Tue 7 Aug 2007
Vloggers: GOP, grow a pair, the babe said so
Posted by shelbinator under Culture, Geekery, Netroots, Politics, Rant, Sad
A bunch of geeks involved with this political vlogging thing (who does that, anyway?) compiled a little advert exhorting the Republican presidential candidates not to chicken out of confronting average American voters via YouTube, whether at a CNN-co-sponsored debate that might conflict with unspecified fundraisers, or any convenient asynchronous time they prefer. One of the key points: instead of letting Anderson Cooper pick which questions to ask, candidates can go to CommunityCounts.us and find out what questions the geeks really want to see answered.
If you don’t blink or sneeze, you might see me in there.
Almost all of us involved with this project uploaded the same video to our respective channels. In the first few hours that it was on my channel, it garnered something like 250 views — and this is on my new channel with a whopping 16 subscribers, without even mentioning (yet) that Ron Paul is one of the few Repubs committed to this debate! Conversely, it took me closer to 30 hours to rack (I said rack) up that many views on my Rudy Giuliani spoof, which dealt with the same fundamental problem (dare I say in a more entertaining approach?), and that was even with it getting picked up by PrezVid right out of the gate. What could it be that made the difference?
KillerK30 (3 hours ago)
I know you would rather get five stars because you produced a great video, but I am going to give you five stars because you are gorgeous. Your glasses are also hot!!!(Reply) (Remove) (Block User) (Spam)
Oh. Right. I forgot: I normally lack the naughty-librarian hotties in my videos & thumbnails.
But that’s okay, YouTube is still Totally Serious Politics Presidential Candidates Should Bow Down Before the other 0.2% of the time.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:46 am
I was (am) surprised (and mildly excited) to have been (sort of) mentioned in your blog. In my defense, I don’t really go for the “naughty” look although I seem to achieve “librarian” status relatively easily.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I’ve never heard someone ponder “But how about the American people” like that…You had me at ‘But’.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
MJ, librarians instantly qualify as “naughty” if they are not so forsakenly unattractive as to be unshaggable. I may have to hire you to be in a few videos just to get me up out of double-digits here.
D, was it the eyebrow?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I don’t know that I’ve ever encountered a “shaggable” librarian, unless you count faux-librarians, the likes of which stalk the streets on Halloween.
Oh sweet mary, I hope I’m not coming off as an attempt at true faux-librarian hottness! That’s just tacky. For Halloween I enjoy dressing up as historic figures and such, not rubbish like sexy librarians or sexy maids, or any sexy variant on a dull job.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Mmmm, nothin’ sexier than a dulljob.
HAW!
I’m trying to resist the urge to post a video response alongside yours to the being-a-youtube-chick topic, lest I unleash my most deeply obnoxious side…but it’s a long night ahead and I’m sure my judgment will falter.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Okay, okay. I’ll admit it, I laughed. A lot. Who says a girl bent on not being marginalized can’t have a sense of humor?
“Trying to resist the urge,” huh? Sounds like you’re on the losing end of almost-won battle my friend. Deeply obnoxious is a side of you that I’ve not yet seen, although now I’m curious.
I’m the tiny devil on your shoulder: “Do it, it won’t hurt anybody!”
August 8th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Just finished watching your response. I’m less inclined to make my own now, as I was going to point out what you did: some things don’t help the problem by encouraging the uh, prurient interest in an otherwise intellectual (insofar as anything on YT is) video. But then as soon as I think that, I know that my blogneighbor Amber Rhea would point out the counterargument to me: women shouldn’t have to watch their behavior on cam and mute their sexuality for the sake of “not encouraging” what is inherently unacceptable behavior in and of itself, “encouraged” or not. And then, of course, like Kotecki pointed out, I wish I had the assets to draw 5x as many subscribers as I’d otherwise get, so who’s encouraging what? Who’s exploiting whom?
My obnoxious side usually comes out in print; I’m an angry-blogger, and usually need to step away from the keyboard. I do tend to scrap with the belligerent commenters on YT, and sometimes there’s collateral damage: just the other day some poor guy made a completely innocent comment that I misinterpreted b/c I had just spent all morning flaming back and forth with some stalker freak commenter, and I just snapped at the new guy before he clarified and I apologized. I think we had an internet man-hug, I dunno. So, probably best I leave that to comments and not elevate it to video for now. :-)
Though there’s still beer in the fridge.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Ah yes, the “sexual expression is/should be normal/acceptable” approach. This one is sticky because where does the invisible boundary lay between “acceptable sexual expression” and simply airing out private matters in a public forum? What matters of intercourse should be discussed in public? Are we talking about descriptions of sexual encounters, or something more tame?
It’s my belief that we should only say things in a public forum (like YouTube) that we would feel comfortable saying loudly in a Starbucks so that everyone could hear. You can’t help whose children are listening at Starbucks just like you can’t help whose children are listening on YouTube. Or, (as I’m not too fond of the idea of kiddie-proofing the world) you can’t help who will be offended upon hearing what you have to say.
I also feel that people (mainly women) use the idea of “sexual liberation” or “sexual expression” as a crutch for their own inadequacy. If women are going to talk about their passionate flings on YouTube, they cannot expect men to have nothing to say in response. These are the women that dress with all of their goodies hanging out and complain that men shout at them as they drive by.
A lot of my feelings on the subject stem from the fact that I hold sexual intimacy in a very high regard, and to see others treat it in a way that I would describe as abuse really bothers me. I think that under “the right” conditions (whatever those are), sexual intimacy is equally as important as any other type of communication in a relationship. That being said, am I going to talk on the subject to everyone on YouTube that wants to listen? Out of respect for myself and my partner (or as is the case now, whoever my future partner is), the answer is a happy and satisfied, “no.”
In other news: I used to be an angry blogger as well, until I got so sick of the internets and politics that I became (politically) a mental hermit. It took until 2007 for me to finally leave my cave and re-enter the world of internets-politics, this time with a fresh and hopeful outlook. (I was an absolute shrew right before I went into politics-hiding.) Still, being fully aware of your capacity to turn into a potential MJ hater, I would love to hear your insight on the “chicks on YouTube” subject.
I talk far too much, and for this I apologize.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:22 am
I wonder if we have the same beer in our ‘fridges?
August 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Though I pretty much agree with you on that (I don’t care to stumble upon completely explicit material where I’m not expecting it), I wasn’t even going that far. I just meant the simpler, more subtle things, where it becomes pretty obvious that the vlogger is, I dunno, basically flirting with the camera? You know, the leaning-over-the-laptop-with-the-scoopneck trick? But we’ve already gone through the whole kerfuffle about Hillary’s cleavage, and y’all got what y’all got and we don’t need to be puttin’ you in burqas or anything, and sportin’ the cleavage is still no reason for the male viewers to come along and kick it up three obnoxious fratboy notches…so forget I even suggested it.