Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

351

Joined

2 yr. ago

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?

Oh, thats cool! We should definitely make LOR maps the standard map for Aus.

There are many floors to the beer plan, one of which i may hit, depending on how many different social media services i need to prove my age to...

That JP idea is actually good. Whats better it relies on a system that is already in place and has a high level of trust. A specific Social Media verification Government stipend would be needed for JP's though, as this would become a massive initial, and largish ongoing increase in demand for their services.

Get everybody to go buy a beer at their local bar. Then post a pic of their username, bar, and the beer. Age Verified by industry professionals.

Earth Abides

Its mostly slow. Apocalypse genre, without the insanely selfish caricature of the personal relationships between people.

Oh wow! I read Little Kiwi's Matariki to my whanau all the time, but had no idea how to find it in the sky. When the clouds go, i'll have another look!

Is it a book about how Russia becomes the world's hegemon, or how it beats the US/West/Atlanticists?

What does it say in relation to East Asia?

Most interestingly China, considering today's context, but thinking about the time it was written Japan might've been more pertinent in their thinking.

Only a communist deals in absolutes! ..... wait.. thats not it..

I've wondered how many people must be watching it, i think its on their programming later at night now.

Politics being divisive is a reason politics opportunities like QandA should be available. It forces the members of the Partys together to discuss the topics on the same platform.

For example, i think it was on the latest episode of Rest is Politics - Leading, where Johnathan Haidt talked about Newt Gingrich forcing a policy of Congress meeting only Tuesday-Thursday to ensure the representatives wouldn't feel a need to move to Washington DC, and instead fly in then fly home again. Newt Gingrich's theory, he claims, was the Republicans got too cosy with the establishment once they got to Washington DC.

But why have the Government cut ABC funding?

Seems like it clears the airwaves for right wing propagandists to fill.

QandA's going? I like that show! Getting the politicians and experts in a live, audience participation setting has all kinds of benefits for the National 'conversation'.

I mean Matt Kean dismantling Jane Hume, (was it?), earlier this year on energy transition was valuable to see.

Those kind of match ups, where its slightly out of the control of the host/producers, are rare.

One of the reasons people are saying Dutton lost is because he refused to talk to the so called 'unfriendly media' leaving him at a disadvantage in his preparedness for the election just gone.

So QandA seems to me to be good for lots of things. The only thing i dislike is the grandstanding and clearly recited talking points, but thats where you need a talented host to deny and redirect the discussion.

...unrealized capital gains" which is ... real estate...

Alan Kohler and Stephen Mayne, on Money Café, have been using property taxes as an example where taxes on unrealised gains are applied. It seems an interesting example flying against the 'never tax unrealised gains mantra'.

I don't think AZ users/posters or the video creator should feel conflicted. There wasn't, and isn't any sensationalism in what i see here.

And i think thats the key issue that groups like this play on, amp up the drama as much as possible for the cameras and paper shuffling anchors.

The video's creator doesn't sensationalise the events spoken about, or make particular hero's out of the SHARPs (what is that?).

The only thing he says about them specifically is we should listen to them as people 'who have actually stared down' these shitheads. Not exactly the kind of hyperbole you might find with other media, even ABC sensationalises this stuff rather more than giving a sober account of these events.

What will they do!? Cross the Rubicon?!

Go the Silver Emu!

I think a high speed train between Alice Springs and Mount Isa is the most logical place to start.

Wow, viewed in this light, this article is needlessly incendiary. Thanks for context.

Nah, its practically impossible for Australia to be a leader of any sort, too small.

Thats why i only say convener, because of the geopolitical position, as an invested and interested party, but back a bit, it means Australia is in a more neutral position in discussions which can be a good place for a convener to come from.

Agreeing on the direction of discussions but more open minded to conflicting policy direction that may arise.

But yeah, as you say, Australia must act in support of our allies in this region as the primary policy setting in any of this and fill the role they need from Australia.

If the alliances in Asia break down the same way NATO is being destroyed then Australia is better off playing nice in waters it definitely only has a indirect stake in, even if it rankles.

Its best to lean forward, Australia doesn't want to be jumping in when Indonesia is feeling on the backfoot. Aus wants to be pushing robustly for uniform rules of the sea across the board.

Whats the difference in international waters in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean? Its legally nothing, they're governed by the same law of the sea agreement.

As the article discusses, if you don't push your opposition, cynical actors will take advantage and establish as much dominance as possible.

Timor Strait, sure. South China Sea...only if all the others with an interest there are aligned and want us there (Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Japan etc)

Australia should be acting as a convener for South-East Asian, Pacific, and East Asian countries but you're essentially right, Australia has to respect the sovereign wishes of each other country where clear lines of sides are marked, but where there is grey, Australia must act to minimise the potential for China to dominate it's (China's) rivals or neighbours in the region.

Nope. For many reasons, getting with China means certain vassal State.

For instance, Australia's current stance is that its only arguable whether Australia is a vassal Sate with the USA. Its definitely a close relationship, but on balance i think it comes out more a major-minor partnership, at least in this and since WW2's strategic moment.

So stripping out cultural alignments, for only a second, it comes to a question of whether status-quo economic relationship is more valuable to the senior partner (Aus-China), than a strategic partnership to the senior partner (Aus -USA).

This makes it really easy, in an economic relationship you can get by with slaves in a worst case scenario, on the other hand you always need a certain goodwill from the minor country people to have near alignment with the major partner's goals.

Putting the cultural alignments back in and it makes it difficult to see a closer alignment with China in the near future for Australia. Interestingly, i think the more culturally diverse we get the more we will in fact align with a country like the USA, not this fascist populism that has overtaken everything at the moment, but the general direction.

The theory that tying economies together stops war is just a theory, and i don't think with a huge amount of evidence. I mean USA and USSR never went directly to war, and they had very limited trade. France and Germanic peoples went to war plenty, lots of trade reliance.

Portugal and England being famous allies, largely to their interlocking trade balances, among other geopolitical traits, might send this little argument down the toilet though, so maybe be a trade relationship ends up pretty net-net in the calculus for war.

Edit: Maybe it comes down to the reliance of the country on the type of traded good. Does its trade ceasing damage the importing country ina material way?

It can sometimes grow to quite a large fund for people.

Damian Gordon saved $46,000. He described it as a hobby for him. What a legend!