hello skyen!! i wanted to share a little piece of perspective from our audience pov --- take it or leave it, idrc obvi!
been a long time fan and a while ago u discussed ur tone of voice. Specifically how you slow things down to emphasize or make a PointTM, which is fair and common practice!
anyway, been watching ur vids (especially your shorts) ever since with that lens and there's one thing that u might be interested in knowing about
basically, when your idea is weaker, that same engaging tone now reads quite a lot as mansplaining
(as a side note, I think we all generally do find u spouting good opinons more often than not!! which is really all anyone can ask for)
I think the general cause of this is men making a big fuss over explaining straightforward ideas to a mostly female/non-male audience. But I don't think this issue translates at all into your long-form content. Since ur ideas are not necessarily simple, even if I disagree with them, it would never read as mansplaining. Also, the art of the lecture, I think, justifies a tad bit of mansplaining anyway.
It's really just the shorts, which I understand are made to attract a new, and perhaps not as rigorous, audience.
But for your long-time audience, idrk if the tone does anything productive? Each short is usually one or two developed ideas, and there's certainly not enough volume to necessitate that kind of emphasis. We can understand it perfectly fine and intuitively know where your "thesis statement" is or your ultimate conclusion, even just by reading it. Best case scenario, your tone of voice is ignored, and worst case scenario, it reads as mansplaining.
To be fair, I strongly believe that besides this, the current system works rather well, and I don't know if there's enough justification to change it up. If not this flaw, then inevitably some other weakness will appear. But just thought as a critic, you might appreciate a bit of external perspective!
I don't think I really understand this critique. I am not sure how to parse the point you are making, and I don't think I understand what change (if any) you are arguing for.
Honestly, given that this is coming from a completely empty blog, it reads a lot more like a troll's attempt at negging me into... I guess being insecure about my style of delivery? Which would be very strange behaviour. Mansplaining, at a baseline, requires me to make an assumption about your level of knowledge based on your gender, and I can't do that when posting broadly to an anonymous audience. In fact, the information I do have is that the majority of my audience is male (or at least The Apps think so). So it feels like this is less about the qualities of my delivery and more about your personal response to a given tone of voice, which, while valid, is not really useful or actionable critique from my perspective.
I also don't think I really like that snide little "it's made to attract a new and not as rigourous audience" jibe. As opposed to... what? How rigorous you are? What is that supposed to mean, exactly, if not to signal disavowal of an audience who you feel are dumber and less discerning than you? Whatever the intent, it does not endear me to your perspective, and I would be a much worse essayist than I already am if I started from the position that the audience is beneath me.
If you are very rigorous, and invested in rigour, then my earnest advice is don't watch YouTube Shorts—mine or anyone else's. You seem happier watching my longer essays, and I would love to get the extra views on them. If rigour is a priority for you, then it is very silly behaviour to be scrolling the short form dopamine trap feeds of the internet. You are shopping for pants at the soup store.