RuralRon Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Hello everyone, I just wanted to post a comment about this podcast. I think it was good for Stef, good for the caller and good for the audience, which of course includes me. The whole dollar donation thing. I'm glad Stef is comfortable discussing his discontent and rationale about small donations. I really get it. I struggle to make enough just to put gas in the car and pay the utility bill each month. And although I simply cannot make a monthly commitment to help the show monetarily (I'm well below the poverty line and get no gov. subsidies), I do help as best as I can by evangelizing the show often, almost every day. This podcast has also convicted me to find a way to contribute monetarily. It may not be much but each day that ends with change in my pocket I will put in a coin bank and whatever is in it at the end of every month will be donated to FDR. That commitment starts today. Youtube / podcast download volume. I presume this is measured by number of downloads not volume (bandwidth / bytes), as one video is worth many more (audio only) podcasts in terms of download (size) volume. It also costs alot more for video in terms of FDR overhead. There are several items to discuss here: 1) Why video? I understand some people prefer video over audio, but I myself feel it's a bit of a waste to click on a youtube video and have a static image delivered while I listen to audio. It's equally a waste to see Stef pacing in front of a camera. I myself do not use youtube for content such as FDR, Corbett Report or Gnostic Media or similar info sources. Occasionally I may seek out a video from such sources if the audio that I do listen to makes it compelling to do so. I put little stock in youtube comments and prefer dedicated forums. 2) Size of youtube audience vs. size of podcast audience. This is probably the only justifiable reason IMO to do video (for most but not all topics), to take advantage of the monumentally large youtube audience. And I guess the dissatisfaction of static image "videos" I expressed above warrants releasing actual video of *something*, even if it's just Stefan waltzing around a stage or pacing in front of a camera. So the question to ask is, do the costs justify the audience reached? I can't answer that but apparently Stefan & Michael believe they do. I would be interested in more details concerning this, and believe Stef should paint a clearer picture to listeners (and especially donators) so they understand the basis for the costs and benefits of youtube / video over audio only podcasts. I'm not saying there's no benefit to video, but what criteria is used to decide whether to produce an audio only or video podcast? Do the facial expressions of Stefan during the call in shows add that much value to the message? For me and my experience with the live shows I'd have to answer no. 3) Where is the On Truth documentary? Apparently the studio was a higher priority than finishing this project. I haven't heard much about the documentary in quite awhile. I wonder why that is. Interestingly I noticed the same delays in the release of the documentary on the Federal Reserve that James Corbett was so focused on which now appears to be stalled. This is not a criticism, merely a question. I doubt I'm the only one to have it. So what's your perspective on this?
Freedomain Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 Hey Ron - Thanks for the message and feedback. 1) A decent percentage of the shows growth has come from the YouTube audience and videos going viral. Many people watch/listen to the show exclusively on YouTube. 2) Both audiences are similar in size as downloads/views are almost always equal. The podcast audience loves the call in shows, the YouTube audience loves current events. I'm sure there is crossover, but that's hard to determine. 3) No release date to announce. We actually filmed a mini-documentary in Amsterdam for Stefan's Next Web speech, and have plans to do two more mini-documentary projects in conjunction with the Men's Rights conference in Detroit. We're going to interview a who's who from the men's rights community and turn that info a documentary and also tour Detroit and do something on it's complete economic collapse. Should be interesting, I'm pretty excited for it.
MMX2010 Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 This podcast spawned a youtube discussion over whether Stef's appeal for money was based on ethics. As it turns out, Stef's appeal for money is not based on ethics, because he's not ethically declaring, "You should feel guilty / sad if you don't donate." He's, instead, predicting that IF you don't donate, you'll feel guilty / sad.
RuralRon Posted May 9, 2014 Author Posted May 9, 2014 He's, instead, predicting that IF you don't donate, you'll feel guilty / sad. And I indeed do, which I explained in my OP. Whether one should feel guilty is separate from whether they should feel sad. I myself feel both, since I haven't provided any monetary compensation for the value I receive. I feel sad b/c I believe it is a worthy effort to contribute to, to help improve the world and I'm not helping to support the expense of doing so. I assuage my guilt by telling myself I'm providing free advertisement to the show and promoting the causes of peaceful parenting, voluntarism and self knowledge. For some that might exonerate them from guilt. I put myself "on the line" and expose myself to ridicule etc. when I argue for these principles, not just online but in the relationships I have in the local community. Is it reasonable to ask Stefan if he prefers that people in desperate financial circumstances would stop logging in here or downloading / disseminating the info and insights received here? Based on purely black and white empirical evidence he might say so, bye bye. If he asked me to I would. But that would seem to be a rather cold response if he did, IMO. It may not be much in the eyes of many here but it's the best I can do with my current circumstances, which I'm trying to change, but that's not easy and won't happen in the short term.
corpus mentium Posted May 9, 2014 Posted May 9, 2014 If I recall correctly didn't Stef say in either this video or the How They Are Winning video that he was happy when people who couldn't contribute financially would contribute in other ways?
MMX2010 Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 It may not be much in the eyes of many here but it's the best I can do with my current circumstances, which I'm trying to change, but that's not easy and won't happen in the short term. I apologize if this sounds weird, but I'm actually glad that you feel guilty. Because I think the more guilt you feel, the more emotional energy you'll associate with the phrase, "I'm doing the best I can under the current circumstances." So whenever someone tells you that they're doing the best they can under the circumstances, your emotions will instantly tell you who (if anyone) is lying. Feel free to disregard that if you don't think it's true. And if it isn't, I'm sorry I said something insensitive.
RuralRon Posted May 12, 2014 Author Posted May 12, 2014 I apologize if this sounds weird, but I'm actually glad that you feel guilty. It does sound a bit insensitive, since you don't know my circumstances. I understand your reservation about the phrase, but isn't it jumping to conclusions without having very much empirical information about my circumstances? I'll give you credit for challenging me in a respectful manor. I am being honest about the guilt. It's not easy weighing the tradeoffs of life when you think about things deeply. If I had stayed in the city I would have better means to contribute monetarily, but it wasn't until I left the city that I discovered FDR. The guy that called into the show yesterday from Vancouver (who moved to Paraguay) portrayed the very same dilemma. I had a ton of empathy for that guy. If Stefan did I don't think he conveyed it to the audience.
MMX2010 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It does sound a bit insensitive, since you don't know my circumstances. I understand your reservation about the phrase, but isn't it jumping to conclusions without having very much empirical information about my circumstances? I'll give you credit for challenging me in a respectful manor. I am being honest about the guilt. Now I feel even worse because I didn't communicate my feelings efficiently. Stef's podcast FDR 1777 discusses the "I did the best I could with the knowledge I had." justification. And Stef has also, repeatedly, stated that parents say high-sounding things like, "I love you and would do anything for you." without either feeling the emotional impact of those words, or doing certain things that children need - (i.e. - giving them honest answers about how they were disciplined). Because you feel what it means to literally "do the best you can, with the knowledge you currently have", you will instantly detect when someone lies to you by saying "I'm doing the best I can with the knowledge I currently have." Because this instant detection is so useful, I'm glad that you possess it - even though you have to experience such strong guilt to acquire it. I'm sorry for communicating so poorly earlier. And I'm happy that there is someone is this world - you - who is doing the best you can with the knowledge you have.
RuralRon Posted May 13, 2014 Author Posted May 13, 2014 Now I'm intrigued, so please help me to understand. Perhaps it's just late and the fog will clear tomorrow. I'm familiar with Stef's podcast(s) where he explains what a terrible defense that is in the context of raising children. It's an often cited refrain from parents and Stef lays that to waste. I fully understand those examples, but I'm having some trouble applying it in this conversation. And I'm not so sure it's universal either. If it is you're presenting me an opportunity to grow here. If not I am providing one to you. So the question is, is that ever a reasonable sentence to use? It parses properly, the grammar is correct and yes, there are legitimate cases where it is morally OK to say that as a defense. Here's one Stefan cites from time to time: Would you hold a doctor morally responsible for causing his patients to die due to infections he caused because he didn't wash his hands between patients? If the Dr. did that now yes, but not if he did so in the 1600's or before knowledge of germs became known. Stef uses several other examples to illustrate that people should only be held accountable for their actions if they are aware (or it is reasonable for them to be aware) of the consequences of their actions. You can't say, "here are the 5 rules to the game", then declare your opponent lost the game for violating rule number 6. But this has got my mind in a pretzel knot: Because you feel what it means to literally "do the best you can, with the knowledge you currently have", you will instantly detect when someone lies to you by saying "I'm doing the best I can with the knowledge I currently have." Because this instant detection is so useful, I'm glad that you possess it - even though you have to experience such strong guilt to acquire it. What instant detection are you referring to? Is it possible my knowledge is incomplete, due to my own subconscious self protective behaviors which although I'm unaware of them I am still responsible for? Care to take another stab at an explanation?
MMX2010 Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 So the question is, is that ever a reasonable sentence to use? It parses properly, the grammar is correct and yes, there are legitimate cases where it is morally OK to say that as a defense. "I tried the best I could, with the knowledge I had." is only a reasonable sentence when it's true. And we only know it's true when our emotions strongly tell us so. But our emotions will only tell us so when we've literally tried the best we could with the knowledge that we had: we'll become sad, scared, exhilarated, joyous, depressed, enraged, and a host of other emotions during our long-period of "doing the best we could, with the knowledge we had." If someone (like our parents) lies to you by saying, "We did the best we could, with the knowledge we had....", you'll instantly compare their emotional state with your emotional-experience of "doing the best you could, with the knowledge you had". And if their emotional experience is flat or muted, you'll instantly know that they're lying to you. That's why we need to experience "doing the best we can, with the knowledge we had" before we can separate the liars who use that phrase, from the truth-tellers. Hope that helps.
Recommended Posts