They’re getting a lot of Republicans out of the US military.
https://www.tiktok.com/@elijah.251/video/7002814454660353285
https://www.tiktok.com/@jerryboi25/video/7008829233157917953
There are many others.
Yeah I didn’t finish third link or first link either. But third link seemed sexist and also like rhetoric, and first link seemed like rhetoric/propaganda. Second link seemed like someone offering facts and criticisms and details. Just based on that I figured second link was winner.
you got it
Interesting approach (Edit: Interesting is maybe the wrong word. I think it’s a good approach, and I didn’t think of it so I found it novel and interesting). I wasn’t even thinking of concepts like rhetoric/propoganda/facts/criticisms/details, but it makes sense to use those as one criteria to judge if something’s good or not. Now that I think back, the first link was like a movie trailer and kind of hyped up, and didn’t state a lot of hard facts or details, but I didn’t even notice that it was missing those things. I think I got pulled into the hype a bit by the music and voice.
I was looking at their conclusions and content of what they said, but you kind of saw just by the method of discussion/thinking that there were flaws in what they were saying or at least how they were presenting what they wanted to say. I didn’t think of classifying their content into methods or intentions behind the content e.g. this is rhetoric or this is trying to hype me up but is not supported by facts etc. but I should have done that. This is related to that pulling strings thing from the how to train your dragon trailer clips (Curiosity – Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings), but I never did that exercise (maybe I should eventually, since I’m pretty sure I get my strings pulled by all sorts of conventional media and things like that, but I don’t want to keep adding things to my to do list without starting to first check off items at a similar rate that I’m adding them. I did read all the comments on that post though, when I first read it).
That was the first thing I noticed about it (I’ve seen lots of movie trailers, am a fan of the genre, and have made my own videos in that sort of style).
One thing you could try if you want to not get pulled in as much is to mute the video (especially since lots of videos have captions or auto-caption text so you can still follow them even on mute)
1 Like
I’d say that detailed factual criticism is underrated as a genre and flowery rhetoric (possibly set to music) is overrated as a genre. There are good examples of flowery rhetoric though (see Churchill’s famous WW2 speeches) so i wouldn’t want to trash the entire genre.
With the sexist guy, and his actual argument (or what I saw of it, anyways), one thing to consider is what actual opportunities women had to build things in the past when lots of stuff was being built (I think not much, cuz of sexism). Women were only included in industrial production (factories and stuff) on a large scale cuz we were fighting a World War and tons of men were fighting, and while that “opened the door” somewhat to women working different kinds of jobs, it’s still taken a long time for women to actually be hired meaningfully in various types of work, and there are still very few women in certain lines of work. Not all of that is cuz of sexism - there is some issue of like, different preferences among the genders for cultural reasons. But it’s hard to disentangle because at least some of the reason that women have preferences not to work in certain lines of industry is cuz they have a very reasonable preference to not be sexually harassed…I think Elliot posted a link to female truck drivers complaining about that kinda thing recently.
Kind of similar: imagine that slavery had been abolished recently and some racist guy was attacking black people as not being natural entrepreneurs and not having contributed to industry in the US. That would be really unreasonable for various reasons, but one reason is that the previous legal/social order (i.e. slavery) rather limited the opportunities for entrepreneurship among black people.
Only vaguely related but… I was thinking about the portrayal of Ancient Roman women. My understanding is that they are often portrayed in history as conniving, manipulative, and even murderous. Viewing women with any proximity to power in that way was apparently such a standard trope that it pollutes the history somewhat and makes it difficult to figure out what actually happened - at least according to some contemporary commentators, I haven’t investigated the issue first hand myself.
Anyways my thought was about how there was a general hostility to women being involved in political affairs. If you were a man, and you wanted to be involved in politics, you could do it honestly. There was an old boys’ network and there were connected elites back then, but if you were sufficiently talented, you could still make a go of it even if you were the Roman equivalent of “new money”; but still, you had to be a man. But if you were a woman, and you wanted to be involved in politics, you could only be involved through a man. Like you had to have some male proxy or be helping and advising a man in some way; you couldn’t be involved yourself directly. So it seems pretty awful to condemn women generally for being manipulating things behind the scenes or whatever when literally the only way they could be involved in politics was from behind the scenes.
Going viral isn’t all positive.
How to get death and domestic abuse threats (as a female) in two parts:
https://www.tiktok.com/@notash2894/video/7012326997426752774
https://www.tiktok.com/@notash2894/video/7012965452359929093
I added the bold italics.
How often? Do you mean that you have three examples? Or do you mean that one or two commentators told you this? You make it sound like you know what is typical across many portrayals but I doubt you actually do.
Your (second-hand?) interpretation also seems sexist. There are certainly portrayals that show Rome in a pretty murderous way – the men more than the women, and the women more than both genders today. That’s partly that it was less civilized and partly selective attention by historians (then and now) towards dramatic events like plots to murder political leaders. But how did you take away from the brutal times something specifically about women being murderous? It’s like you ignored or excused the murderousness of the men. It never occurred to me to say to myself e.g. “Those damn Roman women are always trying to murder people” when the men were portrayed as doing it even more.
More like one or two commentators told me this.
Interesting. I think part of my thinking that I didn’t say was that women are portrayed as being sneakily murderous (e.g. poison), which fits with the general trope that they are devious, wicked, manipulating stuff behind the scenes. I thought I was criticizing sexist ideas.
Anyways my ideas on this point seem to be too half-baked and second-handed to be worth sharing. I have trouble figuring out which of my ideas are worth sharing. I don’t think I’ll be following up anymore on this point. My apologies for wasting time.