Artifact Commentary #2

 

               In my second essay, I used lexical cohesion throughout my essay to figure out where the common ground stands between Pyro and the community of subscribers. The common ground and rhetoric of assent are common used within my essay and defined their meanings early on in my essay from Booth’s terms. I state that “the individuals find the common place themselves, actually listening what Pyro and the community openly communicates” (Wills 3). This is important because Pyro not only has to come to the common ground with his viewers but his viewers have to come to the common ground to understand each other. To communicate openly we have to first listen what the other has to say to add on to the conversation of the discourse community. We assent to another’s values when we do not feel forced to but willing to understand the overall meaning of the message. Of course, we do not have to abandon all of our personal values when we assent to someone else’s but each comment Pyro views should be treated with the same level of respect and openness to change. Humans are adaptive by nature and we change our thoughts by being exposed to others that have value to how we grew up in our own blind assent. Later, I talk about buying the game to interact with the community, but I feel you do not have to purchase the game but simply enjoy watching it from Pyro is enough to comment. Reaching this enjoyment is another way to assent to the common ground as we want to be a part of what Pyro is doing to mimic and replicate his experience. Overall, the common ground can be reached between viewers and channel leaders such as Pyro, but it takes effort on both sides to respond the argument on any subject the video decides to be about.