In "A Rape in Cyberspace" Dibbell discusses the story of Mr. Bungle who is a sexually violent character that is made up of real life and virtual life. The story takes place in a mansion in the halls of LambdaMOO where there was more than a thousand residents. Mr. Bungle was able to rape by a voodoo doll that was in their image and then he would manipulate the doll and force them to have sex with him, each other, and to do unimaginable things to hurt themselves. What Dibbell argues is that what the victims didn't experience in real life couldn't hurt them, but she wants to consider how that wisdom would sound to a woman who had experienced this type of violence.
I also think that when you involve yourself in these types of societies that your real emotions and fears will come into play. I think it can be very scary to witness or be the victim of the type of violence Mr. Bungle was putting out there. A part of me also says to just get off that space and be done with the weirdos. People can't hurt you if your not there to hurt. If this person knows you in real life and you notice this crazy behavior after you've left a specific site, then you have a lot bigger problem. I would involve the authorities at that point.
Dibbell, Julian. Chapter One of My Tiny Life, 1998. The Village Voice, December 1993.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Always-On/Always-On-You: The Tethered Self (Turkle)
In Always-On/Always-On-You: The Tethered Self, (Phoning It In) Turkle states that we are always working on our identity and that the technology and the devices that we use become a badge of our networks. Our "contact lists" and the potential to make new friends comforts us even when we are not using our devices. Turkle concludes this section by pointing out that without our devices we feel lost, we are not so much limited to our devices as we are the satisfaction that they offer us when we are online.
I understand what Turkle means when she says that we are always working on our identity. We all update and change our profiles and identities all the time. This happens because we are all growing older and evolving everyday. The more comfortable we are with our devices the easier it is to express ourselves. Turkle says that for many it is easier to express themselves when it comes to intimacy in the virtual world than it is in real life. I also like the idea that you can be a loner yet not alone. To me the word loner sounds sad and depressing, and maybe it used to be in the past. But today, I don't think there's a problem with being a loner or introvert. If a person is shy and uncomfortable talking face to face with strangers, being able to communicate online opens a whole new world for loners, introverts, and shy people. The gratification and satisfaction that we all get from our devices is enjoyable and it helps us to really be ourselves and forget about the fear of face to face contact. For me personally I am able to express myself very well to people I am close to face to face, and I am able to express myself better online to strangers than face to face. Turkle says that we are more attached to our sites than we are the people on them. This is true for me, I feel a sense of comfort having all my friends on my contact list, but I am more attached to the device than I am most of the people on my contact list.
http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Always%20On.pdf
I understand what Turkle means when she says that we are always working on our identity. We all update and change our profiles and identities all the time. This happens because we are all growing older and evolving everyday. The more comfortable we are with our devices the easier it is to express ourselves. Turkle says that for many it is easier to express themselves when it comes to intimacy in the virtual world than it is in real life. I also like the idea that you can be a loner yet not alone. To me the word loner sounds sad and depressing, and maybe it used to be in the past. But today, I don't think there's a problem with being a loner or introvert. If a person is shy and uncomfortable talking face to face with strangers, being able to communicate online opens a whole new world for loners, introverts, and shy people. The gratification and satisfaction that we all get from our devices is enjoyable and it helps us to really be ourselves and forget about the fear of face to face contact. For me personally I am able to express myself very well to people I am close to face to face, and I am able to express myself better online to strangers than face to face. Turkle says that we are more attached to our sites than we are the people on them. This is true for me, I feel a sense of comfort having all my friends on my contact list, but I am more attached to the device than I am most of the people on my contact list.
http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Always%20On.pdf
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Matrix compared to Men in Black
On page 116 in chapter 3 Nakamura talks about the idea of blackness being transcodeable "cool" and whiteness is exposed as "killingly normative" in many types of media and technology. She uses the example of The Matrix trilogy's idea of whiteness giving entitlement, masculinity, and mastery over all new technology, while blackness is given little focus and the use of old technology, yet blackness is given the "cool" factor in these movies. She is pointing out the clear distinction of blackness as being "cool" and low tech while whiteness is "intelligence" and high tech.
The movie Men in Black is similar because it has a white actor (Tommy Lee Jones) and a black actor (Will Smith) who play roles of one being the entitled leader, and the other being the "cool" follower. In this movie they both play MIB agents, Jones plays the superior to Smith. Jones who is the intelligent one who needs another agent to work with him notices how "cool" Smith is when he decides to chase after one of the aliens. This film depicts Jones as the boss and Smith as his employee. During the film they use high tech guns and sunglasses, Smith is given the smaller gun and is not given use of all the technology that other agents are.
This movie emphasizes the "cool" factor of Will Smith, and the intelligence of Tommy Lee Jones, or their characters as agents.
The movie Men in Black is similar because it has a white actor (Tommy Lee Jones) and a black actor (Will Smith) who play roles of one being the entitled leader, and the other being the "cool" follower. In this movie they both play MIB agents, Jones plays the superior to Smith. Jones who is the intelligent one who needs another agent to work with him notices how "cool" Smith is when he decides to chase after one of the aliens. This film depicts Jones as the boss and Smith as his employee. During the film they use high tech guns and sunglasses, Smith is given the smaller gun and is not given use of all the technology that other agents are.
This movie emphasizes the "cool" factor of Will Smith, and the intelligence of Tommy Lee Jones, or their characters as agents.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Haraway "Situated Knowledges"
Wow! Is this my first year of college or is this article completely lacking common sense? It's frustrating when someone writes in a way that makes people have to grab the dictionary and talk over each paragraph with their spouse just to understand what was just said.
To sum up this article the best I can would be to say that feminist objectivity means quite simply "situated knowledges". Haraway said that "situated knowledges" are about communities, not about isolated individuals. The only way to find a larger vision is to be somewhere in particular. The science question in feminism is about objectivity as positioned rationality." Haraway says that feminist objectivity allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see.
It seems to me that Haraway is against modern technological sciences. She likes the idea of passive vision and embodied knowledges, she implies that technological science is unlocatable, and so irresponsible knowledge claims. I disagree with many of the things she says about the sciences; she says that artifacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of rhetoric. To me that doesn't even make sense, if you can hold something in your hand and study it how is this rhetoric? I do understand that scientists will make claims based on artifacts that they find and that later have been debunked, but that's just life and learning. That's what it's all about........
To sum up this article the best I can would be to say that feminist objectivity means quite simply "situated knowledges". Haraway said that "situated knowledges" are about communities, not about isolated individuals. The only way to find a larger vision is to be somewhere in particular. The science question in feminism is about objectivity as positioned rationality." Haraway says that feminist objectivity allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see.
It seems to me that Haraway is against modern technological sciences. She likes the idea of passive vision and embodied knowledges, she implies that technological science is unlocatable, and so irresponsible knowledge claims. I disagree with many of the things she says about the sciences; she says that artifacts and facts are parts of the powerful art of rhetoric. To me that doesn't even make sense, if you can hold something in your hand and study it how is this rhetoric? I do understand that scientists will make claims based on artifacts that they find and that later have been debunked, but that's just life and learning. That's what it's all about........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)