Hello everybody - is it ok to post YouTube video links?

[john42t]

Hello guys,

I just signed in, my main objective is to attract Objectivist-leaning people to some ideas I articulate on YouTube, like my latest video, about

.

I know I could also just write articles and post them here or a different community platform, but I found the visual method to be more fun. As YouTube is a mixed forum, I'd like to post links to the videos when I think it's appropriate.

Do people here object to that or, if not, in what way (linked or embedded) and in which forum should this be done?

Thanks everybody and have a nice day,

John

PS: There's something wrong with the avatar photo mechanism, it always gives me an error when I try to change mine.

[sbeaulieu]

Hi John.

Normally, as a way of starting off in OL, we like to hear a little bit about the person coming into the forums. Your question would be akin to coming into a coffee shop and your first question is..."do you want to watch my movie?" Not that we aren't interested, mind you. But we like a handshake and a greeting before hand. Call it ice-breaking ;)

I'm sure once we know a bit about you and some things that steered you towards Objectivism, our collective of individuals (oxymoron?) would be more receptive. That's why as of this response, there are 50 views...

OL is this greatly architected bridge. We are the goats that frequent it. And there be trolls...

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

There's a way to expand your analogy, too. It's like showing up to a coffee shop where everybody is sitting around reading and drinking coffee and asking loudly if it is OK if you read while drinking a cup of coffee in the shop.

There's something not quite right with a request like that to everyone at large...

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Michael,

I'd be more wary of him if that was the way I perceived his request. Personally, I think he might be trolling O'ist forums to find people to boost his YouTube hits. But, I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt...

However, he only has one post dated two days ago.

I'll bet a $2 bill that it's a Rick Roll link...haha!

~ Shane

[sjw]

John,

The problem I have with the video method is that it doesn't let me determine the pacing, and it's hard to skip forward and backward. I'd prefer an article or a post.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I felt it was unfair of me to bash without looking, so I looked.

I sincerely tried to watch the video. I got bored after a few minutes (it's about 21.5 minutes long), so I skipped around a bit.

I couldn't get away from my aversion to the smug, "Let me enlighten you, you poor ignorant fool," attitude the speaker projected long enough to get a handle on what he was saying. The main sections are close-ups on his face. That's quite a snarky sneer he manages to produce with his upper lip (in a weirdly polite way).

He interspersed one section with a video of Glenn Beck, and another with Ann Coulter. He appears to think Beck is so afraid of the mainstream media that he waters down his message (heh). And I simply didn't understand his point about Ann Coulter. Something about Christian symbols or whatever.

I got the impression from some of his remarks that he found Ayn Rand lacking, also, but I swear, in light of all that smug-ass rambling, I don't really care.

The guy's trying, I guess. And doing some video. So Brownie points for that.

Not much else, though.

Michael

[sjw]

I didn't watch the video very far, but I don't see how he's earned any bashing.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't watch the video very far, but I don't see how he's earned any bashing.

Shayne,

Didn't look but didn't see?

Heh.

Michael

[sjw]

I think attacking him for his mannerisms is below the belt. Criticism should be about the ideas not the person or their mannerisms.

As an engineer I've bumped into plenty of "geek" types, some with some very odd mannerisms (e.g., not looking you in the eye but rather always staring at the floor), which are not only very difficult for them to correct but also beside the point. A friend might give helpful pointers about mannerisms, but I think it's not civil for strangers to rub someone's nose in them.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

I think attacking him for his mannerisms is below the belt. Criticism should be about the ideas not the person or their mannerisms.

As an engineer I've bumped into plenty of "geek" types, some with some very odd mannerisms (e.g., not looking you in the eye but rather always staring at the floor), which are not only very difficult for them to correct but also beside the point. A friend might give helpful pointers about mannerisms, but I think it's not civil for strangers to rub someone's nose in them.

Shayne

Sounds like my autistic brethren.

I was a super nerd when I was a kid and the term "nerd" had not even been invented. I was also a geek and a wierdo.

I did not find out until much later that I was a mutant.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You may know engineering, but you do not know about public communication.

Check your premises.

Do you imagine information is transmitted only verbally? If you think that, the written word is your best medium and that is where you should stay.

If someone wants to do video, he will get judged on his communications skills.

I know I will judge. Audio-visual communication exists. A is A.

Here's a quote from a more extensive post I recently made to clarify a bit more about execution:

Oral language uses only one element of written language: words. All too often, oral language is unconsciously taken to consist of words and little else. This causes us to neglect the expressive possibilities of its varied elements, which form the building blocks of how stories are told.

The key expressive tools of oral language include tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, posture, eye behaviors, and orientation in space.

But let's not stop there.

What is the purpose of a facial close-up? Do you know?

It is to show the eyes and other facial features in order to intensify the emotion of the speaker for the viewer. Faces are where emotion gets transmitted more than any other place. Look at how Hollywood does close-ups.

Within the context of YouTube, you use the facial close-up to express the following:

Just you and me, kid. Up close and personal. Here's my take on this thing.

If you do up close and personal and read an essay off a teleprompter, you are boring. Would you move your face close to your lover's face, insinuating that something important is coming, then read an article to her from a book over her shoulder? Would you expect her to respond favorably to that? Of course not.

Now, if you smirk while you do it at points where you appear to think you have trounced an argument, you are not only boring, you are obnoxious.

The First Commandment of video production:

Thou shalt not make videos that suck.

In fact, here's a great book I am studying for my own upcoming video productions (and, boy, am I glad I got this book, too): How To Shoot Video That Doesn't Suck by Steve Stockman.

And here's a great quote from that book (p. 20):

Your own experience is the same as everyone else's. It's painful to watch bad, boring video. Bad video takes your time and gives you nothing in return. And like anytime anyone steals from you, you quickly come to resent it. Whether that resentment causes you to click away (if you're alone) or start to hate your relative/employer/friend (if they're making you watch), the resentment is real and powerful. Watching video is a transactional experience, and if the video doesn't do it's part, you feel cheated.

You, yourself, said you did not watch this guy's video. You clicked away. Yet I have seen you post hour-long videos on OL from this person or that and recommend that people watch them. Talking-head videos.

Maybe there's a reason you watch some folks a long time, but couldn't get through this guy's measly 21.5 minutes, that goes beyond just the words coming out of the mouth...

Michael

[sjw]

Maybe there's a reason you watch some folks a long time, but couldn't get through this guy's measly 21.5 minutes, that goes beyond just the words coming out of the mouth...

I'm quite aware of why I would watch something or not, thank you very much. I am also aware of the value of production value, and wasn't trying to say he couldn't use some friendly advice. My only point is that I don't see why it makes sense to ignore the substance and spend all your time berating the man's unconsidered style.

This isn't "America's Got Talent" and you're not Simon Cowell.

Shayne

[john42t]

John,

The problem I have with the video method is that it doesn't let me determine the pacing, and it's hard to skip forward and backward. I'd prefer an article or a post.

Shayne

That's true - there are some upsides too though. I especially like the nature of YouTube itself - all ideologies are present there in one forum and if you quote people (in videos), audiences often know the other YouTubers. Objectivism is rather underrepresented though, at least on the topics I'm interested in.

In the vid I quoted I point to parallels between the (Christian - Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc.) Tea Party and a similar (secular) phenomenon in Germany. I believe there to be a reason why the American Christians are (curiously) largely in the role of being defenders of capitalism which has to do with the reformation (which is a heritage of both the US and Germany, only in Germany it has secularized away). My intention was to attract people to those ideas that I want to roll out more in the future.

Thanks for being nice, I'm out of here anyway - clearly I'm in the wrong place.

John

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My only point is that I don't see why it makes sense to ignore the substance and spend all your time berating the man's unconsidered style.

Shayne,

I suggest reading my post a little more clearly.

I did cover some of the substance. I said. outside of poor-ass presentation skills, the dude rambles, which made it difficult for me to pay attention to what bone he picks with Rand, makes weird points (for example, saying Beck is afraid to express himself), and does not make clear points (for example, that odd stuff about Coulter).

On another point, judging from your manners, I am absolutely sure you are unaware of why you favor many things over others. For instance, not once have you given a plausible reason why you signed off on seeing this dude's video without even knowing the substance, but you watch other similar ones (talking heads).

Just looking at it coldly, I think you are defensive because I said I don't like sneering and smirking on a countenance in extended close-up takes, and you do a lot of both in written form. These are characteristics that mark your written style.

You have to be aware that everyone responds to you like they do to someone who sneers and smirks all the time. They usually express this by complaining about your manners, calling you rude, etc. From reading your posts, though, I now expect you to get offended.

I say this without hostility. Simply observation. It's what I see.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks for being nice, I'm out of here anyway - clearly I'm in the wrong place.

John,

If you are seeking blind agreement, I agree with you. You will not find that here.

EDIT: If you don't think there is merit in my observations, keep an eye on your view count.

Michael

[Selene]

Fascinating.

I actually understood his video and I thought he had an interesting connection to the Christian support of capitalism in the US. However, since he will not be staying around, which I find incredibly effete and rude, I will have no opportunity to ask him about the marxist Christian churches in America which are growing arithmetically.

The black liberation theological efforts by the Reverend Wright types, the Father Pfleger*of Chicago types and the radical Latino churches have a completely marxist interpretation of Christ's message.

*A German American^[2] from the South Side of Chicago, Pfleger attended Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary South, Loyola University and the University of Saint Mary of the Lake. He was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Chicago on May 14, 1975. Since 1981, Pfleger has been pastor of the mostly African American parish of Saint Sabina, a Catholic church in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood. His uninterrupted tenure in just one parish is normally unheard of in a diocese where pastors usually serve for only six to eight years. When he was appointed to his present position, at the age of 31, he became the youngest pastor in the Chicago archdiocese.^[1] Under Pfleger's leadership, Saint Sabina has established an Employment Resource Center, a Social Service Center, and also an Elders home.

Adam

So much for open minded exploration

[john42t]

Thanks for being nice, I'm out of here anyway - clearly I'm in the wrong place.

John,

If you are seeking blind agreement, I agree with you. You will not find that here.

EDIT: If you don't think there is merit in my observations, keep an eye on your view count.

Michael

There's merit in all observations, hostile and friendly alike. And if it was anyone but the host of this forum I wouldn't have cared. But I can only deal with hostility by fighting back - I see no point in pissing on your lawn for the fun of it. If the rules allow me to behave the way you did I take no issue. Then again how does the criticism of not introducing myself in another fashion stacks up to not addressing me but rather talk about me in the third person right away from the first post? As in a coffee shop where a guy with leaflets is immediately attacked by the host for how tasteless they are designed - directed to his colleague. Are there any rules or do you want me to leave this forum? I don't mind either way. Just don't tell me what you did was constructive criticism. You don't seriously believe that good manners contribute to a high view count.

[john42t]

<p> </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Fascinating.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I actually understood his video and I thought he had an interesting connection to the Christian support of capitalism in the US. However, since he will not be staying around, which I find incredibly effete and rude, I will have no opportunity to ask him about the marxist Christian churches in America which are growing arithmetically.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

</p>

<div> </div>

<div>I'd not be the effete attention whore I am if I was to leave so soon - also, I didn't find a way to remove my account.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>My take on your question: Original, Catholic Christianity has been quasi-Marxist, and Marxist churches are growing and eventually Christianity will be what it once was and what Rand said it has to be (anti-freedom).</div>

<div> </div>

<div>But in the reformation John Calvin came up with a pro-individualist reinterpretation of the bible, which is actually fundamentally opposed to Christianity (that's what the fuss in the 30-year-long-war was about), that set the individual free for everyone who wanted to believe in it (mostly more virtuous people in the cold north of Europe, who are likely to have hated the leftist establishment). I believe that this brought man into modernity. Many secondary virtues have survived in Christians up until today although few of them were and are actually explicit Calvinists. The actual doctrine of the bible is now pushing them towards what they've been before, hence the effect you are describing.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>You see this pro-capitalist aspect only in countries that had a reformist past (population-wise, of course).</div>

<div> </div>

<div>So in effect I believe that it was religion that brought about reason and the enlightenment.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Or more precisely, a religious anomaly. Such anomalies are not stable as they can be attacked by atheists.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>There's much more to say, and maybe I write it down properly as well making a video later.</div>

<div> </div>

<div>But videos are such much more fun. I love the snarky sneers and smug-ass rambling so much.</div>

<div> </div>

[sjw]

Phil's probably laughing his head off right now.

And Michael, I have no reason to entertain your misguided criticisms of my style, any more than John does. And I find this elevation of style above content perverse.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are there any rules or do you want me to leave this forum? I don't mind either way.

John,

You are free to come and go as you please. Either way is fine for me.

If you are interested in rules, I suggest the posting guidelines.

I don't blame you for being miffed.

But from the tenor of your remarks, I don't expect you and I will get along too well.

I might be wrong, so I will hold my peace for now.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And I find this elevation of style above content perverse.

Shayne,

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Wrong presumption added to scorched-earth adjective presented with absolute certainty.

It is practically designed to get a rise and leave the realm of ideas altogether.

Michael

[sjw]

John, Michael has a light moderation touch, I wouldn't expect him to ban you for criticizing him unless you started getting obsessive about it. There are a few posters here who routinely toss in off-topic barbs at him and even they're not banned.

Shayne

[Selene]

Fascinating.

I actually understood his video and I thought he had an interesting connection to the Christian support of capitalism in the US. However, since he will not be staying around, which I find incredibly effete and rude, I will have no opportunity to ask him about the marxist Christian churches in America which are growing arithmetically.

I'd not be the effete attention whore I am if I was to leave so soon - also, I didn't find a way to remove my account.

My take on your question: Original, Catholic Christianity has been quasi-Marxist, and Marxist churches are growing and eventually Christianity will be what it once was and what Rand said it has to be (anti-freedom).

But in the reformation John Calvin came up with a pro-individualist reinterpretation of the bible, which is actually fundamentally opposed to Christianity (that's what the fuss in the 30-year-long-war was about), that set the individual free for everyone who wanted to believe in it (mostly more virtuous people in the cold north of Europe, who are likely to have hated the leftist establishment). I believe that this brought man into modernity. Many secondary virtues have survived in Christians up until today although few of them were and are actually explicit Calvinists. The actual doctrine of the bible is now pushing them towards what they've been before, hence the effect you are describing.

You see this pro-capitalist aspect only in countries that had a reformist past (population-wise, of course).

So in effect I believe that it was religion that brought about reason and the enlightenment.

Or more precisely, a religious anomaly. Such anomalies are not stable as they can be attacked by atheists.

There's much more to say, and maybe I write it down properly as well making a video later.

But videos are such much more fun. I love the snarky sneers and smug-ass rambling so much.

John:

Excellent. I withdraw my shot across your bow.

Essentially, the 30 year war, reformation, Calvin "individualism," work ethic and civil society did get transplanted to the US and was part of the enlightenment.

You should stick around. George [GHS] has spoken brilliantly about the effect of the Scottish enlightenment thinkers. I would enjoy seeing your

comments on his erudite expositions.

I take it from your diction that you are from the same area of non mainland Europe.

Adam

[john42t]

John:

Excellent. I withdraw my shot across your bow.

Essentially, the 30 year war, reformation, Calvin "individualism," work ethic and civil society did get transplanted to the US and was part of the enlightenment.

You should stick around. George [GHS] has spoken brilliantly about the effect of the Scottish enlightenment thinkers. I would enjoy seeing your

comments on his erudite expositions.

I take it from your diction that you are from the same area of non mainland Europe.

Adam

You have a link/title for George's material? I found his profile, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I'm German. And curious, what diction would be Scottish?

[Selene]

John:

Excellent. I withdraw my shot across your bow.

Essentially, the 30 year war, reformation, Calvin "individualism," work ethic and civil society did get transplanted to the US and was part of the enlightenment.

You should stick around. George [GHS] has spoken brilliantly about the effect of the Scottish enlightenment thinkers. I would enjoy seeing your

comments on his erudite expositions.

I take it from your diction that you are from the same area of non mainland Europe.

Adam

You have a link/title for George's material? I found his profile, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I'm German. And curious, what diction would be Scottish?

John:

Here is a start. I was thinking that you were British, but just chalk it off to colonial shallowness to Europe, but we did pretty well in those two (2) dust ups that took place over there in the 20 th century!

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11273&st=0&p=144285&hl=enlightenment&fromsearch=1entry144285