(Part 2) Best communication & media studies according to redditors

My student Molly Sauter has written an awesome book about this very topic which really provides the best answer http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Swarm-Hacktivism-Disobedience/dp/1623564565

But generally there is so much fear and misunderstandings about DDoS it is frightening. One of my students this year likened a DDoS to setting a hotel on fire--even after a few lectures about it! I had to remind the student that while it is ok to disagree with its use and it does cost companies $ and resources, the fire analogy does not work and is rather alarming. So one big step would be just get people to understand what happens during a DDoS attack/campaign.

Recommended reading for those interested on the background of this:

Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform

Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy

When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America

Matt Stone, 2005:

>“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”

They don't make fun of everyone equally. They devote entire seasons to making fun of liberals, the only thing they ever touch conservatives for is religious zealotry/religious hypocrisy. They did a whole season in 2014/2015 about how liberals (they use the word "PC" as a stand-in for liberal) are awful. The show STRONGLY leans libertarian/republican. When Trump won the election, they announced that they weren't going to make fun of him the following season and that they were going to "take a break from politics." You think they would have done that if Hillary would have won? FUCK NO. The perfect foil to a foul-mouthed boy is a finger-wagging mom. They would have eviscerated her in every fucking episode this season.

And as for all the horrible shit Cartman says, you can say, "Well he's also portrayed as a selfish asshole" but he's also the soul of the show. He's its most charismatic character and the character that drives most of its episodes' plots. There would be no show without Cartman.

Trey and Matt are like your typical high school 4channers whose political views never matured.

For fun reading, check out Hannah Arendt's writings on the role vulgarity plays in undermining liberalism.

South Park laid the pavement for today's alt-right ("our racism is just a joke bro you liberals are too sensitive") way back in the '90s.

Ever wonder who the South Park Conservatives morphed into a decade later? They're the alt-right now.

McGowan, David (in English). Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don't Want You to See. Common Courage Press. p. 13. ISBN 1567511848.

Oh, yes I understand completely which is why I TRIED to take the blame off you. However, there is a general pattern, at least in American politics, for people to comment on a woman's clothing or hair or whatever when she is actually trying to talk about something seriously. This happens to female senators when they are actually trying to work-- let's say discuss a bill. After she is done talking, a male senator might say something like "Did you cut your hair recently? It looks nice," effectively sending a message that what she looks like is more important than what she says. The media does this too. A study by Falk found that females who ran for president were subject to 4-times as many comments about their looks as their male counterparts. What is so disturbing about the Falk study is that the focus on female looks did not drop from 1872 to 2004, the years of the study. On the contrary, the media in 2004 actually focused more on the female candidate's looks than they did in 1874.

This hyper-focus on looks is damaging for women. Here is a study that shows focusing on a woman's looks actually lowers her chances during election season.

I just get a little irked when everyday people mimic the bad behavior of the media, which we have shown is actually harmful to people. It's not just you doing it by any means-- it is a widespread problem. The people at Pixv did it. Hell, even I do it from time to time. It's sort of fun, sure, but it's also part of this larger pattern that is actually damaging

I think mentioning that sort of stuff is kind of tricky, especially if someone doesn't bring it up themselves. I think more people who have CPTSD, probably fall in the "Rejuvenile" camp..

There are plenty of adults who just enjoy doing childish things, without it needing to be a dynamic.

American culture has also shifted a TON since this book came out in the late 00's. Adults are way more open about enjoying animation, owning toys, comic books, superhero movies are popular with all, and most people have at least one costume in their closet.

Not a bad article, but alas it falls into the trap of assuming that all sex workers are street-walkers. They actually form a small minority. I'm all in favour of helping them, but portraying the industry in such narrow terms actually does a lot of harm, because it ignores the other sex workers who may also need help.

I recommend Dr Brooke Magnanti's "The Sex Myth" for anyone interested in the topic, and why this guy has most of his "facts" wrong - or at least greatly distorted.

> The No. 1 reason, as far as I can tell, is a history of some kind of abuse

Wrong (but may be true for street-walkers) - but at least he's open that it's just his opinion, and implicitly states that his sample is street-walkers who have been willing to talk to him. A shame that he doesn't notice the inherent bias in that sample, though, nor takes into account the fact that they may have felt that if they gave him a sob story, he might give them cash.

So a well-meaning article, but unfortunately chock full of bad data.

Re juvenile maybe? http://www.amazon.com/Rejuvenile-Kickball-Cartoons-Cupcakes-Reinvention/dp/1400080894

Oh jeez.

I actually kinda want to revisit that DDoS episode for a couple reasons. Not to least, my friend Molly, who helped with that ep, just released her book on the subject which is AMAZING. If you're looking for some reading, highly recommended.

Pairs well with another colleague's book about Anonymous that just came out, if you need new reading times two.

If you want to understand how gendered socialization can affect political ambitions, you can read this report and get a brief summary. More often than men, women are socialized to not have political ambitions. This does not mean that women naturally are less inclined to want to be in politics-- they are actively taught to either give up or never form those ambitions.

Let's say that a woman happens to overcome the socialization that often deters women from having any political ambitions. What happens to the politically ambitious woman? Well, for one thing, the media is 4 times as likely to make comments on her appearance. No big deal, right? What's wrong with complimenting a woman's appearance? Well, commenting on a politician's appearance, no matter if it is a good or bad comment, actually lowers the public perception of that person.

There is also the fact that people who already hold office have advantages when it comes to reelection. Women were lawfully banned from holding public office for hundreds of years, but changing the law did not change the situation in which men already held office and were thus already at an advantage of any newcomer, regardless of sex. Women are also less likely to run for office if they are not confident that they will win.

There are tons of reasons why the political split is not 50/50, but it's not as easy as "that's just the way it is, so it must be right."

It depends on how you define "left-wing" as well as "fake news".

I recommend checking out MediaLens, they've been consistent in tackling fake news/propaganda for years now. Their book "Propaganda Blitz" is probably the best book I've read so far in 2018. Or the classic "Flat Earth News by Nick Davies" is another gold mine.

I just read this book, it should help you: https://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Model-Today-Filtering-Perception/dp/1912656167

media ownership is more concentrated than it was, the new technologies like the internet get 80% of their news from the corporate media, apparently.

conformity among intellectuals is slightly less than what it was, it is now possible to mention the propaganda model in academia without being laughed at.

The book isn't from that website you retard. The author, John Robison, died more than 200 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robison_(physicist)

https://www.amazon.com/Proofs-Conspiracy-Governments-Freemasons-Illuminati/dp/1502306387

If you actually read the book instead of being a retard, you would see that it is describing exactly what we are seeing today with Marxism and Feminism.

>it helped me completely move away from seeing others as "enlightened beings" and looking for someone to "follow"...I just looked towards people I respected as deep thinkers...the types of people who draw you into yourself

The person you are responding to is describing Luciferianism/Satanism which is precisely "man is the measure of all things", intellect as the ultimate means of enlightenment, which subsequently means the veneration of self (gnosis, knowledge). Knowledge is inherently egoistic because "knowledge" inherently implies self. A rock does not have knowledge. This was, and has always been, the goal. The worship of knowledge is a war on ignorance, and since humans are inherently ignorant the logical conclusion is the destruction of what it means to be human, through transhumanism, transcendence, etc. People have been trying to expose this for many, many years. https://www.amazon.com/Proofs-Conspiracy-Governments-Freemasons-Illuminati/dp/1502306387

In order to reach fulfillment they must destroy the concept of God as a sovereign being. We see this quite consistently throughout history.

That one isn't worthy of consideration! The two ships were superficially alike but there were many physical differences. And how do you keep a workforce quiet about such a swap for 100+ years?

Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge wrote a book that completely destroys this myth.

u/ExpressNess I think Communication Studies is a fun minor to have if you are looking to use computer science to create positive change in society or communicate better with people. It's a lot valuable life-skills, work/life relationship skills, ethical reasoning skills, and soft-skills that non-programming Computer Science classes try to teach and just aren't able to teach effectively. I personally only know 3 other people in Computer Science actively pursuing it. Here's my experience:

Comm Theory is definitely a harder class in my opinion (it's a pre-req) because of memorization and if you aren't used to studying human communication and relationships, but it's definitely valuable in learning. A lot of things seem like common sense but they are based on different theories.

Textbook: https://www.amazon.com/First-Communication-Theory-Conversations-Theorists-ebook/dp/B00VF61QTC/ref=sr_1_3?crid=238JE3CAIS2CI&keywords=communication+communication+communication&qid=1554518401&s=books&sprefix=communication+communication+comm%2Cstripbooks%2C210&sr=1-3

Beyond that class, there's a lot of cool opportunities and fun and useful classes.

I already had public speaking out of the way coming to UNC Charlotte and took COMM 2102 - Advanced Public Speaking to enhance my public speaking abilities since I do a lot of workshops and talks in tech. I've learned so many other ways to give speeches that I've never have thought about. It's gotten me skills to be confident enough to write an outline and practice a speech to submit for a TED talk. Also, I learned a bit of voice acting.

COMM-3120 Mass Media was fun! I took it with Prof. Tim Horne online and basically watched a lot of Netflix and wrote about how media and tech shapes manipulation of our reality. If anything, I learned a lot of skills to spot fake news if I daresay.

COMM-3136 Leadership, and Service with Adam Burden was amazing. Got to do volunteering work and meet a lot of student leaders on campus and learn about leading a team. The things I've learned in that class has helped me in a lot of group projects and I learned a lot on my personal strengths and values when working in teams and organizations. There's a service project which is just group volunteering which does help you with your soft-skills on your resume. It's based on relational leadership:

This is an awesome textbook that's used for that class: https://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Leadership-College-Students-Difference/dp/1118399471

There also a lot about the process of being inclusive and empowering others purposefully and ethically which a lot of tech companies are looking at as it's generally a problem in the tech industry.

Global Media - You learn a lot of views of the whole world and how technology effects culture and vice versa. It really opens up on a lot of ethical perspectives on how tech and media effects democracy and marginalized communities. Really, I think it the class should be called "Working towards achieving world peace through emerging tech, civilizations, media, and economies" tbh. Also, the professor is famous, worked for the United Nations, and wrote the textbook.

Textbook: https://www.amazon.com/Citizenship-Democracies-Engagement-Marginalized-Communities-ebook/dp/B075R3YXJ2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democracy+marginalized+economies&qid=1554517749&s=books&sr=1-1

For a related LBST 2102 Global Connections class, I'd also recommend taking Language, Media, and Peace with Prof. Jillian Wagner at the same time with Global Media or Mass Media if possible. This class is similar but focuses on the power of language and peace.

There's also Interpersonal Communications, Group Communications, etc...

agreed. what the fuck does he ever tell us that is not already known by us? "Terrorists don't take our rights, the government does?" ...no fucking shit! What a revelation! Fuck we already know that everyone...and who the fuck are assange and snowden? The only guy I know who is on to this is Daniel Estulin. These two are totally controlled opposition. R/conspiracy is super compromised with the echo chamber confirmation bias support of these two "agents".

For the love of god people real whistleblowers don't make the cover of time magazine.

Buy this book and read it...https://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Wikileaks-Daniel-Estulin/dp/1937584119/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1496269638&sr=8-7&keywords=daniel+estulin

Great. Thanks for that. Good timing too as I have just finished reading the new Media Lens book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Propaganda-Blitz-Corporate-Distort-Reality/dp/0745338119/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537984427&sr=8-1&keywords=propaganda+blitz

Thanks for the link.

You really should question things more though.

Like how much money does Wikileaks bring in, and how much do they spend? Who is giving them millions of dollars in donations? How much manpower or special access does it take to authenticate millions of documents with perfect accuracy? Or do they just use XKeyscore to check against the originals the NSA gathered? Wouldn't the NSA have all these leaks in their massive database, a search query away?

This book looks interesting:

Deconstructing Wikileaks by Daniel Estulin

In it the author writes about the lack of money accounting at Wikileaks, and suggests GEORGE SOROS fingerprints are all over the place. The author's other works seem well received on Amazon too.

Here is a synopsis:

> Depending on the source, Julian Assange, the editor in chief of WikiLeaks, is regarded as either a genius or terrorist, and this exploration of the man and the organization seeks to find the truth. Delving into the heart of the business of keeping and leaking secrets, this work shows how the enterprise of WikiLeaks and Assange is shrouded in mystery, but nonetheless, seeks to expose Assange as an intelligence asset tasked with sustaining the global status quo. Through careful analysis, interviews, and scrutiny of the organization as a whole, this inquiry gets to the bottom of the intriguing and mesmerizing story behind WikiLeaks.

I have to disagree with you on this.

Is being ill-informed unintelligent? An intelligent person can still lack information. Even the smartest of people can't know of a top level secret without a whistleblower and they certainly won't know whats happening across the world from them without being informed of it truthfully. This is the purpose of the press. To inform the people whether they are smart dumb, black, white, fat, skinny, etc.

We can measure the accuracy of media and hold media outlets and corporations accountable. We can and do study the political economy of media. The idea of a free press is not a "lofty" standard. We can measure how media outlets told the truth at the moment of truth. This is not immeasurable. In fact the as of February 12th 2014, the United States is ranked 46th in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index.

If one person watches Fox News and another watches Jon Stewart it isn't that one is smarter than the other (not that it matters) it is that both are being subjected to "infotainment". This is not news that informs the voter. The real problem is that American journalists do their jobs the way corporate media expects them to. For profit. This does not align with the 1st amendment. A free press is not founded in profit. A free press creates a free dialogue and populous. A for profit system creates customers. Thats why Fox news lovers love Fox and Daily Show lovers love Stewart. Each mother company that profits from them holds profit as the ultimate ideology.

I recommend checking out Robert McChesney's Political Economy of Media, and Digital Disconnect (same author) and Richard Falk's Israel-Palentine on Record. Also follow [FAIR],(http://fair.org/) [Democracy Now] (www.democracynow.org/)! or if you are lazy/have some time check this video out.

TD;LR: Corporate media creates ill informed voters. Yadda, yadda, yadda, liberal college student, yadda yadda yadda, Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.com

amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

You'd like this book

Complete rubbish. Once you delve into the technical differences between Olympic and Titanic, there's still the fact that EVERY fit the panel inside the ship had their hull number painted on the back.

When some of Olympic's fittings were sold at auction a few years back, all of them said 400, as opposed to Titanic's 401. 401 is also found on Titanic's exposed propellor blade on the wreck.

There's also the business of bow plates, stern plates and anything else stamped with a number or name to be switched out. This would have taken months and all of Belfast would have noticed/questioned it.

For a ridiculously detailed explanation, check out the book by Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge, linked below.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0741419491/?tag=thetitanicres-20

Everyone should read this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1903933897?pc_redir=1408104453&robot_redir=1

>It absolutely is. No evidence for it whatsoever.

Bunk. The fact that there is a real (if remote) possibility of a Trump presidency has forced many formerly "objective" journalists to be refreshingly honest about their intentions of steering the American public towards the "correct" point of view.

We know that academia has a strong liberal bias, we know that education in general has a strong liberal bias, we know that government employment has a liberal bias. Journalism is a bit harder to prove, since like all good liberals, journalists will deliberately present themselves as impartial and honest to get that moment of candor they need to trash the reputation of their political opponents.

I've heard plenty of liberals air some fucked up things, but they have the right opinions, so the media protects them.

>There is however plenty of evidence for a conservative bias in the media. This book, while somewhat dated, does a good job of breaking it down.

That's a laughable claim. I don't even want to know what "objective" media would look like in your mind, probably something like Walter Duranty on every news station.

Firstly, prostitution can't be legalised because it's already legal. Brothels are illegal, though.

You should read Dr Brooke Magnanti's book "the sex myth".

She covers trafficking very well. The false data out there is leading to the real victims of trafficking being ignored.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong-market/dp/1780220898

There is very little that is ambiguous about Colbert. He's making fun of Fox News and he's making fun of how certain pundits blow very minor news items (the Obama "bow" or the Chavez hand shake anyone) WAY out of proportion.

Hell, there were conservatives calling South Park conservative (if anybody cares South Park Conservatives) When it is painfully obvious that South Park is neither conservative nor revolting against "the liberal media bias."

The Propaganda Model Today: Filtering Perception and Awareness (Critical Digital and Social Media Studies) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1912656167/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_e7cYDbFH1ZR7X is an excellent collection of updates and expanded roles to the propaganda model

I don't think our even our politicians in power are dumb enough to do this directly whilst they are in office, however I can recommend a couple of books to get you started on the subject.

Have a read of Blair Inc - The Man Behind the Mask which details his involvement with PetroSaudi in 2010 and the deals he brokered between the UAE and China more reacently (£45m?).

From the American perspective, House of Bush, House of Saud is good back ground reading.

I just picked this up a few days back, haven't had much chance to read yet but it begins with some amazing narrative about american wrestling (illusional agency replacement) and celebrities (illusional immortality of ego) off the bat. Very appropriate I think for this sub (and I already bought it so there is that ;)

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle Paperback 240pgs – Aug 24 2010
by Chris Hedges (Author)

Have you heard of this book at all?

It absolutely is. No evidence for it whatsoever. There is however plenty of evidence for a conservative bias in the media. This book, while somewhat dated, does a good job of breaking it down.