- The first paragraph of the article is a personal anecdote about Webb’s life experience at the airport, and already there is a clear narrative. Bogost wishes to use these experience stories to explain his point about diversity in tech, and this is the best way to have the reader sympathize with an issue. In the second paragraph, the reader finds out about Webb’s background, and more information is provided. This serves to give credibility to the identity of the subject in the writing.
- The second is the rhetorical question asked by Charles Isbell, “Are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?”. Readers are forced to reconsider their assumptions about the basic necessity of inclusion or whether there is more to the reasons for having a wider range of talent as well as ethnicities that can benefit the market.
- Another rhetorical move would be idiom, where Kamau Bobb talks about how in Silicon Valley, the primary concern for diversity is so that it fits within the current system and not to upset it, and that if there are any bonuses for social and moral responsibility, that would just be gravy. If only the last part is mentioned, the reader would not understand the wider context.
- Metaphor is used when Webb stated her concern with the idea that every kid has to learn to code, using the term of nuts and bolts to describe the actions of basic coding. The reason for that use is to demonstrate the poor quality with the problem of too many young coders.
- The final rhetorical move that I chose is the oxymoron. Bogost wrote about how the tech industry is improving with its diversity, but that overall it is still terrible. That gives the reader the sense of progress that the tech industry still needs to make even with that small glimmer of hope.
Tag: bogost
5 Rhetorical Moves
Narrates a short story
Before Bogost jumps into his argument, he engages the reader with a story. This story is an account of what happen to Amy Webb who experienced sexism at an airport. This incidence occurred due to an injury Webb had that put her in a walking boot. Because of this, she had to go through a backscatter machine with X-ray imaging instead of the normal metal detector. The machine picked up on her hair and breast area as a weapon. She claims that when developing these machines, they have these issues because “someone like me wasn’t in the room”. Her experience ties into the entire point of Bogost’s article about the lack of diversity in the world of technology.
Explaining
Bogost also provides a simple explanation and solution for the readers. He says that “computer systems that don’t anticipate all the types of people who might use them” . He follows up by saying, “Increase the diversity of representation among the people who make these systems, and they will serve the population better”. This straightforward explanation to the topic of his article helps the reader narrow their focus on this issue and the end goal which pushes the argument forward.
Comparing and Contrasting (They Say)
Bogost pulls quotes and opinions from multiple people in his article. In one section he references both Amy Webb and Kamau Bobb. He compares their opinions back to back in a section. This allows the readers to see the relationship between different people’s opinions. This helps the reader figure out where they stand on an issue.
‘In Webb’s view, that argument is unlikely to ever gain traction among big, wealthy tech companies. “A moral imperative is unlikely to motivate public companies,” she told me. Bobb agrees—Google’s focus on the “next billion users” entails a better understanding of people of color, he said, but only because the company finally understands that they represent an untapped market for advertising.’
But to Webb, that doesn’t mean those companies are hopeless. The problem, she said, is that scale, market share, and speed matter more than anything else. She believes the problems that arise in computational social infrastructure, such as backscatter X-ray devices and facial-recognition systems, are caused by the ferocious competition between these companies. Webb thinks a better approach to solving the social ills in artificial-intelligence systems would come from some kind of federal office or consortium that might encourage collaboration between tech firms; one such project could be revising data sets that don’t fully represent the general public.
Quoting
To keep the article flowing, the author incorporates many quotations. Following the guidelines of TSIS, Bogost frames his quotes. This is an important move that carries his argument because it provides the reader with more insight about a topic as well as spark questions or new ideas.
Poses questions to the reader
To keep the reader engaged, Bogost throws in questions throughout the piece. These questions push the reader to analyze their stance on certain issues before continuing to read. Additionally, Bogost asks questions (like the one below) that are easy for the reader to agree with (which builds some common ground between the author and the reader).
If everyone is focused on the nuts and bolts of making software quickly at scale, where will they learn to design it with equity and care?
I also used this website to help come up with rhetorical statregies…
https://wwnorton.com/college/english/write/read12/toolbar/set02.aspx
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
- The first rhetorical move that I noticed in Bogost’s article “The Problem with Diversity in Computing” was in the first few paragraphs. It begins with a personal anecdote and the fifth paragraph sums it up nicely when it quotes Webb, the storyteller, stating that “her airport experience can be traced back to the fact that “someone like me wasn’t in the room” when the system was designed, or when it was trained on images of human forms, or when it was tested before rollout”. This experience sets up the focus of the article and leads into the main argument.
- Another rhetorical move that I noticed was that Bogost uses the device logos frequently throughout his article, but specifically when he states, “At Google, for example, more that 95 percent of technical workers are white or Asian”. This quote helps solidify the argument that the reader has seen so far.
- “It will also give more people of color access to the economic opportunities the tech industry offers. But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or a curly haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems that produced Webb’s experience at airport security”. This quote from the article shows the Bogost started off with a sentence that helps his argument, but in the next sentence we see that he actually contradicts his previous statement.
- When Bogost quoted Isbell, he made me rethink the article thus far and contemplate what the argument in now trying to prove. “Diversity is just membership,” Isbell said. “Integration is influence, power, and partnership.”
- The final rhetorical move that I noticed was when, in the last paragraph, Bogost goes back to Webb’s anecdote in the beginning stating “For Webb, the underrepresentation of women, black people, and others is a real problem, but it’s not the fundamental one. “We’re all discriminated against by computing.”” Bogost reaches his final argument the computing discriminates against everyone which leads him to wrap it up in the last paragraph.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
Rhetoric and the Information Technology Industry
In The Expressive The Problem With Diversity in Computing (2007), Ian Bogost describes the connections between rhetoric and the information technology industry, demonstrating how the processes and systems of the computer represent a form of persuasion and communication. Ian Bogost writes this article as an author and game designer. Additionally, his background includes serving as the Ivan Allen College Distinguished Chair in Media Studies and a Professor in Liberal Arts, Computing, Business, and Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Founding Partner at Persuasive Games LLC; and a Contributing Editor at The Atlantic. To make his point, Bogost writes in an informal, story-based narrative style. This serves to convey the writer’s point while keeping the reader interested.
Sexism
Bogost starts out by associating the notion of sexism with computers. The computer program has a somewhat sexist analogy in the backscatter machines by identifying women’s underwire bras as problematic. Apparently, the system sometimes can’t distinguish Victoria’s Secret from potential weapons. Webb says her airport experience can be traced back to the fact that “someone like me wasn’t in the room” when the system was designed. One can surmise that the creators of the system were male. I see this as Bogost’s use of a pathos-based rhetorical device in which he relays the emotional story of a woman feeling vulnerable. He’s using this vulnerability to get us (the audience) to agree that his argument is a persuasive one.
Racism
By sharing personal stories that the reader could feel a connection to…once again going through the TSA at the airport, the pathos-based rhetorical device is utilized. It’s pointed out that discrimination based on hair texture appears to be at play with the computer systems confused by ethnic hair. Unfortunately, having mop of thick, curly hair results in additional screening and cranial pat-downs for individuals based on what I perceive as the long-standing Eurocentric views of hair style. One can surmise that the creators of the system were not racially diverse. This description puts the audience in an emotional frame of mind as they can relate to being pulled aside due to discriminatory treatment that could derail an individual’s confidence and cause public embarrassment.
Teach Concepts Not Coding
Bogost is clearly attempting to get his audience to think about the time and effort being utilized by the Constellations Center for Equity in Computing. The center’s goal is to increase access to computer-science education among women and people of color. Among its activities, it has funded and supported computer-science classes in Atlanta public schools primarily teaching students coding. Bogost’s point is that when you teach a kid to code, what benefit do they actually get? For example, teaching students Python isn’t necessarily going to help them get an IT job in 10 years because Python probably won’t be the premier language in a decade. However, if students are just learning Python, that’s the real issue. Learning Python should teach concepts and create intuition about the methodology that computers utilize to solve problems. That is the enduring skill and what the focus should be. As Amy Webb is quoted as saying, “If everyone is focused on the nuts and bolts of making software quickly at scale, where will they learn to design it with equity and care? “Critical thinking is what the computers won’t be able to do,” she said.”
Bogost relies on logos as a rhetorical move during this part of his article. He is utilizing logic and objective evidence to appeal to the audience. His argument appears to be non-biased so that enhances the feeling of logos.
Diversity and integration
According to Aristotle, “More than any other technique, the use of metaphor will help you achieve a unique, clear, and interesting style” (2017) and Bogost uses this rhetorical move in his writing style. Bogost quotes Charles Isbell by noting that “Diversity is just membership and “Integration is influence, power, and partnership.” I think of the urban area that has an immigrant and refugee population that brings in individuals with different backgrounds. These areas are diverse however are they truly integrated?
Diversity may stimulate cultural understanding of unique backgrounds and viewpoints, but it doesn’t encourage inclusion. Keep in mind though this cultural understanding will only grow if these individuals intermingle with each another.
The rhetorical move of an implied metaphor is utilized in two ways diversity is compared to membership while integration is associated with partnership.
Computers as judges
Personification is a rhetorical move in which human attributes are given to animals, objects, or ideas. These human attributes can be in classified in form, behavior, feelings, attitudes, or motivation. Bogost makes use of this when he comments that computers have started issuing prison sentences. By assigning computers the title of judge we can recognize human behaviors and emotions in this inanimate object.
Conclusion
As Horace once said, “I will aim at a friendly style that others will think is easy enough to copy. But those who try will grind their teeth in frustration. What they don’t know is that it is the arrangement of the words that adds both power and elegance to the friendly style” (Harris, 2017). As I read the article, I appreciated not only the rhetorical moves but rather the friendly style as well as power in which Bogost conveyed the information and convinced the audience of his point of view as well as the power of interactive technology.
Reference
Harris, Robert A. (Robert Alan), 1950. (2017). Writing with clarity and style: A guide to rhetorical devices for contemporary writers. Routledge.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
Throughout the article, Bogost usage os several rhetorical strategies to capture the attention of the audiecne so he can clearly convey his message.
Bogost begins by introducing Amy Webb, a woman who had to go through a backscatter machine at the airport due to her broken ankle. As she went through the machine she noticed that her “cast ,head, and breasts were big blocks of yellow” which meant she need to be pat down. This is because the machines were unable to distinguish between her underwire bra and a weapon. Bogost the includes that this was due to the lack of anticipation by the computers of the diversity in the people that will be utilizing this technology. By providing us with this story at the beginning of the article, it allows the readers to imagine this situation and see the connect to the title “The Problem with Diversity in Computing”.
Another way Bogost conveys his message is when he includes the rhetorical question posed by Charles Isbell who is the incoming dean of computing at Georgia Tech. Isbell states “The real question is:Are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?”. After integrating this rhetorical question, he then goes on to explain the difference between diversity and integration. This allows readers to understand whether the focus should be on integration or diversity in these computing communities.
Bogost incorporates Webbs statement that we as a society have put such importance on STEM education which can result in more harm than good. Bogost then goes on to explain that if everyone is focusing on building software quickly, they won’t spend enough time to design their programs with equity and care which will result in situations similar to Amy Webbs situation at the airport
Bogost inclusion Webbs statement that the issue is not just the underrepresentation of women, black people, and others, but “We’re all discriminated against by computing”. He then goes on to explain that computing professionals create a tribe based on the “exclusive culture of computing education and industry.” By including this, Bogost explains that due to this culture, computing professionals disregard everything else such as including different types of people, and instead focus solely on “the pursuit of technological solutions at maximum speed.”
To end off the article Bogost states “…the problem with computing is computing” . The inclusion of this statement serves to tie everything Bogost mentioned in the article together. The culture developed in computing and the way STEM education prioritizes the creation of software rather than other important aspects such as inclusion, have made it so that computing as a whole is essentially the entire issue. The only way to improve is by changing computing.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
It is very likely that those who read the title of Ian Bogost’s article, The Problem with Diversity in Computing, are not expecting it to open with the following paragraph:
“When Amy Webb broke her ankle, she was forced to hobble around on a walking boot. That inconvenience spawned others: among them, she couldn’t pass through the metal detector at airport TSA PreCheck lines any longer. Instead, she had to use the backscatter machines that produce X-ray images of passengers.”
Bogost’s first rhetorical move gets the better of the reader’s curiosity by making them wonder “what does this have to do with diversity in computing?” Their interest has been piqued and they are now invested in reading more.
Next, the author introduces us to Ms. Webb’s background where we find out “Webb, who is a professor at New York University and the author of The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity, took the inconvenience as a firsthand opportunity to watch how this technology, which uses computational methods to mark possible risks on the body, really works.”
Now we are starting to get the picture! Amy Webb has some expertise on how people are affected by technology and uses this knowledge to enlighten us on how technology can be discriminatory at the airport. “I’m looking at the screen,” she says of the image that appeared from her scan, “and my cast, head, and breasts were big blocks of yellow.” “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons.” Here, the author’s rhetorical move is to use Webb’s authority on the subject matter to help the reader buy into whatever he writes next.
Although Bogost doesn’t explicitly say so, we realize he probably agrees with Webb’s sentiment about technology because he utilizes a third rhetorical move where he states, “Webb’s experience is among the more innocuous consequences of computer systems that don’t anticipate all the types of people who might use them.” He also cites a fact that “Computers have started issuing prison sentences, for example.” to further point out how things have just gone too far.
Later, the author employs the “twist it” move in TSIS, where he agrees with Webb’s initial assessment that “someone like me wasn’t in the room” when the system at the airport was being developed. Yet his evidence supports a contrary position. The author opines “For years, companies and educators in the tech sector have framed diversity as a “pipeline” problem.” “We’ve had this obsession with STEM education,” he quotes Webb as saying. “It’s reached fever pitch, manifested in these programs where every kid has to learn to code.” Then Bogost further quotes Webb stating “If everyone is focused on the nuts and bolts of making software quickly at scale, where will they learn to design it with equity and care? “Critical thinking is what the computers won’t be able to do,” she said.”
Finally, Bogost illustrates to us that solutions are more complex than we thought, and, in the end, it may not be about gender, ethnic or racial diversity, but about an exclusive computing education and culture that discriminates against us all. The author writes “Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests are not being represented,” Webb said. If she’s right, then the problem with computing isn’t just that it doesn’t represent a diverse public’s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing.” This last rhetorical move implements a TSIS template for agreeing on one view and challenging another; if X is right that___, then the problem is___.
Fancy that. Even a professional journalist has made use of a template!
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
Here are five rhetorical moves I see Bogost using in “The Problem With Diversity in Computing” and a few comments about them.
1) Bogost opens his article using an anecdotal story about Amy Webb’s experience at a TSA checkpoint. This helps us visualize an example of human and technology interaction and also creates empathy in his readers, because Webb’s experience is not pleasant, and most of us can relate to it. Bogost uses this example to introduce his main point (diversity is much needed in the tech industry but it’s not an easy problem to solve). This works for me, although I would have liked to have the TSA experience of men described to highlight the difference in treatment.
2) In the 5th paragraph, Bogost uses a direct quote from Webb to emphasize and support his main point. Because Webb is a professor who has written about human-technology interaction, he draws on her view as an expert to support his argument. Webb says: “someone like me wasn’t in the room.” This works as supporting evidence for me, but since Bogost leads into her quote using the words “the fact that” I’d like to see some facts or statistics too.
Several times, Bogost uses a strategy of stating a commonly held belief or quotation (they say), followed a bit later by a transition phrase that signals that he is not necessarily in complete agreement (I say). I liked these moves because they allowed him to discuss the diversity issue from various sides and helped support his overall point that there is no easy solution. Here are 3 examples:
3) In paragraph 5, he writes: “That idea echoes a popular suggestion to remedy computers’ ignorance…increase the diversity” Then he starts paragraph six with: “But that’s an aspirational hope.”
4) In paragraph 7, he writes: “Fixing the flow of talent into this system, the thinking goes, will produce the workforce that Webb and others are calling for.” At the beginning of paragraph 9, he acknowledges this idea but returns to his point when he writes: “Those efforts have merit. But their impact might be a drop in the bucket…”
5) In paragraph 12, Bogost quotes Charles Isbell, a dean of computing, who says: “Diversity is just membership…. Integration is influence, power, and partnership.” Bogost immediately follows this expert opinion with yet another statement that returns to his point about the complexity of the problem: “But integration is much harder than diversity.”
Overall, Bogost’s rhetorical moves allow him to explore the diversity issue from many angles and help him make his point that we know what the problem is, but fixing it is a lot harder than it looks.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
In “The Problem with Diversity in Computing”, by Ian Bogost, a writer at The Atlantic, there were a variety of rhetorical moves used to emphasize the writer’s main purpose for the article. This was that the culture in the tech industry will most likely not change in the mere future, even with the increasing number of opportunities for women and underrepresented groups. The first time I read through the article, I did not notice the rhetorical moves in the writing. After going through a second time and paying close attention to the wording, I found that Bogost had crafted his arguments and reasoning extremely well, as all of the rhetorical devices he included supported his argument.
To begin the article, Bogost uses an anecdote about Amy Webb, a professor at NYU going through airport security. Due to the fact that she had a boot on her foot, she had to go through a different machine than the metal detector, a backscatter. While getting patted down, she noticed that most women had the same problem areas as her in the machine. According to Webb, this was due to the fact that “someone like me wasn’t in the room when the system was designed”. After Bogost gives this story to the reader, he speaks about how it is due to the ignorance of the computer most likely due to the fact that only men were in the room when designing the backscatter recognition programming. As a reader, I found this example to be very helpful in realizing that many people in the tech industry are unaware of how useful another person’s perspective is, such as a woman because they have never had to experience pat downs at the airport just because of what they may be wearing or their hair.
The second rhetorical device Bogost uses in the article is an idiom. The purpose of the idiom is to engage the reader and help emphasize the fact that their impact may be small, but the reader may not understand how small the impact that the Constellations Center for Equity in Computing may really be. The center gives the opportunity for women and underrepresented groups, particularly in neighborhoods where there was minimal access before to have access to computer science classes. It is a fantastic start towards giving people in the community a chance to learn something new, but as Bogost puts it, “their impact might be a drop in the bucket, given the size and composition of the tech industry.” After stating that the impact of the center may be a drop in the bucket, the author goes on to give the example at Google, and how it will only increase the percentage of underrepresented minorities in the industry up by a miniscule amount.
Another rhetorical move he uses in his article is a metaphor. Bogost first presents a question, which is whether we want integration or diversity. This is an interesting question, because on surface level in my opinion, it would just mean inclusion within the workforce for everyone. Isbell, an incoming dean of computing at Georgia Tech, presents the idea that “Diversity is just membership, Integration is Influence… power, and partnership”. Along with this, Bogost splits up this quote into two sections, even though it seems as though he said the two together. I believe that what Bogost was trying to do was emphasize the point that Isbel was making about the difference between the two. As I put above (the quote), it does not feel as powerful as the way that Bogost stated in his article, “Diversity is just membership, Isbell said. Integration is influence, power, and partnership.”. By allowing the two to be separate, it also allows the reader to help process the two words separately. I thought this really helped the idea stick. Along with this, the metaphor he uses comparing diversity to only membership, but integration to partnership helped me comprehend the difference between the two.
Bogost goes on to use an analogy to demonstrate to the reader just how different computing professionals are to everyone else. He presents the idea that underrepresentation in the tech industry is not a fundamental problem. They are separated because of their way of approaching problems is most likely different than an average person’s solution to a problem as “computing professionals constitute a tribe, separated from the general public not primarily by virtue of their race, gender, or nationality, but by the exclusive culture of computing education and industry.” The tech industry is a relatively new industry compared to many others, such as business, education, and even science. Both of my brothers are majoring in computer science, and I have seen some of the course work. It is so different from the ways that a person approaches problems in business, as well as the education in general. By giving the analogy of computer professionals being a tribe, I think this really illustrates the point about how their education is different from others and helps emphasize the exclusivity of working in the tech industry in general.
The final rhetorical device that Bogost uses in his article is another analogy. In using the analogy, it also strengthens the metaphor he included earlier in the article, about how diversity is just membership, while integration is partnership. In today’s culture, diversity is just a checkpoint on a company’s box, they do not really see the value of having different perspectives be involved and have power in the workplace. Also, as the article earlier noted, the older people in the industry must be willing to integrate. Currently, many companies are not willing, as “their goal is to get more people in the game, not necessarily change the rules of that game.”. This quote helps illustrate that many people within the tech industry are not changing for the right reasons. The author compares it to a game, instead of real life. The right reasons would be because it is the morally correct thing to do, not only because it has a positive economic impact on the company. By comparing the diversity efforts to a game, Bogost helps demonstrate that the tech industry is not really ready for integration, rather they are only ready for the membership of others.
These rhetorical devices really stood out to me as they helped me understand the point that Bogost was trying to convey. I found these to be the most useful in understanding his ideas and the point that he was making surrounding diversity in the tech industry.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
In Bogost’s “The problem with diversity in computing” he uses different rhetorical techniques and moves to clearly and effectively get his ideas across. He is expressing the importance of diversity in computing but it is also problematic, as one can tell from the title of the article. The first point he makes stood out to me because he gives an example as to why diversity is important in computing. He explains the time that Professor Amy Webb had a hard time going through airport security because of her boot for her ankle, the underwire of her bra, and, believe it or not, her hair. She then says that the reason this happened to her and has most likely happened to other people it because “someone like me wasn’t in the room”. I found this to be important because in order to discuss what the problems with having diversity in computing are, there needs to be a point made as to why diversity in computing is important to begin with. The reader can actually see the importance of having a diversity of people creating a machine by Bogost painting a picture of what happened to Webb and why.
Another rhetorical move that Bogost used was the point he made about how “integration of women, people of color, and other underrepresented voices would mean that the behavior of the entire industry would change as a result of their presence…”. Whether the change in behavior would be positive or negative, the idea comes from the question that Charles Isbell rose: “are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?”. Integration and diversity are not the same thing, but both of them would cause issues if integrated into computing. Here Bogost uses a hypophora by posing Isbells question about integration and then explaining what the difference between the two is and going into what the goal and his point of the article as a whole is.
Bogost also uses an oxymoron to exaggerate how big of an issue diversity in computing really is. “Tech-industry is improving, buy it’s still pretty terrible”. By using the phrase “pretty terrible” he dramatizes the problem of the lack of diversity in the tech-industry and goes onto explain how that is important for computing systems.
Bogost also makes a point that “inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy”. He comes to this conclusion by identifying the goal of Google which is “to get more people in the game, not necessarily change the rules of the game”. This falls right under what Isbell asked about integration vs. diversity. Getting more people into the game is more diversity, but the issue with having diversity in computing at all is being able to make a change along with the inclusion of underrepresented voices. Here Bogost uses an antanagoge by mentioning getting more people involved and the company being diverse but following it with the idea that the company is not willing to change what they do which needs to take place along with the inclusion of underrepresented people.
Another rhetorical move that I found to be powerful was identifying what would need to happen to allow diversity or integration to happen. “But integration is much harder than diversity. Isbell thinks that two separate conditions need to be met in order to accomplish it: ‘one is that the new folks are both capable and confident. The other is that the old folks are willing'”. This is important because without both of those factors, integration might as well be impossible to achieve anywhere. By mentioning Isbells idea of what he believes needs to happen to achieve integration, Bogost is using apophasis. He identifies that these two things need to happen but does not elaborate on the idea that should one happen and not the other, it is useless.
Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves
In Ian Bogost’s “The Problem with Diversity in Computing,” from The Atlantic, Bogost’s rhetorical writing is very effective and delivers his messages perfectly. His rhetorical moves clearly hit the tech industry and even some people within it. The first line of text that caught my eye as a reader was, “computers have started issuing prison sentences.” That is because one wouldn’t think of an object dictating someone’s future, so it makes you really think. Bad technology can ruin someone based on the lack of knowledge and representation the systems in place has. This reminded me of Heffernan’s point of needing inefficiency instead of efficiency that still fails time and time yet again. This sentence also hits the lack of diversity representation in fundamental programs in our country, without even saying it. Showing and not telling clearly is a strong suit of Bogost.
Another rhetorical move I found successful in the article was when Bogost wrote, “In this line of thinking, inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy.” Through this line, Bogost shows the reader that tech companies will introduce diversity but won’t alter the corrupt systems in place but will still assume that they will get a pat on the back for short-term change. The industry does not really care about long-term amendments, Bogost explains. Using the slang term “gravy” as well, Bogost adds a bit of humor through sarcasm. This causes readers to probably laugh to themselves and acknowledge the audacity the industry has.
Another rhetorical move noted is when Bogost wrote, “But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or a curly-haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems that produced Webb’s experience at airport security. But it probably won’t substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.” He gets his point across here very clearly. Still, he does it with relating to his opening paragraph. By using the “curly hair” reference, he does not need to explain what he means, because he already has. It creates almost a short cut for the reader. It again provides the “show not tell” method he used before.
Bogost also writes, “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons.” This statement is completely true and has no sarcastic metaphor included, which shows the reader how insane these systems are. So a bra, a needed garment for most women, can’t even be differentiated from a weapon? Oh, because most men created these technology systems. Got it.
Bogost finally closes his article by writing, “‘Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests is not being represented,’ Webb said. If she’s right, then the problem with computing isn’t just that it doesn’t represent a diverse public’s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing.” Here, Bogost is taking a direct hit at Webb and does not need to explain what is so wrong with her thinking. He uses sarcasm when saying “the problem with computing is computing,” and does not need to explain that he knows this is not true. Through his voice in his article, the readers know that he believes the problem with computing is much bigger and leaves it.