[videoblogging] VIDEOs
hi please let me know what you think of these videos: http://revver.com/video/744749/robot-kick-boxing-2/ http://revver.com/video/732833/robot-kick-boxing/ thanks for the help rodlli
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
because for for most communities outside of North America tolerance is probably understood and experienced to be something that is largely free of religion, I live in what I regard as a (sometimes) tolerant society, and religion plays quite a small role over all. An important one, but quite small, and compared to the United States experience pretty much trivial. so for me a tolerant community certainly allows the expression of religious expression, but being Australian I think I'm pretty cool about anyone doing anything until they get dogmatic about it. Then we pretty much tell 'em to piss off. :-) But religious tolerance here I think is minor compared to issues around gender, multiculturalism, and aboriginality. On 23/03/2008, at 4:48 AM, terry.rendon wrote: > Fair enough. I also finding hypocritical that groups that claim to be > for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to > religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn. > cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be > for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to > religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn. I'm admittedly biased, but I think that kind of intolerance is rarer. I think a certain segment of extremely religious folk incorrectly perceive opposition to their views as attacks on their respective religions and their rights to practice them. For instance, standing up for the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment isn't in any way an attack on people's religions but is often sold as such by religious leaders. Anyway, like others here, I'm of the opinion that if certain groups feel underrepresented on YouTube, the quickest remedy is for them to start posting there in large numbers. And be willing to take their lumps if significant numbers post opposing viewpoints. Chris http://www.myspace.com/necropol Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster. http://penelopespantyhose.com http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when > religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch > vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their > own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence. Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn. Terry Rendon --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon" > wrote: > > > > I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their > > beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I > > think here in America there are many people who are critical of > > religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between > > criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs. > > True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when > religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch > vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their > own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence. > > Chris > http://www.myspace.com/necropol > > > > Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster. > http://www.penelopespantyhose.com > http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com >
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when > religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch > vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their > own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence. Fair enough. I also finding hypocritical that groups that claim to be for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn. Terry Rendon --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon" > wrote: > > > > I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their > > beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I > > think here in America there are many people who are critical of > > religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between > > criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs. > > True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when > religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch > vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their > own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence. > > Chris > http://www.myspace.com/necropol > > > > Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster. > http://www.penelopespantyhose.com > http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com >
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their > beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I > think here in America there are many people who are critical of > religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between > criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs. True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence. Chris http://www.myspace.com/necropol Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster. http://www.penelopespantyhose.com http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
In regards to your question about 3rd party candidates the answer if simple. They do not make collective use of the opportunity they have to get their viewpoints across. They do not vlog. I was doing some kind of research, I think around the time of Pixeloden. I truly wanted to find Libertarian, Peace and Freedom or other political party videos either by the parties themselves or their supporters. To make sure I found groups I didn't know about I found a list of American political parties. It was extremely difficult. I came up with maybe three videos and the quality was so poor I couldn't use it. Not from the John Birch party, not from the Green party. M$M has no financial interest in representing parties that do not contribute to their bottom line. That is why the League of Women voters were systematically eased out of their long term roll of presenting debates with candidate from more than the RepDems. The RepDems wanted control over the process. That is why the debates suck big time. The tools are there for everybody to use. Party supporters need to be educated on how to use them, I am all for that. Maybe that is a form of outreach vloggers ought to consider. Has Ralphie taken the time to post a video explaining why he is running *and* engage viewers in a dialog about what he feels is missing from the current process? Nothing and no one is stopping him from doing that. He won't. Not his style. Now maybe he shouldn't do it on YouTube but he has that option. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > your religious and political beliefs need not disrupt one from posting a > video having nothing at all to do with religion nor politics. likewise, > their is no need to blatantly announce your beliefs. so in this respect, > you can imagine how many people may be this or that without most knowing. > over time, if you continue to consume ones vlog or show, you might conclude > where they generally stand on issues. or not. this accounts for some > percentage of unknowns. > > One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite > > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe > > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of > > a Democratic candidate. > > > i wont contest that and it's def safe for me to assume. aside from the > usual suspects of age/demographic etc... you can sprinkle in some general > disgust with the Bush years. it's an embarrassment. then sprinkle in the > celebrity that is Clinton and Obama and the pursuit of being the first > respectively. > > Online Video caters to all candidates. The supporting audience on sites > like Youtube will be heavier on the dems side for all the aforementioned > reasons and more. > > But as we see with the Spitzer drama, nobody is protected from criticism and > abuse when it is so very deserved. > > The real question for me and I WISH for many others would be Why can't > our 3rd party candidates get the respect, attention and consideration that > is so readily handed over to the Democrats and Republicans... when both of > those parties are broken and have been for a long time. In other words, In > a country where a guy like Nader gets trashed by the msm and the general > public (mostly brainwashed by the msm) and of course by both of the big > parties. Maybe a more viable video site that makes sense is the one for > true independents. > A Bull Moose Revival, if you will. > > Although the idea of talking about this only in respect to "video" seems > wrong. Why is video a different beast? This bleeds into everything. Where > you work, within your family and friend circles, on any community website > etc. Politics is a sensitive subject even it it's mostly built on > bullshit. > > sull > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Ok, I know I'm probably going to take a lot of heat for saying this > > but I'm just going to do it. > > > > This has been a particularly politically active year. Everyone is > > speaking their mind about this presidential election and that is > > great! One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite > > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe > > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of > > a Democratic candidate. > > > > Recently, I found out about a Web site called Eyeblast.tv. It's a > > conservative response to Youtube. I know some will say why do > > conservatives need to separate themselves and create their own video > > platform. Perhaps, the question should be "Why would they do such a > > thing?" Maybe, it is a symptom of not being welcomed in the video > > blogging community. The same could be said about Godtube. Perhaps it's > > not Christians wanting to separate themselves but perhaps a feeling of > > not being welcomed in the online vi
[videoblogging] Re: Ideology
> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an > intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. > It all depends on what you base your beliefs. I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I think here in America there are many people who are critical of religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, a common misconception. > > Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their > beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say > which is the true religion. On the other hand, because I'm not > religious I can criticize religion as much as I want. > > For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a) > theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b) > there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true. That's > perfectly ok. Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their > astrological beliefs is just being an idiot. However if I have my own > set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off > from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my > beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more > accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my > irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat > others the same. > > If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an > intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. > It all depends on what you base your beliefs. > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diveristy and tolerance goes both ways. > > > > Heath > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > wrote: > > > > > > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means > > > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If > > > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about > > > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't > > speak > > > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a > > human > > > rights and diversity perspective. > > > > > > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the > > internet. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > > > > > What does it say about the online video community that we can't > > talk > > > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said > > and that > > > > certain groups need to create niches because of it? > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to > > think a > > > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is > > right. > > > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those > > > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of > > terrible > > > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no > > longer > > > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two > > > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves > > Democrats. > > > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican > > values, > > > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values. > > > > > > > > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and > > they may > > > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like > > the > > > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the > > party has > > > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young > > > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology. > > > > > > > > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort > > zone or an > > > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As > > a gay > > > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube > > category) > > > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar > > situation > > > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a > > youtube > > > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as > > popular. > > > > > > > > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris > > > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of > > his > > > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site. > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless f
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
> > If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an > intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. > It all depends on what you base your beliefs. Cheers! To backbones and and alcohol! On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Delongchamp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, a common misconception. > > Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their > beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say > which is the true religion. On the other hand, because I'm not > religious I can criticize religion as much as I want. > > For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a) > theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b) > there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true. That's > perfectly ok. Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their > astrological beliefs is just being an idiot. However if I have my own > set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off > from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my > beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more > accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my > irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat > others the same. > > If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an > intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. > It all depends on what you base your beliefs. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Ideology
your religious and political beliefs need not disrupt one from posting a video having nothing at all to do with religion nor politics. likewise, their is no need to blatantly announce your beliefs. so in this respect, you can imagine how many people may be this or that without most knowing. over time, if you continue to consume ones vlog or show, you might conclude where they generally stand on issues. or not. this accounts for some percentage of unknowns. One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of > a Democratic candidate. i wont contest that and it's def safe for me to assume. aside from the usual suspects of age/demographic etc... you can sprinkle in some general disgust with the Bush years. it's an embarrassment. then sprinkle in the celebrity that is Clinton and Obama and the pursuit of being the first respectively. Online Video caters to all candidates. The supporting audience on sites like Youtube will be heavier on the dems side for all the aforementioned reasons and more. But as we see with the Spitzer drama, nobody is protected from criticism and abuse when it is so very deserved. The real question for me and I WISH for many others would be Why can't our 3rd party candidates get the respect, attention and consideration that is so readily handed over to the Democrats and Republicans... when both of those parties are broken and have been for a long time. In other words, In a country where a guy like Nader gets trashed by the msm and the general public (mostly brainwashed by the msm) and of course by both of the big parties. Maybe a more viable video site that makes sense is the one for true independents. A Bull Moose Revival, if you will. Although the idea of talking about this only in respect to "video" seems wrong. Why is video a different beast? This bleeds into everything. Where you work, within your family and friend circles, on any community website etc. Politics is a sensitive subject even it it's mostly built on bullshit. sull On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I know I'm probably going to take a lot of heat for saying this > but I'm just going to do it. > > This has been a particularly politically active year. Everyone is > speaking their mind about this presidential election and that is > great! One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of > a Democratic candidate. > > Recently, I found out about a Web site called Eyeblast.tv. It's a > conservative response to Youtube. I know some will say why do > conservatives need to separate themselves and create their own video > platform. Perhaps, the question should be "Why would they do such a > thing?" Maybe, it is a symptom of not being welcomed in the video > blogging community. The same could be said about Godtube. Perhaps it's > not Christians wanting to separate themselves but perhaps a feeling of > not being welcomed in the online video community. > > I know the demographics for the internet are young, which means that a > good portion will be more liberal in thought and political alliance. > > I don't know that were just a few thoughts on my mind. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
Ah, a common misconception. Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say which is the true religion. On the other hand, because I'm not religious I can criticize religion as much as I want. For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a) theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b) there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true. That's perfectly ok. Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their astrological beliefs is just being an idiot. However if I have my own set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat others the same. If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack. It all depends on what you base your beliefs. On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > diveristy and tolerance goes both ways. > > Heath > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means > > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If > > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about > > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't > speak > > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a > human > > rights and diversity perspective. > > > > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the > internet. > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > > > What does it say about the online video community that we can't > talk > > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said > and that > > > certain groups need to create niches because of it? > > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to > think a > > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is > right. > > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those > > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of > terrible > > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no > longer > > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two > > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves > Democrats. > > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican > values, > > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values. > > > > > > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and > they may > > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like > the > > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the > party has > > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young > > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology. > > > > > > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort > zone or an > > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As > a gay > > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube > category) > > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar > situation > > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a > youtube > > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as > popular. > > > > > > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris > > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of > his > > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site. > > > > > > > > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless for wanting to > do the > > > > same thing. Even if they are terrible at writing foreign > policy and > > > > there's no such thing as god. ...oops > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Steve Watkins > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that some conservatives see a huge liberal/leftie > bias in the > > > > > > media, even though thats not necessarily so, it seems > quite likely > > > > > > that youtube looks like 'the communists are coming' to > them. > > > > > > > > > > That's actually a good poin
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
I would have thought this extended way beyond the video blogging community and could reasonably be asked of the community in general, where the video community is a smaller mirror of the larger one. On the other hand you're using community to equal audience, I think the video community (and most other communities) can be reasonably tolerant (but never as tolerant as they like to think) whereas the video blog audience is an entirely different beast. And if you're doing this to aggrandise audience, you get what you ask for IMHO. :-) On 21/03/2008, at 8:19 AM, terry.rendon wrote: > But what does that say about that online video community that > particular groups of people feel the need to create niches because > people can't talk about politics, religion, homosexuality, etc. > without vile things being said? cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology
There is the demographic factor that Terry originally brought up: younger people tend to be both more comfortable with technology (though there are huge exceptions) and more "liberal" in their political/social views (again, with exceptions). This probably accounts for a lot of the skew on YouTube etc. Letters to newspapers, on the other hand, are mostly written by older people. Videoblogging is not as widely understood as we in this group might imagine. I'm doing videoblogging (among many other things) for Sun Microsystems now - a company which is certainly very technically savvy - and have a lot to do in educating my colleagues on how they can shoot their own video and get it online cheaply and quickly. So you can imagine how daunting it can seem to someone who is not much of a technology user. If you truly want to hear a variety of voices (and I know that Jay very sincerely does), the efforts many in this group have made to teach others continue to be very important. Jan, thanks for the mic advice - works great! -- best regards, Deirdré Straughan living & travelling in Italy (and other Countries Beginning with I) www.beginningwithi.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
