• 3 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle



  • I started posting by picking the communuty for the place i live and trying to post local and independent media and special interest groups articles about/in the context of that place.

    Its benefits are,

    • It creates activity on the fediverse that is unique, and the more interesting for it.
    • You’ll be promoting the voices of those less often heard.
    • You can also help local and independent media with readers and exposure. Its seen as more of an offline problem of media concentration, but i think theres online solutions for the surviving publications.

    If you look through my history you’ll see my posts to c/Perth/WesternAustralia there are ebbs and flows in interest but the key point is when something happens, say a protest, or a pub banning some nazis the community is there ready for the users, active and established.

    If you go to the sidebar of that community, and all the communities i moderate i have gathered in each a host of resources for people to refer to for articles and information in regards each of those communities. It also helps me to have easy access to those publishers as i look for something i find interesting.

    So i don’t know what city or State you live in, but if theres a place based server, or a generalist server that hosts a community for it, i’d start posting there. If it looks abandoned maybe jump onto that servers c/meta and request to become the moderator. That’ll give you the ability to change things like the sidebar and participate in managing misbehaviour if/when users post things off topic/against the rules for the community.

    See you in fediverse ;)

    Edit: oh, also posting is a piece of active fun, instead of waiting passivley for something to entertain you. So its fun in a different way to scrolling feeds, or commenting.
















  • I’m going to give you an argument describing why i think you’re correct but also why you’re getting pushback. I’m basing this off the greek discursive appeal structures i’ve been reading about lately, because its fun to try to apply them here.

    Firstly, if people say its a great ‘scientific study’ where you hear it, correct them. Its sad but thats often all we can reasonably do. If they refer to it as a great study in humanity, then maybe it is. After all Supersize Me was about the mostly unconsidered and wildly successful upselling technique that had passed into the culture of the time. So, what does that say about us?

    Pathos

    Supersize Me is an exercise mostly based on an appeal to Pathos. An argument based around an emotional appeal.

    My stab at the key emotional switch employed would be turning the blasé attitude around the then common, comfortable upselling practice “would you like that supersized?”, to a feeling of angst when those words are spoken. I think Supersize Me was largely successful in that appeal.

    Emotional switch: Blasé->Angst.

    I found Michael Moore’s documentary styles also relied heavily on Pathos. So maybe the style was de rigeur at the time.

    The big question is, did these documentary makers pass from persuasion into manipulation? This is the same as the question your asking when refering to his undisclosed alcoholism during filming. Which is why i think you’re argument that the documentary wasn’t fairly done is right. Theres a manipulation at its heart.

    But that doesn’t defeat the very real effects that emotional switch from blasé->angst about the practice had.

    So a successful but manipulative documentary?

    Logos

    The argument i read in your comments assumes the documentary should primarily appeal to logos. Or a persuasion tactic based in logic. No controlled experiments for example.

    While there are probably plenty of examples of this throughout the documentary, I wouldn’t say this is the primary appeal he relies on.

    The obvious conclusions of the poor diet is a good example of an appeal to logos. But not very persuasive on its own, because no one needed to watch it to draw the conclusion that poor diets equal poor health. At least most didn’t.

    Another thought,

    Its a documentary, its not necessarily an exercise in absolute honesty. Few documentaries can claim such an authoritative place.

    I think its maybe why Louis Theroux has belatedly become so highly respected. Not because he was authoritative in the beginning, but so much of what he presented has since been borne out. Maybe his documentary series matched the changing realisations of the times, so have had a kind of Kairos?