site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   35549 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The New Yorker has published a 9000-word article rehabilitating Shane Gillis (archive), the comedian who was prominently fired from SNL in 2019 after clips surfaced of him making racist remarks against asians.

(almost immediately after being announced as part of a new cohort including the first asian cast member, the shitstorm centered on a clip which included him saying the word "chink" on his podcast (original instigating tweet, offending clip, full episode), and he was fired 4 days later)

(fwiw, this was in the context of doing an implicit impression of "the kind of guy who would say that"; but he's said "worse", about even more protected groups, in ways which would require even more discernment than this to escape, which is already impossible enough that he didn't ever publically attempt it)

That they attempted to bring Shane Gillis into as hallowed an institution as SNL in the first place was remarkable and seemed to me at the time like it could even have been an early sign of a potential vibe shift (at a time which absolutely did not have a lot of that). He was explicitly intended to be red-tribe outreach, and as far as I know SNL has not attempted anything like that again since.

That he even lasted 4 days at that level of shitstorm in a cultural place so far behind the lines is remarkable, and there is all kinds of kremlinology you can do at any level of suspicion about how deliberate or coordinated any of it is about how that went down.

Similarly with this rehabilitation.

That he even lasted 4 days at that level of shitstorm in a cultural place so far behind the lines is remarkable

Not that remarkable. He got into SNL on the strength of his stand-up and his audition. There wasn't any vetting process where the producers checked out his podcast. I bet there's a vetting process now though!

I follow Shane Gillis pretty closely. His podcast is alright (I mostly don't care for his co-host), but his appearances on other podcasts are often great. I don't really follow anyone on SNL. I do wonder if he had kept that job if I'd even know about him.

There is a growing cadre of comedy podcast hosts realizing that all the old gatekeepers, like SNL and comedy central are no longer gate keepers. These comedians can create their own path, with their own money, and their own talent picks. Louis CK released a full length movie. Tom Segura spent over a million dollars on some new content (and he has released about 8 'live' shows that are pay per view events online). Bert Kreischer just starred in a movie about himself, and has his own line of flip flops. Mark Normand and Sam Morril released Bodega Cat whiskey to go along with their podcast "We Might be Drunk". Tim Dillon is the number two earners on the website patreon, and makes about 225k a month.

What is funny to me about the this "rehabilitation" of Shane Gillis is how much he doesn't need it from the New Yorker. Shane needed the support of his fellow comedians and podcasters, and he mostly got it. His cancelling from SNL was painful and something he has said was pretty terrible. Ten years ago that would have been a nearly permanent cancellation, but nowadays it just meant he was forced to go into the route of podcaster/businessman. I won't say I'm happy he was "cancelled" but I am happy where he ended up.

Tim Dillon is the number two earners on the website patreon, and makes about 225k a month.

I looked at the top earners in Patreon and the ones that stood out to me are 'Chapo Trap House', 'Time Dillon, ' The CumBoys', 'RedScare'.

All "dirtbag-left" and vaguely "comedic" podcasts. Why are the fans of this specific group (they all appear in each others podcasts) of podcasters so loyal?

Is there something to this? I am assuming millenials with too much disposeable income. Or is it just because other types of/entertainers have other income streams?

Rogan brings in huge $ s. Patreon more popular with the left anyway.

It seems like an audience that was formerly catered to by Hollywood and network tv because it is a lucrative demographic. But those industries have stopped trying to cater to them for ideological reasons. Obviously entrepreneurs spotted the gap and are filling it as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

What stands out to me is the "on Patreon" part. There are plenty of other platforms with plenty of other types of top-earners (like Substack - I think Scott sounds like he's on that order of magnitude) but that's how things shook out on that site.

I do wonder how much of that is due to "because Patreon would censor other views" - clearly not "all of it," because there are still any other creators on Patreon - but it's my understanding that it's got nonzero censoriousness about it. (But even that doesn't guarantee that this group would escape the Eye of Sauron - I recall Chapo Trap House's subreddit was banned, for example.)

I know The Dick Show, which I consider akin to a right wing version of chapo, got kicked off patreon a while ago, and I believe it was because of the eye.

TDS is still on Patreon. He did try to make a Patreon alternative for those who had been kicked off, but it kept getting shut down by the credit card processors/banks.

Your comment makes me fantasize of a world where the traditional gatekeepers wind up making themselves irrelevant. In one giant bandaid-ripping, society our culture finds that it's dragged itself into a whole new paradigm such that those who had seemed to be at the steering wheel are revealed to be just as irrelevant. Alas, I don't think this daydream is likely to be realized.

The gatekeepers will tolerate you longer if you are profitable, like Dave Chapelle but no guarantee either.

It is the truth if that's how you want to live and consume.

Ask yourself, who are the gatekeepers to the entertainment I currently consume?

Right now I am reliant on some internet giants to remain open platforms, and otherwise my attempts to find good content are limited by my ability to find it. I mostly consume podcasts for comedy, and indie games on steam for gaming.

I watch a little Netflix but not much. And rarely any TV. So network executives are not really gatekeepers for me. They have gatekept their areas so well that I have lost interest and abandoned those areas.

Most podcasts are not 100% gold. It's a weekly unscripted thing, bad jokes slip in. Shane Gillis has said the joke wasn't one of his good ones, offensiveness aside.

I'm not saying you have to like the podcast, just keep that in mind.

A clip which was surgically cherry-picked for the purpose of destroying a comedian's career is usually not going to be a hilarious standalone representation of their work at its best.

I was laughing so hard at a Shane Gillis clip just yesterday. The title is clickbait, the content is funny and would doubtlessly be labeled misogynistic.

SNL is culturally irrelevant, and newspaper shoutouts and online astroturfs will never make it more relevant. Kill Tony with Joe Rogan getting one million views on YouTube and more on their livestream is relevant.

SNL averages about 4.6 million viewers + whatever is spread online. I have never heard of Kill Tony until I read this comment, and I’ve listened to about 15 minutes of Joe Rogan, total.

The thing is, entertainment is all niche now.

Almost half of SNL’s viewers are 50+. KillTony is primarily 20s through 30s and capping in early 40s. I also disagree that the Nielsen Box is a legitimate metric for gauging the median viewer (if such a thing exists). The kind of person who participates in surveys or would put a company’s box in their living room are going to skew “old-fashioned” in life choices

I don’t watch SNL anymore, but the spread is via clips on social media. It has 13 million YouTube subs to KillTony’s 300k.

Numbers don’t indicate actual quality or which is funnier week over week, obviously, and SNL is def hit-or-miss, but who’s sponsoring your guys and is it all products aimed at that demo?

Having more comedy content and opportunities for up and comers is always good. Maybe I’ll add them like I did Desus and Mero.

This is reminiscent of the cope during the 2016 primaries that polls were underrating Bernie because only old people would respond and have landlines. Presumably any well-calibrated measurement can correct for the bias of their sampling method. Also I have never, not even once, heard of Kill Tony.

I’m sure they were underrating Bernie. Probably, Bernie supporters are just more likely to be terminally online and less likely to go to the polls. Unless you think young people are likely to answer calls they don’t know, participate in polls, and place corporate surveillance boxes on their cable TV set…

Presumably any well-calibrated measurement can correct

I doubt it. They probably do simple age and socioeconomic adjustments which don’t adequately balance the selection bias of people willing to fill out every hour of tv they watch or place a corporate surveillance box on their cable tv set

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats