I have never blocked a poster, but if I could block David Pakman as a "source" I sure

[Atticus]

as hell would. If you are a fan of breathless self-promotion and bullshit, he's your guy.

[Drum]

1. Seconded n/t

[WheelWalker]

2. Hear, hear!! I couldn't agree with you more comrade.

[fierywoman]

3. Thirded.

[The Magistrate]

4. I Sympathize, Sir

That current effusion in the video forum is quite an effort....

[SidDithers]

7. That poster has posted nothing but Pakman videos at DU for more than 5 years...

Over 1500 posts, every single one of them an OP with a link to a David Pakman video.

If that's not commercial spam, I don't know what is.

Sid

[PatSeg]

21. Well, I kind of always assumed

that the poster WAS David Pakman. It appears that could be true.

[Blue_playwright]

50. I did, too! Lol.

[PatSeg]

54. Hah!

It did appear to be rather obvious.

[reACTIONary]

75. +10 nt

[ItsjustMe]

5. I agree

David Is so annoying.

[PatSeg]

6. A lot of people

are on the same page, at the same time it seems. I can only listen to him for 10 seconds.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

8. alert them as spam.

fits the def as far as i know.

[The Magistrate]

15. Wouldn't Work Under The Present Routines, Ma'am

Since no one knows who made the post brought to the jury, there is no way the jury can know a person does something incessantly. A person alerting on these as spamming would risk sanction for alerting in bad faith, because detection of patterns in behavior is impossible to a jury, and the alert might strike many as an attempt at shutting down debate, rather than at checking an exercise in long-term trolling.

That rule works against people who sign up and link immediately to some commercial enterprise, but cannot really be applied to anything else.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

33. i suppose you are right.

oh, for the mods.
i dont think ppl get in too much trouble for alerting, tho. admin also looks at who is on ignore.
so, go ahead and put them on ignore. i did.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Absolutely. His videos are a waste of time

and I wish people would stop posting them.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

35. he's the only one who posts them.

he is a spammer by the old rules. never engages, just dumps his own vids.

[wryter2000]

52. I used to see a thread title like "Trump's head explodes"

And I'd click to see Trump's head explode. Instead, I'd get minutes of talking about Trump's head exploding with a long preamble. I finally figured out whose threads to skip over.

[Chakaconcarne]

10. I appreciate that he''s on our side and goes after Trump.

That should count for something.......and he probably reaches a certain demographic....but for me personally, I don't watch his videos.

[Wounded Bear]

22. I'm not so sure he's on "our" side...

Seems more of a wannabe 3rd party trying to drag the party farther left than most of us want to go so fast.

I guess I can take him in small doses, but I won't go out of my way to seek out his stuff.

Love the youthful enthusiasm, but not ready to anoint him as a major voice I'll follow.

[Laelth]

11. I tend to agree with the majority of what he says.

He is, perhaps, unnecessarily long-winded.

Dude is a member, here, and he is definitely on our side.

-Laelth

[Atticus]

14. For a long time I have had no idea what he says because I am unwilling to sift through

his "presentations" for the few worthwhile kernels that may sometimes be included in his pretense. Just not interested.

[consider_this]

16. Same

[keithbvadu2]

20. Long-winded

[displacedtexan]

17. I watched quite a few of his videos, but they got to be tedious

I still subscribe to his YouTube channel, but I find that his topics are mostly long commentaries on news items already addressed on DU.

[Laelth]

18. Almost certainly.

He’s a member, here. It’s clear that he reads DU.

-Laelth

[rockfordfile]

61. I agree he's on our side

[Layzeebeaver]

69. Yes... We may all disagree about his style and his being affected by

YouTube’s crazy monetisation schema...

But he needs to eat just like we do and he is definitely on the democratic side.

Let’s not shoot our own troops.

[barbtries]

12. you can ignore that poster.

and you can block Pakman on youtube.

[SidDithers]

13. You could safely block that poster, and miss nothing but Pakman videos...

that's all they've posted in their 5 years at DU. OPs with Pakman videos, over and over and over and over and over.

Sid

[NurseJackie]

34. Unfortunately, video-posts from "blocked" users are STILL displayed on the DU home page.

Unfortunately, video-posts from "blocked" users are STILL displayed on the DU home page. So, blocking any posters who chronically post annoying and useless Packman videos WILL help to clean up the "Video & Multimedia" forum... the crappy videos still appear in the right column of the home page.

I'm grateful that Packman will sometimes "brand" his videos with a recognizable thumbnail... and I can skip over those. But sometimes (and all too often) the thumbnail image will be deceptive and I'll click on it without realizing it's one of his meandering musing videos.

I always feel resentful that I've been "Rick-Rolled" again.

And, yes... it IS INDEED SPAM because he gets $$$ and other benefits from every click.

[Cirque du So-What]

19. I've lost count of the times I've been pak-rolled

I should do as suggested and block the poster.

[PatSeg]

24. "Pak-rolled"

That is perfect and you are not alone!

[yonder]

55. Pak rolled. Fitting term.

And that's how it happens: You click on a promising thread title only to discover it's a DP production.

As it is, my preference is for news that is read rather than audio or video. I read much faster with better comprehension than listening or watching.

[Cirque du So-What]

73. You bet

I prefer reading, but I’ll watch a video clip. I mos def don’t need prattle disguised as commentary.

[Thekaspervote]

23. When I see it's from Parkman, I just don't open it

[marble falls]

26. If they'd only mark the video as a Pakman piece, its views would drop dramatically. I hate Pakman ..

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2020, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

videos. Pakman himself is just fine, one of the people I hung around with in high school at AV club, Junior Classical League, debate club, AP English, standing at dances with three other guys looking at the girls ....

[James48]

27. It sounds to me

That anybody who is a regular here feels the same way about the extraordinarily long winded videos. If he just gave the 10 second intro, and played the clip, and then ended it, it wouldn’t be so insufferable.

As it is, if I were in the jury for a “spam review”, I think I would vote him off the island. But that’s just me.

David, if you are reading this- please, dear God, stop with the long commentary.

[NurseJackie]

38. Every click equals more money for his YouTube endeavor. Every click tells YouTube...

Every click equals more money for his YouTube endeavor. Every click tells YouTube that they should "recommend" his videos to others throughout YouTube.

Because he's making money from deceptive and content-free videos... it's TOTALLY SPAM.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

39. the mods would have dumped him long ago.

[Midnight Writer]

74. Exactly. I usually agree with him, he makes good points, but damn, he takes a long time to get there

[MuseRider]

28. I used to listen to his podcast

but it either got out of hand or I just had enough if it. I got a little good out of it for a while but it got so when the music started at the beginning I began to get cringy and just stopped it entirely.

I don't dislike him nor do I think he has bad intentions or ideas, it is just too much.

[2naSalit]

29. And whatever the topic...

He's always two days late, ten other atrocities have occurred by then. Just a windy alarmist who has nothing unique to say.

[MontanaMama]

37. You beat me to it.

Not only is he late to the game with all of his commentary but he comes at the subject matter like he has new and insightful information and he just never does. Ever. I can usually spot the videos before clicking on them but once in a while I get fooled then it is a game for me to click out of them before I actually have to hear him speak.

[Brother Buzz]

46. Word! And it pisses me of when I fall for the sensationalism click-bait subject line...

A subject line that implies there is some spectacular development in some ongoing story.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. So, so 2016 & never gets around to the point

Cenk and Pakman were popular 2017. Now those channels are all but invisible on my YouTube

[progressoid]

31. He's not my cup of tea. But neither is Keith Olbermann

And yet a lot of people seem to enjoy his breathless melodramatic presentations.

[amuse bouche]

49. I love Keith and am so happy he's back

[OnDoutside]

32. I prefer Pakman to Sam Seder any day, but Brian Tyler Cohen is the best of them.

[PatrickforO]

36. Yeah, I generally like Egberto Willies - he posts here too. But this

Pakman has like 20 minutes of himself analyzing maybe a minute of actual footage. Honestly, when a YouTube video looks good enough to play, I usually turn it off if Pakman comes on first because I don't want to hear him. I want to look at the actual footage and come to my own conclusions.

And if you will permit one more rant about websites like CNN, the Hill, Huffington Post. Some people (me) like to just read the articles and then go into the video only if they are interested in it. But you don't have that choice, do you? They always ram the video down your throat, try to make you watch it before anything else. And all it does is parrot the first couple paragraphs of the actual article. Why can't we just read the article and NOT have an auto play set on the video?

[Buckeye_Democrat]

40. He never bothered me very much.

Although I frequently stop watching his analyses and explanations, either by forwarding through the videos or ending them before they're over.

If I knew NOTHING about politics or the issues at hand, then I'd probably appreciate his lengthy explanations. He elucidates well, at least.

Edit: I actually get more annoyed by the talking heads on TV who try to entice the audience to return after a commercial break, then give us a big serving of nothing-burger.

[relayerbob]

41. Fortunately, I have no idea who this is

Another name in an endless sea of hollow voices, I guess

[pazzyanne]

42. Agree.

I never watch his stuff.

[station agent]

43. And another thing... He stole Sam Seder's set y'all

He's capable of anything! And he sucks at chess!!!

[Botany]

44. I would support a Pakman warning in the title

n/t

[MrsCoffee]

45. Can't believe he still gets posted here.

Wish they would put it in the thread title so I don’t waste my time clicking.

[wryter2000]

47. He's generally posted by one DUer

I don't click on those threads.

[betsuni]

48. Pakman helped elect trump by repeating lies about Democrats.

Not a journalist.

[zentrum]

51. Really? It..

…feels necessary to start a thread and get a gang to ding a Democratic voter and supporter whose personal style you don't like?

He's a hard working guy, on the side of the Democrats, just trying to make his way in life.

Don't watch him if he annoys you.

[BigOleDummy]

63. THIS

Well said.

[stopdiggin]

72. he's employing DU to monetize

a video blog. I don't appreciate the attempt to capitalize the DU site (which I depend on) -- or my clicks on a "come-on" heading. And the idea that anyone sporting a D beside their name -- is automatically deserving of my respect, appreciation or support .... Can't buy that one.
----- --- -----

[NorthOf270]

53. I tried watching his show one night on DemocracyTV

It's like some public access low res disaster.

[yaesu]

56. I haven't watched enough Pakman to say either way, good or bad, actually I'm losing interest

in all talk shows rehashing stuff that we have no power to change, why bother in a fascist state.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

57. If I open a video and see his logo...bye!

[Iggo]

58. I've blocked hundreds.

This place cleans up real nice if you take out the trash regularly.

[Sunsky]

59. I agree

I made the mistake of listening to one of his videos on YouTube. Then YouTube kept suggesting his videos I could only last a minute in. So, I had to request that they not to recommend his videos anymore.

[aidbo]

60. He's better than MSNBC or CNN any day of the week.

[marble falls]

68. Please. Rachael Madow? Maybe as good as Morning Joe and I don't watch that on purpose, either.

[Silent3]

62. I hadn't heard of David Pakman until this post

When I googled his name, he looked vaguely familiar, so maybe I have seen some of his stuff before, but it certainly didn't stick with me if so.

I certainly can't share in the feeling of getting spammed with his videos or articles or whatever he produces since I don't even recognize the name.

[delisen]

64. I think of him as living in a very narrow little world.

I am reminded of the the mid and late twentieth century college professors who had captive audiences due to class attendance rules. On entered the classroom knowing that time-in the next fifty minutes- would stretch like warmed taffy and one could best survive the ordeal by calling upon one's daydreaming skills or slow-diving into the Jungian collective unconscious.

[janterry]

65. He's just trying to earn a living

I don't mind. I'm sure he looks around and is inspired by some of the discussions here (at least I hope so).

[abakan]

66. I agree

I hate it when I click on something and that weenie shows up.

[Maeve]

67. You could try to auto-trash by keyword

Go to "my account" and the tab for "trash can"---altho it sounds like the name isn't in the title or you wouldn't get rolled.

[lillypaddle]

70. Exactly!

I agree with you completely.

[Jetheels]

71. I used to watch him.

The cover photo often show something that’s never even in the video.
The content has gone downhill.
The ads for his t-shirts he has on and audio books are annoying.
I didn’t mind the set copy from Seder.
I couldn’t watch Seder anymore too many “ummmmms”.
I agree the posts of his videos should be labeled Pakman, although I’m getting better at avoiding, they look kind of generic.