Bourgeois? This sort of humor is much, much more commonly enjoyed by lower class whites. In educated circles, such as this list, racist humor is universally denounced. As the past 30 emails monotonously indicate!
In other cultures around the world, racist humor is typically acceptable, only liberal western societies having declared war upon it in the name of globalism. Instead of exhibiting white privledge, this episode exhibits white repression, being the unique culture where xenophobia is forbidden. --- original message --- From: "Jeffrey Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] For Dan McVicar (was Re: Loren Feldman = Technigga) Date: August 5, 2007 Time: 3:42:39 If the piece were thought-provoking and went beyond the tactics of neo-blackface tactics found amongst white American bourgeois males (see links below, and those are merely the ones I could find in a two minute span) to make his point, I would say Loren Feldman was an artist and not a self-indulgent, racist attention whore. What's sad is that even if Feldman had the best of intentions, he endorses and encourages the use of "satire" as a means of confirming one's privileged white straight bourgeois place in society by so clearly displaying and making fun of what one is not in front of their white straight bourgeois peers. Is it any coincidence that Feldman, a hungry and driven entrepreneur moving in circles dominated by white straight bourgeois males (several with money to part with), would feel no qualms in posting such a thing? http://youtube.com/watch?v=7H52mjVINt4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLh7AvyWk1Q http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/11/03/thanks_bro http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_17_20/ai_110263213 http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=713 On 05/08/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > Interesting post. I noticed straightaway that you posted here and on > > Twitter with no explanation or comment, and figured you were fishing > > for our reactions. > > > > I don't doubt that he's well-connected and clued-up. I agree with > > you that I'm sure he doesn't "believe that's the only way the black > > TechCrunch could possibly be". And as you say, I'm sure he doesn't > > think this stuff and that his view of black people isn't that limited. > > > > And I'm fine with him dissing people. I think attacking people > > personally and aggressively and making fun of them is a terrible way > > to make a living, but I don't have to watch. > > Yes. IMO, it's unfortunate. You hear stories of rock bands where the > members detest each other, but they have no other way of making good > money, so they stay together. Terrible way to make a living, but > better than minimum wage. There are lots of people with no niche at > all. Some of them wish they could be sarcastic and caustic... Others > are glad that that's not their lot in life. > > > I've thought this all along, and so I don't feel "Hornswoggled" > > :) > > > For me, the point is that whatever he believes, "starting a > > conversation" and "satire... to bring up a point" is not enough > > justification for this video. > > Good point. There are many BETTER ways to start the exact same > conversation without offending people. > > > Perhaps he thinks his role is to break the boundaries of what we > > consider acceptable and be a shit-stirrer. Fair play. But I say > > that there are some things that I'd rather people didn't mess about > > with like rebellious kids, and then claim they have some kind of > > moral diplomatic immunity because what they're doing is 'satire'. > > > > As in everything, there's a line you can cross where you start doing > > more harm than good. Where that line is, it's hard to tell - so if > > you care about not doing harm, you have to be careful. Unless you > > don't care about what harm you do because the controversy helps you > > get more viewers. > > Or, unless you don't care what harm you do to people, PERIOD. My goal > is not to defend the person or the methods, and certainly not the > EFFECT on people. > > > He says "Art is a subjective thing" which is a totally different > > argument, and used like this is as big a cop-out as a priest saying > > "God moves in mysterious ways" to explain a massive loss of life from > > a natural disaster. It's worse than lazy thinking, it's cowardice - > > as is him not commenting or responding to questions. If you don't > > have the intellectual chops or courage to back something like this > > up, don't do it in the first place. > > No doubt, Rupert. None whatsoever. That's why I was waiting before I > commented. I wanted to see what his participation was going to be in > the conversation that he started, but so far, it's been ZERO. > > > So whatever he really thinks, and whatever spin he puts on it, I > > reserve my right to call him a dickhead who's doing more harm than > > good with this video. Without me being accused of being > > 'hornswoggled' or 'not getting it'. > > Yes Sir. Absolutely. Same to Gena, who commented earlier. I'm not > trying to make excuses for him or the effect he's had on people. It's > cruel as well as unfortunate. > > > And I still think the main reason he went through with it was to get > > a bigger audience, not to 'start a conversation' with any real > > benefits for the community. Whatever. I'm done. > > It's possible. I said in my post that I could be completely wrong > about the motivations behind this bullshit. It could be merely shock > & awe, designed to get him more viewers that love to live vicariously > through others that feel they can disrespect people and get away with it. > > -- > billcammack > http://reelsolid.tv > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.tv/ > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > On 5 Aug 2007, at 02:21, Bill Cammack wrote: > > If you take Loren Feldman at face value, having never seen his antics > > before and having no idea who he "hangs around with" in cyberspace, > > "Technigga" appears to be an idiotic video created by an idiot. > > > > In reality, Loren _started_a_conversation_ by sucessfully emulating > > someone who believes that's the only way the black TechCrunch could > > possibly be. He also emulated someone short-sighted enough (Kramer, > > anyone? <http://billcammack.com/2006/11/21/kramer-flips-out-d/>) to > > feel like he could "pop that kind of shit" without it having any > > effect whatsoever on his career. Ultimately, there are tons of posts > > on Loren's site dissing people. This wasn't the first time, and it's > > not going to be the last time. It's his niche. > > > > ..... > > > > What was more interesting to me than the video itself was the > > responses & non-responses from the videoblogging group. Loren started > > the conversation, I linked to it without context and people either > > wrote how they felt about it or wrote nothing at all, leaving opinions > > about their opinions to one's imagination. > > > > Having said that, I don't know anything about Loren Feldman other than > > what I've observed that's freely available on the net... a lot of > > which, I've linked to in this post. It's possible that I'm completely > > wrong. It's possible that he really thinks this stuff and his view of > > black people is that limited. However... > > > > I think you've all been Hornswoggled! :D > > > > -- > > billcammack > > http://reelsolid.tv > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
