LMU wrote:Angry_Drunk wrote:
Honestly, the worst part of having a podcast is the audience.
:lol:
Question for welch: I liked your posts but why should we mock them? If they are trolls should we not ignore them? Don't we run the risk of inadvertently advertising for them the way PZ does for us?
Note I'm not actually suggesting that we do just ignore them, or I wouldn't be lurking here and laughing at them.
Also thank yous to Lsuoma, SN, RH, and others for being patient with new people and explaining youtube tags.
Because the issue is, they aren't actually "trolls" in the classic sense. "Manipulators" would be the more correct version. For example, take the apple TV. Not the product they actually SELL, but the unicorn that is a screen of random sizes with an apple logo on it and will magically solve all the problems of the TV and cable industries.
There are a lot, and I mean a LOT of people heavily invested in pumping this up, and it is a great way to generate traffic. We, (AMB) and a few others spend a lot of time bolloxing these arguments, because they actually can have a real effect. If enough idiots dominate the conversation to say Apple "missed" a ship date on an unannounced product, that can affect their stock price, even though it is complete bullshit. So allowing them to make such specious claims unanswered is actually bad.
Same thing with Watson et al, only there's an even bigger reason. In every city you see these events at, there are smart people. Local people. They can speak on a wide range of subjects of interest to the skeptical community with authority and style. Every time, EVERY time you fly in a speaker, you remove a chance to hear someone who may not be as well known, but just as smart. Look at the list for Skepticon 5. Who the fuck other than JT was even slightly local? I bet not more than 5. The more a small number of people dominate the speaking list for events, the more homogenous those events become. If I see the same fucking speakers over and over at various conventions, why the hell should I go to more than one? Is the content of JT, Greta, Anthony Pinn, Dillahunty's talks going to be any different between Skepticon or the North Texas event?
This is why I'm NOT talking at Macworld, because I wanted to make a space for someone else. I'm on the committee, it's not like I need to get approval. But if I talk, someone else can't, and I'm tired of hearing myself talk. So this way, someone new gets a shot.
The biggest reason given is "without names, we don't get people". Bullshit. What names let you do is fuck off on the marketing. You just throw the names up there, and you're done. Well fuck that. Do some goddamned work. Get really smart locals and sell them. I mean fuck, if the shampoo industry was able to permanently double their revenues via the word "repeat", I think you can convince a sympathetic audience that they should come here really smart, albeit unfamous people talk.
If people do *not* actively raise their voices against the bullshit of Watson et al, then that's all people hear. That's not good.
It's not a crusade, this isn't "fighting the good fight" or anything silly like that. It's just making sure that a bunch of New Media Douchebag hucksters don't become the only voice for your group.