[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

They went into pretty great detail, at least they did here, And no, 
personaly I did not feel slighted, I love to learn and I wanted my 
kids to be the same wayI was more talking to the feeling that 
some conseritives have that 'everything else' is being taught...again 
for me, I say teach them allas I have said before the more we 
find out how alike we are the harder it is to focus on those things 
that make us different...  

Heath
http://batmangeek.com
http://heathparks.com

and ps David, thanks for the WP help so far...

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Both my kids had situations when being taught, I think it was in
> >  social studies where they had a couple of chapters on diversity 
and
> >  cultures and in that they were taught various thingsnow
> >  understand I am not saying I disagree with that, I thought it was
> >  great.  However, when it came to the varing religions, it 
was "most
> >  of the US considers themselves, christians" and that was about
> >  it...they spent far more time on other cultures, customs, 
etc...and
> >  again that could be because they thought, "why teach what you 
aleady
> >  know"
> 
> Fair enough. I guess I count "cultures, customs, etc" as a separate
> thing than religious teachings.  i.e.  I guess I personally wouldn't
> feel one religion is being slighted just because cultures from
> countries that aren't predominantly Christian were being read about
> ...  it's not like they're teaching those religions (are they)?
> 
> I suppose we were taught about other "cultures, customs, etc" when I
> was in school ... but I never felt I was gaining insight into any
> given faith or belief set ... and it was generally presented 'in
> contrast' to the cultures, customs, etc we have here at home.
> 
> - Dave
> 
> -- 
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[David Meade]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both my kids had situations when being taught, I think it was in
>  social studies where they had a couple of chapters on diversity and
>  cultures and in that they were taught various thingsnow
>  understand I am not saying I disagree with that, I thought it was
>  great.  However, when it came to the varing religions, it was "most
>  of the US considers themselves, christians" and that was about
>  it...they spent far more time on other cultures, customs, etc...and
>  again that could be because they thought, "why teach what you aleady
>  know"

Fair enough. I guess I count "cultures, customs, etc" as a separate
thing than religious teachings.  i.e.  I guess I personally wouldn't
feel one religion is being slighted just because cultures from
countries that aren't predominantly Christian were being read about
...  it's not like they're teaching those religions (are they)?

I suppose we were taught about other "cultures, customs, etc" when I
was in school ... but I never felt I was gaining insight into any
given faith or belief set ... and it was generally presented 'in
contrast' to the cultures, customs, etc we have here at home.

- Dave

-- 
http://www.DavidMeade.com

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

Both my kids had situations when being taught, I think it was in 
social studies where they had a couple of chapters on diversity and 
cultures and in that they were taught various thingsnow 
understand I am not saying I disagree with that, I thought it was 
great.  However, when it came to the varing religions, it was "most 
of the US considers themselves, christians" and that was about 
it...they spent far more time on other cultures, customs, etc...and 
again that could be because they thought, "why teach what you aleady 
know"

Heath...

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  Then why do so many schools talk about and teach on other 
cultures
> >  and beliefs including their religious practice's but so very 
often
> >  gloss over Christianaty? or they don't even talk about it at all.
> 
> I don't know it its fair to claim public schools are out there
> teaching other religions and not Christianity ...
> 
> I may not have been a model student ... but I cannot recall *even 
one
> single day* of school (prior to University) where any
> teacher/staffer/etc (in the public schools I went to) *even 
mentioned*
> a major religion other than Christianity except in passing.  "The
> predominant religion in country X is Y" is about as far as it ever
> got.  Meanwhile Christianity was everywhere - which is perhaps a
> forgivable double-standard since it's significant in studies of
> "American History" 
> 
> But even when studying WWII (where the topic of Jewish faith
> reasonably comes up ALOT) nobody ever taught ABOUT the Jewish faith
> ... just that it (whatever it was) had been horrifically persecuted.
> 
> Do you really see American public schools out there expounding on 
*the
> teachings* of The Buddha or Islam?  I certainly don't see that
> (disclosure: I don't have kids), nor do I remember it happening 
while
> I was in school in any way shape or form ... I wish they had ... 
there
> might actually be more tolerance in the world if that were the case.
> 
> 
> - Dave
> 
> -- 
> http://www.DavidMeade.com
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[David Meade]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Then why do so many schools talk about and teach on other cultures
>  and beliefs including their religious practice's but so very often
>  gloss over Christianaty? or they don't even talk about it at all.

I don't know it its fair to claim public schools are out there
teaching other religions and not Christianity ...

I may not have been a model student ... but I cannot recall *even one
single day* of school (prior to University) where any
teacher/staffer/etc (in the public schools I went to) *even mentioned*
a major religion other than Christianity except in passing.  "The
predominant religion in country X is Y" is about as far as it ever
got.  Meanwhile Christianity was everywhere - which is perhaps a
forgivable double-standard since it's significant in studies of
"American History" 

But even when studying WWII (where the topic of Jewish faith
reasonably comes up ALOT) nobody ever taught ABOUT the Jewish faith
... just that it (whatever it was) had been horrifically persecuted.

Do you really see American public schools out there expounding on *the
teachings* of The Buddha or Islam?  I certainly don't see that
(disclosure: I don't have kids), nor do I remember it happening while
I was in school in any way shape or form ... I wish they had ... there
might actually be more tolerance in the world if that were the case.


- Dave

-- 
http://www.DavidMeade.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Timelord128]

In a message dated 20/03/2008 21:51:12 GMT  Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nazi is short for the German  phrase for "National Socialist" --
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche  Arbeiterpartei.  Nazism is a form of
Socialism.  And since  Socialism is left wing, it follows that Nazism
is left wing.

Fascism  is a form of Socialism.  (And thus it follows Fascism is left wing.) 
 



No, Fascism is not a form of Socialism.  It was created in opposition  to 
Socialism.
 
In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the "Fasci Italiani di Combattimento",  
which formed armed squads called the Blackshirts, to attack anarchists,  
socialists and communists.  Therefore, Fasicsm is politically right wing,  not 
left 
wing.
 
Ian B
 
Viewpoint
http://cityprod.blogspot.com/



   

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Deirdre Straughan]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Then why do so many schools talk about and teach on other cultures
> and beliefs including their religious practice's but so very often
> gloss over Christianaty? or they don't even talk about it at all.
>



Probably because Christianity is the dominant religion so it's assumed - not
necessarily correctly - that everyone already knows all about it. It's hard
to be raised in the US without being aware of at least the basics of
Christianity, whereas Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are far less
understood, which leads to travesties like a Sikh getting shot for wearing a
turban because some idiot mistook him for a "Muslim" terrorist.

-- 
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan

living & travelling in Italy
(and other Countries Beginning with I)
www.beginningwithi.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

I think that is part of the problem, that already happens.  If we are 
to have any hope of having a conversation it will require people on 
both sides to get away from "seeing" things from only their point of 
view.  It's hard, emotions play a part as well.but I believe that 
it can be done..

Heath

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Brook Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> I think a slightly modified version of Scoop Nisker's "If you don't 
like the
> news go out and make some of your own" applies here.
> ___
> Brook Hinton
> film/video/audio art
> www.brookhinton.com
> studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Brook Hinton]

I think a slightly modified version of Scoop Nisker's "If you don't like the
news go out and make some of your own" applies here.
___
Brook Hinton
film/video/audio art
www.brookhinton.com
studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[brogan_kerry]

Hey all-
   Let me start off by saying I certainly wouldn't call myself and evangelical 
Christian.  No 
hard feelings towards Jay.  He's great and he and Ryanne have been a big 
encouragement 
to me since I started videoblogging. 

 I do occasionally make videos about belief or exploring aspects of it.  There 
are plenty of 
videobloggers that do this and I think it would be fair to call Christians.  
Someone said 
earlier in the thread that you often find this out after watching someone's 
vlog for awhile. I 
agree. 

I don't know why conservative evangelicals are not videoblogging. I fear saying 
that it is 
because that are not willing to discuss what others believe and take part in 
active dialogue.

Like Jay, I think it would be cool to see more people videoblogging about faith 
but not just 
evangelicals. I'd like to see Buddhists, Muslimsetc.  

Kerry
www.last-word.blogspot.com




--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> because for for most communities outside of North America tolerance is  
> probably understood and experienced to be something that is largely  
> free of religion, I live in what I regard as a (sometimes) tolerant  
> society, and religion plays quite a small role over all. An important  
> one, but quite small, and compared to the United States experience  
> pretty much trivial. so for me a tolerant community certainly allows  
> the expression of religious expression, but being Australian I think  
> I'm pretty cool about anyone doing anything until they get dogmatic  
> about it. Then we pretty much tell 'em to piss off.  :-)
> 
> But religious tolerance here I think is minor compared to issues  
> around gender, multiculturalism, and aboriginality.
> 
> On 23/03/2008, at 4:48 AM, terry.rendon wrote:
> > Fair enough. I also finding hypocritical that groups that claim to be
> > for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
> > religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.
> >
> 
> 
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bachelor communication honours coordinator
> vogmae.net.au
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Chris]

> Then why do so many schools talk about and teach on other cultures 
> and beliefs including their religious practice's but so very often 
> gloss over Christianaty? or they don't even talk about it at all.

If that's the case, I agree with you, Heath. If a class is talking
about religions in an academic sense, sure, discuss all the major ones.

> It states it won't establish a state sponsered religion like the one, 
> most were fleeing.I say teach them all, it's history, it helps 
> with diversity.but what do I know...

You and I are in 100% agreement, Heath. Who says the faithful and the
faithless can't get along?  ;)

Chris
http://www.myspace.com/necropol


http://penelopespantyhose.com
http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Jay dedman]

By the way, we do have 2 active videobloggers in this group who are
also evangelical christians.
I always enjoy their work because they ask questions and are open to dialogue.
(they also make good videos)

Dennis:
http://ymimexico.youthministrytv.com/2007/12/06/church-and-state-part-1/
http://ymimexico.youthministrytv.com/vlog/2008/02/28/moments-in-louisville/

Kerry:
http://last-word.blogspot.com/2008/01/belief-3.html

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Jay dedman]

>  Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be
>  for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
>  religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.

I think its a cycle of hypocrisy all around. Do we really want to hear each
other or just WIN.
The issue isn't religious freedom. Everyone can worship as they want.
The problem comes when certain religious beliefs are injected into politics,
official public policy, the Supreme court, and even attempts to rewrite the
Constitution. Suddenly its no longer about a person's freedom of expression.
It's actually the opposite: taking freedom away.

Again, I would love for US Conservatives and Evangelicals to get out of
their echo chamber and start having conversations.
If so, here are the facts they would need to be willing to face as many
Amercians see it.
Below are links to video and audio stories that provide great examples of
where the rage comes from.
It'll take an investment of time to watch these, but would be worth your
time if you are truly interested in coming to an understanding.

*The Power of Nightmares:*
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
A 3-part documentary from the BBC that examines the history of how the
neoconservatives teamed up with evangelical leaders to take over the
Republican party and begin nation building.

*Judgement Day*
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Tells the 2005 story of
trialin
Dover, Pennsylvania where evangelicals tried to get the christian
conception of Creationism into official school curriculum. Whatever you may
believe, find out if you agree with the tactics used by foremost church
leaders to change how kids are taught.

*Shouting Across the Divide*
http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=322(its the first 20
minutes)
An audio story about what happens when a public school teacher and her
administrators officially start teaching christianity in the classroom.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Jay dedman]

>  Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be
>  for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
>  religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.

I think its a cycle of hypocrisy all around. Do we really want to hear each
other or just WIN.
The issue isn't religious freedom. Everyone can worship as they want.
The problem comes when certain religious beliefs are injected into politics,
official public policy, the Supreme court, and even attempts to rewrite the
Constitution. Suddenly its no longer about a person's freedom of expression.
It's actually the opposite: taking freedom away.

Again, I would love for US Conservatives and Evangelicals to get out of
their echo chamber and start having conversations.
If so, here are the facts they would need to be willing to face as many
Amercians see it.
Below are links to video and audio stories that provide great examples of
where the rage comes from.
It'll take an investment of time to watch these, but would be worth your
time if you are truly interested in coming to an understanding.

*The Power of Nightmares:*
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
A 3-part documentary from the BBC that examines the history of how the
neoconservatives teamed up with evangelical leaders to take over the
Republican party and begin nation building.

*Judgement Day*
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Tells the 2005 story of
trialin
Dover, Pennsylvania where evangelicals tried to get the christian
conception of Creationism into official school curriculum. Whatever you may
believe, find out if you agree with the tactics used by foremost church
leaders to change how kids are taught.

*Shouting Across the Divide*
http://thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=322(its the first 20
minutes)
An audio story about what happens when a public school teacher and her
administrators officially start teaching christianity in the classroom.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> For instance, standing up for the separation of church and state
> guaranteed by the First Amendment isn't in any way an attack on
> people's religions but is often sold as such by religious leaders.

Then why do so many schools talk about and teach on other cultures 
and beliefs including their religious practice's but so very often 
gloss over Christianaty? or they don't even talk about it at all.

And as to the seperation of church and state

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

It states it won't establish a state sponsered religion like the one, 
most were fleeing.I say teach them all, it's history, it helps 
with diversity.but what do I know...

Heath
> Chris
> http://www.myspace.com/necropol
> 
> 
> Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster.
> http://penelopespantyhose.com
> http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

Well, that certainly explains a lot..

Heath


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, a common misconception.
> 
> Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their
> beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say
> which is the true religion.  On the other hand, because I'm not
> religious I can criticize religion as much as I want.
> 
> For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a)
> theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b)
> there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true.  
That's
> perfectly ok.  Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their
> astrological beliefs is just being an idiot.  However if I have my 
own
> set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off
> from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) 
my
> beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more
> accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my
> irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat
> others the same.
> 
> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
> intellectually stimulating conversation.  Not an intolerant attack.
> It all depends on what you base your beliefs.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.
> >
> >  Heath
> >
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >   wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably 
means
> >  > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If
> >  > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset 
about
> >  > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't
> >  speak
> >  > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from 
a
> >  human
> >  > rights and diversity perspective.
> >  >
> >  > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the
> >  internet.
> >  >
> >  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon 
> >
> >  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Patrick,
> >  > >
> >  > > What does it say about the online video community that we 
can't
> >  talk
> >  > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said
> >  and that
> >  > > certain groups need to create niches because of it?
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >  > >  wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > >
> >  > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to
> >  think a
> >  > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is
> >  right.
> >  > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However 
those
> >  > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of
> >  terrible
> >  > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves 
no
> >  longer
> >  > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is 
a two
> >  > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves
> >  Democrats.
> >  > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have 
republican
> >  values,
> >  > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and
> >  they may
> >  > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't 
like
> >  the
> >  > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the
> >  party has
> >  > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many 
young
> >  > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican 
ideology.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort
> >  zone or an
> >  > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their 
interest. As
> >  a gay
> >  > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube
> >  category)
> >  > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar
> >  situation
> >  > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a
> >  youtube
> >  > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as
> >  popular.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for 
Chris
> >  > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each 
of
> >  his
> >  > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless for 
wanting to
> >  do the
> >  > > > same thing. Even if they are terrible at writing foreign
> >  policy and
> >  > > > there's no such thing as god. ...oops
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
> >  > > >  wrote:
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > Hello,
> >  > >
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Adrian Miles]

because for for most communities outside of North America tolerance is  
probably understood and experienced to be something that is largely  
free of religion, I live in what I regard as a (sometimes) tolerant  
society, and religion plays quite a small role over all. An important  
one, but quite small, and compared to the United States experience  
pretty much trivial. so for me a tolerant community certainly allows  
the expression of religious expression, but being Australian I think  
I'm pretty cool about anyone doing anything until they get dogmatic  
about it. Then we pretty much tell 'em to piss off.  :-)

But religious tolerance here I think is minor compared to issues  
around gender, multiculturalism, and aboriginality.

On 23/03/2008, at 4:48 AM, terry.rendon wrote:
> Fair enough. I also finding hypocritical that groups that claim to be
> for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
> religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.
>


cheers
Adrian Miles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bachelor communication honours coordinator
vogmae.net.au

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Chris]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be
> for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
> religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.

I'm admittedly biased, but I think that kind of intolerance is rarer.

I think a certain segment of extremely religious folk incorrectly
perceive opposition to their views as attacks on their respective
religions and their rights to practice them.

For instance, standing up for the separation of church and state
guaranteed by the First Amendment isn't in any way an attack on
people's religions but is often sold as such by religious leaders.

Anyway, like others here, I'm of the opinion that if certain groups
feel underrepresented on YouTube, the quickest remedy is for them to
start posting there in large numbers. And be willing to take their
lumps if significant numbers post opposing viewpoints.

Chris
http://www.myspace.com/necropol


Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster.
http://penelopespantyhose.com
http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[terry.rendon]

> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when
> religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch
> vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their
> own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence.


Fair enough. I also find it hypocritical that groups that claim to be
for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.

Terry Rendon



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their
> > beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I
> > think here in America there are many people who are critical of
> > religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between
> > criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs.
> 
> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when
> religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch
> vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their
> own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence.
> 
> Chris
> http://www.myspace.com/necropol
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster.
> http://www.penelopespantyhose.com
> http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[terry.rendon]

> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when
> religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch
> vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their
> own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence.


Fair enough. I also finding hypocritical that groups that claim to be
for tolerance but seem to have zero tolerance when it comes to
religious expression and speech and cry foul every turn.

Terry Rendon
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon"
>  wrote:
> >
> > I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their
> > beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I
> > think here in America there are many people who are critical of
> > religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between
> > criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs.
> 
> True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when
> religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch
> vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their
> own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence.
> 
> Chris
> http://www.myspace.com/necropol
> 
> 
> 
> Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster.
> http://www.penelopespantyhose.com
> http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com
>

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Chris]

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "terry.rendon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their
> beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I
> think here in America there are many people who are critical of
> religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between
> criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs.

True enough. But it doesn't make it any less hypocritical when
religion is used as an ivory tower from which people can launch
vicious attacks at other groups but then cry "intolerance" when their
own group is attacked. And that is a fairly frequent occurrence.

Chris
http://www.myspace.com/necropol



Penelope can run... but her stockings run faster.
http://www.penelopespantyhose.com
http://penelopespantyhose.blogspot.com

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Gena]

In regards to your question about 3rd party candidates the answer if
simple. They do not make collective use of the opportunity they have
to get their viewpoints across. They do not vlog.

I was doing some kind of research, I think around the time of
Pixeloden. I truly wanted to find Libertarian, Peace and Freedom or
other political party videos either by the parties themselves or their
supporters.

To make sure I found groups I didn't know about I found a list of
American political parties. It was extremely difficult. I came up with
maybe three videos and the quality was so poor I couldn't use it. 

Not from the John Birch party, not from the Green party.  M$M has no
financial interest in representing parties that do not contribute to
their bottom line. That is why the League of Women voters were
systematically eased out of their long term roll of presenting debates
with candidate from more than the RepDems.  The RepDems wanted control
over the process.  That is why the debates suck big time. 

The tools are there for everybody to use. Party supporters need to be
educated on how to use them, I am all for that. Maybe that is a form
of outreach vloggers ought to consider.

Has Ralphie taken the time to post a video explaining why he is
running *and* engage viewers in a dialog about what he feels is
missing from the current process?

Nothing and no one is stopping him from doing that.  He won't. Not his
style. Now maybe he shouldn't do it on YouTube but he has that option.

Gena
http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com

  
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> your religious and political beliefs need not disrupt one from posting a
> video having nothing at all to do with religion nor politics.  likewise,
> their is no need to blatantly announce your beliefs.   so in this
respect,
> you can imagine how many people may be this or that without most
knowing.
> over time, if you continue to consume ones vlog or show, you might
conclude
> where they generally stand on issues.  or not.  this accounts for some
> percentage of unknowns.
> 
> One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite
> > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe
> > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of
> > a Democratic candidate.
> 
> 
> i wont contest that and it's def safe for me to assume.  aside from the
> usual suspects of age/demographic etc... you can sprinkle in some
general
> disgust with the Bush years.  it's an embarrassment.  then sprinkle
in the
> celebrity that is Clinton and Obama and the pursuit of being the
first
> respectively.
> 
> Online Video caters to all candidates.  The supporting audience on sites
> like Youtube will be heavier on the dems side for all the aforementioned
> reasons and more.
> 
> But as we see with the Spitzer drama, nobody is protected from
criticism and
> abuse when it is so very deserved.
> 
> The real question for me and I WISH for many others would be Why
can't
> our 3rd party candidates get the respect, attention and
consideration that
> is so readily handed over to the Democrats and Republicans... when
both of
> those parties are broken and have been for a long time.  In other
words, In
> a country where a guy like Nader gets trashed by the msm and the general
> public (mostly brainwashed by the msm) and of course by both of the big
> parties.  Maybe a more viable video site that makes sense is the one for
> true independents.
> A Bull Moose Revival, if you will.
> 
> Although the idea of talking about this only in respect to "video" seems
> wrong.  Why is video a different beast?  This bleeds into
everything.  Where
> you work, within your family and friend circles, on any community
website
> etc.  Politics is a sensitive subject even it it's mostly built on
> bullshit.
> 
> sull
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >   Ok, I know I'm probably going to take a lot of heat for saying this
> > but I'm just going to do it.
> >
> > This has been a particularly politically active year. Everyone is
> > speaking their mind about this presidential election and that is
> > great! One of thing I've noticed while following some of my favorite
> > video bloggers on Twitter, Flickr, etc, it seems that most subscribe
> > to a particular political ideology. Basically, most are supportive of
> > a Democratic candidate.
> >
> > Recently, I found out about a Web site called Eyeblast.tv. It's a
> > conservative response to Youtube. I know some will say why do
> > conservatives need to separate themselves and create their own video
> > platform. Perhaps, the question should be "Why would they do such a
> > thing?" Maybe, it is a symptom of not being welcomed in the video
> > blogging community. The same could be said about Godtube. Perhaps it's
> > not Christians wanting to separate themselves but perhaps a feeling of
> > not being welcomed in the online vi

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[terry.rendon]

> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
> intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack.
> It all depends on what you base your beliefs.

I think you are assuming that religious people don't like their
beliefs criticized. I'm often critical of my own faith beliefs. I
think here in America there are many people who are critical of
religion. However, I still believe there's a difference between
criticism and demeaning and attacking someone's beliefs. 


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ah, a common misconception.
> 
> Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their
> beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say
> which is the true religion.  On the other hand, because I'm not
> religious I can criticize religion as much as I want.
> 
> For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a)
> theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b)
> there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true.  That's
> perfectly ok.  Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their
> astrological beliefs is just being an idiot.  However if I have my own
> set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off
> from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my
> beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more
> accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my
> irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat
> others the same.
> 
> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
> intellectually stimulating conversation.  Not an intolerant attack.
> It all depends on what you base your beliefs.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.
> >
> >  Heath
> >
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >   wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably
means
> >  > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If
> >  > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about
> >  > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't
> >  speak
> >  > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a
> >  human
> >  > rights and diversity perspective.
> >  >
> >  > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the
> >  internet.
> >  >
> >  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon 
> >
> >  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Patrick,
> >  > >
> >  > > What does it say about the online video community that we can't
> >  talk
> >  > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said
> >  and that
> >  > > certain groups need to create niches because of it?
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >  > >  wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > >
> >  > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to
> >  think a
> >  > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is
> >  right.
> >  > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those
> >  > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of
> >  terrible
> >  > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no
> >  longer
> >  > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two
> >  > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves
> >  Democrats.
> >  > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican
> >  values,
> >  > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and
> >  they may
> >  > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like
> >  the
> >  > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the
> >  party has
> >  > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young
> >  > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort
> >  zone or an
> >  > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As
> >  a gay
> >  > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube
> >  category)
> >  > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar
> >  situation
> >  > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a
> >  youtube
> >  > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as
> >  popular.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris
> >  > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of
> >  his
> >  > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless f

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Sull]

>
> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
> intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack.
> It all depends on what you base your beliefs.


Cheers!  To backbones and and alcohol!

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Delongchamp <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Ah, a common misconception.
>
> Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their
> beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say
> which is the true religion. On the other hand, because I'm not
> religious I can criticize religion as much as I want.
>
> For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a)
> theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b)
> there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true. That's
> perfectly ok. Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their
> astrological beliefs is just being an idiot. However if I have my own
> set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off
> from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my
> beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more
> accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my
> irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat
> others the same.
>
> If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
> intellectually stimulating conversation. Not an intolerant attack.
> It all depends on what you base your beliefs.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Patrick Delongchamp]

Ah, a common misconception.

Respect is only afforded *between* religious groups because their
beliefs are all based on unreliable evidence and neither one can say
which is the true religion.  On the other hand, because I'm not
religious I can criticize religion as much as I want.

For example, I can criticize astrology as much as i want because a)
theres no reason to believe it's true in the first place and b)
there's evidence to show that it's almost certainly not true.  That's
perfectly ok.  Anyone telling you that I should be respecting their
astrological beliefs is just being an idiot.  However if I have my own
set of astrological beliefs, it's only then that I should hold off
from criticizing a different astrological belief system because a) my
beliefs aren't based on evidence so I can't argue that mine are more
accurate (or true at all) and b) i want to be able to hold my
irrational beliefs without being attacked so I should probably treat
others the same.

If someone were to question my beliefs I would probably call it an
intellectually stimulating conversation.  Not an intolerant attack.
It all depends on what you base your beliefs.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.
>
>  Heath
>
>
>  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means
>  > the online video community is rational and intelligent. If
>  > republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about
>  > the actions of the current republican party. and if gays can't
>  speak
>  > freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a
>  human
>  > rights and diversity perspective.
>  >
>  > or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the
>  internet.
>  >
>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>  wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Patrick,
>  > >
>  > > What does it say about the online video community that we can't
>  talk
>  > > about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said
>  and that
>  > > certain groups need to create niches because of it?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
>  > >  wrote:
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to
>  think a
>  > > > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is
>  right.
>  > > > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those
>  > > > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of
>  terrible
>  > > > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no
>  longer
>  > > > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two
>  > > > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves
>  Democrats.
>  > > > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican
>  values,
>  > > > it's that they don't have corrupt values.
>  > > >
>  > > > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and
>  they may
>  > > > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like
>  the
>  > > > current republican representatives. In the future, once the
>  party has
>  > > > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young
>  > > > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology.
>  > > >
>  > > > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort
>  zone or an
>  > > > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As
>  a gay
>  > > > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube
>  category)
>  > > > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar
>  situation
>  > > > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a
>  youtube
>  > > > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as
>  popular.
>  > > >
>  > > > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris
>  > > > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of
>  his
>  > > > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site.
>  > > >
>  > > > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless for wanting to
>  do the
>  > > > same thing. Even if they are terrible at writing foreign
>  policy and
>  > > > there's no such thing as god. ...oops
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
>  > > >  wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Hello,
>  > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Steve Watkins 
>  wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > > [...]
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > Given that some conservatives see a huge liberal/leftie
>  bias in the
>  > > > > > media, even though thats not necessarily so, it seems
>  quite likely
>  > > > > > that youtube looks like 'the communists are coming' to
>  them.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > That's actually a good poin

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Adrian Miles]

I would have thought this extended way beyond the video blogging  
community and could reasonably be asked of the community in general,  
where the video community is a smaller mirror of the larger one.

On the other hand you're using community to equal audience, I think  
the video community (and most other communities) can be reasonably  
tolerant (but never as tolerant as they like to think) whereas the  
video blog audience is an entirely different beast. And if you're  
doing this to aggrandise audience, you get what you ask for IMHO. :-)


On 21/03/2008, at 8:19 AM, terry.rendon wrote:
> But what does that say about that online video community that
> particular groups of people feel the need to create niches because
> people can't talk about politics, religion, homosexuality, etc.
> without vile things being said?


cheers
Adrian Miles
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bachelor communication honours coordinator
vogmae.net.au

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Deirdre Straughan]

There is the demographic factor that Terry originally brought up: younger
people tend to be both more comfortable with technology (though there are
huge exceptions) and more "liberal" in their political/social views (again,
with exceptions). This probably accounts for a lot of the skew on YouTube
etc. Letters to newspapers, on the other hand, are mostly written by older
people.

Videoblogging is not as widely understood as we in this group might imagine.
I'm doing videoblogging (among many other things) for Sun Microsystems now -
a company which is certainly very technically savvy - and have a lot to do
in educating my colleagues on how they can shoot their own video and get it
online cheaply and quickly. So you can imagine how daunting it can seem to
someone who is not much of a technology user.

If you truly want to hear a variety of voices (and I know that Jay very
sincerely does), the efforts many in this group have made to teach others
continue to be very important.

Jan, thanks for the mic advice - works great!

-- 
best regards,
Deirdré Straughan

living & travelling in Italy
(and other Countries Beginning with I)
www.beginningwithi.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Jay dedman]

>  That's a good question. To be honest I really don't know how.

yeah, ive asked my other evangelical/conservative friends the same thing.
never gotten a good answer.
There's nothing stopping them.
Looking at that community's power structure, it seems very top down though.

>  I think both groups, religious groups and conservatives, for some
>  reason don't seem to effectively use film media. Of course there are
>  exceptions to my generalization. It would be pure speculation to why
>  that is.

I have my own speculation as well.
I honestly wonder if they are going through a lot of inner turmoil.
I tried a thought experiment the other day where I tried to think of
some good things the Bush administration has brought the past 8 years.
really just looking at the facts.
Im sure its easy to see why someone who voted for Bush would feel like
they always needed to defend their beliefs.
Its been a tough tough time for all of us.

Again, id love to bring more evangelicals and conservatives into the
conversation.
the ball is in their court.

Jay

-- 
http://jaydedman.com
917 371 6790

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[terry.rendon]

> So do you have any suggestions on how to get Evangelicals and
> conservatives to videoblog?
> 
> Jay

That's a good question. To be honest I really don't know how. 

I think both groups, religious groups and conservatives, for some
reason don't seem to effectively use film media. Of course there are
exceptions to my generalization. It would be pure speculation to why
that is. 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[David Meade]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Patrick Delongchamp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The U.S. is very polarized at the moment.  Americans like to think a 
> Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is right.

I don't think that's quite right.  Democratic Americans like to think
that - the other half of the population might disagree. :-P

A fairer statement might be
"The U.S. is very polarized at the moment.  Americans like to think
one party is wrong and the other is right."

And more specifically ... I think what Terry is trying to point out is
that currently much of the US is SO polarized that they have equated
"someone who disagrees with me" to "someone who is EVIL".

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:19 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  But what does that say about that online video community that
>  particular groups of people feel the need to create niches because
>  people can't talk about politics, religion, homosexuality, etc.
>  without vile things being said?

You could look at it like that or, you could look at it in the
opposite way.  Whats to say vile (but uncontested) things aren't being
said in the niche community?  "Vile" is subjective.

I mean, what does it say about a given niche that whatever they have
to say about politics, religion, homosexuality, etc. is so contrary to
the mainstream they don't feel comfortable saying it in mainstream
groups?  I think this is what Steve was getting at with his 'not
wanting to be confronted' bit.

Homosexuality is a good example ... I've seen conservatives say they
can't discuss it without getting attacked ... but what they fail to
realize (or perhaps accept) is that when they START the "conversation"
with the heavily published, polarized, assertion that homosexuals are
deviants going straight to hell and that we need to alter the
Constitution to prevent them from marrying one another else their
sinful deviant ways will ruin the country ... well some see that as
drawing first blood in any 'conversation'.  Person A calls it
attacking, Person B calls it responding to an attack.

Anyway, I digress   I totally get what you're saying Terry,
YouTube etc is full of folks not interested in civil discussion and
debate of contentious issues ... I just don't think this divide can be
blamed on the 'general' online video community.  Most of the country
is that way now-a-days ... so polarized they see no reason to
honestly/actually *discuss* anything - it's all black and white to
them now.  If they were to give actual (two-way) communication a shot
... they likely just find themselves talking to someone who still
isn't willing to see past labels like which party they've voted for in
the past and the whole experiment will end in one person screaming
"Communist!" and the other screaming "Fascist!" and both walking away
convinced the other is not just wrong ... but also evil.

Will these emerging niche communities be any more accepting of
altering opinions than YouTube is whenever a contentious issue pops up
there?  It will probably will vary greatly on any given niche
community site .. but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

- Dave

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Steve Watkins]

Or to put it another way, this is a disagreement about how humans may
organize themselves in the absence of authoritarian control.

I tend to think that neither way has much chance of coming into being,
because the vast majority of people would need to agree and be united
behind one non-authoritarian way of doing things. Otherwise
authoritarian tendencies will creep in, in order that the chosen
system of organising be imposed on those who believe in the other.

So maybe thats why it then becomes tempting to believe that our
personal preference for how humans & the economy organise, is the
'natural way', or 'human nature', and so it would spontaneously happen
if only those cursed forces of authoritarian communism, socialism,
fascism or capitalism would cease.

One man may dream of worker-owned co-operatives, another of free
market heaven, but both will remain dreams and the moment someone
tries to make them real, the old horrors of authoritarianism are
unleashed.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So yeah I tend to believe this is a bit of an argument over the claim
> to be the ideological opposite, and attractive solution to, the
> problems of big government and authoritarianism. What sets us apart is
> economic beliefs. We are unlikely to see eye to eye because I think
> the Austrian school and free market stuff is unworkable and wrong,
> whereas you possibly think all alternatives are authoritarian and
> socialist or communist. In this sense we hardly believe eachothers
> positions really exist at all. One thing is for sure, candidates
> supporting either of these stances are not usually available in
> elections or acknowledged as existing in the media.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve Elbows
> 

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Steve Watkins]

Thanks for the response :)

Regarding fascism, I would love to learn more about your definition of
Fascism. I have read that the Austrian School think it is a form of
socialism, and from previous discussions I guess you are influenced by
the Austrian School, but I dont actually know the details of such
beliefs and how theose conclusions are drawn.

I do not think the political compass is perfect by a long shot, its
just better than the one-axis left-right way oversimplification, buts
its still an oversimplification.

Perhaps these ideas about authoritarianism and what left-wing
economics means, are at the heart of our disagreement. Denial that
there can be any ideologies that fit in the bottom-left quadrant is
interesting. It goes back to prior discussion about libertarianism -
eg that there are people who might be attracted to a candidate such as
Ron Paul because they like the low level of authoritarianism and 
government, but are uneasy because it still somehow seems right-wing,
and they may not be such fans of the free market. I suggest that these
are the people who might fit in the lower left quadrant.
Anarcho-syndicalism would be an example of quite an extreme
anti-authoritarian left-wing system, but there are plenty of other
shades of opinion between there and the center ground.

anti-authoritarian's who like right-wing economics including the free
market, are the opposite of communists/socialists. Perhaps thats why
its attractive to them to paint the evil of Nazism as being socialist
or communist. But if like me you think the Nazi's and fascisms was a
right-wing authoritarian thing, then the opposite of that if the
leftie anarchism, a group you seem to believe cannot exist. Perhaps it
would be good to look at what happened in Spain - whilst there was
some communist activity there, a lot of the time it was a tale of
fasism versus anarchism of the left-wing variety.

So yeah I tend to believe this is a bit of an argument over the claim
to be the ideological opposite, and attractive solution to, the
problems of big government and authoritarianism. What sets us apart is
economic beliefs. We are unlikely to see eye to eye because I think
the Austrian school and free market stuff is unworkable and wrong,
whereas you possibly think all alternatives are authoritarian and
socialist or communist. In this sense we hardly believe eachothers
positions really exist at all. One thing is for sure, candidates
supporting either of these stances are not usually available in
elections or acknowledged as existing in the media.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey Steve,
> 
> I looked at this a little closer...
> 
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
> 
> There's some criticisms I have about it.  (This is of course assuming
> I'm understanding it correctly.  Feel free to point out any problems
> in my reasoning.)
> 
> 
> Criticism #1: I don't think the 2 properties that make up the axises
> of the graph are orthogonal concepts.
> 
> For example, you cannot have a regulated economy unless you
> authoritarianism.  Therefore, there cannot be anything in the bottom
> left quadrant.  (And thus, any philosophy that says it has a regulated
> economy without authoritarianism has a contradiction.)
> 
> 
> Criticism #2: The graph places Fascism right at the top of the graph,
> implying it is the exactly the same thing as authoritarianism.
> 
> This may be how many people use the word Fascism today.  But it is not
> what Fascism meant 60 years ago.  (Which is what we are arguing here.
> I.e., we are arguing if what is called Progressivism today is very
> much like what was called Fascism 60 years ago.)
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> See ya
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll respond :-)
> >
> >  Even if I don't agree with you (on this topic so far), your arguments
> >  has been intelligent.
> >
> >
> >  See ya
> >
> >
> >
> >  On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > No worries, of course you dont have to respond if you dont want to
> >  >  either. And on that note, sorry to everyone on the list who may be
> >  >  annoyed if this has gone all about politics and not about
> >  >  videoblogging anymore. Perhaps there is more chance that this will
> >  >  occur in a US election year, and as there have been recent
> >  >  conversations where the free market and politics came up,
which may
> >  >  still linger unfinished in some peoples minds. All I can say
is that
> >  >  I will try to restrain myself, and more posts about stuff that is
> >  >  ontopic videoblogging from people will help redress the balance.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  Cheers
> >  >
> >  >  Steve Elbows
> >  >
> >  >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
> >  >   wrote:
> >  >  >
> >  >  > I need to look at that graph a

[videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Heath]

diveristy and tolerance goes both ways.

Heath

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, if religious people can't speak comfortably, it probably means
> the online video community is rational and intelligent.  If
> republicans can't speak freely it means that people are upset about
> the actions of the current republican party.  and if gays can't 
speak
> freely it means people are religious or not well educated from a 
human
> rights and diversity perspective.
> 
> or it just generally means that a lot of 10 years olds use the 
internet.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM, terry.rendon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Patrick,
> >
> >  What does it say about the online video community that we can't 
talk
> >  about politics, religion, etc. without vile things being said 
and that
> >  certain groups need to create niches because of it?
> >
> >
> >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> >   wrote:
> >  >
> >
> >  > The U.S. is very polarized at the moment. Americans like to 
think a
> >  > Republican ideology is wrong and the Democratic Ideology is 
right.
> >  > The reality is that neither are right or wrong. However those
> >  > representing the republican ideology have done a lot of 
terrible
> >  > things which leads voters to believe that they themselves no 
longer
> >  > identify with this ideology. Unfortunately, because it is a two
> >  > party system, voters must now switch and call themselves 
Democrats.
> >  > In reality, it's not that these voters don't have republican 
values,
> >  > it's that they don't have corrupt values.
> >  >
> >  > It may appear that people on youtube are all democrats and 
they may
> >  > think they are but the reality is that they simply don't like 
the
> >  > current republican representatives. In the future, once the 
party has
> >  > had a chance to clean out the corruption going on, many young
> >  > americans might realize they prefer the republican ideology.
> >  >
> >  > So I'd say it's perfectly o.k. for people to want a comfort 
zone or an
> >  > easy spot to find piles of videos that peak their interest. As 
a gay
> >  > man, i think it would be neat to have a site (or youtube 
category)
> >  > dedicated to gay issues. I think it's probably a similar 
situation
> >  > for the faithful or republicans. Perhaps if there were a 
youtube
> >  > category for these topics, these other sites wouldn't be as 
popular.
> >  >
> >  > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Chris
> >  > Crocker, who gets about 100,000 gay hate comments on each of 
his
> >  > videos, to prefer posting on a gay friendly site.
> >  >
> >  > I wouldn't crucify republicans or the faithless for wanting to 
do the
> >  > same thing. Even if they are terrible at writing foreign 
policy and
> >  > there's no such thing as god. ...oops
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
> >  >  wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Hello,
> >
> >  > >
> >  > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Steve Watkins  
wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > [...]
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Given that some conservatives see a huge liberal/leftie 
bias in the
> >  > > > media, even though thats not necessarily so, it seems 
quite likely
> >  > > > that youtube looks like 'the communists are coming' to 
them.
> >  > >
> >  > > That's actually a good point. What you heard many people 
once call
> >  > > (and sometimes still call) "Communist" is 
actually "Socialist".
> >  > >
> >  > > (Which is almost ironic considering the USA's history with 
the Red
> >  > > Scare, and popularity of Socialism -- USA Liberalism -- in 
the USA
> >  > > today.)
> >  > >
> >  > > Also, the other one I've noticed that in the past went by a 
different
> >  > > name is "Progressive". From what I can tell, what people are
> >  > > currently calling "Progressivism" is virtually the same 
as "Fascism".
> >  > > (Which is also ironic, because calling some a "Fascist" is 
considered
> >  > > an insult. Yet "Progressivism" is becoming popular in the 
USA.)
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > See ya
> >  > >
> >  > > --
> >  > > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
> >  > > http://ChangeLog.ca/
> >  > >
> >  > > Motorsport Videos
> >  > > http://TireBiterZ.com/
> >  > >
> >  > > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News... http://vlograzor.com/
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
> >
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Ron Watson]

No, no no...I know you're not supporting the neo-cons. I just think  
you're naively enabling them. Probably about what you think about me  
and the Neoliberals.

Actually I bet we have a boatload in common on many issues, and after  
reading your post, I know we do.

What a great conversation over some fine beer we would have, table  
pounding, raised voices, "Oh Come ON!" , and laughter.

I love engaging with your kind of thinking. I can't stand talking to  
'centrists', or supporters of the status quo. It's so frustrating.

When I was writing my reply, I was thinking that we were quite a bit  
closer than the path this discussion took, but you can't stop it once  
it starts coming out.

I'd go through your post, point by point, but it would be half  
hearted. I agree with you on most points, as you did with me, once it  
was broken down into bite sized pieces.

I think that the problem you and I, and some others on the list here  
and I, have is that we're both the slippery slope towards the poles  
of authoritarianism. You are the slippery slope to the Right, and I'm  
the slippery slope to the left.

Thinking about it, I think that the fascist leanings here in the US,  
and historically, could be considered a centrist movement. A rigid  
centrism without tolerance of those to the left and right. It's  
forced conformity in service of the Authority, be it the State or the  
Economy.

I don't really have a hard and fast ideology, and to talk about the  
original post, Ideology it seems to me, is simply Dogma, and Dogma  
can't be challenged. Those people who seek out their own kind and  
only communicate and socialize with those 'equally yoked' have the  
same kind of faith that the Religious Right has - they have a faith  
that is not strong enough to be challenged. I find that to be a very  
weak faith. Ideology is a faith that relies on being in the majority,  
it's a dogma that cannot stand to be challenged.

In terms of my political heritage, I was a Progressive before it  
became the mainstream definition of the center left. I have a more  
historical take on Progressivism which includes Teddy Roosevelt  
(domestically) and excludes Wilson. I don't think JFK was that  
magnificent. I like your brand of thinking more than that of the  
Clintons. I don't mind guns. I'd rather see anarchism over  
centralized control, but I think that regulation is important, as  
decentralization makes every man an island and there is strength in  
numbers. The herd can be a safe place and can trample a predator.

I took the political compass test again, and am -8, -6 . It seems as  
if I'm going more commie as my hair grays. I'm actually quite proud  
of my club down there, Gandhi & the Dali Lama. It could be worse.

Regarding the Orthogonal construct (thanks for the new word):

There's a difference between authority and authoritarianism. The  
difference is getting grounded or a spanking and getting beaten.  
There is nothing wrong with authority. It is a good thing. When it is  
crushing, stifling and ideologically driven it becomes  
Authoritarianism and that's bad.

If you can't protect people from exploitation, fraud and abuse by  
economic predators without authoritarianism then you can't have  
protection from exploitation, fraud and abuse by social predators  
without authoritarianism. If it takes authoritarianism to regulate  
the economy, it takes authoritarianism to regulate violent crime.

In which case, it's not a skewed, constuct, it's a shifted orthogonal  
construct.

I do think that it should not be vertical and horizontal axis, as  
"this or that", black or white, is not a fair representation of  
people and their values. Heck the 4 choices in the test were not  
enough for me with some of the questions.

on Criticism # 2:
I wasn't there either, but I do know that fascism was violent and  
abusive to large sections of society. It was brutal and charismatic,  
and it was effective. That's the real problem. It's an effective  
system. It's fast, efficient and productive.

Let's combine the two criticisms a bit...

What if it's not a this or that orthogonal graph, what if it's a  
descending spiral, a funnel with fascism being the small end and  
freedom and democracy being the top of the funnel. It would make  
sense in that it's a struggle to stay up on top, and we're always in  
danger of falling in, and spiraling down.

I don't know about you, but I'm kind of offended that the  
authoritarians get to be way up there on top. What's up with that?

Thanks for the great morning discussion!

Cheers,
Ron Watson
http://k9disc.blip.tv
http://k9disc.com
http://discdogradio.com
http://pawsitivevybe.com



On Mar 21, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

> Hello,
>
> After reading this, I think you're under the impression that I'm
> making an argument for the Neocons -- for the dominant faction of the
> Republican Party. I'm not!
>
> Replies below.
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ron Watson

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

After reading this, I think you're under the impression that I'm
making an argument for the Neocons -- for the dominant faction of the
Republican Party.  I'm not!

Replies below.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I found it quite apt, actually.
>
>  Did it really need disputing?
>
>  Nazi's despised communism.

That's debatable.  Communism in Nazi Germany seems to have played the
same role that Islam plays in the USA under the Neocons today.  It's
used as a way to scare people, and as a scape goat.


> That's what they went to war against.

Are you referring to the Reichstag fire?

Although it's debatable (since I wasn't actually there), the Reichstag
fire was used as an excuse to go forward with an already planned set
of wars.

>  Over here the most anti-Red were trying their damnedest to bring
>  fascism over here. They LOVED Hitler! LOVED him! He made the trains
>  run on time. He drove Germany to the pinnacle of efficiency and
>  productivity. He was a hero to the economic conservative movement. I
>  highly doubt that the top industrialists were touting his 'socialist'
>  and 'commie' leanings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEly8nXA6Oo

Socialism works great for the top industrialists.  Why wouldn't they support it.

Communism on the other hand doesn't work great for the top
industrialists.  But not one country that I know of that claimed to be
Communist (or others claimed to Communist) was actually Communist.
They were all Socialist.


>  He busted unions, protected the national character, and built a
>  powerful political and economic juggernaut out of the ravages of the
>  Great War. Hitler was the very face of Fascism.

What about Mussolini?

If you define Fascism as being exactly the same as Nazism, then of
course, nothing else can be Fascist.

But 60 years ago, what many people referred to as Fascism was
something different.  (That's what I was referring to in the statement
I made liking what is currently called Progressivism with what was
once called Fascism.)

[...]

>  To take this a bit further, the mix up between left and right and the
>  meaningless nature of the '-isms' in political discourse, look at the
>  USSR of the cold war and China of today. They are communist, right?

Here's where it becomes an argument of semantics (if it wasn't already)

No.  Neither are Communist.  Both were/are Socialist.

Although many people today use the word Communism to mean Socialism.
And it can get confusing when people are referring to what the word
Communism originally meant.

>  Well, why don't the people own the state then? Why don't the people
>  own the powers of production? That's Marxist Socialism, or Communism,
>  right?

Because neither was actually Communist.  They were Socialist.


>  No it's totally not right, we're told. Communism is an autocratic
>  anti-democratic dictatorship where people are subjected to the whims
>  and needs of the state, and Socialism is the same thing, only less
>  overt. They can't be both. Free Markets and no government are
>  freedom, and anything less is a dangerous threat to civilization.
>
>  China and the former USSR are/were a perversion of Marxist Socialism,
>  much like US and to a lesser degree, Western civilization (probably
>  should be better called Northern Civilization

Not that it really matter for this argument, but... why Northern?

> - yet another
>  conventional wisdom misnomer that never gets challenged...) are
>  nothing but a perversion of Adam Smith's capitalism.
>
>  We are no more capitalistic here in the States than Stalin or China
>  are Communist.

Agreed.

The Neocons also aren't Conservatives... if you want to add something
to the list.

> It's a lie to feed people's historical notions to
>  manipulate them. Hitler was not a Democratic Socialist. He outlawed
>  political parties, turned media into a propaganda instrument of the
>  state, and took over the powers of production and led his people on a
>  suicide mission of Global Domination. Hitler was an Anti-Democratic
>  Fascist, plain and simple. Just because he lied to his people and
>  pretended to be something he was not, telling them he was 'for the
>  People', to get them to trust and to follow them doesn't make it true.

I think you're trying to draw parallels with the Neocons.  And I agree.

I wasn't making an argument in support of the Neocons.

>  Bush is not a clear thinking conservative, he's a wild eyed radical.
>  He called himself a 'Compassionate Conservative' does that mean that
>  I should hate compassion? That Compassion is bad? 60 years from now
>  is someone going to conflate the 'Compassion of George Bush' with
>  compassion and make the same kind of revisionist historical argument
>  you made that prompted my short flippant reply?
>
>  I hope not. But I'll tell you, if we have 60 years of TERRORISM is
>  going to kill your children, and WAR is the path to PEACE,
>  SURVEILLANCE is FREEDOM, and IGNORANCE is

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Ideology

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hey Steve,

I looked at this a little closer...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

There's some criticisms I have about it.  (This is of course assuming
I'm understanding it correctly.  Feel free to point out any problems
in my reasoning.)


Criticism #1: I don't think the 2 properties that make up the axises
of the graph are orthogonal concepts.

For example, you cannot have a regulated economy unless you
authoritarianism.  Therefore, there cannot be anything in the bottom
left quadrant.  (And thus, any philosophy that says it has a regulated
economy without authoritarianism has a contradiction.)


Criticism #2: The graph places Fascism right at the top of the graph,
implying it is the exactly the same thing as authoritarianism.

This may be how many people use the word Fascism today.  But it is not
what Fascism meant 60 years ago.  (Which is what we are arguing here.
I.e., we are arguing if what is called Progressivism today is very
much like what was called Fascism 60 years ago.)

Comments?


See ya


On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll respond :-)
>
>  Even if I don't agree with you (on this topic so far), your arguments
>  has been intelligent.
>
>
>  See ya
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No worries, of course you dont have to respond if you dont want to
>  >  either. And on that note, sorry to everyone on the list who may be
>  >  annoyed if this has gone all about politics and not about
>  >  videoblogging anymore. Perhaps there is more chance that this will
>  >  occur in a US election year, and as there have been recent
>  >  conversations where the free market and politics came up, which may
>  >  still linger unfinished in some peoples minds. All I can say is that
>  >  I will try to restrain myself, and more posts about stuff that is
>  >  ontopic videoblogging from people will help redress the balance.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Cheers
>  >
>  >  Steve Elbows
>  >
>  >  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
>  >  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > I need to look at that graph a little closer before responding. (I
>  >  > don't want to make a knee-jerk reaction.)
>  >  >
>  >  > I just have to finish a little work first (before I can look at that
>  >  > graph closer). I'm sitting in my office right now.
>  >  >
>  >  > I will respond, once I'm done work, and get a chance to look over that
>  >  > graph a little more.
>  >  >
>  >  > Sorry for the delay.
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Can I have some feedback about the political compass and whether its
>  >  > > interpretation of reality could be agreed upon to even a certain
>  >  extent?
>  >  > >
>  >  > > eg looking at that one about the primary candidates, I feel that:
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Most candidates of today are in the blue square. From what I know of
>  >  > > your political and economic views, I guess you are in the purple
>  >  > > square. My disagreement with you is that it sounds like you think
>  >  > > hitler belongs in the red square, when in reality the nazis were not
>  >  > > that far to the left on the economics at all. Stalin was in the red
>  >  > > square. So the communists and the nazis shared a similar level of
>  >  > > authoritarianism, but not economics.
>  >  > >
>  >  > > I am in the green square, tired of watching the blue square in power,
>  >  > > but most certainly not liking the looks of the red square or the
>  >  > > purple square.
>  >  > >
>  >  > > I presume that forthcoming economic, resource, environmental and
>  >  > > political woes for the globe, will see an increasing return of people
>  >  > > supporting political positions outside the blue square. If it was
>  >  > > tempting to think that old politics was over, that everyone was
>  >  > > crowding on the center-ground, in recent decades, I think that will
>  >  > > quickly come undone and there will be even more mess. Harsh economic
>  >  > > realities have already forced the UK government to nationalise a
>  >  bank,
>  >  > > when even the mere utterance of the word nationalisation has been a
>  >  > > deadly political sin here for 3 decades.
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Cheers
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Steve Elbows
>  >  > >
>  >  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Iliya Krempeaux"
>  >  > >  wrote:
>  >  > > >
>  >  > > > Thanks for the cogent argument.
>  >  > > >
>  >  > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Ron Watson  wrote:
>  >  > > > >
>  >  > > > > You are crazy!
>  >  > > > >
>  >  > > > > Ron Watson
>  >  > > > > http://k9disc.blip.tv
>  >  > > > > http://k9disc.com
>  >  > > > > http://discdogradio.com
>  >  > > > > http://pawsitivevybe.com
>  >  > > > >
>  >  > > > >
>  >  > > > >
>  >  > > > > On Mar 20, 2008, at