Chris

Idle Thumbs 152: Piercing the Fourth Dimension

Recommended Posts

dismissing real issues out of hand simply because you don't want to believe in them is no better

 

Irony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So farewell my friends. Whenever you run into a particularly nasty bug listen to the wind, and perhaps you'll hear it whispering my name:

aperson....aperson...aperson...

 

 

Why would I want to fit in with this crowd? I genuinely have no idea...

I don't want to fit in here - that would be disgusting...

Feel free to delete this account whoever. I've said what I wanted...

 

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come the fuck on. No real comedian feels this sorta horseshit persecution and perpetrating it is ridiculous.

 

 

Is this something you believe is true of something you want to believe is true despite all evidence to the contrary? Sounds like you need to point your browser to Salon.com more often.

Jerry Seinfeld isn't a "real comedian"? Neither are Louis CK or Steve Martin? Or Patton Oswalt? Or Steven Colbert? Or The Onion. Or INSERT NAME OF ALMOST ANY COMEDIAN HERE.

It would be great if persecution for not being "politically_correct" or comedians not being persecuted by "social justice warriors" or however you want to phrase it was not a thing, because it being a thing forces one to think about being a "social justice warrior" in ways beyond cartoon good fighting vs. evil. (I put those terms in quotes because I don't like them or use them myself) But the reality is that a lot of liberalism does veer into persecution for idiotic reason, and that is certainly true in comedy.

I'm not a fan of dismissing people as "SJWs", but dismissing real issues out of hand simply because you don't want to believe in them is no better.

 

I'd love to see where Louis CK and Steve Martin and Patton Oswalt and Steven Colbert and The Onion and Almost Any Comedian say that "comedy is dying in all media".

 

The actual problem is that context is incredibly important in comedy, and that with stories being shared on social media that context is often obliterated. See: the Colbert thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a vast difference between persecution and criticizing. I'm fairly aware of the salon vs patton oswalt stuff, and while salon is being over the top I hardly call it persecution. Persecution implies that their life has been severely affected in some way.

The onion gets shit all the time because people dont get satire. It doesnt look like they're slowing down or shying away from their work because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Danielle were a regular cast member. She is my favourite guest.

 

This so much. The most thumbsian guest in the history of guests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having finished listening to the episode, I feel I should point out that the dagger breaking RSS feeds was fixed weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual problem is that context is incredibly important in comedy

I was gonna say that, but I was hoping the comedy discussion would die out. (Ironic since I was the first one to respond to Sean! Also sort of weird because aperson decided he wanted to come back again to chime in again. What is happening.)

 

C'est la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tabacco, thank you so much for your diligence in weeding out the unsavory folks that slip in from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a thread.

 

It is awesome when Danielle is on. It is awesome when the podcast is two hours. It is awesome when things start as a small dip into video games and then end up all over the place in interesting ways.

 

I disagree, Sean. Referential comedy is potentially great. Like most forms of comedy, it can be incisive, worthwhile, or just flat hilarious. Where it breaks is when someone's bad at it. I tend to take comedy pretty seriously, as a boy who wanted to go on the road and be a stand up comedian (WRITING IS REALLY, REALLY HARD). Repetition is an extremely important part of comedy, and thus referential comedy comes included with it. On the other hand, you get people who think that just quoting The Holy Grail makes them funny, or the reboot of South Park and "remember that time when..." which I personally would place more under non-sequitur but I am making a tangent on my own line of thought at this point.

 

The only thing worthwhile I saw out of either of those articles about Suey Park is the insightful line about using Asian stereotypes as "safe" by comedy writers, which may be true. Beyond that, and I'm not going to be apologetic about this, everything I've seen about and from her is she's a shit stirrer with an axe to grind and she'll grind it on almost anything until it makes noise.

 

I had more thoughts about the pod but it was a long cast and a long thread!

 

e: Oh I remember, the writing style guide and discussion about where games should be on the review/criticism scale.

 

I have always thought Jeff Gerstmann's take on reviews is very interesting. It also comes from a place where he's literally done thousands of reviews for probably more games than I've ever come in contact with. His thought is that at the end of the day (this phrase should be eradicated from all lexicons, please) reviews are buyers advice. Should you spend $60 dollars on this product? Video games are products you interact with, thus reviews by their nature need to be somewhat mechanical because unlike a movie, you could potentially completely fail to interact with the game because it is broken beyond usefulness. So it ends up being like a car review or phone review in parts because in some ways it is like those things. He has also acknowledged this means that games, probably unfairly, get bonus extra credit for merely being a working product. From what I understand, and I'm interpreting on my own here, he feels that reviews and criticism are somewhat separate. Watching and reading work he's done for near a decade now, I can say with certainty that he's not afraid to be a part of the tear down and criticism of games as expressive media and thinks that has merit, but that when it comes time for him to put a score on a review he always comes back to that same place as a reviewer.

 

Which leads back around to objective/subjective reviews and criticism (in an awesome way). How do you know the reviewers values with product purchases align with your own? You have to go on honesty, openness and their prior body of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On local politics, I think a lot of my adolescence was discovering that people are really interesting, and a lot of my adulthood is discovering that politics (really, people interacting with other people) is really interesting.

 

I'm not really abreast with St. Louis politics, mostly because they're depressing, but the university where I work has undergone the most hilarious power struggle with its president over the last few years. Indulge me a little thick description? He tried to implement a tenure "review board" through one of his vice presidents, presumably so that he wouldn't have to take the fall if there were backlash, but then he stood by his pawn when the backlash did happen, maybe just out of spite. Since he'd been hated for years by everybody for his autocracy and cronyism, both faculty and students demanded that he step down. Instead, over the course of an entire year during which he received three unanimous votes of no confidence, he conducted this hilarious "voice of the resistance" campaign: sending out paranoid and long-winded "all is well" emails to the entire campus, convincing the board of trustees that the no-confidence votes were fraudulent, and even organizing a week-long Novena of Grace for an entire week to "heal our divisions and promote peaceful coexistence". For a little while, it actually seemed like he'd won at least the privilege of living out the rest of his term as a lame duck, but then in the middle of the banquet for his twenty-fifth anniversary as president, he rose and announced apropos of nothing that he was stepping down in order to minister to starving African children, literally. He then vacated the presidency as fast as possible, probably to leave the university in as much chaos as possible. It didn't work, but man...

 

I feel really lucky to have kept tabs on the whole thing. I basically got to see the fall of a mid-century banana republic dictator, but without the civil war or death squads. Great episode, guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...everything I've seen about and from her is she's a shit stirrer with an axe to grind and she'll grind it on almost anything until it makes noise.

 

I don't disagree with this, but you seem to be framing it in a negative way while I would say it's a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, so could someone explain the Archie Bunker problem in detail. I think it just means people who are unwilling to moderate their "voice", but I feel like maybe I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with this, but you seem to be framing it in a negative way while I would say it's a positive.

I am, in that it appears to me the end game is merely that shit be stirred rather than effects resulting from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "archie bunker problem" in broad strokes is that something intended as satire/ironic bigotry gets taken by some people (presumably, as evidenced by the Colbert situation, possibly on both sides of the bigot/non-bigot line, though specifically with reference to Bunker I think I've only seen it referring those in sympathy with the expression of bigoted sentiment) as being sincere. God that parenthetical was awful, but I'm on a phone. Je ne regrette rien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, so could someone explain the Archie Bunker problem in detail. I think it just means people who are unwilling to moderate their "voice", but I feel like maybe I'm missing something.

 

The Archie Bunker problems it that, in the 70's, the creators of All in the Family were doing their best to create a relatively progressive show that tackles social issues alongside the modern day-to-day of what it meant to be an urban family.  Archie was a curmudgeon and a representation of a stale way of thinking -- he made off-color comments about other races, didn't trust anyone other than a typical white male and felt that women were beneath him -- and for an audience member who was "with it," he was the butt of the joke. BUT Archie also became this mouthpiece for people who, in real life, lived and thought like he did -- he was a major media representation of themselves and because they empathized with his race/class/gender position, they thought Archie was just great. Archie isn't a bad guy but HE is the butt of the joke -- but for someone who isn't in the position to recognize that he's actually aspirational (which was never the intent of the character). FWIW, I believe All in the Family walked this line deftly (and I actually think South Park does too) (ie: I think the "problem" is less of a problem that needs fixing within the text but more of an inevitable outcome of trying to make progressive media that reaches all socio-economic political classes).

 

VIDEO GAMES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "archie bunker problem" in broad strokes is that something intended as satire/ironic bigotry gets taken by some people (presumably, as evidenced by the Colbert situation, possibly on both sides of the bigot/non-bigot line, though specifically with reference to Bunker I think I've only seen it referring those in sympathy with the expression of bigoted sentiment) as being sincere. God that parenthetical was awful, but I'm on a phone. Je ne regrette rien.

 

So just a more specific example of Poe's Law, then? Interesting.

 

I'm actually finding a lot of the same rewatching The Sopranos. Tony is obviously a tragically flawed figure, with his violence and stubbornness causing all his problems, but he's also portrayed as clever, respected, and bighearted. Reading a lot of the (by now decade-old) criticism on the web, many people saw him as a fundamentally good person they were supposed to like, rather than a lovable sociopath they weren't supposed to like, which makes me wonder where all the misogyny, bigotry, and overall brutality goes for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e: Oh I remember, the writing style guide and discussion about where games should be on the review/criticism scale.

 

I have always thought Jeff Gerstmann's take on reviews is very interesting. It also comes from a place where he's literally done thousands of reviews for probably more games than I've ever come in contact with. His thought is that at the end of the day (this phrase should be eradicated from all lexicons, please) reviews are buyers advice. Should you spend $60 dollars on this product? Video games are products you interact with, thus reviews by their nature need to be somewhat mechanical because unlike a movie, you could potentially completely fail to interact with the game because it is broken beyond usefulness. So it ends up being like a car review or phone review in parts because in some ways it is like those things. He has also acknowledged this means that games, probably unfairly, get bonus extra credit for merely being a working product. From what I understand, and I'm interpreting on my own here, he feels that reviews and criticism are somewhat separate. Watching and reading work he's done for near a decade now, I can say with certainty that he's not afraid to be a part of the tear down and criticism of games as expressive media and thinks that has merit, but that when it comes time for him to put a score on a review he always comes back to that same place as a reviewer.

 

Which leads back around to objective/subjective reviews and criticism (in an awesome way). How do you know the reviewers values with product purchases align with your own? You have to go on honesty, openness and their prior body of work.

 

Everything about video games reviews is so weird to me. The first time I heard that bonuses depended on getting good scores I was confused. At the same time, I'm sure scores and day one product reviews serve most of the people who read them.

 

I personally use reviews a lot differently than most people who use them. Especially now, there is so much media of a game running, that I can usually make my decision based on what I see and a few comments (about how controls feel for example). It's a much different world from when the review in the magazine you liked was your only window into what games to play. I mostly use reviews after the fact to see what people thought of something, but only if it's particularly interesting or bad. It makes really dry reviews pretty much useless for me. In that sense I would be much better served by more criticism. Deep analysis from a certain standpoint is interesting, but I'd also love if there was more technical criticism and structural analysis as well. For example, right now I'm way into LUFTRAUSERS, and I'd really enjoy if someone wrote about how music is used in that game. At this point I mostly hope I get interesting insight from the various podcasts I listen to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on and off reading the filmcrithulk book on screenwriting and storytelling and he has an anecdote about his friends neighbors audibly cheering or booing depending on whether the sopranos content warning slate listed nudity. I imagine those neighbors didn't like the end of the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just a more specific example of Poe's Law, then? Interesting.

 

I'm actually finding a lot of the same rewatching The Sopranos. Tony is obviously a tragically flawed figure, with his violence and stubbornness causing all his problems, but he's also portrayed as clever, respected, and bighearted. Reading a lot of the (by now decade-old) criticism on the web, many people saw him as a fundamentally good person they were supposed to like, rather than a lovable sociopath they weren't supposed to like, which makes me wonder where all the misogyny, bigotry, and overall brutality goes for them.

 

More recently was the whole Walter White thing. Same phenomenon.

 

This is a topic I think about pretty often. I very much consider myself a feminist and it's actually HARD to not view things through that lens, not that I wouldn't want to. There really is a fine line between something being razor sharp satire or something that thinks it is more clever than it is and falls on it's face. I never really liked South Park precisely because of it's lame ass nihilism and "Everybody is wrong, the answer is in the middle" non-stance on stuff. It's mostly just childish and offensive to me. Meanwhile, one of my favorite shows ever is Wonder Showzen, which is absolutely HORRIBLE if it was removed from the context of the show, especially in comparison to the stuff on South Park. But it's so fucking pointed. When I laugh at Wonder Showzen I don't feel like I'm laughing with a bully (well sometimes...). I'm sure that there are more people who think Wonder Showzen is disgusting filth that should be (or have been) banned, but it never became monolithic like South Park has,  so there's only the original context in which to see these jokes.

 

Another thing that strikes me as weird re: comedians is this thing where people hold them up as some kind of prophets whose words we should live by, and there's this weird thing in comedy where they get really defensive about a bad joke that was poorly received that drives me up the fucking wall, but whatever.

 

Also, I'd like to throw my vote in for more explicit feminist chat on the cast. It's fucking refreshing to hear people talk about this shit in the context of video games without being instantly derailed by online jerkbags.

 

PS: That "Barnard"/"Harvard" anecdote made me laugh on the bus like an idiot. Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he only thing worthwhile I saw out of either of those articles about Suey Park is the insightful line about using Asian stereotypes as "safe" by comedy writers, which may be true. Beyond that, and I'm not going to be apologetic about this, everything I've seen about and from her is she's a shit stirrer with an axe to grind and she'll grind it on almost anything until it makes noise.

 

I am reminded of the Letter from a Birmingham Jail; shit-stirring is usually the most effective way to get white people to not ignore the concerns of people of colour. You piss them off enough that they overreact and show their ass, and then suddenly you've got the moral high ground and can hopefully use it to force them to the table to confront how shitty they're being.

 

From the death threats to the complete refusal to engage because it's a liberal hero being attacked, to Colbert essentially taking the same joke (and justification!) from Bill O'Reilly, to Film Crit Hulk's entire criticism essentially being about Suey Park's tone... the more response I see to this the more I feel that Suey Park was right all along. It feels like marginalisation and ass-covering to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussing and qualifying a person or group of people's "media literacy" treads on some pretty dangerous ground.  It's rather arrogant to view a particular work of art and internalize it as "I can consume this responsibility because I have acheived a level of literacy, intelligence or understanding that most other people have not, and, as such, it is my responsibility to monitor the content of this atrist or medium to protect those who do not share my level of literacy from its harmful influences."  Not only is such a view point loaded with self importance, but its also extremely condescending to other people.

 

The fact is that most people are able to see things like South Park and All in the Family for what they are.  The core audience of South Park is the generation that is now in its mid 20s and early 30s.  These are people who have been watching this show for over a decade.  It didn't acheive success because a high number of these people are prejudiced and misunderstand its humor.  It succeeded because so many people do see the point of its humor.  It's unfair to suggest that there's some kind of sub intelligent sect of society out there who are susceptible to negative influences of contraversial media that only the enlightened can responsibly enjoy.

 

Archie Bunker didn't create an aging generation with antiquated social viewpoints.  That group of people already existed and latched onto him, just as the more open minded audience did.  Archie put both of those people in front of the same piece of art and got them to talk about it, which is a catalyst for change.

 

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  No one ever burned a book because "fuck freedom."  It was only ever done by someone who was afraid that its content would influence the minds of those less capable of understanding it than they were.

 

Edit:  I am aware that no one on the podcast or in the thread advocated the censoring of South Park.  My intent was merely to offer a counter point to a discussion that I found absurdly interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now