I'm working on it and I personally was offended by the video as well. But that's my own statement, not one of PodTech's.
Robert Scoble ### From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Howell Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 8:53 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Loren Feldman = Techwigga, it is not ok. No. Feldman's video is not ok. It's not ok in any way shape or form. It's disgusting and behavior like his should not be tolerated. Podtech? What say you? Nice big Podtech logo on his site. Chances are that you, Podtech, wont license this video of his and post it on your site. Still, you are tied to Feldman. What he says and does reflects upon you. Do you dump him? Do you make a statement that you are not responsible for what he does and wash your hands? ABC canned Imus for what he said. What are you going to do about this Podtech? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com http://www.taoofdavid.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yeah, i'm sorry - i said "everybody's been saying it'd be ok if it > was funny" which i didn't mean. just a couple of people said that. > your rant was good, though, Gena - smart, passionate & eloquent as > ever. as far as i'm concerned, you can share anything you want with > the group anytime. and this is a case that's totally relevant. > > On 4 Aug 2007, at 15:02, Gena wrote: > > Oh no mon chere, I would not think it ok if it was funny. Far, far > from it. This type of thing hurts me. Every frikin' time - I have > internal callouses to buffer the injury but that is a form of my pain > that isn't appropriate to share with this group. > > Maybe I should, but you'd witness a few howls of "it is not really > related to videoblogging, take it to your blog/vlog." > > Most of the comments here are what I would expect, was it funny? Did > it deliver? The content is seen and not seen. > > The 'isms are hard to deal with if you don't have to deal with them > all the time. We can peep around them and look to other things but the > elephant is still in the room. > > I don't have a choice. It is a consistent aspect of my life that I > have to navigate. And so when I see something like this and I want to > respond in this group there are constrictions. > > I have reams to say this video yet I don't want to promote this > person's video. I may change my mind. Probably will now that you > brought this up cuz I don't want what I first posted to seem to be as > acceptance of the content of the video. > > He has the right to make this video. I have the right to view it and > make my feelings about it know. I have to defend his right to make the > video because I passionately believe in freedom of speech and > expression. That right doesn't stop if I don't like something and want > to prevent it being seen. > > Watching a video that reduces women to sexual appliances that can be > tracked for profit hurts. Not to mention the perpetual view that a > fractional segment of the African-American community is being > represented as how all of us behave, no matter what we do, which seems > to be limited to sex and drugs. > > So that is the reason that there are no "Black Tech sites or > African-American tech writers?" Which is not a true premise to begin > with. > > And for the record, I do not use the "N-word or support its use. Thus, > my constant change in the name of the video to a term used to describe > a person appearing to be of Caucasian decent who is attempting to > imitate and affect behaviors of what he or she believes to be "Afro > American-centric" in nature. > > I'm not trashing anyones comments about this, I want to make that clear. > > Rupert, I seem to be on a rant and a lot of stuff is coming to the > surface. I'm going to go beat a rug or something. > > Gena > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > i had the same thought. > > > > everyone's been saying that it'd be ok if it was funny. > > > > i don't know about that. i'm not one to be po-faced, but what other > > levels are at work here that make it any smarter or more valid than > > it appears? none, as far as i can see. so why bother to do it? > > > > oh, because he knows it'll get a big audience. > > > > that's his motivation. which makes it even worse, i think. > > > > i don't feel any happier watching it than i feel watching Bernard > > Manning, a white UK comedian who told essentially racist gags that > > reinforced stereotypes and helped people feel it was OK to be > > racist. he was always excused by the majority of white people here > > because they were 'funny'. he died recently. i didn't mourn his > > passing. > > > > maybe gena was right, and he was high. coked up people certainly have > > a terrible sense of what's appropriate to say, and what's funny. so > > perhaps he cut and posted it high as well. > > > > whatever, i think it's lame and unhelpful and basically pretty > > shitty. i won't be subscribing to his show any time soon. i bet > > he's really cut up about that ;) - especially now that his audience > > figures have been massively boosted by a whole new type of person. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 4 Aug 2007, at 08:58, Jeffrey Taylor wrote: > > > > And personally, if Feldman had satirized the problem of the lack of > > visible > > gays in tech using effeminate stereotypes featuring unfunny > steeotypes > > club-going, drug-taking, sex-addicted queens (fagg.com? I don't think > > so, > > desptie the fact that a lot of you would be laughing.), I'd be on the > > phone > > with GLAAD in a heartbeat - not to ask for this video to be removed, > > but to > > publicize what a counterproductive shitty thing Feldman has done. > > > > > > > > > > On 04/08/07, Kary Rogers <kr@> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Steve Woolf wrote: > > >> The problem is that it's not funny. I don't mean that being > > >> politically incorrect is not funny in and of itself. I mean that > > >> comedy is hard to do. Insightful satire is hard to do. > > >> > > > > > > I'm not sure what else I can add to this discussion but Steve > Woolf's > > > response hit close to home and I painfully nod in agreement. > > > > > > I struggle with walking that fine line quite a bit. Having an idea > > > for satire is pretty easy but executing it with just the right take > > > and the right comic sensibility is hard. My writing mind tends to > > > lean toward parody and satire. Some ideas have a large target and > > > it's not too hard to hit somewhere in the funny (e.g. Fred > Phelps and > > > his Westboro Baptist Church). Other issues like race have a much > > > smaller target to hit to be funny. I've given it a shot a couple of > > > times and people either find it funny or are offended. (No links > > > cause I'd rather not look like an ignorant schmuck =) Plus, on top > > > of all that, comedy is subjective. What makes me LoL may bore > > > someone else. > > > > > > But unless one keeps trying to fine tune their execution by putting > > > themselves out there and gauging the responses (with thick skin), > > > they won't get better at finding the angle and finding their comic > > > sensibility. Yeah. Comedy is hard. > > > > > > <3 > > > > > > -- > > > Kary Rogers > > > http://karyhead.com > > > http://goodcommitment.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
