{"id":12660,"date":"2026-04-15T12:21:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T16:21:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/?page_id=12660"},"modified":"2026-04-15T13:12:28","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T17:12:28","slug":"rhetspring2026april15","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/engl6166spring2026\/rhetspring2026april15\/","title":{"rendered":"April 15th: Knoblauch, Ch. 4 and 5"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><span style=\"background-color: #ffff00\">Remember, your Weekly Discussion Post #13 is Due Friday, 4\/17<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"background-color: #00ffff\"><strong>Also, I&#8217;m at a total loss on why WordPress is screwing up these pages.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<h2><strong>Announcements<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/southatlanticmla.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>SAMLA Conference<\/strong><\/a>, Nov. 5-7, 2026, Atlanta<br \/>\nDeadlines are different for this one<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/pcasacasconference.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>PCAS\/ACAS Conference<\/strong><\/a>, October 15-17,2026, New Orleans, LA<br \/>\nDeadline June 15th<br \/>\nPopular Culture Association of the South\/American Culture Association of the South<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Plan for the Day<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Weekly Discussion Post #13: Rhetoric\/al Project Abstract\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Due on Friday, 4\/17, 5:00pm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Knoblauch Ch. 4 and Ch. 5\n<ul>\n<li>Knoblauch\u2019s daughter got married last weekend<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>A little more on myth in American culture\n<ul>\n<li>Videos to motivate your rhetorical analyses<\/li>\n<li>The fear of \u201cbeing political\u201d in classes (specifically students\u2019 fears)<\/li>\n<li>What do the Humanities offer?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class=\"details\">\n<div class=\"entry-content\">\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Knoblauch\u2019s Chapter 4: \u201cObjectivist Rhetoric\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>As with his other chapters, Knoblauch isn\u2019t trying to get you to adopt a particular rhetorical lens for how best to argue <strong>the meaning of meaning<\/strong>. Although I think he wouldn\u2019t find magical or ontological rhetoric accurate guides to truth, we should consider his descriptions as the ways meaning is conveyed. Objectivist rhetoric, which he claims is related to scientific methods and understanding, as the name implies, is\u00a0<em>objective<\/em>; however, objectivity may have to be qualified\u2026<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>p. 79: \u201cObjectivist rhetoric is comprised of empirical inquiry, driven by a cycle of <span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>hypothesis and experiment<\/strong><\/span>, which leads to defensible assertions linked to previous, similarly tested assertions in a temporally evolving pattern of data-driven argument.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 78: \u201cScientific knowledge is not only cumulative but also, in its emphasis on self-critique, inevitably collective and public, an ever-ongoing task.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 82: \u201cObjectivist rhetoric has become the dominant discursive theory of modern times, not only in scientific inquiry but in its applied derivatives, like medicine and engineering.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 86: \u201c[John] Locke has effectively conceded that what we know of the world, indeed all we know, is our own <span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>language-based conceptions<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 87: Locke \u201cseek[s] to distinguish between the more careful, hence more objectively reliable, language of science and <span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>the imprecise language of everyday use<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Consider the description of gold Knoblauch recounts from Locke on p. 86:\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cthe <a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/quiddity\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>quiddity<\/strong><\/a> or specific difference\u2026.of the substance named gold, Locke describes [as] \u2018a body yellow, of a certain weight malleable, fusible, and fixed,\u2019 all properties accessible to observation.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Now, consider the chemist\u2019s definition: Gold (Au) is atomic number 79, group-11, period-6, block-d of <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Periodic_table#Structure\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>the Periodic Table of Elements<\/strong><\/a>.<\/li>\n<li>Gold, the most noble of noble metals, is a primordial nuclide having 79 protons in the nucleus of every atom of the element; it\u2019s relative atomic mass is 196.967 for its key isotope\u00a0<sup>197<\/sup>Au.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 90: \u201cScience is driven not by information, Popper insists, but by problems, questions, and points of view that prompt the search for information.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 91: <strong>\u201cscience cannot make direct, affirmative statements about the phenomena of the physical world.\u201d<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Science or scientific claims can be falsified, meaning there must be a way to make a statement not true.<\/li>\n<li>Another way to think about this is burden of proof. For those making claims that aren\u2019t scientifically falsifiable, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and they can\u2019t shift that claim to others.<\/li>\n<li>Imagine this: I fly around in a Magic carpet, but you can\u2019t see it because I make it invisible. You don\u2019t believe me? Prove I don\u2019t have this magic carpet. It is nonsense to believe that I\u2019m right about the magic carpet just because you can\u2019t see it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 94: \u201cThe emergence of objectivity as a scientific value has come only and necessarily at the price of the emergence of subjectivity, leaving skepticism, not faith, as the dominant motif of scientific exploration.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 97: \u201cthe objective presupposes the subjective so that we can, as a result, achieve no absolutely reliable knowledge on the basis of empirical method.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Objectivist rhetoric\u2019s \u201ccentral claim to authority is its commitment to \u2018the facts,\u2019 yet it can never escape,\u2026the human derivation of those facts.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Knoblauch ends the chapter explaining how a qualitative inquiry, which might seem contradictory to objectivist rhetoric, fits into the definition. Balenky et al\u2019s\u00a0<em>Women\u2019s Ways of Knowing<\/em>\u00a0(1986) privileges narrative and interpretations, \u201ctolerat[ing] ambiguity and uncertainty as features of healthy intellectual relativity\u201d (p. 100). By interviewing and interpreting the stories women provide, the researchers \u201cconclusions represent plausible readings\u201d (p. 102).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>We should consider intersubjectivity, which is more community-valued ways of knowing. A group sharing a perspective, while not objective, isn\u2019t strictly subjective. Within the group\u2019s ways of knowing, intersubjective perspectives are shared.<\/li>\n<li>Consider the ways in which academic research is filtered, promoted, and dismissed by discourse communities. If a community (and the hegemons of that community\u2013for instance, journal editors) values particular stories over others, its gatekeepers will privilege interpretations or even specific subjects of inquiry over others.<\/li>\n<li>If your research doesn\u2019t \u201cfit\u201d with their preferred ways of making meaning, it won\u2019t be valued and, therefore, published.<\/li>\n<li>A critique of this would be that non-universal, non-empirical methods of gate keeping don\u2019t have to have objective and\/or consistent explanations of what is valid or invalid.<\/li>\n<li>Even if one story can\u2019t falsify another story, one can choose to dismiss an interpretation by claiming \u201cI consider this interpretation to be correct\u2026\u201d However, that interpretation and your interpretation aren\u2019t mutually exclusive, so they can both be plausible, both be valid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This is a game academics play all the time, especially in the humanities, and it\u2019s even worse in fields that feign the scientific method, like technical communication and (some areas of) composition, where statistical rigor isn\u2019t necessary until it\u2019s necessary. For instance, surveying entire populations of FYC students in a single semester (or year) at one school to aggregate results for \u201cassessment\u201d is more respected than focusing on a single class or even several students\u2019 work to relay interpretations of their stories. Neither are statistically viable for making generalized statements about the overall population of students, but\u00a0<span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>aggregate data conveys the ethos of statistical rigor<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0regardless of it\u2019s ability to make assumptions beyond it\u2019s sample size. The smaller class-based research that looks closely at students\u2019 work can still provide lessons for readers through interpretation. Both approaches are valid research, but, intersubjective bias may prefer one over the other.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Knoblauch\u2019s Chapter 5: \u201cExpressivist Rhetoric\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Knoblauch traces expressivist rhetoric from sophistry to post-Enlightenment understanding of the individual subject (re)constructing their story. As with all these rhetorical discussions of the meaning of meaning, we don\u2019t completely subscribe to one version; instead, we derive meaning (or make assumptions) situationally based on our ordering of experience and privileging of certain ideas. As an intellectual exercise, it\u2019s important to create boundaries for describing the different types of ways meaning is made.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>p. 104: \u201csophistic rhetoric\u2026conveys the view that discursive knowledge is subjective in origin,\u2026meanings derive from autonomous acts of mind.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 105: not concerned with \u201cobjective reality independent of the perceiving subject,\u2026but rather what\u2026[it]\u00a0<em>means<\/em>\u00a0to the perceiving subject.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 105-106: we identify and argue the preferable through experience.\n<ul>\n<li>p. 106: \u201cProtagoras\u2019s argument\u2026lays the foundation for the commerce of ordinary life and demonstrates that public discourse,\u00a0<strong>the ceaseless negotiation of conventional rather than absolute realities<\/strong>, is what makes ordinary life possible.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 106: \u201cThe virtues of shame and justice are learned, are experiential, not abstract realities.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThe teaching of virtue is inseparable from the teaching of discourse.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>School as virtue scaffolding.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 107: \u201cPersuasion does not depend on the timeless rational entailments of dialectic but on\u00a0<strong>a speaker\u2019s ability to identify and enunciate<\/strong>, in the social moment, the local and personalized appeals most likely to influence discussion in favor of the speaker\u2019s agenda.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 108: \u201cmaturity requires an appreciation of intellectual diversity\u2026forging pragmatic agreement out of the welter of individual opinions and prejudices.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Consider \u201copinions\u201d as interpretations of reality and \u201cprejudices\u201d as tastes and convictions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 109: Michel de Montaigne \u201cidentif[ies] the mind as the source of meaningfulness.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 110: From George Berkley, \u201cwith respect to \u2018things\u2019 in themselves\u2026their existence is entirely dependent on cognition, leaving only the mind as ultimately real.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 111: From Coleridge, the subject\u2019s shaping \u201cpower imposes order on the materials of sensory awareness, modifying and synthesizing according to its own judgements of relevance, relationship, priority, and value.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>\u201c\u2026acknowledging the actuality of what lies outside the mind while also establishing the priority of\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/esemplastic\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">esemplastic<\/a>\u00a0governance principles of mind, in terms of which materiality is rendered humanly comprehensible.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 112: \u201cprimary imagination\u2026organizes sensory information by its own principles in order to constitute, as a coherent world of meanings, our ordinary, everyday experience, including the familiar physical world\u2026as well as the world of human life and institutions.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 113:\u00a0<span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>\u201cOrdinary language offers us the world of the everyday, while conscious, reflective discourse, when composed by superior minds, offers us new knowledge through figurative re-perception.\u201d<\/strong><\/span>\n<ul>\n<li>This distinction also holds for common, popular definitions of words like \u201crhetoric\u201d and \u201cdeconstruction.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Perhaps we should turn to that page and read the quote in context and compare to Derrida.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 115: From Langer, \u201cSymbolization is a biological urge.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>As an aside, notice Knoblauch\u2019s use of the word \u201cprivilege\u201d as a verb where he explains the difference between Coleridge and Langer: \u201cshe does not\u00a0<em>privilege<\/em>\u00a0the poetic\u201d (italics mine).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 117: From Langer, \u201cOut of signs and symbols we weave our tissue of reality.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>How about our tissue of lies?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p, 117: \u201cSymbolizing does not arise out of pragmatic necessity but from\u00a0<span style=\"color: #ff0000\"><strong>the continuing desire to construct an intelligible world responsive to human requirements.<\/strong><\/span>\u201c<\/li>\n<li>p. 119: \u201cSophistic and romantic ideologies are, by contrast, intrinsically iconoclastic, relativizing truth and thereby rendering the social as a patchwork of competing claims for sovereignty while exalting values of personal expression, freedom of thought, individual autonomy, and the authenticity of personal voice.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 121: From Rorty, \u201cThe subject isn\u2019t the site of language\u2026but rather, no less than the object, a construction of language. It isn\u2019t mind that governs language, but language that\u00a0<em>effects<\/em>\u00a0the composing of mind\u2013a noun, not a place\u2013with a meaning that merely allows us to imagine a place\u201d (emphasis mine).\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cEffects\u201d as a verb is important to consider from a typical use like \u201ceffect change,\u201d which means causing something to happen as opposed to \u201caffect,\u201d which means making a difference. Subtle but important.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 121: \u201cessentialism, foundationalism, and universalism\u2026are always mischievous by-products of metaphysical thinking.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>p. 123: \u201cIronists are aware of themselves creating themselves and are, to that extent, liberated from the illusion that, as fixed identities, they have neither written their stories nor have power to \u2018redescribe\u2019 them.\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Neither their identities nor their stories are fixed<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 124: Rorty believes \u201conce we abandon the idea that words mirror transcendent reality, we can also escape the \u2018idea of finding a single context for all human lives,\u201d the belief in an\u00a0<em>ur<\/em>-biography to which we are all condemned to aspire but without hope of success.\n<ul>\n<li>Time permitting, we\u2019ll discuss the idea of an ur-text or ideal text with which teachers construct to grade student papers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>pp.126-128: The writer-hero and strong, revolutionary poets are the heroes of liberal society.\n<ul>\n<li>Can we still have a writer-hero after the death of the Author?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>p. 129: \u201cThe hallmark of the expressivist story of the meaning of meaning\u2026has been the\u00a0<em>privileging<\/em>\u00a0of the subject\u201d (emphasis mine).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Expressivism in Composition Pedagogy<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Although I don\u2019t know how accurate my following assumption will be, I don\u2019t believe Knoblauch chose \u201cexpressivist rhetoric\u201d without some connection to expressivism in composition that dominated the 1970s and 1980s FYC classroom. In response to the formulaic, rule-driven approach to Current-Traditional Rhetoric that was common in FYC classrooms post-WWII, expressivists (Peter Elbow and Donald Murray are the major figures) advocated writing as a way to convey one\u2019s ideas, and this act was necessary for intellectual growth.<\/p>\n<p>Expressivist pedagogy privileged the student-writer\u2019s self expression over the pressures to conform to Standard Edited American English and rhetorical strategies favored by other disciplines.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>More on Myths<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>This will be time permitting. As with most of our topics, it\u2019s non-controversial and perfect for discussing at any family gathering.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ideology\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Ideology<\/a><\/strong>: prevailing cultural\/institutional attitudes, beliefs, norms, attributes, practices, and myths that are said to\u00a0<em>drive<\/em>\u00a0a society.<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wiktionary.org\/wiki\/hegemony\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hegemony<\/a><\/strong>: the ways or results of a dominant group\u2019s (the hegemon) influence over other groups in a society or region. The dominant group dictates,\u00a0<strong>consciously or unconsciously<\/strong>, how society must be structured and how other groups must \u201cbuy into\u201d the structure.<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/myth\">myth<\/a><\/strong>: 2. a. \u201ca popular belief or tradition that has\u00a0<strong>grown up around something<\/strong>\u00a0or someone; especially:\u00a0<strong>one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society<\/strong>\u201d (<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Merriam-Webster online<\/a><\/strong>)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Leslie_Fiedler\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Leslie Fielder\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0definition\u2013\u201cMyth is a narrative structure of two basic areas of unconscious experience which, of course, are related\u2026.In other words, myth is a form of racial [national, social, regional, etc.] history\u2013a narrative distillation of the wishes and fears both of ourselves and the human race\u201d (Dick, p. 188).\n<ul>\n<li>[myths] tap into our collective memory,\u201d our unconscious.<\/li>\n<li>\u201cMyths are ultimate truths about life death, fate and nature, gods and humans\u201d (Dick, p. 189).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>As members of a culture, you share and reproduce dominant ideology. That doesn\u2019t mean you \u201cbuy into\u201d EVERYTHING. We are herd animals and our institutions wouldn\u2019t exist without social cohesion. The goal of a class like this is to get you to recognize the ways you privilege knowledge. We all have biases, but college-educated citizens in a (pseudo-)democracy should be able to think critically and recognize how and why they believe what they believe instead of assuming they believe what they believe because it\u2019s absolute truth. Scrutinize your assumptions.<\/p>\n<p>Pause on that definition of myth for a moment. What makes what is essentially a lie (or maybe a partial truth\u2026distorted to fit an agenda) a \u201cpopular belief or tradition\u201d? Consider the following myths about American culture:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The American Dream<\/li>\n<li>\u201cFirst in Freedom\u2026\u201d 1775<\/li>\n<li>\u201cAll men are created equal\u2026\u201d 1776<\/li>\n<li>\u201cLand of the free\u2026\u201d 1812<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.charlotteobserver.com\/news\/local\/education\/your-schools-blog\/article59685606.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Paul Bailey<\/a><\/strong>,\u00a0<em>one<\/em>\u00a0white male\u2019s perspective on slavery\u20262016 Referring to slavery: \u201cWe need to get over this, folks. All of us do,\u201d he said. \u201cWe need to get over it. It\u2019s done, it\u2019s over, it was 200 years ago. We made mistakes. We\u2019ve done stupid things.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Now, we\u2019ll turn to another myth that\u2019s closer to home (North Carolina) but historical.\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Jesse_Helms\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jesse Helms<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0was a US Senator from North Carolina from 1973-2003; he retired in 2003 after his fifth term ended. He had a rather peculiar reign in Washington where he fought tooth and nail against racial equality. Helms never won huge margins of victory, but he always won his Senate races. And he was a master of playing on racial tensions.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The infamous \u201cWhite Hands\u201d ad<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The above video plays into the fears white people\u2013again, not all white people\u2013had about Affirmative Action, specifically, and racial equality, generally. Besides the rhetorical move of \u201cracial quotas\u201d vs. \u201caffirmative action,\u201d Helms allows white people to see themselves as victims, which allows racial myths, such as \u201cAfrican Americans are stealing our jobs,\u201d to further be implanted.<\/p>\n<p>The above ad came out in 1990, so you might wonder why still talk about it? Isn\u2019t this a post-race America? Well, this myth is alive today. I heard a version of it from a woman who claimed her father\u2019s job (as a white man he felt it was his) was given to a minority. Remind me to tell you the story\u2026<\/p>\n<h2><strong>More Videos to Generate Rhetoric\/al Project Topics<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Below are some videos to focus on for not just what the speakers\u2019 arguments are but how they\u2019re conveyed. Remember,\u00a0<strong><em>inclusion of material does not imply endorsement<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<ul>\n<li>Matt Walsh food stamps (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/JuCliplGDUs?t=1515\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>25:30<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Matt Walsh on white male contributions (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/AMs95xca7Sc?t=750\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>12:30<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Ayaan Hirsi Ali\u2019s religious expression (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/zjTgFomlzsA?t=1860\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>31:00<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Angela Rose on Journalism and Safety (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/fJ9VAqgXXfA?t=1328\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>22:10<\/strong><\/a>)\n<ul>\n<li>The beginning is also worth a listen<\/li>\n<li>This is related to the attack on TPUSA reporter\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/savwith1n\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Savanah Hernandez<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Jillian Michaels\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cThey think Republicans are dumb\u201d (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/7it-J8RyM4M?t=3353\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>55:53<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Return to common sense (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/7it-J8RyM4M?t=3706\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>1:01:46<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>This is an interview with Iranian-American, Jewish doctor\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/nazarianplasticsurgery.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Dr. Sheila Nazarian<\/strong><\/a>, who\u2019s been getting lots of air time recently<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Danica on Harry and Meghan\n<ul>\n<li>Taxpayer funding (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/v6A8dqrsdd0?t=1941\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>32:21<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<li>Artemis &amp; Progress (<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/v6A8dqrsdd0?t=2558\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>42:38<\/strong><\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Well, those certainly had rhetorical aspects\u2026<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Next Class<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Next week, we\u2019re discussing Barbara Biesecker\u2019s \u201cTowards a Transactional View of Rhetorical and Feminist Theory\u201d and Nancy Myers\u2019s \u201cCicero\u2019s (S)Trumpet: Roman Women and the Second Philippic.\u201d When you read the Myers article, of course, read for content, but also read how she prepares her argument.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-css-opacity\" \/>\n<p><strong>Work Cited<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Dick, Bernard F.\u00a0<em>Anatomy of Film<\/em>. (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford, 2005.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Remember, your Weekly Discussion Post #13 is Due Friday, 4\/17 Also, I&#8217;m at a total loss on why WordPress is screwing up these pages. Announcements SAMLA Conference, Nov. 5-7, 2026, Atlanta Deadlines are different for this one PCAS\/ACAS Conference, October 15-17,2026, New Orleans, LA Deadline June 15th Popular Culture Association of the South\/American Culture Association [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":598,"featured_media":0,"parent":12423,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-12660","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P2HAOx-3ic","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/598"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12660"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12660\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12667,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12660\/revisions\/12667"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}