For the record, a lot of African-Americans dislike, abhor and will not watch BET. It has not been "BET" since it was sold it to Sumner Redstone's Viacom. It was sliding downhill before the purchase.
Viacom has systematically stripped BET of its news and public affairs departments, the hours of faith based programming and anything else that did not include a 40oz and a gold chain. They amplify the stereotype. There are alternatives like TVOne http://www.tvoneonline.com and formerly the Black Family Channel which is making its transition to broadband distribution. This is why videoblogging and alternative media distribution is so important. And would Chris Rock need to insert a clip from a poontang clip to make his point? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was imagining the swath of video's comments if it was on YouTube. I > also imagined this video if Chris Rock did it. > > I also keep thinking about that "Read a Book" animated short that was > featured on BET some time ago that made the rounds. (NSFW, language, > etc, disclaim, disclaim, etc) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1767003 > > Do we allow ourselves to find something funny if we have the context > around it to imply that it's okay? "A black guy did it and BET > approves" for example, kinda says a lot. If a white guy did "Read a > Book"...? Holy crap. > > The other problem is the universal belief in what's acceptable or not. > Take two people, same race, opposing opinions on the word 'nigga' for > example. > > It's an awesome argument that can never be won or lost. > > ER > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Hope" <charles@> 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" <thejeffreytaylor@> > > 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 <BillCammack@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.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 > > >
