My English isn't Englishing right now. Can someone proof-read something for me?

[ancient fable]

[For Context]
The ethics of the documentary gaze become especially important when we consider power dynamics. The person, or more specifically the entire production beyond the camera holds a certain form of power: they decide what images to capture, how reality is being framed, and it is up to the editor to decide how their version of reality is ultimately presented.
The subject on the other hand, surrenders their privacy and control by allowing themselves to be filmed. This imbalance can be problematic. For instance, documentary filmmakers often film people in vulnerable situations. They share images of poverty, illness, or grief in order to raise awareness or evoke empathy. But at what point does this become voyeurism of suffering? There’s a fine line between watching someone else’s reality and exploiting their pain as spectacle.

[What I have issues with, especially the last sentence]
And by that extent; if an audience watches harrowing footage of, say, a family in wartime or a patient dying of a rare disease, is the viewer complicit in turning real suffering into entertainment, by mere consumption? Rarely are these questions explicitly addressed on screen, yet despite the abundance of entertainment … or perhaps even more so as a reason thereof, we have to ask these questions and be aware of the content we consume on a daily basis.

@split shuttle

[split shuttle]

Heyyyyyy ephiiii ❤️ sorry I'm a weird stickler for order and rules so I get really awkward when things are slightly off

Idk, let's do this review!!

About where in your video is this going to be placed? + I've got the context, I'm assuming you're aiming for more of a professional academic voice

Hey wait the fuck up

I'm making a video about this rn

Are you in my studio Ephi?!!!

[ancient fable]

This is page 5 of roughly 20 ish. So well into the video.
Yes, film-theorist centered, more on the educational side of things.

[ancient fable]

MAYBE YOU ARE IN MINE!!!

[split shuttle]

Okay, here's how I handled it::

• be very direct on the issue (banning around on it for dramatic effect is awesome. Maybe once but never twice. And since our average viewer isn't actually as interested in the topic as we are, we have to be really direct and even over exaggerate how serious the issue is right off the bat instead of beating around for the dramatic appeal)
• by most moral structure/systems, you are NOT complicit if you watch/by stander to things you can't intervene in. Because the logic is people who are in terrible situations will be put into these terrible situations for reasons beyond us. If you watch terrible things for the enjoyment of watching a terrible thing then you are complicit in being a terrible person who wants bad things to happen. If you watch a terrible thing because you feel bad and you want to understand or because someone is showing you it to discuss it, then you're not a terrible person because you're not the one who caused the harm to happen. This means content creator. Is that direct their content as "look at the sad!!" Are to blame if they cause more harm in doing so (for the act) and their viewers who wish no harm are NOT complicit. Now I know that's a lot of talk and I didn't directly address it which is something that I should have done. But I'm not going through an editing this so lol lol don't do what I'm doing here. Do better be better than me. I'll explain more in the next bullet!!
• the average person who cares about morals is already aware that they are not morally complicit or to blame for negative things that happen they have. They have no control over. You have to convince them that there is a possibility right off the bat and then reassure them that there is it. Morals are based off capacity, effect, and intent, and any good person watching your videos going to realize that they don't have those things. Any bad person isn't listening, they're already arguing against you in the comment sections

[split shuttle]

Gotchuuuu gotchuuuu, to be clear, mine is more on the personal personal social side of it

[split shuttle]

WELLL!! YOU SHOULD HAVE LOCKED YOUR DOOR!!!

So... Now the actual english

What you've written is very well done. I would say on an English point of view everything is correct, understandable and flows quite nicely

I will say you're getting a bit too academic for a general audience

And add that with the dramatic flair and your tone mixing between words for show/ tension build up and educational big talk, you'll lose some viewers

Be more direct. Don't bounce around with concepts like moral complexity because you will lose so many people when you do that. Now of course if you want a smaller audience, really want to appeal to an academic mind to genuinely wants to explore this from both a societal and physiological concern then do that! But more general? Small words, direct concepts

[ancient fable]

First of all: Thank you so much. This is very thorough and helpful. To clarify the point I'm making (perhaps this is also where my uncertainty mainly stems from): I am not accusing anyone of being complicit simply by being watchers, but much more that we, as an audience, should still be aware of what we consume and how we consume it. I'm basically fighting a fight against the mindless gluttony of media consumption. If that makes sense. We shouldn't just be looking at a screen, we should be aware of, and sometimes even question the things we're watching.
Maybe I should just take the day off for today though. I already wrote 5 pages today, maybe my mind is just a bit spent by now lmao

[split shuttle]

Mindless gluttony of media consumption. We had a huge chat about that a while ago, ok this makes sense!

Death take your mind off things. Five pages is a lot to write, especially at this intensity level. Your brain needs breaks or focus pivots

This is where the counter argument probably comes in lol omg (I'm sure if you're covering it to this intense, so you're already aware of the counter argument so I'm not going to bring them up, but I just found it amusing that it actually naturally comes out of a conversation here too!!)

[ancient fable]

Which one do you mean?

[split shuttle]

Using content as a form of brain relaxant, or background material usually means turning your brain off* to be able to enjoy it

Actually got into a huge debate about this when I criticized a channel that was made specifically for this

I have a very strong stance that all content should be high quality and also high in value but... Even brain rot can be high quality and value to some extent and especially to someone who it's intended for

[split shuttle]

So let's address it like this instead. If your position is "we shouldn't consume media gluttonously without using our minds" most watchers will agree with you, so you need to drive this point harder. Bringing up "bad people make content badly and we don't notice" is a good example but it's a bad STARTER example. This is a case of start HARD and support SOFT.

Make arguments like: bad people make content that HURTS you, that HURTS others, and THEY should be held responsible (not the content YOU watch is bad, pivot responsibility to the creator and tell the audience they have the power)

[ancient fable]

That’s a great idea. I‘ll see what I can do. One of the biggest challenges is getting out of my academic-writing brain and get into a YouTube Content brain.

[ancient fable]

Oh yeah, absolutely. I mean I understand the poing of saying Brain-Rot is bad and should not exist. But on the other hand I kinda see brainrot content analogous to alcohol.

In theory, yes, it’s bad for you and has well-established and proven side effects and psychological as well as physiological downsides (Reduced attention span, nervousness, can lead to messed up dopamine levels, etc.). But on the contrary so does alcohol. Yet still millions of people drink and a lot of them suffer no consequences. As long as you’re mindful and aware of what you consume and the extent of how much you consume, it can even take away stress and anxiety in certain circumstances.

Double edged swords and stuff. The dose makes the poison.

[split shuttle]

Well, throw it my way. I can rewrite it less "academically" and see if you have any major enertainment droll points

[split shuttle]

Dose and poison, love the combo

Now if only I could get more dose and less poision D:

[snow bluff]

If you watch terrible things for the enjoyment of watching a terrible thing then you are complicit in being a terrible person who wants bad things to happen
No, you do not. The internal state of the viewer has no bearing on the ETHICS of documentary filmmaking, since both the necrophiliac and the disgusted viewer are still watching the same dead war-torn bodies on screen.

Morals are based off capacity, effect, and intent, and any good person watching your videos going to realize that they don't have those things.
@ancient fable is interested in ETHICS

[split shuttle]

Sure, sorry I'm using really casual wording here, I didn't type those messages up I was speaking them while I was working out

And to clarify, I'm responding to ephis' tone. It's directed at the viewer in this section. I suggested redirecting the responsibility in my message to the creators

[ancient fable]

Now that you say it like that you are right! This isn’t exactly a debate about morals, it’s about ethics, both from the filmmakers as well as the audience.
But also, this entire debate could be a video on itself. As in Morals vs Ethics.

[split shuttle]

Do it, I'd love to see you do that

[ancient fable]

I could end that paragraph with something like mentioning the terms and clarifying the situation vaguely and already tease another video by saying "but that’s a topic for another day" idk.

Oh boy 😅 as always I feel like I bit off a bit more than I can chew lmao.

[split shuttle]

We talked about this in DMS but I think this is why you should go academic documentry