Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
WillyWonka said:
Walter, I watched your video in its entirety and I find your experience very enlightening.

First, you were uncertain to the relevance of your question on whether Rebecca was paid or not as a speaker. It is actually very relevant. They may not want to divulge the amount but from a conflict of interest stand point, the conference organizers must divulge that there are paid speakers. There is nothing wrong with having paid speakers but it needs to be disclosed.

On the misogynist issue, this is becoming more and more evident that they see any dissent as a conspiracy against them. I like your response to them blocking you.

I feel that the atheist community needs to take them to task at conferences as these radicals are damaging the atheist communities and make their work less relevant.
Click to expand...

I made a followup video that you can watch here. (NSFW language.)

As I said, the question of Watson's speaking would be of interest to financial contributors of the Florida Humanists where Watson spoke. What I didn't mention is that the Cat Lady's response was poor public relations. She is after all the president of the Humanists of Florida. But the lines are drawn. The schism is widening.

ETA: No sooner had I posted this than I found this cat dropping in the comments of the linked video.


MyCatsareMyGods 2 hours ago in playlist Uploaded videos

"I cruise the internet looking for mentions of my name?" How on earth could you know possibly know this? I never called you a "misogynist" and yes, you do need to get a *********** life. BTW, check your videos, YOU have potty mouth, yourself. lol That was a dig at you.
Click to expand...

My reply.

Are you making comments like this in your official capacity as president of the Florida Humanists? If so, you're flunking public relations 101. You seem to lead with your emotions rather than with your intellect. You're a public figure representing humanists and atheists and you're reflecting badly on the community. Try to act up to your role.
Click to expand...

Meet our glorious "leaders," folks. :(
 
Last edited:
Trigger warning tone troll

WillyWonka said:
Walter, I watched your video in its entirety
Click to expand...

As did I - but while I found it interesting, I would far prefer to read the same thing in text form which would have taken a quarter of the time and conveyed exactly the same information.
 
Walter Ego said:
I made a followup video that you can watch here. (NSFW language.)

As I said, the question of Watson's speaking would be of interest to financial contributors of the Florida Humanists where Watson spoke. What I didn't mention is that the Cat Lady's response was poor public relations. She is after all the president of the Humanists of Florida. But the lines are drawn. The schism is widening.
Click to expand...

I watch your video, and didn't realized that also a macho misogynist gay man. Lol.

I agree with you that she should not get a free pass as she represent the face of atheism, at least in Florida. As far as the religious right is concerned, FtB, and A+ are the gift who keep on giving.
 
westprog said:
As did I - but while I found it interesting, I would far prefer to read the same thing in text form which would have taken a quarter of the time and conveyed exactly the same information.
Click to expand...

Wasn't A+ working on some sort of video transcription thing ? :duck:
 
westprog said:
See this from 2.10 to 2.27,
Click to expand...

We interrupt your regularly scheduled view to bring you this piece of unsolicited tech support:

You tube allows you to link to a specific time in a clip

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjWGgWnd6Ec#t=2m10s

You can either add the #t=... bit yourself or you can pause the video at the appropriate point, right click on the clip and choose "Copy Video URL at current time" then paste in the clever address where needed.

We now return you to your scheduled argument. Thank you.
 
MykeruMedia





Atheist+............... Animal Farm.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Ocelot said:
We interrupt your regularly scheduled view to bring you this piece of unsolicited tech support:

You tube allows you to link to a specific time in a clip

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjWGgWnd6Ec#t=2m10s

You can either add the #t=... bit yourself or you can pause the video at the appropriate point, right click on the clip and choose "Copy Video URL at current time" then paste in the clever address where needed.

We now return you to your scheduled argument. Thank you.
Click to expand...

And there are people who say that JREF is a complete waste of time...
 
westprog said:
And there are people who say that JREF is a complete waste of time...
Click to expand...

Video is simply a medium of communication and as such like JREF may or may not be a waste of time. That would depend on the content of the video. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message. People (like me) make videos because they are fun to make and a chance to be creative. Watching them, like reading JREF, is optional.

That being said, can we return to the topic of this thread?
 
Walter Ego said:
Video is simply a medium of communication and as such like JREF may or may not be a waste of time. That would depend on the content of the video. Contra McLuhan, the medium is not the message. People (like me) make videos because they are fun to make and a chance to be creative. Watching them, like reading JREF, is optional.
Click to expand...

It's very simple - if the content of the video is only someone talking, then most of that content could be conveyed more concisely as text. There may be occasional exceptions, where the person involved has exceptional oratorical skills, but in general, it takes so much longer to listen to the same information that the time is less usefully spent.

There's something to be said for audio blogs which one could listen to in the car or while making dinner, when it's not possible to read something.

Text is an amazing medium. A handful of symbols on paper or screen can convey enormous amounts of information straight into the brain. It's random access - it's possible to sample the document and get an impression of it in only seconds - allowing one to decide whether to skip it or read further. It's such an astonishingly clever idea that we tend to undervalue it. Video blogs are jumping back thousands of years, to pre-literate humanity. A caveman who wanted to communicate an idea to someone ten miles away would have no better way of doing it than an image of himself talking.

That being said, can we return to the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...

I'm sure we can do so in time, but this is interesting too.
 
westprog said:
IVideo blogs are jumping back thousands of years, to pre-literate humanity. A caveman who wanted to communicate an idea to someone ten miles away would have no better way of doing it than an image of himself talking.
Click to expand...
Wow. I really like this. Thanks.

There is no question that youtube comments are "pre-literate humanity." Or maybe we're approaching "post-literate humanity?"
 
westprog said:
It's very simple - if the content of the video is only someone talking, then most of that content could be conveyed more concisely as text. There may be occasional exceptions, where the person involved has exceptional oratorical skills, but in general, it takes so much longer to listen to the same information that the time is less usefully spent.
Click to expand...


I somewhat disagree. One of the disadvantages of a text-based medium is that it can be hard to convey tone accurately. This is not the case with audio or video, however, especially when you can read body language and hear the tone of voice being used. Sarcasm, humor, and humility is often missed or mistaken when dealing with text only. For certain types of opinions and responses, I do think video is a strong medium.

For simply fact-based pieces though, I do prefer text.
 
Hokulele said:
I somewhat disagree. One of the disadvantages of a text-based medium is that it can be hard to convey tone accurately. This is not the case with audio or video, however, especially when you can read body language and hear the tone of voice being used. Sarcasm, humor, and humility is often missed or mistaken when dealing with text only. For certain types of opinions and responses, I do think video is a strong medium.

For simply fact-based pieces though, I do prefer text.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the inability of text to convey tone is an advantage - it's necessary to be clear as to what is meant. I'm happy enough with video as a performance medium, but as a means of conveying opinion, it loses far more than it gains.

It's almost a guarantee of disposability and impermanence. Because it can't be indexed or collected, unless converted to text, there's little chance that it will be referenced in the future.
 
westprog said:
Sometimes the inability of text to convey tone is an advantage - it's necessary to be clear as to what is meant. I'm happy enough with video as a performance medium, but as a means of conveying opinion, it loses far more than it gains.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, especially if the video is of someone giving a stream of consciousness and not a prepared piece.
It's almost a guarantee of disposability and impermanence. Because it can't be indexed or collected, unless converted to text, there's little chance that it will be referenced in the future.
Click to expand...

That may be changing. There is already technology (e.g. IDOL from Autonomy (now part of HP)) which can index audio and video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom