TeeDee,
Not that I am disagreeing, but I am not convinced that that particular video wasn't staged.
Not that I am disagreeing, but I am not convinced that that particular video wasn't staged.
How to encourage diversity in bushcraft
- Thread starter Buckshot
- Start date
- Status
ok....
I'm not convinced it was staged.
Neither of us have any evidence for either assertation apart from the video itself.
I'm happy to discuss your theories on why it may have been staged if you want ?
"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 non-profit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative perspective. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009. Wikipedia"
Taken off a quick google search. Probably not a great idea to start posting sensationalised, politically biased videos on an open bushcraft forum.
Below taken off wikipedia:
Content
PragerU releases one video per week on various topics from a conservative viewpoint that according to its site "advances Judeo-Christian values". Its videos, although topical, largely avoid mentioning former U.S. President Donald Trump.[5][24][30] As of May 2020, its YouTube channel included 968 videos.[31] Each video costs between $25,000 and $30,000 to create.[2]The videos support and argue for capitalism, against a $15 minimum wage, and that gun ownership is a constitutional right. Dave Rubin states in a video: "racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia" are "meaningless buzzwords". In a video about the alt-right, Michael Knowles argues that it has nothing in common with conservatism and instead is close to "leftism", except the left is much larger.[2]
The videos promote the Electoral College, arguing that it thwarts voter fraud and that "pure democracies do not work".[7] Over a dozen videos promote fossil fuels and dispute the scientific consensus on climate change.[32]
If you've not noticed the entire thread has been political. Nothing has been said regarding that.
The Video I posted is an example of the mentality and the potential abuse of Safes Spaces going forward in a context of a relevant conversation with one of the participants.
As I mentioned numerous other examples out there - not from PragerU if that is specifically what upsets you but many demonstrating examples of what was being discussed.
So you can't deal with or comment upon what is specifically in front of you- - the content of what is being said in the video or the behaviour & thinking displayed.
Because you doubt/dislike/disregard the whom the video is associated with.
Ok - Now I see where you are coming from.
The initial article quoted from was the Guardian , - I'm not their biggest fan. Its still the content and context we are however discussing.
Mod hat on.
Regarding this thread being political. When the forum was started and the rules were created, I doubt anyone would have thought that "politics" would become part of so many other subjects. Lots of subjects of discussion can have a political element, for example we have had discussion about the Covid pandemic, climate change, protests and petitions, land ownership and access, fall out as a result of Brexit, legality of knives in different situations. It is a fine line to tread between having the discussions, but not going down paths that exacerbate divisions. I would like to think we have managed pretty well so far, but I know some will think we have been too restrictive and some probably think we haven't been restrictive enough.
Mod hat off.
As someone who has watched their share of US sourced conservative videos, I am aware of some of the debate about safe spaces and free speech on university campuses there. I would have a hard time finding a video that I would be comfortable using as an example though since so many are presented by proponents of one position over the other.
That particular video seemed too clean, to neat, too perfect, to me. I have seen video when security has been called at other events and the camera work was shaky, the audio was bad, it was all action. Here everyone was calm and everyone posed for the camera, and there was no crowd. I have no evidence it was staged other than it looking so perfect that it could have been staged.
I would have preferred an example from a source that was not so invested in making the opposing group look stupid. Also, this thread is about bushcraft in the UK, so a video about conservative free speech on US universities is going quite a way off topic. I am not a particular fan of the Guardian, but at least its article was related to the UK.
Regarding this thread being political. When the forum was started and the rules were created, I doubt anyone would have thought that "politics" would become part of so many other subjects. Lots of subjects of discussion can have a political element, for example we have had discussion about the Covid pandemic, climate change, protests and petitions, land ownership and access, fall out as a result of Brexit, legality of knives in different situations. It is a fine line to tread between having the discussions, but not going down paths that exacerbate divisions. I would like to think we have managed pretty well so far, but I know some will think we have been too restrictive and some probably think we haven't been restrictive enough.
Mod hat off.
As someone who has watched their share of US sourced conservative videos, I am aware of some of the debate about safe spaces and free speech on university campuses there. I would have a hard time finding a video that I would be comfortable using as an example though since so many are presented by proponents of one position over the other.
That particular video seemed too clean, to neat, too perfect, to me. I have seen video when security has been called at other events and the camera work was shaky, the audio was bad, it was all action. Here everyone was calm and everyone posed for the camera, and there was no crowd. I have no evidence it was staged other than it looking so perfect that it could have been staged.
I would have preferred an example from a source that was not so invested in making the opposing group look stupid. Also, this thread is about bushcraft in the UK, so a video about conservative free speech on US universities is going quite a way off topic. I am not a particular fan of the Guardian, but at least its article was related to the UK.
Last edited:
The discontent towards the Guardian article was made clear by those who disliked the source. I do not agree with every point of view portrayed by the Guardian, but I do consider them a more reputable source of news and current affairs than a "media company" that spends thousands creating youtube videos.
Each to their own.
I taught my sons this..... and the corollary that not everyone will be so understanding.
People are complex, opinionated, self righteous and yet often incredibly kind
People are complex, opinionated, self righteous and yet often incredibly kind
All this talk about encouraging more people of different groups to enjoy bushcraft put me in mind of the growing interest and work to get more women interested and participating in hunting.
www.nzherald.co.nz
www.sisterhoodoutdoors.com
I read about this years ago and it made good sense. That may seem strange for me to say, following some of my earlier comments in this thread, so let me explain. As a middle aged white bloke I don't really have first hand experience of why people like me form the majority in this activity. I do not think this makes me best qualified to come up with ways to encourage people from other demographics, other than being welcoming when I encounter them. In the case of women in hunting, the groups have been put together by women, and are able to articulate and detail what barriers and challenges they are trying to overcome.
Horowhenua woman teaches others to hunt
Rugby star Piri Weepu meets Horowhenua's Maori wahine hunting advocate for TV show.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Sisterhood Outdoors - Field Staff of Women Hunters & Fisherwomen
Our field staff of lady hunters, fisherwomen and shooters are dedicated to our mission to take women outdoors.
www.sisterhoodoutdoors.com
I read about this years ago and it made good sense. That may seem strange for me to say, following some of my earlier comments in this thread, so let me explain. As a middle aged white bloke I don't really have first hand experience of why people like me form the majority in this activity. I do not think this makes me best qualified to come up with ways to encourage people from other demographics, other than being welcoming when I encounter them. In the case of women in hunting, the groups have been put together by women, and are able to articulate and detail what barriers and challenges they are trying to overcome.
Last edited:
I don't really have an opinion on the original question or the corollary should it be tried.
I just wonder why, is there a problem that more diversity would solve? There are enough other hobbies where the participants are not a good cross section of the general populace.
I just wonder why, is there a problem that more diversity would solve? There are enough other hobbies where the participants are not a good cross section of the general populace.
Are you not now demonstrating the issue the video is presenting?..
I think this is the most simple and forward moving method for encouraging diversity in any field.. treat people as you would like to be treated.
Whole that would be ideal in an idealistic way I am afraid that your survival rate is better if one treats them as they treat you.
I would like to think so, but I have my doubts that this will prove satisfactory in all cases.
One of my friends has Asperger's and I have had many interesting conversations with them about their experiences and view points. One of these conversations shed some light on a situation at work where I and others had long had difficulties with a particular co-worker. This colleague exhibited many of the characteristics that my friend described, and I decided to try an approach my friend said worked. My manager didn't think that it was right for me to treat that co-worker differently, but it turned out that the approach worked and cut the number of disagreements and frustration all around on the project. Had that same approach been used across the board, I am certain many people would have thought it rude, because being unambiguous and very direct is often associated with impatience or irritation.
In this thread we saw what I and several others read as a joke, the sort of thing I would expect in a group of colleagues or acquaintances who are fairly comfortable in each other's company. The joke was read by me and some others as being aimed at a piece of usually recalcitrant machinery, but it was also read as sexist and aimed at a person.
Different people can have different sore spots and I am certain that some of the instances that are quoted as sexist or racist or the result of an "ism" are the result of other behaviours that happen to hit that raw spot. For instance, when I started work I had quite a few of the older workers make disparaging remarks about my ability, not because they knew me, but because I was a graduate, and as such they assumed that "you have never used a spanner in anger, probably don't know what end of the hammer to hold!" It took me about three years before I had worked with all of that ilk, often enough, that I had won enough respect for the comments to cease. Now if I had been a woman, or a member of a minority, I might have read that in a different way.
I think that is sometimes called emotional intelligence or at least it is close to that. One behaves differently according to the way people react. There are people who are very good at it, there are also people who have no idea why they should change the way they behave.
Big vagina energy: the return of the sheela na gig
Some say the explicit medieval carvings were fertility symbols; others that the figures were meant to ward off evil. Now a group of Irish feminists are bringing them back – as a reminder of women’s struggles
www.theguardian.com
And the Guardian discover women!
(Sheela-na-gigs are meant to be silly sculptures, not fertility idols, not titillation, not anything serious. They are there to make you laugh)
(Where do the male figures come into this?)
All things related to human nature comes down to cognitive dissonance.All this talk about encouraging more people of different groups to enjoy bushcraft put me in mind of the growing interest and work to get more women interested and participating in hunting.
Horowhenua woman teaches others to hunt
Rugby star Piri Weepu meets Horowhenua's Maori wahine hunting advocate for TV show.
Sisterhood Outdoors - Field Staff of Women Hunters & Fisherwomen
Our field staff of lady hunters, fisherwomen and shooters are dedicated to our mission to take women outdoors.
I read about this years ago and it made good sense. That may seem strange for me to say, following some of my earlier comments in this thread, so let me explain. As a middle aged white bloke I don't really have first hand experience of why people like me form the majority in this activity. I do not think this makes me best qualified to come up with ways to encourage people from other demographics, other than being welcoming when I encounter them. In the case of women in hunting, the groups have been put together by women, and are able to articulate and detail what barriers and challenges they are trying to overcome.
It’s great to hear that groups are being able to articulate & detail their barriers.
But..
I find photos of dead animals displayed as a trophy quite disgusting.. especially with a bow & arrow.
I’m an Archer & I hunt for food & I’d never dream of doing such a thing as it shows complete disrespect for life & how we are portrayed by others.( may be a British thing)
Only the other day a neighbour shouted.. there goes Bear(Grylls)off to kill a squirrel!
Is this how we are portrayed as Bushcrafters?
I hope not & now I have the embarrassing task of putting him right.
Last edited:
Regarding Mod Hat On
I am surprised that the majority of this thread was allowed to run ( see my initial post on page 1 ) and was personally expecting the thread pulled by page 3/4 - so I do applaud the Mods for showing restraint for fear of not pulling something before it became too much of a issue. That would have been the easy thing to have done and implemented to have saved possible Mod heartache down the road. So yes I completely agree that the thread and most threads have been very well moderated with even balance of judgement in my time here.
Regarding Mod Hat Off Comments
"That particular video seemed too clean, to neat, too perfect, to me. I have seen video when security has been called at other events and the camera work was shaky, the audio was bad, it was all action. Here everyone was calm and everyone posed for the camera, and there was no crowd. I have no evidence it was staged other than it looking so perfect that it could have been staged."
I think as the previous poster was asserting that more money is possibly invested in the source of these videos maybe better quality AV equipment was purchased and used.
No , it wasn't the Blair Witch project but there was no need to be was there? There was no ( actual ) bodily violence or physical contact as in other YT vids covering the same things ending in argy-bargy and violence that tends to be detrimental to quality Film work.
I think everyone ( Two , possibly Three main participants? ) were calm , because it was sensible , rationale discourse and reaction. No Mob rules or crowd action. People I find are mostly more civil & polite when by themselves rather then in a Mob.
I don't think this was the planned as the main piece that the film crew went to the university for ( again I have no proof but neither do you ) but more a sporadic event that occurred before the main filming was to be undertaken and was caught on film. I don't think they went knowing the would get this reaction.
"I would have preferred an example from a source that was not so invested in making the opposing group look stupid." - I don't think you can intentionally make someone look stupid - to say that they were 'so invested in making the opposing group look stupid' seems somewhat biased. And its ok to be biased but that is a bit of transference of intent.
How did they make this guy look stupid if the guy was acting under his own actions and thoughts?
( unless you are still asserting that it was staged.... )
I chose this clip for several reason - some which I hope you as a moderator may appreciate.
Experience has shown that concepts that start in America tend to make their way to the UK.
No swearing - There is no swearing in this clip.
No violence - There is no violence in this clip.
Good Quality AV - I didn't want to post a grainy or shaky piece with poor audio -that way the full discourse can be understood without a lot of ' what was that ' moments regarding things being said or not said.
So I appreciate it not a UK clip , but the concept of safe spaces ( which is what this reply was in context to ) started in the US I believe. Its already used ( with justification in certain cases ) in the UK but if its to be used to stifle others opinions then I think its not a great idea.
- Status
Similar threads
