--- In [email protected], "Jeffrey Taylor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Charles, I respectfully disagree. Take a look at the links I posted, and
> you'll see racist-themed parties at US College and University
fraternities,
> which are typically dominated by white straight bourgeois males.
While there
> are many stripes to the white straight bourgeois (and perhaps I
should add
> middle America) male, this sort of behavior in its purest form acts as a
> verbal-visual confirmation that they are "one of us". Feldman,
consciously
> or unconsciously, was doing the same thing.
> 
> As for your second paragraph, there's a big difference between
racist humor
> and humor about race. Perhaps that's what people are saying when the
video
> is "lame" and not funny. Feldman's video isn't about anything but
> self-promotion, in my opinion, and his "lame" attempt at being funny
using
> hurtful racist stereotypes was his route. And this opinion comes from
> someone who enjoys South Park, Dave Chapelle, etc., because their
> questionable material at least tries to be about something more than the
> individual creators.
> 
> And to answer Bill: It wasn't the content itself that was
thought-provoking,
> it was the social context which this video validates, and not the
content
> itself, that was thought-provoking. 

Yes.  I agree.  Wired used this image
<http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/03/lfdlman.jpg> in
their interview post, and if they had added "the black TechCrunch" as
a caption, it would have had the exact same impact as Loren's 3-minute
video.

I've BEEN saying that the social reaction (and non-reaction) to this
video is MUCH more interesting to me than the actual video.  Anybody
can say or do something offensive.  There's no SKILL in offending
people. :D

> The fact that it has been out for a few
> days now with only ONE on-the-record public "condemnation" from Ariana
> Huffington – and only when she was asked directly by WIRED – is of more
> interest to me than the undeniable fact that these sorts of
conversations
> happen under our noses all the time.


uh huh.  See, I found out about it because of twitter.  UUUUUUUSUALLY,
when somebody I'm following posts something to twitter, it JUST
happened.  When I went to see what was going on, the video had already
been up for enough time to have A LOT OF COMMENTS on it.  So then I
wondered HOW a video like that passed under the radar.

There was ZERO mention of it on this group..... when just a couple of
weeks ago, there was a conversation about how Katharine Seelye of The
New York Times couldn't tell Zennie Abraham from Zennie Abraham
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/62863>. 
That was AN ERROR and it got a conversation, and then Loren Feldman
posts this premeditated video, complete with effects, costumes and
props, and there's not a fuckin' PEEP!

That's why I posted it here without context.  I know people saw it
before I found out about it on twitter.  I wanted to see what would
happen if I brought direct, unlabeled attention to it.

> And while Deirdre says this trolldom that needs ignoring, I also
disagree.
> If we as a community of user-generated content providers let
luminaries like
> Feldman get away with things like this, we end up with the same
traditional
> media bullshit run by the same traditional media douchebags
perpetuating the
> same untrue and counterproductive nonsense all over again.


Well, I don't know what she's talking about there. :)  I'm the one
that posted the link to Loren's video to this group.  I didn't even
post the link to his site... The link went directly to his video in
his blip feed.

--
billcammack
http://reelsolid.tv



> On 05/08/07, Charles Hope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   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]<thejeffreytaylor%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > 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]<BillCammack%40alum.mit.edu>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected]
<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Rupert <rupert@> 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
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to