Is this some kind of ultra deep satire? I'm trying to finish the video but the writing is infantile and the narration is cringe worthy. It feels like what a pretentious 12-year-old would do right...
Is this some kind of ultra deep satire?
I'm trying to finish the video but the writing is infantile and the narration is cringe worthy. It feels like what a pretentious 12-year-old would do right after watching The Matrix in 1999. Or one of those UFO videos made in 2010 that look like VHS for some reason, arguing that politicians are reptiles and mistaking lights from a concert with an alien invasion.
The music and editing are awful too.
There must be hundreds of anti-Rogan videos better than this one.
I don't know about "ultra deep" but it is definitely satirical. Although perhaps calling it a parody would be more accurate? I strongly suspect that is precisely the point of the video's style, to...
Is this some kind of ultra deep satire?
I don't know about "ultra deep" but it is definitely satirical. Although perhaps calling it a parody would be more accurate?
Or one of those UFO videos made in 2010 that look like VHS for some reason, arguing that politicians are reptiles and mistaking lights from a concert with an alien invasion.
I strongly suspect that is precisely the point of the video's style, to evoke that familiar look/sound/feel of old conspiracy theory videos. After all, Rogan et al. actually believe in similarly bizarre conspiracy theories that are equally absurd, idiotic, and willfully ignorant, so what better way to lampoon them and their beliefs than in the style of their predecessors?
p.s. I left it playing in the background while I did other things, and thought it was mildly entertaining, and not "awful". I'm already well aware of how nuts Rogan and his associates have become though, so nothing presented in the video was really news to me... and perhaps that's why I didn't mind that it wasn't straightforward criticism, like you seem to have expected and wanted out of it. cc: @Omnicrola since you asked for something similar from OP.
I think sardonic might be a better term than satirical. Anyways, the information about Rogan was kind of secondary to me versus the information about the people he associates with. I'm generally...
I think sardonic might be a better term than satirical. Anyways, the information about Rogan was kind of secondary to me versus the information about the people he associates with. I'm generally out of the loop on this stuff, though - didn't know who Peter Thiel was before watching.
If you're able to recall, could you give an example of this infantile writing? Like is it the style or the content? I'd describe Elephant Graveyard as tongue in cheek, there are jokes and...
If you're able to recall, could you give an example of this infantile writing? Like is it the style or the content?
I'd describe Elephant Graveyard as tongue in cheek, there are jokes and continuous flow of jabs. The whole thing is presented as off the cuff ramble while obviously scripted. The grungy analogous (or whatever you call that) style all makes me think that it's going for something like "smoking weed with your friends big brother in their basement" combined with midnight talk radio. Honestly its vibes are kinda similar to Joe Rogan (in my mind, I haven't listened to Joe Rogan beyond clips).
I won't look for quotes as that would likely trigger an endless discussion. But the whole thing feels like listening to a clueless teenager smoking pot after their first philosophy class ever. I,...
If you're able to recall, could you give an example of this infantile writing? Like is it the style or the content?
I won't look for quotes as that would likely trigger an endless discussion. But the whole thing feels like listening to a clueless teenager smoking pot after their first philosophy class ever. I, personally, find that neither entertaining nor very informative. To each their own I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Certainly, it seems like it's just not your thing. Beyond the ramblings it's also indirectly in conversation with the Joe Rogan sphere but if you don't care about (that) drama, I don't think...
Certainly, it seems like it's just not your thing. Beyond the ramblings it's also indirectly in conversation with the Joe Rogan sphere but if you don't care about (that) drama, I don't think there's much for you.
Anyway, for me it works. A little funny, a little insightful and then there's the meat, which is the topic(s) that unravel pretty naturally imo in the span of the videos. There's clearly talent and care put into these videos.
I tried, i got to about the 6 minute mark before I bailed. I centrally like long form essay type videos, but after 6 minutes I had no idea what this person was even attempting. @zenen can you help...
I tried, i got to about the 6 minute mark before I bailed. I centrally like long form essay type videos, but after 6 minutes I had no idea what this person was even attempting.
@zenen can you help me out? What in particular did you like about this video?
I liked both the delivery and content of the essay's main points. The delivery was tongue-in-cheek and relatively easy to digest. The central argument was built up intentionally, with each piece...
I liked both the delivery and content of the essay's main points.
The delivery was tongue-in-cheek and relatively easy to digest. The central argument was built up intentionally, with each piece being well-introduced and applicable towards the thesis (e.g. the animal instinct to say "I gotta get outta here", as then applied to contemporary culture where the main place to escape to is hyperreality).
The content was compelling, informed by philosophical arguments that gave me inspiration for further reading. He references The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus, which is something I've heard of but haven't read. The concept of "faith as philosophical suicide" was a really interesting one that inspired me to actually track down that book and read it. Likewise with Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.
The thesis itself was something that I'm going to ponder for a while. It's not really about Joe Rogan so much as the role that he plays in the 'alt-right' / 'manosphere' cultures that seem to be moving social progress backwards. He makes a really fascinating tie-in between Palantir as a software company and the idea from Lord of the Rings, and references some compelling ideas from They Live and Videodrome to build a cohesive image of how and why the mainstream internet is the way it is today.
All this, and I got a couple giggles in along the way. It was a good reminder for me to check out of the online world and make sure I'm continuing to ground in baseline reality, rather than doing a 'philosophical sui' and choosing to build my worldview around somebody else's hyperreal construction.
Thanks! I gave it another try, but I think the style is just not something that appeals to me. So I appreciate you breaking down the aspects that really spoke to you.
Thanks! I gave it another try, but I think the style is just not something that appeals to me. So I appreciate you breaking down the aspects that really spoke to you.
I think that if you want a representation of the real meat of what the author is hinting at beneath the veil of "comedy", this video works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprk-HxrHfw Same person,...
I think that if you want a representation of the real meat of what the author is hinting at beneath the veil of "comedy", this video works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprk-HxrHfw
Same person, much shorter video - nothing funny about this one. I would argue that what he does has a lot of artistic merit and calling it "pretentious" or "childish" is a way to dismiss it out of hand without engaging with the art authentically.
I have watched Joe Rogan specials on Netflix and they're pretty good. Despite everyone saying he's not funny. Probably due to politics. I don't like his politics either. But the dude can be funny....
I have watched Joe Rogan specials on Netflix and they're pretty good. Despite everyone saying he's not funny. Probably due to politics. I don't like his politics either. But the dude can be funny. Not genius or anything, just regular, stand-up-comedy fun. Am I just better at compartmentalizing? Maybe.
I watched this the other day and I found it really funny. It was both funny and slightly depressing when you think about how many people still get their info from rogan. Overall I thought it was...
I watched this the other day and I found it really funny. It was both funny and slightly depressing when you think about how many people still get their info from rogan. Overall I thought it was an accurate depiction of what that whole scene has become.
I went and watched the other taken down videos about rogan and they were also fairly funny and entertaining. I think his style probably isn't for everyone but if you have been watching all the other videos it makes more sense and you are more 'jn' on the style. Ya know that's just like my opinion man.
I am genuinely shocked that some people don't get this video, either its presentation or the importance of its subject matter. Joe Rogan, whether you like him or not, is not a comedian anymore. He...
I am genuinely shocked that some people don't get this video, either its presentation or the importance of its subject matter. Joe Rogan, whether you like him or not, is not a comedian anymore. He is a cultural vein that the government and billionaires have tapped as a direct connection to the people that they have never been able to previously reach in such numbers; the pseudo-independent "self thinkers" and skeptics and consolidated these Qanoners into a group more digestible by the larger public: podcast listeners. This is a big vein, it arguably helped the president win the election and that means this is something worth studying and not just drama about a comedian. Through Joe theyre able to present their ideas and set their agendas in a way that somehow slips through the audience's natural defences for bullshit. Is Joe so deeply invested in this culture because of pure interests and ignorance towards what he's doing or has he willingly entered the bed with the very people he and his audience would previously categorize as the worst kind of spooks? If the former, how could he have been led to this slaughter and do his new ideas, perspectives, and friends create such a dissonance internally that he's crafted a reality around him that justifies what he's doing? Its a wonderfully thoughtful exploration of modern money, power, and influence in the current day. We live in a time where the propaganda needed for the justification of a war or the talking points around a highly scrutinized public figure are handed out to podcast hosts first and they take it because theyre just happy to seem important.
I'm curious to know what parts of the world people are from that dont get the humorous framing of the video and if it is a cultural thing. Have you never sat around with friends bullshitting conspiracies and drawing connections to things late into the night? Do you have trouble identifying and/or enjoying satire or critique? Maybe the beginning of the video is difficult because you dont have the context to know why you need to be thankin' or who david lucas is or why you should care and by the time you get into the JR stuff youre frustrated with the long wind up?
What you just described sounds like an interesting YouTube video! But this is an hour and a half long, and I bounced off pretty hard. Anything that lengthy seems like it should start with a strong...
What you just described sounds like an interesting YouTube video! But this is an hour and a half long, and I bounced off pretty hard. Anything that lengthy seems like it should start with a strong hook, but the video begins with a tie in to the author’s last piece … it sounds like they’re pretty prolific, but it’s hard for someone with no connection to their work to dive in.
That's somewhat fair, i think it does require you to have atleast some amount of interest and insight into the topic beforehand. Its not exactly an introduction. That being said, i do think its...
That's somewhat fair, i think it does require you to have atleast some amount of interest and insight into the topic beforehand. Its not exactly an introduction. That being said, i do think its well worth it and a standout piece of commentary.
Sometimes tone just doesn't land for people. The same information presented by five different YouTubers could have five very different responses from me. I think the idea that disliking it means...
Sometimes tone just doesn't land for people. The same information presented by five different YouTubers could have five very different responses from me. I think the idea that disliking it means difficulty identifying satire or "not getting" the "humorous" framing assumes that it's an issue of intelligence or something instead of just finding some styles of video presentation unpleasant or annoying or obnoxious.
Personally I found it unpleasant and dipped, I'm familiar enough with Rogan and his ilk to not need the education and not be that interested in suffering through a video to learn about someone I already dislike.
Satire/the tone of the video is something im just very accustomed to as a canadian so i was mainly curious if perhaps it just feels like an appropriate way of conveying the commentary to me...
Satire/the tone of the video is something im just very accustomed to as a canadian so i was mainly curious if perhaps it just feels like an appropriate way of conveying the commentary to me because im so used to it. I didnt like the way i phrased it either but i didnt feel like investing more time into writing something softer.
I'm also Canadian, and I enjoy satire and I bounced off every single one of his videos that I've tried to watch. Unlike some of the other people in the thread, I don't wonder why other people like...
I'm also Canadian, and I enjoy satire and I bounced off every single one of his videos that I've tried to watch. Unlike some of the other people in the thread, I don't wonder why other people like it, I get it. For me, though, it feels like he's really worked at packing 15 minutes of material into 90 minutes, and what I really want out of a YouTube video is a distillation of 90 minutes of understanding into a 15 minute segment.
I mean... that's like saying: 2001: A Space Odyssey had 10 minutes of material packed into 2 hours. I personally do the opposite and accept long form explanations of simple topics because the...
I mean... that's like saying: 2001: A Space Odyssey had 10 minutes of material packed into 2 hours. I personally do the opposite and accept long form explanations of simple topics because the reverse has a high likelihood of fumbling the ball. Very rarely can complex ideas be explained succinctly without missing nuance.
I think it's quite a bit different, and the big difference is fiction vs. non-fiction. For example, in this video, TEG talks about Kill Tony for quite a while, and many of the comparisons are not...
that's like saying: 2001: A Space Odyssey had 10 minutes of material packed into 2 hours
I think it's quite a bit different, and the big difference is fiction vs. non-fiction. For example, in this video, TEG talks about Kill Tony for quite a while, and many of the comparisons are not particularly nuanced. Having a minute of WWE footage to say "Kill Tony is like the WWE" was all to make a 10 second point last over a minute. I understand wanting to tell a story, and I think that's important, but I find that everything TEG does sets a very slow pace. I am not making a qualitative statement about that pacing - it is absolutely okay with me if that's what you like, and you enjoy it, and I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. However, It's not what I want, and I think there are a fair number of people who feel similarly.
I mean, I think it's fair to say that the some of the points were drawn out. However, the minute of WWE footage wasn't just to make the comparison with Kill Tony - it was to introduce the concept...
I mean, I think it's fair to say that the some of the points were drawn out. However, the minute of WWE footage wasn't just to make the comparison with Kill Tony - it was to introduce the concept of kayfabe, which itself has broader implications than either of the subjects on their own. Within the context of the video, kayfabe is introduced as one of the pillars that upholds the hyperreality - i.e. people laughing at stuff that isn't funny to uphold an illusion of "comedy".
That said, I think that this sort of media blends the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction. I'm not sure if there's a word for this, but I think I express myself creatively in a similar way. Fiction is generally representative of reality through some abstractive lens. Non-fiction is usually required to have a sort of 1:1 correspondence with consensus reality. The narrator, in this case, does not have 1:1 correspondence with the author's voice. The narrator is a character in the sense that he refers to David Lucas as his "comedy guru" and Joe Rogan as the "comedy czar". These are not genuine representations of the human beings, but rather roles that they are playing within the video's narrative.
I'm thoroughly impressed by the video, but it definitely seems to be polarizing content. The same things that I do like about it are going to be things that other people dislike about it - and that's what makes it art, in my book.
if you're shocked at some people's reactions, refer to: this segment here it's cerebral stuff, you know. a lot of people don't have the stamina to stay up all night thankin' about what the funny...
if you're shocked at some people's reactions, refer to: this segment here
it's cerebral stuff, you know. a lot of people don't have the stamina to stay up all night thankin' about what the funny man is saying
(sorry, the background track was giving me a headache :( ) Is the author talking about Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality, through the lens of Joe Rogan?
(sorry, the background track was giving me a headache :( )
Yea, the idea that Joe Rogan lives in a hyperreality of his own construction is a pretty key part of the whole video. It's extended into the idea of how cults form and disconnect people from...
Yea, the idea that Joe Rogan lives in a hyperreality of his own construction is a pretty key part of the whole video. It's extended into the idea of how cults form and disconnect people from baseline, consensus reality. He also refers to Camus' idea of "philosophical suicide" for how people are affected by being forced to uphold this hyperreality when it conflicts with their own belief systems.
I really enjoyed this and the other videos about Rogan and Seinfeld and comedy in general. The observations and insight, coupled with that dry dull tongue-in-cheek narration, are well-presented...
I really enjoyed this and the other videos about Rogan and Seinfeld and comedy in general. The observations and insight, coupled with that dry dull tongue-in-cheek narration, are well-presented and entertaining I think.
This YouTube channel generally baffles me though. Some of the other videos just don't make sense to me. Do you have to be Canadian or North American to fully appreciate the videos' subject matter?
Anyway, this video in particular was entertaining and Insightful and helped me understand who the whole state off affairs with Rogan and the people he's associated with.
I think this is a tough one to start with if your not familiar with his style. Especially considering its length. Maybe the Seinfeld one with about 30 minutes runtime is better and more...
I think this is a tough one to start with if your not familiar with his style. Especially considering its length. Maybe the Seinfeld one with about 30 minutes runtime is better and more digestible. I actually find this one to be a bit weak too.
I'm not into all that either. I mean, I watch true crime that is less sensationalized. Sure, there are bad things to say about Jerry Seinfeld. Maybe he's awful. But why does the music, editing,...
I'm not into all that either. I mean, I watch true crime that is less sensationalized. Sure, there are bad things to say about Jerry Seinfeld. Maybe he's awful. But why does the music, editing, and narration makes it feel like I'm watching a doc about Ted Bundy? I'm just not that into all that exaggeration and grandiloquence in a video about a comedian.
I recognize that trend in sensationalizing in other creators and It's just not my thing.
Well I actually agree I wasn’t that impressed. I would carefully compare it to Norm MacDonald in that either you like it and in that sense “get the style” or not.
Well I actually agree I wasn’t that impressed. I would carefully compare it to Norm MacDonald in that either you like it and in that sense “get the style” or not.
I haven't got to watching this yet but I was listening to Marc Maron's recent episode with Jeremy Allen White earlier and he was giving high praise to the channel, tried (trying?) to get the...
I haven't got to watching this yet but I was listening to Marc Maron's recent episode with Jeremy Allen White earlier and he was giving high praise to the channel, tried (trying?) to get the creator on his podcast.
Is this some kind of ultra deep satire?
I'm trying to finish the video but the writing is infantile and the narration is cringe worthy. It feels like what a pretentious 12-year-old would do right after watching The Matrix in 1999. Or one of those UFO videos made in 2010 that look like VHS for some reason, arguing that politicians are reptiles and mistaking lights from a concert with an alien invasion.
The music and editing are awful too.
There must be hundreds of anti-Rogan videos better than this one.
I don't know about "ultra deep" but it is definitely satirical. Although perhaps calling it a parody would be more accurate?
I strongly suspect that is precisely the point of the video's style, to evoke that familiar look/sound/feel of old conspiracy theory videos. After all, Rogan et al. actually believe in similarly bizarre conspiracy theories that are equally absurd, idiotic, and willfully ignorant, so what better way to lampoon them and their beliefs than in the style of their predecessors?
p.s. I left it playing in the background while I did other things, and thought it was mildly entertaining, and not "awful". I'm already well aware of how nuts Rogan and his associates have become though, so nothing presented in the video was really news to me... and perhaps that's why I didn't mind that it wasn't straightforward criticism, like you seem to have expected and wanted out of it. cc: @Omnicrola since you asked for something similar from OP.
I think sardonic might be a better term than satirical. Anyways, the information about Rogan was kind of secondary to me versus the information about the people he associates with. I'm generally out of the loop on this stuff, though - didn't know who Peter Thiel was before watching.
If you're able to recall, could you give an example of this infantile writing? Like is it the style or the content?
I'd describe Elephant Graveyard as tongue in cheek, there are jokes and continuous flow of jabs. The whole thing is presented as off the cuff ramble while obviously scripted. The grungy analogous (or whatever you call that) style all makes me think that it's going for something like "smoking weed with your friends big brother in their basement" combined with midnight talk radio. Honestly its vibes are kinda similar to Joe Rogan (in my mind, I haven't listened to Joe Rogan beyond clips).
I won't look for quotes as that would likely trigger an endless discussion. But the whole thing feels like listening to a clueless teenager smoking pot after their first philosophy class ever. I, personally, find that neither entertaining nor very informative. To each their own I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Certainly, it seems like it's just not your thing. Beyond the ramblings it's also indirectly in conversation with the Joe Rogan sphere but if you don't care about (that) drama, I don't think there's much for you.
Anyway, for me it works. A little funny, a little insightful and then there's the meat, which is the topic(s) that unravel pretty naturally imo in the span of the videos. There's clearly talent and care put into these videos.
I tried, i got to about the 6 minute mark before I bailed. I centrally like long form essay type videos, but after 6 minutes I had no idea what this person was even attempting.
@zenen can you help me out? What in particular did you like about this video?
I liked both the delivery and content of the essay's main points.
The delivery was tongue-in-cheek and relatively easy to digest. The central argument was built up intentionally, with each piece being well-introduced and applicable towards the thesis (e.g. the animal instinct to say "I gotta get outta here", as then applied to contemporary culture where the main place to escape to is hyperreality).
The content was compelling, informed by philosophical arguments that gave me inspiration for further reading. He references The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus, which is something I've heard of but haven't read. The concept of "faith as philosophical suicide" was a really interesting one that inspired me to actually track down that book and read it. Likewise with Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.
The thesis itself was something that I'm going to ponder for a while. It's not really about Joe Rogan so much as the role that he plays in the 'alt-right' / 'manosphere' cultures that seem to be moving social progress backwards. He makes a really fascinating tie-in between Palantir as a software company and the idea from Lord of the Rings, and references some compelling ideas from They Live and Videodrome to build a cohesive image of how and why the mainstream internet is the way it is today.
All this, and I got a couple giggles in along the way. It was a good reminder for me to check out of the online world and make sure I'm continuing to ground in baseline reality, rather than doing a 'philosophical sui' and choosing to build my worldview around somebody else's hyperreal construction.
Thanks! I gave it another try, but I think the style is just not something that appeals to me. So I appreciate you breaking down the aspects that really spoke to you.
I think that if you want a representation of the real meat of what the author is hinting at beneath the veil of "comedy", this video works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprk-HxrHfw
Same person, much shorter video - nothing funny about this one. I would argue that what he does has a lot of artistic merit and calling it "pretentious" or "childish" is a way to dismiss it out of hand without engaging with the art authentically.
I have watched Joe Rogan specials on Netflix and they're pretty good. Despite everyone saying he's not funny. Probably due to politics. I don't like his politics either. But the dude can be funny. Not genius or anything, just regular, stand-up-comedy fun. Am I just better at compartmentalizing? Maybe.
Highly entertaining deep-dive into the background and sociopolitical impact of Joe Rogan as a cult leader.
I watched this the other day and I found it really funny. It was both funny and slightly depressing when you think about how many people still get their info from rogan. Overall I thought it was an accurate depiction of what that whole scene has become.
I went and watched the other taken down videos about rogan and they were also fairly funny and entertaining. I think his style probably isn't for everyone but if you have been watching all the other videos it makes more sense and you are more 'jn' on the style. Ya know that's just like my opinion man.
I am genuinely shocked that some people don't get this video, either its presentation or the importance of its subject matter. Joe Rogan, whether you like him or not, is not a comedian anymore. He is a cultural vein that the government and billionaires have tapped as a direct connection to the people that they have never been able to previously reach in such numbers; the pseudo-independent "self thinkers" and skeptics and consolidated these Qanoners into a group more digestible by the larger public: podcast listeners. This is a big vein, it arguably helped the president win the election and that means this is something worth studying and not just drama about a comedian. Through Joe theyre able to present their ideas and set their agendas in a way that somehow slips through the audience's natural defences for bullshit. Is Joe so deeply invested in this culture because of pure interests and ignorance towards what he's doing or has he willingly entered the bed with the very people he and his audience would previously categorize as the worst kind of spooks? If the former, how could he have been led to this slaughter and do his new ideas, perspectives, and friends create such a dissonance internally that he's crafted a reality around him that justifies what he's doing? Its a wonderfully thoughtful exploration of modern money, power, and influence in the current day. We live in a time where the propaganda needed for the justification of a war or the talking points around a highly scrutinized public figure are handed out to podcast hosts first and they take it because theyre just happy to seem important.
I'm curious to know what parts of the world people are from that dont get the humorous framing of the video and if it is a cultural thing. Have you never sat around with friends bullshitting conspiracies and drawing connections to things late into the night? Do you have trouble identifying and/or enjoying satire or critique? Maybe the beginning of the video is difficult because you dont have the context to know why you need to be thankin' or who david lucas is or why you should care and by the time you get into the JR stuff youre frustrated with the long wind up?
What you just described sounds like an interesting YouTube video! But this is an hour and a half long, and I bounced off pretty hard. Anything that lengthy seems like it should start with a strong hook, but the video begins with a tie in to the author’s last piece … it sounds like they’re pretty prolific, but it’s hard for someone with no connection to their work to dive in.
That's somewhat fair, i think it does require you to have atleast some amount of interest and insight into the topic beforehand. Its not exactly an introduction. That being said, i do think its well worth it and a standout piece of commentary.
Sometimes tone just doesn't land for people. The same information presented by five different YouTubers could have five very different responses from me. I think the idea that disliking it means difficulty identifying satire or "not getting" the "humorous" framing assumes that it's an issue of intelligence or something instead of just finding some styles of video presentation unpleasant or annoying or obnoxious.
Personally I found it unpleasant and dipped, I'm familiar enough with Rogan and his ilk to not need the education and not be that interested in suffering through a video to learn about someone I already dislike.
Satire/the tone of the video is something im just very accustomed to as a canadian so i was mainly curious if perhaps it just feels like an appropriate way of conveying the commentary to me because im so used to it. I didnt like the way i phrased it either but i didnt feel like investing more time into writing something softer.
I'm also Canadian, and I enjoy satire and I bounced off every single one of his videos that I've tried to watch. Unlike some of the other people in the thread, I don't wonder why other people like it, I get it. For me, though, it feels like he's really worked at packing 15 minutes of material into 90 minutes, and what I really want out of a YouTube video is a distillation of 90 minutes of understanding into a 15 minute segment.
I mean... that's like saying: 2001: A Space Odyssey had 10 minutes of material packed into 2 hours. I personally do the opposite and accept long form explanations of simple topics because the reverse has a high likelihood of fumbling the ball. Very rarely can complex ideas be explained succinctly without missing nuance.
I think it's quite a bit different, and the big difference is fiction vs. non-fiction. For example, in this video, TEG talks about Kill Tony for quite a while, and many of the comparisons are not particularly nuanced. Having a minute of WWE footage to say "Kill Tony is like the WWE" was all to make a 10 second point last over a minute. I understand wanting to tell a story, and I think that's important, but I find that everything TEG does sets a very slow pace. I am not making a qualitative statement about that pacing - it is absolutely okay with me if that's what you like, and you enjoy it, and I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. However, It's not what I want, and I think there are a fair number of people who feel similarly.
I mean, I think it's fair to say that the some of the points were drawn out. However, the minute of WWE footage wasn't just to make the comparison with Kill Tony - it was to introduce the concept of kayfabe, which itself has broader implications than either of the subjects on their own. Within the context of the video, kayfabe is introduced as one of the pillars that upholds the hyperreality - i.e. people laughing at stuff that isn't funny to uphold an illusion of "comedy".
That said, I think that this sort of media blends the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction. I'm not sure if there's a word for this, but I think I express myself creatively in a similar way. Fiction is generally representative of reality through some abstractive lens. Non-fiction is usually required to have a sort of 1:1 correspondence with consensus reality. The narrator, in this case, does not have 1:1 correspondence with the author's voice. The narrator is a character in the sense that he refers to David Lucas as his "comedy guru" and Joe Rogan as the "comedy czar". These are not genuine representations of the human beings, but rather roles that they are playing within the video's narrative.
I'm thoroughly impressed by the video, but it definitely seems to be polarizing content. The same things that I do like about it are going to be things that other people dislike about it - and that's what makes it art, in my book.
if you're shocked at some people's reactions, refer to: this segment here
it's cerebral stuff, you know. a lot of people don't have the stamina to stay up all night thankin' about what the funny man is saying
(sorry, the background track was giving me a headache :( )
Is the author talking about Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality, through the lens of Joe Rogan?
Yea, the idea that Joe Rogan lives in a hyperreality of his own construction is a pretty key part of the whole video. It's extended into the idea of how cults form and disconnect people from baseline, consensus reality. He also refers to Camus' idea of "philosophical suicide" for how people are affected by being forced to uphold this hyperreality when it conflicts with their own belief systems.
I really want to read The Myth of Sisyphus now
I really enjoyed this and the other videos about Rogan and Seinfeld and comedy in general. The observations and insight, coupled with that dry dull tongue-in-cheek narration, are well-presented and entertaining I think.
This YouTube channel generally baffles me though. Some of the other videos just don't make sense to me. Do you have to be Canadian or North American to fully appreciate the videos' subject matter?
Anyway, this video in particular was entertaining and Insightful and helped me understand who the whole state off affairs with Rogan and the people he's associated with.
I think this is a tough one to start with if your not familiar with his style. Especially considering its length. Maybe the Seinfeld one with about 30 minutes runtime is better and more digestible. I actually find this one to be a bit weak too.
I'm not into all that either. I mean, I watch true crime that is less sensationalized. Sure, there are bad things to say about Jerry Seinfeld. Maybe he's awful. But why does the music, editing, and narration makes it feel like I'm watching a doc about Ted Bundy? I'm just not that into all that exaggeration and grandiloquence in a video about a comedian.
I recognize that trend in sensationalizing in other creators and It's just not my thing.
Well I actually agree I wasn’t that impressed. I would carefully compare it to Norm MacDonald in that either you like it and in that sense “get the style” or not.
I haven't got to watching this yet but I was listening to Marc Maron's recent episode with Jeremy Allen White earlier and he was giving high praise to the channel, tried (trying?) to get the creator on his podcast.