry\u201d and the \u201cvitriolic expression and aggressive interaction\u201d found in the comments section of the Occupy Wall Street Homepage demonstrate how such pages \u201csimply give voice to and perpetuate forms of bigotry and incite hatred and further violence.\u201d As commenters call each other \u201cidiots\u201d and \u201cterrorists\u201d and \u201cZionist pigs,\u201d they demonstrate how \u201cvolatile debates erupting online\u201d serve as \u201cmodes of incitement\u201d for real world violence. When one commenter accuses another of having a \u201cracist God,\u201d or when one calls another\u2019s religion a \u201cfake story,\u201d they demonstrate the \u201cangry, adversarial and provocative speech\u201d that fosters only divisiveness and violence. The original message and intent of the Occupy Wall Street movement is lost in the \u201cangry tenor of speech\u201d dominating the comments section as people reply to each other\u2019s comments with \u201csimple people like simple slogans\u201d or \u201clol dumb post.\u201d\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nHere we see the author using McCosker and Johns\u2019s article as if it is about the Occupy Wall Street page, which it is not, and as if it agrees with the author\u2019s assessment of the primary evidence. This secondary source is misused to support what the author wants it to say about the subject. Also, the citations are short snippets used without context. Exactly what are McCosker and Johns referring to when they describe \u201caggressive antagonistic behaviour?\u201d Exactly what are they referring to when they discuss \u201cangry, adversarial and provocative speech?\u201d And what is the context of each of the harsh phrases the author has lifted from the comments page? If you review McCosker and Johns\u2019s article, you\u2019ll see there are several times here where the author has clipped a citation to make it serve the desired argument. McCosker and Johns\u2019 point is a little more qualified when describing the \u201cvolatile debates erupting online.\u201d They write of the \u201cdense and volatile debates erupting online,\u201d implying a more nuanced reading of online discussions than simply pointing at their potential for danger. The author needs to decide how to read the primary evidence then determine if McCosker and Johns\u2019 argument as it exists in their essay can support that reading.","rendered":"

Let\u2019s look at some examples of these mistakes and then examine ways to remedy them.<\/p>\n

The first mistake involves acting like a domineering, interrupting, and inattentive conversation partner\u2014the sort of person who finishes other people\u2019s sentences, most often in ways the interrupted person did not intend. This sort of mistake most often manifests itself in essays in which the student paraphrases the sources, making them say things they are not really saying for the sake of proving their own argument, or using minimal, even one-word citations and plugging them into their own argument out of context. In this way, the writer ignores what either source is saying because the primary concern is making the conversation arrive at the desired conclusion no matter what the cost. Here is an example of this sort of \u201cbullying\u201d of sources using our primary evidence and our secondary article:<\/p>\n

\n

Example<\/h3>\n

As McCosker and Johns confirm in \u201cProductive Provocations: Vitriolic Media, Spaces of Protest and Agonistic Outrage in the 2011 England Riots,\u201d \u201caggressive, antagonistic behaviour\u201d like the \u201cunchecked flow of racial bigotry\u201d and the \u201cvitriolic expression and aggressive interaction\u201d found in the comments section of the Occupy Wall Street Homepage demonstrate how such pages \u201csimply give voice to and perpetuate forms of bigotry and incite hatred and further violence.\u201d As commenters call each other \u201cidiots\u201d and \u201cterrorists\u201d and \u201cZionist pigs,\u201d they demonstrate how \u201cvolatile debates erupting online\u201d serve as \u201cmodes of incitement\u201d for real world violence. When one commenter accuses another of having a \u201cracist God,\u201d or when one calls another\u2019s religion a \u201cfake story,\u201d they demonstrate the \u201cangry, adversarial and provocative speech\u201d that fosters only divisiveness and violence. The original message and intent of the Occupy Wall Street movement is lost in the \u201cangry tenor of speech\u201d dominating the comments section as people reply to each other\u2019s comments with \u201csimple people like simple slogans\u201d or \u201clol dumb post.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Here we see the author using McCosker and Johns\u2019s article as if it is about the Occupy Wall Street page, which it is not, and as if it agrees with the author\u2019s assessment of the primary evidence. This secondary source is misused to support what the author wants it to say about the subject. Also, the citations are short snippets used without context. Exactly what are McCosker and Johns referring to when they describe \u201caggressive antagonistic behaviour?\u201d Exactly what are they referring to when they discuss \u201cangry, adversarial and provocative speech?\u201d And what is the context of each of the harsh phrases the author has lifted from the comments page? If you review McCosker and Johns\u2019s article, you\u2019ll see there are several times here where the author has clipped a citation to make it serve the desired argument. McCosker and Johns\u2019 point is a little more qualified when describing the \u201cvolatile debates erupting online.\u201d They write of the \u201cdense and volatile debates erupting online,\u201d implying a more nuanced reading of online discussions than simply pointing at their potential for danger. The author needs to decide how to read the primary evidence then determine if McCosker and Johns\u2019 argument as it exists in their essay can support that reading.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":87,"menu_order":10,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1101","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":1077,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/87"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2100,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1101\/revisions\/2100"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/1077"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1101\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1101"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1101"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/writehere\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}