It was mildly interesting to watch (listen) to this perspective. He's right: I don't care much about Breaking as a sport. It turns out the scene in Australia is tiny and the people who do it are amateur. For Raygun, she had to do three dance battles in a field of eight women to qualify as Australia's entry into the Olympics. Which globally is a very low bar.

To sum up the video:
Yes, she sucked. But it isn't like Australia was ever going to do well in this event no matter who we sent.
Dancers in the Australian breaking scene can't afford to travel to global events and get good.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For Raygun, she had to do three dance battles in a field of eight women

I found this strange. He said himself that she had to do 4, and then just...discounted one of them, for some reason? It was a field of 15, that got cut down to 8 in a process he didn't explain, except to say that it wasn't the normal group stage.

I'd add a third important bullet point to your summing up: that the points system breaking uses is not necessarily just rewarding the flashiest physical dancing. And that while she is bad, she's not necessarily as bad compared to other dancers—within the point system used—as you might expect as a complete amateur watching her and watching some other Aussie.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago

He discounted the preliminary dance, I assumed because it was not a battle. But I'm not going to go back and check. It wasn't that interesting. 😀

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Drop the clickbate title and say what the video is of.

[–] dan@upvote.au 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not sure about this community, but many Lemmy communities have a rule that if you post a link to a news article or video, you need to keep the post title the same as the source.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

o.O another aussie instance. Interesting.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, you're right ofcourse. I just did a bad job of explaining my frustration with clickbate naming trends.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The word is "clickbait", by the way.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Usually it's spelled that way, but this is more like an eggcorn than a mistake.

I kind of like the idea that it's clickbating, like the creator is jerking themselves off about how much they love clicks, or how clever they are with their manipulative title.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's always spelled that way. The word is clickbait, there is no such thing as "clickbate" and it's nowhere near common enough of a misspelling to be considered an eggcorn.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago

Lol, that's fair. Leaving it for historical reasons.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I would like you to show me any credible source saying that an eggcorn must achieve widespread adoption before it can be described as such.

The prescriptivist idea that something needs to be in a dictionary before it can be considered a feature of language is something that linguists - including the dictionary authors themselves - disavow.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. "Clickbate" is not a word.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ah yes, the first resort of the prescriptivist: baldly assert that you are correct with absolutely no reasoning behind it.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand linguistics or you wouldn't have declared so confidently that something said on purpose and clearly understood by you to be "not a word".

Like you literally said that you don't understand my argument and then declared me wrong anyway. I could explain further but it doesn't seem like you want to understand.

If you do want to actually learn something here, let me know and I am quite happy to help.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Like you literally said that you don’t understand my argument

Yes, that is what I just said. You had an opportunity just now to explain it, instead you typed up four sentences that achieved nothing other than to (I assume) make you feel like you'd "won" the argument.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What don't you understand? I gave you the terms to look up to educate yourself if you actually cared, but instead of showing interest or the humility to ask, you literally just declared that you were right again without any reasoning and while saying you were ignorant.

So shall I take this as you not being interested in the information? It would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I could explain further

Fascinating how you suddenly backtrack on this when actually being asked to explain further lol

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 week ago

You didn't ask me to explain anything, you said I had the chance. You're right, I could've kept trying, but you didn't ask, and I don't owe it to you.

I have spent far too much energy in the past trying to explain to people who aren't listening to bother with people who are functionally no different to a brick wall. It's exhausting and pointless.

And on a more simple, practical level, if you don't tell me what you found confusing about what I said, then I don't know what you need explained. As I said, the information is there if you want to investigate any of the terms you didn't understand. If you want my help, you are going to need to express it.

Which is why, when I detect this behaviour, like you showed when you baldly repeated:

"Clickbate" is not a word.

I always stop and ask the person to express literally any curiosity to understand. In my experience people who aren't listening won't do this. Like I said, it would cost you nothing to ask if you actually do want to know.

You can express that you are curious to understand what I'm saying, or you can not. That is up to you, but it's literally free to do, and it's all I ask.

Do what you want.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is the title of the actual video with the bit in braces added.

The description reads:
Welcome to the Raygun retrospective.

My name is Jafri, I’ve been dancing for 10 years and been going to events in Australia for the past 7. I’ve been observing all that’s been happening over the last year since the Olympics and wanted to provide my perspective on Raygun and Australian breaking.

Why now you ask?

I felt this was important for me to share as someone who has experienced breaking in Australia. You all know by now that breakers are a rare breed in this corner of the world and I feel like a lot of detail was missed in other videos, so I wanted to provide something for the scene that was actually substantial.

Now that the smoke and mirrors around Raygun has dissipated, I’m hoping you can watch my video from a different place.

Thanks for your time and enjoy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

0:00 - Chapter 0
2:44 - Chapter 1: Australia’s Disadvantages
11:11 - Chapter 2: That Fateful Weekend
16:32 - Chapter 3: Complacency
20:15 - Chapter 4: Incidents
23:51 - Chapter 5: Picking Up The Pieces

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks for clarifying and also posting the full description.

I dont think the post is bad, just the original video title. It's also weird that the original description lacks any actual description of what will be talked about. I just dislike the mystery of clickbate titled videos.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you want to provide a title of your own, be my guest. I prefer when Lemmy users keep their editorialising to a minimum when sharing content from elsewhere in the web, so I stick to OG titles or visible headlines, adding necessary context in square brackets when I feel it's necessary.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry, didn't mean this to be a critique of the post. You should totally just use the video title as you did and keep editorializing minimal.

I just dislike the trend of naming videos like this in general. Again, not your fault unless you are the video creator.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah that's fair. I'm not the creator of this video, but I think this is an interesting case. Because I too hate clickbaity titles. But I actually think that the combination of the thumbnail ("I was there") with the title made it clear enough what the video would be about. Sure, rephrasing the title as "the true story of how Raygun represented Australia in the Olympics" or something like that would have been better, but that probably still would attracted criticism for clickbaitiness, despite being about as accurate and straightforward as you can get in the short space of a title.