Pathetic Appeal

This person put the eye emoji in their statement, "so much American👀."

This was an effective choice because the eye emoji is used when someone wants to draw attention to something, especially controversial ideas. In this case, the emoji helps us understand by pointing out that they believe it's a bad thing the list has a lot of American movies and infers that that's the reason why they disapprove of the initial tweet. Also, the eyes represent that when they read the tweet, that is what the 'see' when reading it.

Logical Appeal

This person (@LeynaFerris) posted a screenshot from the website that initially posted this list about how the poll was conducted because other users were asking, "what kind of criteria did they use?" (as a joke)

This logical appeal was effective because they used credible photographic evidence that details how the professionals fairly selected the films, which many disagree with.

I think this person tried this appeal to 'shut up' other users from saying they were biased or unfit critics because they personally agreed with the list, and their photo, proves that this list is a legitimate carefully curated, official top 10 list.

Although no one responded to their logical appeal, I think it was accepted because in the Twitter culture snapshots are all you need to prove a point.

Who was the most convincing in the conversation?

Personally, I think all three appeals were equally convincing, but if I have to pick I would say the logical appeal because many users were responding by trashing the list and this person tweeted a snapshot that went against all the hate by proving the initial tweets legitimacy.

This person reinforced the cultural rules of Twitter, which is: you can't criticize or tweet something without understanding the full context of the situation. In this case, many thought this list was just random opinions from a so called professional, but if they read the article (specifically the snapshotted section) they would know that it's not true. Essentially, jumping to conclusions on Twitter is not proper etiquette.

Ethical Appeal

The author boldly stated it was ranked by industry professionals by tagging their Twitter handle to persuade users that this list is 'official' and credible, so if someone disagrees, they should take it up with @THR and not them.

I think this ethical appeal was aimed to strengthen their credibility but actually weakened it. Professional critics' opinions don't really align or agree with the majority, being regular people, so including them tends to be a turn off for some people because they're associated with having terrible tastes.

The effect on their ethos influenced others to respond with laughter or disagreement because a top 10 list that comes from professionals but has 'mediocre' movies in their eyes is a joke, like "what kind of people made this list?"

Can we argue that since digital writing and digital technologies are important to functioning in modern society it's a human rights issue if people don't have access to it? As a human rights and equity major, I definitely see this being an issue.

It's funny because I tend to make this distinction about writing as well. In my eyes, the writing I do for school doesn't count as real writing (even though it obviously is) and I think it's because I'm writing for someone instead of for myself on my own terms.

This is an interesting take. The way teachers taught fifty-years ago compared to now is very different because digital technologies have forced curriculum's to adapt to it. My two brothers in high school got free ChromeBooks and everything they do is done on there, nothing is really traditional anymore.

Try telling this to my former high school english teachers lol. Images definitely are powerful enough to tell a story without words, but does that mean the definition of writing is changing because of digital platforms and multimedia tools?

I 100% agree with this. I think those in privileged groups seem to ignore that digital writing isn't the most accessible or representative space for everyone. It would be interesting to rhetorically analyze digital writing in terms of content.

Is this a negative aspect or more so a positive aspect of digital writing? Also, I think the nature of instant feedback sometimes doesn't give us an excuse for not responding or engaging in digital writing, like I'm forced to do so even if I don't want to.