In this week’s episode of the Love, Academic Writing podcast, the Love Doctors, Allison and Lee, talk about this week’s writing but: BUT WRITER’S BLOCK! Click here to get your buts therapized for free on the podcast!  Lee takes you through their latest bout of so-called block (turns out, it was just a bunch of excuses!) and some strategies for getting unblocked: 1. not beating the shit out of yourself for not writing 2. celebrating the small wins, and 3. creating minimum baselines. So minimum you can't not meet them.  Plz plz plz rate and review the show so that other writers can find it! The struggle is real. Connect with Allison @postphdtheblog or at allisonharbin.com Connect with Lee @rhetoriclee or leempierce.com

In the inaugural episode of the Love, Academic Writing podcast, the Love Doctors, Allison and Lee, talk about this week’s writing but: BUT WRITER’S BLOCK! Click here to get your buts therapized for free on the podcast!  Plz plz plz rate and review the show so that other writers can find it! The struggle is real. “Talent is insignificant. I know a lot of talented ruins. Beyond talent lie all the usual words: discipline, love, luck, but most of all, endurance.” ~James Baldwin Plz plz plz rate and review the show so that other writers can find it! The struggle is real. Is writer’s block real? What exactly is the “block”? Did you put it there or did someone else? Is the block depression, in which case maybe you need a break. Or is it just that you aren’t sure of your argument, in which case you need to write. Are you in Jesus’s cave or Plato’s? If you asked Eve Sedgwick or Audre Lorde if they had writer’s block while they were dying of cancer they probably would have said, “I have writer’s block all the time, that’s the whole reason I write.” When you’re thinking (or bitching to someone else), that you have writer’s block, think about what you actually mean:  I don’t know what I’m trying to sayThis essay is a messI’m never going to figure this outNobody cares about thisI don’t have enough theory.  Connect with Allison @postphdtheblog or at allisonharbin.com Connect with Lee @rhetoriclee or leempierce.com

Get ready for the Love Academic Writing (and hopefully other kinds of writing too) podcast! Hosted by Dr. Lee Pierce, assistant professor and rhetorical scholar, and Dr. Allison Harbin, academic-exile, freelance writer, blogger, and dev editor. Together, they are the Love Writing Doctors! (It’s funny because they ARE doctors). They are here to help you stop whining and start writing…through a LOT of bitching. Click here to get your buts therapized for free on the podcast!  Each episode tackles a different writing excuse. But I don’t have time. But all the emailz. But neoliberalism. Some of them are entitled bullshit. And some of them are for real, like, “but my depression” and “but black mold in my apartment.” We’ll cover them all…eventually… Plz plz plz rate and review the show so that other writers can find it! The struggle is real. Whether you’re an academic exile freelancing Ph.D. or a tenure track faculty at a cutthroat R1, if you need to get more words on the page, this is the podcast for you. So hit subscribe and look for the first episodes coming your way in late summer 2022. In the meantime, you can connect with us on social media. You can even sign up now to get your writing buts therapized for free. Therapy for yer butts. It’s all in the show notes.  Connect with Allison @postphdtheblog or at allisonharbin.com Connect with Lee @rhetoriclee or leempierce.com

Read the blog version:      *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com

Takeaways: Jargon, sometimes called buzzwords, sometimes called slang, sometimes called bureaucratese, is basically non-standard language meant to bring into being non-standard thought. Jargon is inclusive and expands our collective understanding of the world when it is used carefully, defined, in tons of examples, and solves a problem by bringing a different awareness than other words in its orbit. However, jargon is exclusive and narrows our collective understanding of the world when it is used in piles and lists (a rhetorical device known as amplificatio or sometimes enumeratio), when jargon is defined by referring to other jargon when it is only supported by one or two perfect examples and doesn’t seem to solve a problem by bringing more awareness than other words in its orbit. Exemplar is a word for the model of the model, the most perfect example, the “for instance” that makes the theory work perfectly. If you’re using exemplars to illustrate your jargon then you’re making that jargon inaccessible by not letting it come into contact with the real world, which is messy and complex. The name of Brown’s exemplar is Suzanne (you’re going to be hearing a lot about Suzanne today). Piling up jargon is great for creating brand followers and cult-like acolytes and people who will buy everything that comes out of your mouth and whose lives are exactly like yours. It also sells a lot of certified leadership coaching problems because it puts strategies for improvement out of reach, behind a wall of concepts and terminology and jargon, and requires we pay someone else to walk us through our own minds and lives. (FYI one of the first sentences out of Brown’s mouth in this episode is about her thousands of certified “Dared to Lead” trainers) Read the blog post: Resources used in this episode: Brené on Armored versus Daring Leadership, Part 1 of 2 | Brené BrownBrene Brown Advice - How to Be Yourself Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/jargon-exemplars-and-brene-brown/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com

This episode is a reading of a recent piece by Amanda Montell for Sunday Edit titled "Language Lowdown: Why Phrases Like "I Feel Like" and "If That Makes Sense" Aren't Actually Bad." Montell's piece discusses patriarchal language standards and the importance of critiquing our norms for "authoritative speech" and it features my two cents about language as something we want to use intentionally not necessarily "correctly" (because standards for correctness are caught up in all kinds of sexism, ableism, racism, colorism, classism, etc.) Read the piece at https://edit.sundayriley.com/language-lowdown-why-phrases-like-i-feel-like-and-if-that-makes-sense-arent-actually-bad/   *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee

The first crossover episode between May it Displease the Court, which looks at corruption in the courts from judges through dark money anti-democratic far-Right donors, and RhetoricLee Speaking, banishing banality one speech at a time. Your co-hosts, Mary and Lee, look at censorship, free speech vs. hate speech, and counter speech. Here are the highlights: 1) as much as we may want the law to recognize hate speech sometimes when truly vile opinions (in our opinions) are being circulated, the law does not recognize a hate speech exception to the first amendment that guarantees the right to free speech and  2) if there were such an exception it would be used to suppress minoritized people and their fight for civil liberties more often than it would be to silence transphobic, racist, sexist, and other kinds of exclusionary speech. We take you through a few cases that have been instrumental in establishing the “no hate speech” exception including Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288  We also look at some personal examples. Mary discusses an experience at the Anne Frank House right after 9-11 and Lee discusses a current campus event where the free speech of a racist and transphobic student is being protected. They also discuss potential alternative terms to replace hate speech, including “racist erasure” and “transphobic erasure.” Finally, Mary explains the issue of “school-sponsored speech,” in which first amendment rights come up against the purpose of educational institutions and the need for more counter-speech on the Left as the corrective for hateful-speech-that-isn’t-hate-speech by the anti-democratic far-Right funded by pro-corporate dark money donors. Check out May it Displease the Court on Apple Podcasts, Podbean, and Spotify! Resources The Dark Money Behind Campus Speech WarsFirst Amendment | US ConstitutionHarry CONNICK, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. Sheila MYERS.CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROEWilliam P. CLARK, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al.Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional IssuesLocal and Independent Television Protection Act would overturn a Trump-era rule that’s permitted…Watch Field of Vision - Do Not Split about the suppression of Hong Kong pro-democracy protests Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/free-speech-hate-speech-counter-speech/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee

The problem with phrasing the rules or norms or whatever you want to call them around the word n-i** as a prohibition, as a thou shalt not, is that not only does it NOT address the more implicit racism of feeling entitled to say the word when there’s no one around “to be offended,” but it also begs the very people to transgress that you’re trying to get to stop transgressing because most people--especially people who fancy themselves edgy intellectuals or truth tellers or the last stalwarts of free speech against woke liberal scolds--when they hear a prohibition, their first instinct is to violate it. Resources from this episode: Ice Cube and Symone Sanders on White Privilege | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)The Idea That Whites Can’t Refer to the N-WordFemale Comics Sound Off on Kevin Hart, Louis C.K. and Comedy in the Age of TrumpSTATEMENT of THE DRAMMEH INSTITUTE REGIONAL MEETING FOR EUROPE, CENTRAL ASIA AND NORTH AMERICA ON THE INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT Chris Rock Has No Time for Your Ignorance (Published 1997)http://www.drammehinstitute.org/about.html Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/linguistic-reparations-or-why-i-dont-say-ni/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee

I chatted recently with Nadeje of the Unleashed Unapologetically podcast about thought work, rhetoric, tension, cliches, and internal debate. The episode is called "The Thoughts About the Thoughts." Click on the link below to listen. Listen on Spotify Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Anchor Listen on the Web

Black women remain subjects who must recite power to have any power even though the power of the reciter is never the power of the subject who originates the lines to be recited.  Amidst the praise that critics have rightfully heaped upon “The Hill We Climb” since January 6, only a few critics, mostly Black women, have noticed how her language testifies to American slavery, 1619-present. For example, Gorman’s opening lines contain several middle passage metaphors, including “the loss we carry,” “a sea we must wade,” and “the belly of the beast.” Middle passage metaphors keep alive in language the memory of the ships that slaughtered most of the stolen Africans they trafficked to America for centuries. Critics have overlooked or misunderstood these lines because middle passage metaphors aren’t taught in “classic” education. Gorman also writes: “we the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president only to find herself reciting for one.” “She imagined, she wrote, a country and a time,” summarizes a critic for The New York Times. But Gorman isn’t imagining. Gorman is testifying to her reality in two registers. In one register, it is wonderful that a Black girl is reciting for the president. But in the second register, that girl cannot be president. In the first register, she stands next to the first Black woman Vice President in American history. But in the second register, that Black woman can only be Vice President. One signal that Gorman is speaking in two registers is the missing verb between “we” and “the successors.” Grammatically, the passage should read, “we are the successors.” But it does not. Because the verb, the action, is missing. America is not acting on its promise of equality. Another signal is the phrase “only to find,” which Gorman inserts between her dream of becoming president and her reality of only reciting for one. The phrase “only to,” as in, “I awoke, only to find,” expresses surprise and disappointment. Gorman is surprised and disappointed that the country that tells her she can be anything she wants to be is also the country that ensures she can only recite. Recitation is simply to repeat out loud. Gorman demonstrated in “The Hill We Climb” that she is uniquely skilled at using language that speaks to two audiences simultaneously: those who want to fight for true abolition and those who want to whitewash America’s ongoing enslavement of Black citizens. It’s unfair that Black speakers have to accomplish this sophisticated code-switching to get a national audience. But it’s also a testament to the artful skill of Amanda Gorman. Resources used in this episode: WATCH: Amanda Gorman reads inauguration poem, 'The Hill We Climb'Top 100 Speeches of the 20th Century by RankAll the Poetry That's Fit to PrintOpinion: Amanda Gorman reminded America what poetry can doAmanda Gorman at Biden's inauguration reminded me: politics needs poetryAmerica Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It OneAt the Inauguration, Amanda Gorman Wove History and the Future Into a Stirring MelodyBecoming Human: Matter and Meaning in an Antiblack WorldThe Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde: 9780143135203 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: BooksAmanda Gorman Captures the Moment in “The Hill We Climb”Amanda Gorman was let down by a terrible poemKamala Harris's Ascent Doesn't Mean Progress for Black Women Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/the-whitewashing-of-amanda-gorman/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

In honor of National Sex Ed Day on February 2nd, I’m teaching you how to talk dirty! You’re welcome. Let me tell you who this episode is for. It is for people who are excited about the idea of dirty talk, or sexy talk, or explicit talk but have no idea how to start or aren’t sure if their partner is receptive or have had a bad experience or been turned off by stereotypes in the media. It is for people whose sex life has gotten stale but role playing and expensive toys and one-size-fits-all costumes that fit no one seems overwhelming, expensive, and just like a lot of work. It’s for people who think have fantasies about different sex acts--doing it in the butt, group sex, being ravaged by a handsome pirate--but don’t necessarily want to do the actual acts. Maybe you don’t have access to a pirate. Maybe group sex is a hot fantasy but in reality terrifying and very unsafe. Or maybe you have hemmerhoids and butt sex is just off the table. Like any kind of speech, sexy talk is amazing because it can create an experience in your mind that isn’t necessarily happening in an actual physical act. When it comes to sex, we are way too obsessed with the acts. Because the act sells. You gotta buy costumes and toys and porn and so on. And you also get to sit in your house, masturbating alone, thinking about how your partner won’t XYZ, self-loathing for feeling that way, and that self-loathing drives your consumerist behavior. But sexy talk is free. Sexy talk can bring any experience you would like to have in the whole world right into your brain so you can enjoy all of the sensations and titillations without ever having to spend a dollar or open a butt crack. And all you need is a sex vocabulary, a little bit of courage to talk about it, and your big beautiful imagination. The formula for great sexy talk:  “I want to…” Alternatives include “I like it when...” and “I’ve always fantasized about...”  Step two: Add a verb. Lick, suck, smack, grind, rub, caress. No 19th century romance novelist nonsense like “fondled” Step three: Add body part: asshole, mouth, feet, pussy, eyes, slit, hands, cock, legs.  Step four: Add precise adjectives that cannot include “awesome” or “cool.” You may have the adjective “amazing,” as in, “your hips are amazing” but only if you mean it. Step five (optional):  liberally sprinkle in some curse words.  Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/smut-yr-mouth-dirty-talk-like-a-rhetorician/ The podcast is now on Vurbl! Check it out https://vurbl.com/station/2IxsVEt2KqP/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.  Resources used in this episode: https://www.weshouldtryit.com/https://slate.com/culture/2021/01/bridgerton-sex-scenes-meh.html

The Myth of Dr. King’s Absolute Nonviolence There is a story about Dr. King, apparently true, that during one of his Christian leadership conferences a man jumped out of the audience and started punching him repeatedly in the face. King just stood there. When King’s supporters tried to interfere, King told them to stay back. He was getting the absolute shit knocked out of him and he kept saying “‘Don’t touch him, don’t hurt him.’” It wasn’t until King was clearly in mortal peril that people finally intervened. Now people love to cite this story as King’s absolutely Christian-bound commitment to non-violence. The takeaway message we get is that King championed non-violence ABOVE ALL ELSE because violence is anti-Christian. It gets equated with “turn the other cheek” from the Bible, in which no matter what violence is being brought unto you, you turn the other cheek because the worst sin is the sin of violence and everything else is kind of second tier.  That shit is great for White people. Do hundreds of years of violence, the most abhorrent kinds of systematic violence you can think of, but not have to deal with any fallout because the greatest good is not being violent. It’s a genius tautology. And the ability to credit it to King, because King did preach non-violence, makes it not only legitimate, it makes it downright fucking emancipatory. Except it’s not what King preached. King preached non-violence IN THE FACE OF VIOLENCE, not non-violence as an absolute good.  This episode will look more at King’s doctrine of non-violence using The Umbrella Academy and with a reflection on how King couldn’t have imagined the Black Lives Matter protests in the first place. Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/the-myth-of-dr-kings-absolute-nonviolence/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.  Resources used in this episode: Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too.King's Message of Nonviolence Has Been DistortedMartin Luther King Knew That There's Nothing Peaceful About Nonviolence If You're Doing It RightThe Radical Paradox of Martin Luther King’s Devotion to NonviolenceLetter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]

When you’re talking about anything pro-Black in America, you’re going to run into a crossroads between making Black culture accessible, translatable to White hegemony or making it about elevating and celebrating Black culture in its distinctness from Whiteness. There is no right answer here. It’s just an ever-present decision. One of the ways that tension gets navigated is the degree to which a text uses cliches. From comforting reassurance and quippy banality to unsettling juxtaposition and strong signifiers of unapologetic Black empowerment, this list of pro-Black Anthems of 2020 demonstrates the variety of ways that speech (in this case song) can challenge, undermine, shape, and respond to the ongoing work of civil rights. Depending on your criteria, my number 5 might be your number 1 but in the end the point of the ranking isn’t really the ranking; I’m not the Oscars. It’s a thought experiment to demonstrate the tensions constantly plaguing civil rights protest and it also demonstrates the pros and cons of cliches as a rhetorical strategy.  Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/2020-pro-black-anthems-ranked-by-cliche/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.  Alternative lists of pro-Black protest songs https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3WmmPTvTN0eqNHpdfjMB2o?si=fMSKiSeyRXuHgWtCzb3y1Qhttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/9402496/black-lives-matter-protest-songs-2020https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DWWAqc46ZJdZf?si=B8eKom2fQjSettz72p1G0ghttps://open.spotify.com/playlist/1ifafQvTmO40r7XIGFDDDn?si=FglhPtHoT6SLR31e23sjAw Other resources used in this episode: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/lil-wayne-explains-why-he-said-theres-no-such-thing-as-racismhttps://people.com/music/ciara-talks-working-new-song-rooted-while-literally-in-labor/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/falser-words-were-never-spoken.htmlhttps://open.spotify.com/episode/7iFePOQVbZ9M9hqLCouCpn?si=FsMdmVA5TSCUdvv0hGxTGwhttps://truthout.org/articles/black-struggle-is-not-a-sound-bite-why-i-refused-to-meet-with-president-obama/http://www.scottishmusicnetwork.co.uk/tiggs-da-author-reveals-new-single-we-aint-scared/

With New Year’s fast approaching, we are all in store for our usual turning-of-the clock epiphany. Suddenly, everything changes and, at that moment, we just know. Except not. Epiphanies are cliches that keep us from doing the hard work of understanding how persuasion happens. The epiphany collapses the event that happens with our response to it as opposed to the rhetorical figure peripeteia, which marks an event as an opportunity for change. Joe Biden used both epiphany and peripeteia in his 2020 address at the Democratic National Convention. This episode will explore how these rhetorical strategies allowed Biden to navigate his thorny history with Civil Rights advocacy and what worked and didn’t work in Biden’s speech. Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/suddenly-nothing-changed-why-epiphanies-are-cliche/ *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.  Resources mentioned in this episode: Joe Biden’s full speech at the 2020 Democratic National ConventionYoung, Brash and Reckless: Why Biden's First Run for President Failed, New York TimesRock Bottom Girl (Ep. 5), RhetoricLee Speaking (podcast)

Back in January, basketball legend Michael Jordan gave a eulogy for other basketball legend Kobe Bryant after Kobe died tragically in a plane crash with his daughter Gianna. Commentators praised the speech because it was “tearful,” “moving,” and “heartfelt.”  I agree that Jordan’s speech is AN example of a eulogy. But I disagree that it is a model for ALL eulogies. It praises Kobe for a bunch of different attributes, all of those attributes are probably what anyone would select if asked to give a eulogy for Kobe Bryant, all of those attributes are positive, and they get thrown in with a few insider anecdotes  (we know all about anecdotes from episode 14), and, of course, a few jokes. But a eulogy can and should be SO much more than that. Jordan’s central values for Kobe are passion and competition but there’s another value I want to pull out: being a pain-in-the-ass, a nag, someone so focused on the details that they don’t let up. And that’s what I want for Jordan’s eulogy; if he wants us to be more like Kobe, then I want that to mean being more of a pain in the ass. Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/i-come-to-eulogize-kobe-not-to-praise-him/ Episode 15 of RhetoricLee Speaking is part of The Big Rhetorical Podcast Carnival 2020: The Digital Future of Rhetoric and Composition. Be sure to check out the other podcasts participating in the carnival this week:  Global Rhetorics Podcast at https://globalrhetorics.com @GlobalRhetKairoticast @kairoticastRe:verb Cast www.reverbcast.com @reverb_castRhetorically Yours https://www.rhetoricallyyours.com @rhet_yoursRhetoricity rhetoricity.libsyn.com @RhetcastThe Big Rhetorical Podcast https://thebigrhetoricalpodcast.weebly.com @thebigrhetWriting Remix Podcast https://writingremixpodcast.com @WritingRemixPod *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

Of all the leaders on The Walking Dead, which is a show that takes place in a zombie apocalypse, I would choose the flamboyant, Shakespearean Black man with the giant tiger. Why? Because he, who goes by the name King Ezekiel, is the most rhetorical character.    When I say that Ezekiel is the most rhetorical character, I mean that he is the most aware that meaning is something that has to be created--that there is no such thing as the “right” belief or the most “authentic” person. There are just different performances of reality and authenticity.   And that’s the focus for today: what does it mean to be a rhetorical character? gonna talk about a word you may have heard around the way: ethos. Why Ezekiel’s rhetorical qualities make him the best leader, especially in a zombie apocalypse. And also my complex thoughts on the cliche: Fake it till you make it.  I also push back against this obsession with “who” your leaders are…”who” really is Trump and “who” really is Biden. The habits of a leader give you more than enough information to make a decision. Sure, you can wait for the deep conspiracy theories to be proven right. You can spend all of your time asking about the underlying truths of “who they are.” Or you can just look at their decisions, as a pattern. You can ask, “let’s suppose this is all just one giant act. If this is the leadership act they’ve chosen, are they the person I want as my leader?”   In that case, I would want King Ezekiel, because his behavior reveals who he thinks human beings are: highly imaginative creatures in need of myth and larger than life narrative that inspires them to a community of belonging.   Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/fake-it-till-you-make-it-king-ezekiel/   *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

Quick announcement after a long hiatus!   A lot is going on in the world. It’s a wonderful and terrible time to be a rhetorician #blacklivesmatter and #stillpodcasting   RhetoricLee Speaking will be back soon with a new episode feat. King Ezekiel of The Walking Dead.    In the meantime, head over to the podcast Rhetoricity hosted by fellow rhetorician Eric Detweiler and check out a new episode featuring several analyses of juxtaposition (putting two things side by side to make an argument), including one from yours truly about discriminatory design in the Obama-Trump Inaugural photos. https://rhetoricity.libsyn.com/   Here's a little more from Rhetoricity:   This episode of Rhetoricity features contributions from four rhetoric scholars: Kati Fargo Ahern, Ben Harley, Lee Pierce, and Rachel Presley. Their pieces address questions asked by previous guest Damien Smith Pfister: "What juxtapositions in rhetorical studies have you found fruitful, generative, aiding in the process of invention or theorizing, and/or what juxtapositions ought we have? Is there a juxtaposition of two things that we ought to explore but we’re not currently exploring?" The contributors respond to Pfister's questions from a variety of angles, touching on memoir, sonic rhetorics, everyday life, visual rhetoric, discriminatory design, cartography, and indigeneity. You can find the photos referenced in Pierce's piece here. Sit tight and I’ll be back soon with the next episode of RhetoricLee Speaking! *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

An anecdote is not a story. An anecdote is a quick, “this thing happened to me.” An anecdote is a one-dimensional series of facts that people call a story when they don’t know better. An anecdote may have had a point. It might even have some concrete detail. But the one thing it doesn’t have is the one thing that a good story can’t exist without: Plot. Structure. What’s missing from the anecdote is what we call in rhetoric “vicarious experience.” The whole reason stories exist is to trick my brain into believing that I have experienced something that I haven’t experienced. When I listen to a really good story, my brain processes the experience as it would if I had been doing the play by play of the story myself--not exactly, obviously, but approximately.  Not understanding that isn’t really your fault, though. You’re getting a lot of superficial, profit-driven advice. Like the platitude-fest called the Goal Digger podcast, created, not surprisingly by some social media influencer business guru person named Jenna Kutcher. Episode 13 analyzes the “storytelling” advice from Kutcher, reveals it to be just advice about anecdotes and Instagram captions, and discusses the importance of creating vicarious experience in your stories. Then I leave you hanging until Episode 14 to learn how to write a really stellar story. But I do play you a clip from Fight Club, so we’re even. Read the blog version Watch the YouTube version *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

Corny-ass comedy: I'm here for it! Comedian Chris D’Elia’s new standup, “No Pain,” which premiered on Netflix a few weeks ago and was unanimously a let down to everyone who analyzed it. D’Elia has been a mid-level stand-up for a while now. He really took off last year as the host of the podcast, “Congratulations with Chris D’Elia.” At its best, “No Pain” transgresses and pokes fun at the expectation that people have to suffer to be interesting. That’s a totally worthy theme. D’Elia even jokes that when he tells people he has suffered, people suddenly find him interesting. This is the best of what comedy does--make fun of an implicit bias that you didn’t even know you have so that now you realize you have it. And the suffering artist is a pervasive and deeply problematic cultural bias--just ask Charles Bukowski or Robin Williams. Oh you can’t, they’re dead. D’Elia won’t commit to just being the dorky nice guy stand-up comic. That’s why his voices and his persona are all over the place--he’s conflicted about his style even though, as far as I can tell, there’s no reason for him to at all throw in the hard flex other than what I’d guess is probably the stand-up-comic celebrity version of peer pressure.  D’Elia has done me a favor because he’s written a stand-up in which his WORST material is when he’s ragging on how “nobody can say anything anymore” which means I don’t have to PC police him because the joke is even more NOT funny than it is offensive.  And the worst part is, D’Elia could be a very good nice guy comic and the world could use some of that right now. You clearly have thoughts swirling around in that peer-pressured brain of yours that are worth salvaging.  Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/some-pain-some-gain-chris-delias-no-pain-cancel-culture-and-personas/ Watch the YouTube version: https://youtu.be/EQ9Qn5Ai6wE *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoricleespeaking for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com.

Get a great list of fast and dirty strategies for constructing a kick ass analogy and listen to me mini rant about how Democrats ought to be out visiting the victims of bleach poisoning, sympathizing with those poor people who are so terrified that grasp at a desperate solution, instead of shitting all over them for being idiot sailors led by Captain Idiot on the idiot cruise. Kicking off with Britta’s hilarious explanation of analogies from the recently revived Community, RhetoricLee Speaking is all about analogies this week--the good, the bad, and the structurally sound criminally negligent. An analogy is the comparison of two things, tenor and vehicle properly called, for the purpose of transferring a single idea. Or as Britta puts it after Jeff hits her with the mansplaining, “an idea with another thought’s hat on.” Analogies are similar to metaphors except their idea isn't immediately apparent but with metaphors the idea is usually relatively self-evidence. Sometimes analogies are called extended metaphors for that reason. When analogies go well they produce understanding, enjoyment, and the translation of a complex idea. When they go bad, they look like Dr. Phil trying to explain to Will Smith how sex is like cars cuz abstinence. When analogies go well you get Obama’s classic cars analogy from the early years of the 2012 campaign as people were shouting across the country about the Republicans, “you can’t have the keys back!”  Which begs the question: what kind of analogy was Trump’s implicit comparison to hand sanitizer during his so-called “Lysol moment” last week? Structurally sound but criminally negligent. Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/drink-analogies-not-bleach-fresh-prince-obama-trumps-lysol-moment/?preview_id=381&preview_nonce=cf188603d9&preview=true&_thumbnail_id=387 *Follow the show on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoricleespeaking for more teasers, highlights, and awesome graphics *Don’t miss an episode. Subscribe on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, or via RSS.  *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! Have mixed feelings about the show or think I may have stepped in it? Let’s discuss on social media or at rhetoriclee@gmail.com. Know more at rhetoriclee.com