In Ian Bogost\u2019s \u201cThe Problem with Diversity in Computing,\u201d from The Atlantic, Bogost\u2019s 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, \u201ccomputers have started issuing prison sentences.\u201d That is because one wouldn\u2019t think of an object dictating someone\u2019s 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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another rhetorical move I found successful in the article was when Bogost wrote, \u201cIn this line of thinking, inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy.\u201d Through this line, Bogost shows the reader that tech companies will introduce diversity but won\u2019t 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 \u201cgravy\u201d 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another rhetorical move noted is when Bogost wrote, \u201cBut there\u2019s 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\u2019s experience at airport security. But it probably won\u2019t substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.\u201d He gets his point across here very clearly. Still, he does it with relating to his opening paragraph. By using the \u201ccurly hair\u201d 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 \u201cshow not tell\u201d method he used before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bogost also writes, \u201cIt was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can\u2019t distinguish from potential weapons.\u201d 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\u2019t even be differentiated from a weapon? Oh, because most men created these technology systems. Got it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bogost finally closes his article by writing, \u201c\u2018Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests is not being represented,\u2019 Webb said. If she\u2019s right, then the problem with computing isn\u2019t just that it doesn\u2019t represent a diverse public\u2019s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing.\u201d 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 \u201cthe problem with computing is computing,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Ian Bogost\u2019s \u201cThe Problem with Diversity in Computing,\u201d from The Atlantic, Bogost\u2019s 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, \u201ccomputers have started issuing prison … Continue reading “Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":174,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[60,20,58,57],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/174"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=470"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":471,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/470\/revisions\/471"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=470"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=470"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ksoakes.expressions.syr.edu\/wrt205summer2021\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=470"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}