Kingstream Sep 21 2017: The Kings Return

The Kingstream will be live shortly. You can watch the livestream live or via replay afterwards on YouTube.

55 thoughts on “Kingstream Sep 21 2017: The Kings Return”

      1. Isn’t that incredible? Incredibly dishonest?

        Let’s rephrase what Google told me in a way that reflects reality.

        “Playback on other websites has been disabled because the video owner is being uncooperative with us.”

        What a dramatic shift of blame.

          1. I appreciate that. I may tend toward the silliness and irreverent in the comments, but I’m here for the same fundamental reason as the rest of you. I am of like mind on both the topics and conclusions thereupon.

            You guys are doing an excellent job. So you’re all banned.

      2. Only five hours late, but perhaps this is a potential/partial workaround? Post the youtube link directly in the Disqus comment section. From a visitors perspective, there isn’t a whole ton of difference between the page embed and an embedded embed, so long as you post the link first in the comments. Might work in the short term.

    1. so I’m watching youtube in peace and suddenly your damned head and “gay” pops up in the comments…….hahahahahahahaa nowhere is safe!

                  1. Jak, you got a couple commenters in the YouTube live chat. You might interact with them to encourage viewers.

  1. Did anyone who got banned buy a ROK T-shirt? LOL good thing I didn’t, I’d even feel silly if I ever put a tip in the jar.

  2. Not 10 minutes in and you’ve already skewered MGTOW.
    I could see these being a podcast type of thing that I listen to weekly.

      1. It would be nice to see more of the regular commenters here participate on the stream, that might allow for more frequent videos.

        1. We’ll open it up to commenters here in the future. We’re pretty flexible in the format. Some will be more spontaneous, like last night’s livestream, while others will be more structured where we talk about specific topics.

  3. Jak, you got a better microphone, good work.

    Boothe, you sound a little like Billy Bob Thornton

    good work fellas

  4. Just finished watching this. It was the first one of these I have ever watched, and I enjoyed it. I think this site attacks an angle of the manosphere that is under-served – a family oriented red pill – and I think this is a good vehicle to convey information. Not just from the authors and founders, but also from commenters like GoJ who always strike me as having a lot of valuable life experience and wisdom to share, but who, because they are busy with their lives, don’t have time to write articles.

    Having said all that, I offer below some points of constructive criticism in the hope that it will help refine and sharpen this and make it more useful and accessible as a means to convey that information. I think it is a crime that this hasn’t yet cracked 100 views on YouTube, and what I would hope is that with a more refined product, you would snare a larger audience. Also, for what it is worth, this type of criticism and refinement is exactly what I do, and expect my professional peers to do to me, for any type of argument we expect to make in court, to a client, or a CLE webcast, etc…. So if it makes you feel better, I’m not just some random internet asshole bitching about things, I am actually trying to offer advice that would be given in my own profession.

    I confess to offering this advice without knowing if any of it was already implemented. If so, it may be that you need to work at it more, or it may be that what I suggest was tried, doesn’t work and I should fuck off. I leave it to you to decide.

    First, did you rehearse this beforehand? I get the sense that you coordinated schedules, got everyone online and had a free-flow conversation, which was fine, but it took a while to get going, for the good stuff to start to come out, and for some of the interesting back and forth to happen. You don’t want it to come across like a Socratic method university lecture, you want it to feel like an organic conversation that you are luck to be privy to. You might want to consider doing a trial run of the discussion before holding the public one. Come to the trial run with your list of topics and questions and sit around for at least double the amount of time you expect the public broadcast to be, and just spit ball and have a free form discussion with the attendees. Your moderator should take notes about what topics are “hot” (people have lots to say and interesting, different or conflicting views) and “cold” (the conversation is a dead end and so the moderator has to come up with awkward bridges between the topics or really work to force the discussion along). The moderator’s goal should be to identify the right topics and questions that will keep things moving, and the idea is that instead of spending 15 minutes on getting to know you stuff, where the conversation is lukewarm and not that interesting to instead be able to jump right into the meat of stuff that people are logging in to hear about. If it takes too long to get there, people will be less inclined to listen. Additionally, this has the benefit of letting your guests think about the topics, which they may not have had time to do, and letting them hear the other views, which gives them time to think about it again before the live run and develop their thoughts more fully. This could really help the conversation. For example, in this video, LH was talking about some studies he looked at, and GoJ was dismissive of them. The trial run would allow you to identify that this is a point guests are interested in going back and forth on, AND allow LH to forward the studies in question to the group for them to look at. Maybe after review, others would take LH’s side. Or perhaps GoJ’s views would shift, or at a minimum he could give concrete examples of where the studies were flawed. All of this makes the conversation more useful and engaging. A trial run will also allow you to troubleshoot any technical issues.

    Second, this may be personal preference, but I would spend more time on fewer topics and allow for more nuanced discussion. If during the trial run, your guests don’t have much to say, save them for other topics where they do, and only invite people interested in the topics at hand. You don’t want to force people to chime in if they have nothing valuable to say just so that you can have everyone speak. It is more engaging if the conversation flows organically and it seems like you are getting to listen in to an interesting discussion where everyone is actively engaged.

    Third, on topics, have you considered soliciting suggested topics from your readers? You may already have a bunch of ideas lined up, but that may not be what your audience is interested in hearing. If you don’t get useful suggestions, you may consider offering it up for a vote between three or four possible topics with the two subjects receiving the most votes becoming the next topics discussed. Give people a reason to tune in – they know you will discuss something they want to hear about.

    Fourth, and this may be something I missed because I didn’t join live, but if you don’t have a way for your listeners to contribute, you should consider it. You may want to have your moderator monitor an open email address that is sent out in the announcement where people can email questions or comments (this helps make the moderator’s job easier too as he can think of additional points and help move the conversation forward). For brave souls, you may also consider having an open cell number people could dial in to and ask questions or provide comments in real time. (I leave it to smarter people than me to figure out the technical details of this). It makes the conversation more engaging, opens the discussion to the possible inclusion of other points no one has considered, provides an outlet to make sure the audience is satisfied, and is something that is pretty standard. Hell, you could even dedicate a specific portion of your time to fielding these types of calls/emails. NPR does this all the time to good effect – they have their guests chat for a while about their positions, then open it up to listeners, riff off that for a while, back to just the panel for more discussion etc… It is effective (OK, I just threw up in my mouth a little having to say that, but it is true).

    Finally, be very careful about using real names. At a couple of points, I thought I heard them. I realize that some of you live in areas or have occupations that are more anti-fragile than others. But realize that once the enemy knows your identity, it can use that to chip away at the identity of others, and you have no idea what some lunatic fuck will try to do. And, it also makes others less willing to contribute. I’ll be completely honest here – I am not in a position to share my identity because I work in a very narrow practice area, in an uber-liberal city, populated with people who would gladly kill my career if I was outed. Maybe that makes me a pussy for not standing up to be counted, but I have a wife and three kids at home and a mortgage to pay, and I can’t take unnecessary risks that jeopardize them just to stand on principle. If it was just me, it would be different, but it is not. I don’t think this was intentional on anyone’s part, but you should be very careful of it. This is another reason why a trial run helps – think of it as getting into character. And, while this risk cannot be completely eliminated during the live run, you should at least scrub this kind of stuff from the audio before posting it to YouTube. That way, if some blue hair hears it, you can always have deniability because there is no way to confirm it.

    So good job on this gentlemen. I’ll look forward to future episodes. To the extent any of this is useful, I don’t expect a royalty check. To the extent I’m off base, I’ll go fuck off now.

Comments are closed.