In Ronson’s article “God That Was Awesome,” readers are made to look into the impact of social media on our lives through exploration of Justine Sacco’s ‘fall from fame’. Living in the 2000s, with the boom of handheld technologies and the internet, social media has undeniably taken over our lives; we are constantly surrounded by tweets, Facebook posts, Instagram posts, Snapchats, and alike. With our modern day technologies, we are constantly plugged into the rapid fire stream of news and media our social media accounts deliver straight to our palms. At what point does this become dangerous? We hear of cyberbullying nearly every day; public shaming through the media platforms we as a society spend most of our waking hours browsing through. People cursing, insulting, picking on each other thousands of miles apart from each other, each from the comforts of their own lives behind their screens. Ronson journalizes a classic example of social media and the mob mentality of hate through the catastrophic conclusions of an unfortunate tweet by Justine Sacco in December of 2013.

“Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (Ronson 68) was what her infamous tweet read. Little did Justine Sacco know this tweet would be the end of her life as she knew it. The reality of her life after touching down from her eleven hour flight was very different than she had left it. She had millions of people waiting for her landing, and not for amicable reasons. Millions of people waiting to throw some more hate to Sacco for a bad joke of a tweet. The true question comes with Ronson’s point: that “it seemed obvious that her tweet, whilst not a great joke, wasn’t racist, but a reflexive comment on white privilege.” (Ronson 68) Did a bad joke warrant a global shaming on Twitter and the upset of a woman’s whole life? Her tweet, an obvious joke, was met with an overwhelmingly severe reaction. Ronson links it to “her shamers [having been] gripped by some kind of group madness or something” (Ronson 68), very much like a mob mentality.

Ronson takes things a step further in addressing this mob mentality of hatred on social media, especially in Justine Sacco’s case, by consulting with Ted Poe: a professional judge with a “national trademark … to publically shame defendants” (Ronson 82). In an interview, Ronson said to Poe “”Social media shamings are worse than your shamings.”” (Ronson 88). To which Poe replied: “”They are worse. … They’re anonymous.”” (Ronson 88). “You don’t have any rights when you’re accused on the Internet. And the consequences are worse. They’re worldwide forever.” (Rosnon 90). We get so swept up in the inane need to do ‘right’ and to fit in, and social media feeds our society’s need for unsolicited and underqualified judgement.

Works Cited

Ronson, Jon. So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. Riverhead Books, 2016.

In Leslie Jamison’s “Devil’s Bait,” the reader follows the narrator’s experiences at a conference for those suffering from Morgellons disease. Morgellons disease, as the reader discovers, is the feeling that something is under a victim’s skin that will not come out. This is then accompanied by the disbelief of doctors and friends, as well as the constant devotion to finding a cure or looking to prove that this is not their imagination, that there is something under their skin and the doctors are wrong. Although doctor’s see nothing wrong with the victims, Morgellons takes a physical toll on the victim, as their itching leads to scabs and scars and red raw skin.  However, Morgellons is not a disease where a worm, thread, or other bothersome thing is actually lodged under the skin. Instead, the victim believes so strongly that something is there that it causes an almost endless loop of finding “evidence” and searching for more.

While the source of their suffering is not real, it is clear that they are still suffering. They feel unable to connect and fit in with the rest of the world, a place where people do not believe them or worry that they will contract the illness as well. Victims spend hours upon hours analyzing themselves, searching for proof of their condition, which then leads to physical deterioration and decreased mental stability. They begin to worry that people think they are crazy, even though they truly believe that something is physically located under their skin, causing them to itch. Only at this convention do those with Morgellons feel accepted and are willing to share their experiences. It is in this positive, inviting environment that the narrator hears the stories of the people there, each with the same thread of suffering from a problem that isn’t actually there.

This raises the question, can one empathize with someone when they know that what the other is suffering from does not have a real source? Here, the people with Morgellons believe they are suffering from something under their skin that does not exist, but does that mean we cannot empathize with their suffering? This can be applied to a much broader population of people who are clearly suffering, but the source cannot be found, or is deemed not real, causing one to find out how, and to what extent empathy can be felt for them.

Works Cited

Jamison, Leslie. “Devil’s Bait.” The Empathy Exams, pp. 27-56.

In the podcast “The problem with the solution”, it talks about a special treatment for mental health issues, which leads to a discussion that how not having a solution is probably the best solution to a problem. Severe mental health ills in America are normally sent to a psychiatric hospitals, and treated with excess amount of medication. However, over-medication is not only ineffective, but also worsens the problem sometimes. Ellen Baxter, whose mother is over-medicated because of mental health issues, is dedicated to find a more humane treatment of mental health issues. Ellen goes to a small town called Geel in Belgium, where the residents accept strangers with severe mental health issues into their homes and take care of them. Mental health patients who go to Geel are not treated as patients, but as guests or boarders. They do not receive any kind of medication, and the hosts do not know about the guests’ diagnoses. Therefore, the guests are just there, sharing a life with the hosts. It turns out that after living that way for more than 10, 20 years, it is possible that the patients are healed from mental health diseases.

One of important points the podcast raises is that when a person do not care about the patient so much, then it is probably the best way of treating their mental health diseases. When mental health patients are surrounded by those who deeply care about them, they feel the burden of getting better, and they are scared of disappointing those they love. The caring that people give to the mental health patients can sometimes be a burden to them. People always try to find solutions to problems, however, solutions are never universal, and sometimes they are not even helpful. A problem here is not necessary a problem elsewhere, just like mental ills in America can be treated as normal people in Geel. So, how do we define a problem? And what is a good solution? Is not having a solution is probably the best solution to a problem? Is the way patients are treated in Geel a better solution than over-medication in America? If it is a better solution, then why aren’t patients in America treated the same way as those in Geel? Those are important questions to be answered because people are always dedicated to find the solution, but they do not always think about if those solutions are actually useful and effective in a long-term. Therefore, those questions are imperative to the ways people can find sustainable solutions to problems.

Works Cited

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

“The Problem with the Solution,” — a podcast in a series by NPR under the title Invisibilia— discusses the treatment of people with mental illnesses in the United States compared to the treatment of mental illness patients abroad. The podcast follows the story of a young woman named Ellen Baxter, whose own mother was herself mentally-ill. American medicine seemed to follow an over-medication pattern when it came to treating mental illness— if the medication seemed to take symptoms of mental illness away, it took any sign of a unique personality away with them. Ellen had had enough of this ineffective treatment, and so set out on a path to revolutionize the world of American mental-health treatment.

Ellen searched for any miniscule variation in the treatment of people with mental illnesses. She seemed to be unsuccessful, until she discovered the town of Geel in Belgium. In Geel, it was (and is) common practice for families to take in people with mental illnesses as “boarders.” The boarders live with the families for many years, as they are completely accepted into everyday life. Mental illness patients in Geel are viewed not as patients, but as fully-functioning ordinary members of society.  In Geel, mental illness is treated as just a part of who a person is— it is not treated or cured, but rather embraced. People with mental illness thrive in this society, as they are not institutionalized and heavily-drugged, but instead allowed to live life and be themselves. The families living in Geel do not view mentally-ill people as an anomaly, but rather as a simple part of daily life.

This begs the question: As a society, how do we define a problem? How do we decide what needs and does not need fixing? Normality is a subjective concept, yet we treat it as an objective one. There is a basic normal standard by which we live, and as soon as someone strays away from that norm, we immediately rush in with our solutions and help. Is our help really necessary? Mentally-ill people in Geel are far more successful as humans living their best lives than mentally-ill people in America. Our definition of normality and what we consider a problem is important because this has the potential to either deeply hurt or largely help members of our society.

Works Cited

Rosin, Hannah. “The Problem with the Solution.” Invisibilia, NPR, 2016.

“Devil’s Bait” by Leslie Jamison brings up the topic of empathy and how it relates to mental illness, or just illness in general. This piece of writing covers the author’s experience at a conference for people with Morgellons disease. Morgellons is a disease where the person affected believes they have bugs crawling under their skin and fibers coming out of sores and blisters all over their body. Many doctors do not believe these people when they come in begging for help, and believe it is all caused by a delusion not a skin disease like the person believes. According to all the people at the conference it can be extremely isolating, and the conference provides them with a sense of community where they can be with people who truly understand what they are going through. She brings up the concept of there being a fine line between understanding and empathizing with someone and being just like everybody else, full of disbelief and doubt. This piece raises the question at issue, does our knowledge of someone having an illness, whether it be physical or mental, affect our ability to properly empathize with them? This is an important question to answer because it causes us to think about what brings us to feel empathy. Do we only feel empathy for people with an illness because we are aware they are affected by it? The case discussed in this text brings about this issue because it displays that people find it difficult to truly empathize with someone when we cannot directly relate to what they are going through, or just do not understand what is going through their minds that make them believe they have bugs crawling underneath their skin. This is the case with a lot of mental illnesses. For example, it may be hard for some people to understand and empathize with people who have anxiety because they can not imagine feeling the same way in certain situations. It is similar for serious physical illnesses, such as cancer. It may be extremely difficult for someone to understand the physical and emotional toll the illness has on a person unless they have directly gone through the same experience.

Works Cited

Jamison, Leslie. “Devil’s Bait.” The Empathy Exams, pp. 27–56.

Jon Ronson’s expose entitled “God That Was Awesome” discusses the aftermath of Justine Sacco’s racially insensitive Twitter post, wherein she was met with the loss of her job and a worldwide social media attack ultimately comparable to a public stoning.

The controversy began when Justine Sacco, a PR worker, made a post on her personal Twitter profile which read, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (Ronson, 68). Seemingly the moment the post hit the web, Twitter users everywhere launched a heated backlash against Sacco for this racist remark. The severity of this backlash was truly remarkable as it ultimately obliterated the positive reputation of Sacco’s personal and professional lives, and fatally wounded any future career prospects. A crushed Sacco pleaded to Ronson that she meant her comment as a satirical joke, which she intended to “make fun of [the] bubble [that Americans live in]” which relieves them from thinking about plights which “exist” in the world outside their borders (Ronson, 73). Ronson claims that any reasonable person would realize the fact that Sacco’s comment was a joke, but instead of disregarding it as bad humor, the world unanimously chose to indict Sacco as if she had committed an injustice which demanded rectification. Ronson compares this harsh treatment of Sacco to the conduct of Texas Judge Ted Poe, a man who chose to serve outlandish punishments intended to ridicule, dishearten, and embarrass the accused. Despite Ronson’s opinion that the Judge’s actions are cruel and unusual, and makes the his court into a “theater of the absurd” (Ronson, 84) which flies in the face of punishments befitting their crimes. However, the testimony of Mike Hubacek, sentenced to humiliating punishment by Judge Poe after committing vehicular manslaughter, contests that the severity of the Judge’s seemingly absurd punishment gave him a purpose and a means by which to prevent others from making the mistakes he did.

This piece begs the question of whether or not the public has a right to act as judge jury and executioner in instances as seemingly trivial as Sacco’s Tweet, as well as why this public behavior seems to be completely devoid of empathy. Social media has fundamentally changed the world. It has empowered individuals with a globally heard voice on any issue imaginable. However, as Sacco’s misfortune proves, sometimes this voice can be used for evil. The comments denouncing Sacco began as well intentioned rejections of racism, but soon escalated to scathing remarks devoid of empathy and intended solely for destructive as opposed to constructive purposes. In addressing the peculiarity of this social phenomenon, Ronson points to the concept of cognitive dissonance to explain the decision of Sacco’s aggressors to dehumanize her in order to feel justified in their zealous attacks. The most apt indication of this zeal without regard for Sacco’s humanity can be found in the words of a common Twitter troll describing her globally dealt ridicule: “God that was awesome” (Ronson, 70)

Works Cited:

Ronson, Jon. So you’ve been publicly shamed. Riverhead Books, 2016.

In John Ronson’s “God That Was Awesome”, we are given a story about Justine Sacco, in which she tweets an offensive joke referring to the AIDS epidemic in Africa right before she travels to Africa. The tweet blows up while she is on the plane and she receives an overwhelming amount of backlash that ultimately ruins her career and pairs her name with that racist tweet permanently. Ronson is intrigued by the humility she receives and wants to know more about humility being used as punishment, so he goes to an expert in this area, Ted Poe. Poe is a judge from the Houston area who is known for sentencing people to punishments that humiliate them rather than give them time in a correctional facility (Ronson, p.67-90).

The most interesting part of this work is the effects that one tweet had on Justine’s life. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue on her part, but it wasn’t intended in such a negative manner either. Justine fell victim to the powers of social media. The platform she used, Twitter, seemed to unanimously turn against her and punish her for her actions. Her actions were clearly wrong, but did her life deserve to be ruined for them? I’d like to focus on the idea of this humiliation paired with fairness. How fair is the punishment she received? To further that question, whatever you think is fair, should be applied to everyone who does something of similar nature. For every bad joke that has been told referring to a serious issue, that person should receive the same punishment as we find Justine deserving. This doesn’t just mean AIDS jokes, these go for any religious jokes, any jokes about a disease, and anything else that could have prejudice against a group of people. I’m by no way condoning these offensive remarks, but what I am trying to find out is what the punishment should be and how we should enforce this punishment. It seems very clear to me that people in a position of power can say things that are prejudiced on Twitter (perhaps a leader of a country or an athlete) and don’t suffer the same consequences that Justine did. I also don’t think this should apply to just social media, saying something like this out loud would likely be more degrading and prejudiced. At the same time, can we punish everyone for their bad jokes? I’m sure everyone has said something that they wish they could take back at one time or another, why don’t you deserve the punishment Justine received. Ultimately I would like to know what punishment Justine deserved and how we should go about universalizing such punishment.

Works Cited

Ronson, Jon. So you’ve been publicly shamed. Riverhead Books, 2016.

For the second formal assignment, we will be working as a class to develop a question at issue about a topic based on each of the three assigned readings from this section of the class. You will then choose which question you want to write about. After discussing developing research questions in class today and reading the final assigned reading, your job for this blog post is to select the topic that you want to work with for this assignment, develop a potential research question for that topic, and locate at least two scholarly sources that look like promising sources for an essay on this topic. So, consider the next 2 blog posts two parts of a larger single assignment to prepare you to write Formal Assignment 2:

Blog Post 4 – Moving from topic to question
Using the specific popular text that you are working with, introduce your chosen topic and explain how this topic raises the question at issue. Imagine an audience who has not read (or listened to) the text. Use a brief summary of that text to both pique the reader’s interest in this topic and raise the issue that you will research and answer for your second formal assignment. In addition, make it clear why this is an important question that should be answered.

Blog post 4 should be about 300-500 words, and is due by the beginning of class on Thursday, October 12.

Blog Post 5 – Looking for answers
Revised 10/18
For this post, introduce the question at issue that the class settles on for your chosen topic, identify the two scholarly sources (name of author[s] and title of source) you’ll be using as you complete this assignment, and summarize these sources–making it clear how these sources are addressing (in whole or in part) the question at issue you and your group have settled on.

Include full Works Cited entries for all sources used in these posts (there should be at least 3 between them, but there may be more). Blog post 5 should be 500-700 words, and is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday October 24.*