4 ms·

This is categorically false: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYveLPTC/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYveLPTC/ Also it just doesn’t make sense.

gosub100 2y ago
there are better citations than tiktok, please.
- ksenzee 2y ago
  In this case the video is a bona fide Biblical scholar who does public outreach on TikTok. It's a good source.
  - Trasmatta 2y ago
    Oh yeah, I just clicked the link and it's Dan McClellan. Maybe TikTok isn't the best place to cite, but he's highly credible in terms of Biblical scholarship and history.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  No one asked for your opinion on TikTok.
- vFunct 2y ago
  The source is Dan Mccllelan, not TikTok. TikTok didn’t publish this, Dan did. TikTok is the medium, not the author. Otherwise it’s like complaining about citing “words printed on paper” when citing a book or journal.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    It's just an unsuitable, attention-zapping, toxic format for sharing information. It would be best to link to an article that can convey the full message. not a 15 second jolt which is what TT is all about.
    - vFunct 2y ago
      The opposite. It would be unsuitable to link to a long-form article when a 15 second TikTok video would convey the relevant information just fine. What exactly was incorrect about Dans video? (He’s great BTW) These new information medium was invented for a reason, in particular, the economic efficiency of conveying information. I would suggest people learn to use them.
      - gosub100 2y ago
        why are you on a written forum right now? why aren't you making 15 second videos with rapidly changing frames?
        vFunct 2y ago
        It’s because I am posting lower effort content here than on TikTok. Want higher quality content? Then go to TikTok. The best part is you couldn’t answer what was wrong with Dan’s content.
        averageRoyalty 2y ago
        I broadly agree with you, but why be so black and white? Can't people consume multiple types of media?
        gosub100 2y ago
        Tiktok is particularly dangerous. And not because of the oft-repeated Chinese FUD (some of which may be true), but (my opinion here) it's the "crack" version of cocaine, or the "heroin" version of opium. Everything TT does goes straight to our psychological weaknesses. Matters of religion (as well as philosophy) simply can't be covered in bite-size 2-minute "shorts".
        vFunct 2y ago
        They certainly can be covered in 15-second shorts. There is no rule in information theory stating information has to be of a certain depth. It’s dangerous to argue that you need long-form articles to explain ideas.

gosub100 2y ago

there are better citations than tiktok, please.

ksenzee 2y ago
In this case the video is a bona fide Biblical scholar who does public outreach on TikTok. It's a good source.
- Trasmatta 2y ago
  Oh yeah, I just clicked the link and it's Dan McClellan. Maybe TikTok isn't the best place to cite, but he's highly credible in terms of Biblical scholarship and history.
krainboltgreene 2y ago
No one asked for your opinion on TikTok.
vFunct 2y ago
The source is Dan Mccllelan, not TikTok. TikTok didn’t publish this, Dan did. TikTok is the medium, not the author. Otherwise it’s like complaining about citing “words printed on paper” when citing a book or journal.
- gosub100 2y ago
  It's just an unsuitable, attention-zapping, toxic format for sharing information. It would be best to link to an article that can convey the full message. not a 15 second jolt which is what TT is all about.
  - vFunct 2y ago
    The opposite. It would be unsuitable to link to a long-form article when a 15 second TikTok video would convey the relevant information just fine. What exactly was incorrect about Dans video? (He’s great BTW) These new information medium was invented for a reason, in particular, the economic efficiency of conveying information. I would suggest people learn to use them.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      why are you on a written forum right now? why aren't you making 15 second videos with rapidly changing frames?
      - vFunct 2y ago
        It’s because I am posting lower effort content here than on TikTok. Want higher quality content? Then go to TikTok. The best part is you couldn’t answer what was wrong with Dan’s content.
      - averageRoyalty 2y ago
        I broadly agree with you, but why be so black and white? Can't people consume multiple types of media?
        gosub100 2y ago
        Tiktok is particularly dangerous. And not because of the oft-repeated Chinese FUD (some of which may be true), but (my opinion here) it's the "crack" version of cocaine, or the "heroin" version of opium. Everything TT does goes straight to our psychological weaknesses. Matters of religion (as well as philosophy) simply can't be covered in bite-size 2-minute "shorts".
        vFunct 2y ago
        They certainly can be covered in 15-second shorts. There is no rule in information theory stating information has to be of a certain depth. It’s dangerous to argue that you need long-form articles to explain ideas.