No, Smosh admin, being a comedy channel is not an excuse

I started writing this about two days after the reddit stories video featuring Samantha Brier was uploaded.

This is the second time a Smosh reddit video receives so many backlashes; in this case, it is because of Brier’s toxic opinions and how Shayne and Angela were too cowardly to counter her. But, unlike in the previous case, the channel’s admin had to wrote down a response….. and that response only pissed some fans off even more.

One of our FAVORITE parts of reading Reddit stories is sparking fun and light hearted conversation with y’all. We love the passion our community brings and while roasting us is encouraged, sometimes comments get taken too far. It seems we’ve forgotten what is okay in our little corner of the internet, so let’s review!

– Friendly reminder that this is a comedy channel, we are in no way qualified to seriously advise or analyze any of the stories we read. we love hanging out with you all every Saturday to discuss our thoughts, but please remember that we’re not offering any advice.

– It’s 100% okay to not agree with our takes or even like our jokes. We encourage thoughtful discussion and valid feedback! What’s not okay? To verbally attack any cast members or guests featured, just because your opinion doesn’t match theirs. There’s enough hate in the world, let’s not bring it here.

– In our most “Principal’s Office” voice: Attacking any of our guests or seeking out their personal socials with the intent of bullying is unacceptable and will result in a permanent block from our channels. Don’t make us do that because it’s not fun!

Let’s remember to be kind, respectful and keep our Smosh space full of the joyful absurdity that we all love! That’s all folks, see you next upload!

Yes, admittedly, internet comment sections can be a cesspool of bullying. But, if you look at the comments about Brier, most of them are not bullying. They are valid criticisms about her and, to a lesser extent, Shayne and Angela. Instead of acknowledging them, the admin chose to dismiss the commenters as bullies.

I don’t know if the admin cherry-picked the comments and pretend the bullies dominate the comment section OR they are one of those people who think criticisms count as bullying. I don’t know which is worse.

The admin also made comments about Smosh being a comedy channel, how its reddit videos always spark fun and light-hearted conversations and how the backlash was just about fans offended by jokes. Those comments rub me the wrong way the most.

First thing first, Smosh has a long history of dark and “inappropriate” jokes. Even after the many turbulent changes it has gone through, Smosh cast members still make them to this day.

Mind you, one of Ian’s most infamous jokes was the time when he jokingly wished the air marshal shoot Kimmy’s grandma for opening a can of durian inside an airplane. In one of the videos where Courtney read her diaries, she showed the cottage cheese stain on one of her books…. and Noah joked the cheese was her crush’s cum stain. Tommy’s Try Not To Laugh jokes include one about a quadriplegic wife and another about “diarrhea Anne Frank”. Shayne’s drowning death as a baby is a recurring joke, so was Keith’s cancer. There are enough 9/11 jokes for a fan compilation video. The funeral roast sessions can get personal at times. Even some fans describe Smosh cast members as walking HR violations.

Not only those jokes barely got any backlashes, if at all, some of them even become fan favourites. It is obvious our hatred of the reddit video has nothing to do with us getting offended by the so-called jokes.

The world of comedy (the American one, specifically) has George Carlin and The Daily Show veterans like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Hasan Minhaj, Samantha Bee (yes, I know she’s Canadian), Trevor Noah (yes, he’s South African) Jordan Klepper and Roy Wood Jr. They are not mere jokers, they are ones who use humour to enunciate their genuine thoughts and feelings; in fact, they are famous because of that exact reason, not despite of. With such knowledge in mind, it is hard to not perceive “it is just a joke” as an expression of one’s ignorance.

The reddit videos involve a wide range of stories. Some of them are indeed hilarious and goofy. But, there’s the keyword: SOME.

The rest of the stories are much serious, some of them involve straight-up abusive behaviours and trauma. Due to the seriousness, it is actually normal for Shayne and his co-hosts to discuss entire stories without cracking a single joke.

And the comment sections are even more serious, even when the videos have lots of jokes; the commenters frequently express their frustration and anger about the stories and a few of them are being reminded of their own personal traumas.

So no, Smosh’s reddit videos are not entirely fun and light-hearted.

Yes, I do agree we shouldn’t obligate anyone to be the moral police. But, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have basic decency. The backlash is not about us being moralistic, it is about us witnessing something which doesn’t satisfy our moral bare minimum.

To recap the admin’s disappointing response:

Despite managing a comedy Youtube channel, they have a very shallow idea of what comedy is. They think comedy is nothing more than just fun and light-hearted entertainment, despite the many famous examples to the contrary.

Despite managing one of the four active Smosh channels, the admin is oblivious to what kind of content Smosh provides and how fans react to it.

And, to top it all, they think having basic moral standard makes us too moralistic; they think we should give comedians an exemption.

Not only the admin is professionally inept, they are also morally feckless.

Before I end this blogpost, let’s talk about Shayne Topp as well.

The reddit series greatly improved his image. Previously, he was known for being funny (yes, some people may not like his humour), genuinely likeable (when he is not performing characters) and being physically attractive (yes, you still can find thirsty comments about him, albeit not as much).

Thanks to series, people also ended up seeing him as an emotionally insightful person. He refuses to invalidate other people’s experiences, even though he cannot relate to them, and he tries to understand why people behave the way they do, without excusing their horrible behaviours. He has also expressed righteous anger from time to time, something which we barely see in other videos.

And, because of those reasons, we are extremely disappointed by his performance here. We known damn well he can be better. While he has acknowledged his non-confrontational inclination, I never expected him to be a such pushover.

As stated before, this is not the first poorly-received Smosh reddit video; the one with Rachel and Ify was also hated, mostly because of the former (even though the latter was only marginally better).

Shayne’s silence and refusal to pushback was disappointing. But, in this case, it is far worse because he verbally supported Brier’s words.

The thing that improves his reputation is also the one that worsens it.

While he certainly doesn’t need to be “cancelled”, I do think a rotation of hosts is needed. As much as I appreciate his insightfulness, he is not special.

Damien and Arasha’s can easily rival his. Assuming they don’t share his unassertiveness (and they are willing to do the job), they would make great hosts for the series.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Why Brandon Rogers isn’t being cancelled

Seriously, how? He is not the only one who is known for his crass and politically incorrect jokes. But, for some reasons, he seems to be mostly free from controversies; while I have seen online comments that negatively perceive his brand of humour, they are extremely rare, as in I only saw them literally once.

After I thought about it, there are multiple possible reasons that may shield him from cancellation, reasons which many other comedians seem to lack. Let’s start with the most obvious one:

There are actual minority representations

Brandon is a brown and gay man and some of his regular actors are of queer and/or racial minorities, including two trans women: Paulette Jones and Kornbread, the latter being a person of colour. Therefore, even though his jokes often target queer and racial minorities, they don’t feel like they punch down; they punch sideways.

He targets everyone

Like any edgy comedians, he does target marginalised groups. But, unlike most of them, he also targets people who aren’t marginalised; if a group is depicted, it would be depicted disrespectfully. He targets the entire mankind; for him, there is no fun in only targeting minorities.

The jokes are in abundance

His videos are just continual streams of offensive and crass jokes. In his shorter sketches, the streams are even stronger. Considering you are constantly getting blasted by them, it is hard for you to choose jokes to be offended by, assuming you can process any of them at all.

The universe never bothers to be realistic

Its logic is unambiguously and unabashedly different from the one we know. I mean, it is a world where a character’s figurative heartlessness is caused by her literal heartlessness.

It is not meant to represent our real one, it is meant to be a more chaotic, farcical and unhinged version of it.

The characters are more complex than they seem

On one hand, they are caricatures taken to an extreme. While stereotypes are common recurrences in entertainment, he amplifies them to the point where even the most gullible viewers (hopefully) know the characters are meant to be exaggerations instead realistic representations.

I am certain Japanese girls don’t scream Pokemon quote while having sex and I am also certain the Queen of England doesn’t use her own breastmilk as milk for tea.

But, strangely, at the same time, his characters also feel very human. Despite their cartoonish nature, they experience genuine emotions. They experience joy, sadness, anger, confusion, any emotions under the sun. It is more apparent in the series and longer sketches.

While working for an adoption agency, Helen – someone who seemingly hates her jobs – is rightfully confused why her workplace never approves any adoption applications. Lord and Lady Mingeworthy are frustrated by their inability to leave their life of crime behind. Sam finds it bittersweet that his roommate and arguably his only best friend Donna finally finds a lover. Punchler and Skinny Bitch mourn Blame’s death. Donna becomes bitter after her only child was taken away. Bryce was metaphorically heart broken when Bobby – someone she has feelings for -vomited on her literal heart. Despite his aggressive nature, the grandpa doesn’t like seeing his grandchild sad.

No matter how cartoonish they are, they still feel very human. No matter how ugly their behaviours are, you still feel for them at times.

There are so many works with poorly fleshed out characters, despite being significantly less stereotypical. Meanwhile, Rogers is able to bring nuances to his overtly cartoonish ones.

Humour is his coping mechanism

In his I Got Roasted By My Characters video, his characters become self-aware of their fictional status; one of them – Sam – wonders which of Brandon’s trauma leads to his creation, insinuating he has a handful of traumas under his belt.

In his interview with Anthony Padilla, he revealed he used to work for a personal injury lawyer, documenting the “crime scenes” and the clients’ life-changing injuries; in fact, he was professionally involved in the Elisa Lam case.

It is no secret people who have experienced significant morbidity in their lives – some of them, at least – have dark and crass sense of humour. They are edgy not for the sake of it, they are edgy because they don’t want to succumb to insanity.

You know what to expect

Even if you are unfamiliar with his content, he gives warnings in the video titles; the words “Offensive” and “Not For Kids” are plastered on some of them. He never pretend to be a clean comedian.

If you willingly and consciously click on the titles, you have no right to complain about the offensiveness.

Conclusion

If only one factor is applicable to him, he would be a much more controversial and have a harder time defending himself. When combined together, those factors create a supportive structure strong enough to bear his weight.

And not every edgy comedian has that many supporting pillars, especially in the punching down department. In some cases, it doesn’t help that their jokes represent their actual worldview.

Why I personally love his videos

I am frequently deeply frustrated with my fellow human beings and there is nothing more cathartic than to have them depicted as straightforwardly ugly creatures, with no masks to hide the ugliness. The crasser, the better.

In fact, many of my earlier satirical blogposts are similar in that regard: extremely crass and are meant to offend people. They were so satisfying to write down.

And definitely much more satisfying than arguing with those ugly cunts.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Getting excited about the Smosh reunion for the wrong reason

This is my third time writing a blog that mention Smosh.

The first time, I made a critique about people who nonsensically compared Ian and Anthony to Dan and Phil. Nonsensical because not only Ian and Anthony started as duo while Dan and Phil started as solo Youtubers and ended up as a duo, their sense of humour couldn’t be any more different; Smosh’s was juvenile while Dan and Phil’s was far wittier.

The second time, I wrote about how I started liking Smosh. It turned out that I prefer its unscripted and semi-scripted content; when I do love the scripted sketches, they tend to be the satirical ones. I also wrote about how some Smosh fans just refuse to grow up, unwilling to acknowledge that their preference of older content – with its juvenile humour – is nothing but nostalgia.

Now, I am going to write about how people are celebrating the reunion for the wrong reason.

I am celebrating because I just love it when creators have 100% creative control of their projects, without those corporate executives (who lack backgrounds in the arts and entertainment) breathing behind their necks. As flawed as Youtube can be, there is still room for independent creators.

Obviously, you can already tell I am not excited about the revival of the old-fashioned Smosh sketches. But, the problem is not just a matter of taste, it is also a matter of long-term sustainability.

The thing is time changes.

Ian and Anthony have changed as human beings. While they are still recognisable, their personalities have definitely changed and, inevitably, the same with their sense of humour. Therefore, the new “old Smosh” sketches would not be the exact same as the actual old ones.

When I started writing this, they have released one… and it feels like an anaemic carbon copy of an “old Smosh” sketch; while the style is there, it is way more muted.

And it is not just the duo have changed, the fans definitely have as well. Just like Ian and Anthony’s, their sense of humour is definitely different from what it was years ago.

Nostalgia can cloud our judgments; it can makes something look more high quality than it actually is. Sooner or later, the euphoria will run out and they will realise the things they have fond memories of aren’t actually that good.

If Ian and Anthony takes a risky but novel direction for their sketches, the viewership increase would probably be not as sharp, assuming it increases at all. But, I can guarantee it would be more lasting. I mean, if the content is actually refreshing, it would take the audience a lot longer to get bored.

If milking on past success does help in the long run, it would be a sad testament about the fandom; it shows how after seventeen years, after becoming adults in their late twenties and early thirties, their sense of humour remains entirely juvenile and unrefined.

I acknowledge there is nothing inherently immoral about being unsophisticated; I myself still can enjoy crass and juvenile humour. But, those dewy-eyed fans can be insufferable.

For them, being static with your juvenile taste is something to be proud of. They genuinely believe the relatively wittier, more varied and less juvenile humour of new Smosh is the lesser kind. They genuinely believe old Smosh – with its childish jokes – is comedy at its peak. They really let their emotions taking over.

I just hope that kind of fans are a minority.

Overall, I believe that Anthony becoming a co-owner once again should be more than enough; reviving old-timey sketches is unnecessary.

It is not just a matter of taste, it is also about moving forward instead of letting ourselves chained in the past.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Humour and pedestals

I can enjoy comedies and I can enjoy dramas. But, I love comedy-dramas even more and that’s one of the many reasons why I love Everything Everywhere All At Once.

While it is not a must, I consider it a big plus point when a work of fiction makes me feel a wide-range of contrasting emotions… and comedy-dramas are certainly great in that regard.

Obviously, simply adding jokes won’t do. In excess, they can be too distracting and stick out like sore, infected thumbs. I mean, they are called comedy-dramas; the name calls for a balance of lightheartedness and seriousness.

I also don’t think crassness is necessarily bad in comedy-dramas. As long as we weren’t promised family-friendliness and the jokes thematically fits the story, I won’t be put-off.

EEAAO fulfills them. Not only the amount of jokes isn’t excessive, the humour style fits the story’s overall absurdity. Not to mention I didn’t expect the film to be family-friendly/

There is also another aspect of humour which I find intriguing: it compels us to not take a story too seriously

I know I am pointing out the obvious here. But, we can easily slip to such territory, especially when the story is thematically and emotionally-loaded; the humour reminds us that we can also have fun.

I don’t know whether some people find EEAAO snooty or not. But, if they exist, they are a minority among the detractors; from what I observe, they hate it mostly for its “woke” content (for having minorities as main and non-stereotypical characters), “incomprehensible” story and “Rick and Morty” humour.

In fact, they believe those reasons – especially the last one – should disqualify the film from getting any nominations.

Wait, shouldn’t it be a bad thing that a film I consider to be of high quality… is not being taken seriously by many?

Well, no.

I don’t see anything wrong about loving a film; if anything, enjoyment of arts and entertainment is innately human. But, there is also such thing as loving something a bit too much.

If you love something way too much, you are going to perceive it as an utter perfection. Your mind refuses to believe it can have any flaws. You are going to end up extremely self-righteous, if not borderline delusional.

As much as I adore EEAAO, I should also be reminded that it may not be as deep as it seems; the humour – the lighthearted aspect of the film – is that great reminder.

And the harsh criticisms, particularly about the humour?

I don’t let differing opinions affect my enjoyment. But, the film’s lack of universal acclaim also benefits me. It reminds me that my tastes are not universal and the world does not revolve around them. It gives me humility.

Two of my favourite film directors are Andrei Tarkovsky and Ingmar Bergman. Without doubt, they are giants of the arthouse world, certainly beyond the league of Scorcese, Coppola, Tarantino and the likes.

But, their works’ humourlessness can be a problem; because of the seriousness, I feel more compelled to put those films on the highest pedestal…. and I also feel more compelled to put myself on it, simply for loving them.

Obviously, I don’t need humour to keep my film appreciation unpretentious and humble. But, in my case, it certainly helps big time.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What Dave Chappelle’s defenders reveal about so-called comedy fans

They don’t get what freedom of speech is

They think they can dictate what others can feel offended by, dictate how others feel anything.

While you should definitely criticise their lack of level-headedness, you should also remember they are your fellow human beings, NOT your toy robots. It is unreasonable of you to demand them to stop behaving like human beings.

While you have the right to defend any jokes, it is just sensical that the butts of the jokes – whose lives are definitely being affected – are entitled to the biggest megaphones.

And when the jokes target the likes of you and you are fine with it, just remember that you are just one person. As worthy as your opinions are, your fellows’ are just as important.

They care too much about your feelings

If they really don’t, why would they think negative opinions ruin their fun? Why can’t they just enjoy the things enjoy and ignore the haters?

I was able to enjoy Harry Potter despite knowing that religious puritans hated the series and they even made the books banned from school libraries. Considering we live in a digital age, we can still access banned works, anyway.

Maybe they are those annoying fans who demand the rest of the world to love what they love. Maybe they think their taste comedy is objectively the best and it is an atrocity against reason to think otherwise.

Those are fair assumptions. Don’t deny it.

They don’t know comedy that well

They believe jokes are meant to be jokes, nothing more. Well, history of comedy says otherwise.

In America, some of its most legendary comedians are ones who insert serious messages into their jokes. Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Smothers Brothers, Mort Sahl are just a few examples.

If you want to go more contemporary, The Daily Show correspondents and veterans are arguably the most well-known examples. Heck, even Chappelle himself has inserted commentaries about racism into his jokes. In fact, isn’t that a reason why he became a legend in the first place?

Regardless whether Chappelle is a transphobe or just a preteen edgelord stuck in an adult’s body, how can anyone who claims to be comedy fans thinks every joke should never be taken seriously?

If jokes can have underlying serious commentaries, why can’t they accept that jokes can also harbour genuine bigotry?

Pay attention to the jokers when they are not performing. The more they talk sincerely, the more likely they reveal their true selves. Then, we can tell whether their jokes are just edgy OR genuinely hateful.

Wait, who am I kidding? I am expecting too much from my fellow human beings.

Too many of them are blind to what is in front of them…. and yet, I am expecting them to read between the lines.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I like quarantine Colbert better

On the official Facebook group, I kept seeing fans who were genuinely angry that the show was in “quarantine mode” for too long. They acted as if the deadly and still-ongoing pandemic was just a lame excuse for Colbert’s supposed laziness.

Obviously, anyone whose heads are not deep inside their own unwashed rear ends know how idiotic the claim is.

It also does not help that some also complain about Colbert’s more casual attire and him shooting in his office, even though the second quarantine set was obviously in a studio. Their thinking is as deep as a ditch clogged with dead rats and they have the media literacy of prehistoric toddlers.

It is not to say I don’t like non-quarantine Colbert. He seems energised by the presence of live audience and I do love his banter with Jon Batiste. But, the quarantine mode has a more wholesome and organic charm… thanks to the absence of live audience.

I do think their excitement can be infectious. But, it rarely happens. I despise how unnecessarily exuberant they are most of the time. Why do they have to cheer almost every few seconds? It feels like they are cheering just for the sake of it. If it wasn’t for them, the excitement would have felt more sincere.

Compare that to the quarantine mode. His wife Evie and the minuscule crew members did not laugh at every joke. But, when they did, they released wholehearted cackles.

The thing about the sound of laughter -whether they are live or canned- is they can make jokes sound funnier than they really are. Evie and the crew members’ selective laughters reveal which jokes are so-so or unfunny and which are truly hilarious.

The angry monologues are also untainted by the sound of approving audience. While I understand their frustration with their country’s politics, their noise hinder us from truly feel Colbert’s anger.

Basically, quarantine Colbert was more emotionally sincere.

The sincerity is also amplified by the more personal and cosier setup. It feels less like watching a TV show and more like chilling out with Colbert, Evie and the crew. Dreadful for party addicts who don’t know pleasure beyond partying, wonderful for my introverted homebody, party-hating self.

As you can see, I prefer quarantine Colbert over the live stage one. But, unfortunately, it is also reminder of the still ongoing pandemic. Traditional media people are unlike Youtubers: when they work remotely, then there is something wrong.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Jiří Trnka’s The Hand: not falling for the other side

If it wasn’t for my Intro to Animation class, I would have never heard of this stop-motion animated masterpiece.

To summarise the plot, it tells the story of a harlequin whose impoverished yet contented life of flower pot-making is disrupted by a literal and seemingly-omnipresent hand who demands him to make hand sculptures instead, compelling him to constantly fight for his freedom. Unfortunately, near the end of the story, he dies when one of his pots accidentally fell on his head (seemingly foreshadowed by the recurring accidental pot-breaking). He is given a lavish funeral by the hand.

One can guess why I love this short film.

It is an allegory of censorship enforced under authoritarianism. It sublimely evokes the terror of living as an artist and entertainer in such condition, amplified by the fantastical elements and the atmospheric percussion-oriented soundtracks. In fact, both Wikipedia and IMDB categorise this film as horror.

Unsurprisingly, I picked The Hand as one of the animated shorts I analysed for the final essay. My writings were even abysmal then. Thankfully, I lost it. But, I remember having a great time analysing every single one of them.

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

First thing first, the funeral. Why would the hand hold a state funeral to a rebel? Surely, shouldn’t he be demonised as an enemy of the state in the end?

Well, I found an article (forget which one, cannot find it again) about how the USSR and its satellite states honoured their artists posthumously, regardless of how obedient or disobedient they were; the writer said even Trnka himself was given a state funeral.

As I am too lazy to do more research, I cannot confirm or debunk the article’s factual validity. But, as the hand symbolises an authoritarian government (I cannot think of any other interpretations), what the article is saying makes too much sense for me to dismiss.

This reminds me of the legendary and ideologically-dissenting director Andrei Tarkovsky (can’t stop referencing him). After his death, the Soviet authorities regretted that he died in exile. Yes, linking Trnka, a Czechoslovakian puppeteer and animator with, to Tarkovsky, a live-action Russian director who loved exploring the metaphysical aspect of humanity, is far-fetched. But, I can’t help myself.

Oh, and the hand.

At first, I noticed the hand was a left one. I assumed it represented the far-left government of Czechoslovakia. But, when I took a greater look, the hand was not always left.

Sometimes, it appears as a right one. In fact, the first hand sculpture to appear in the video depicts a right hand.  So, I quickly dumped the interpretation, dismissed it as reading too much into things. But then, I remembered the funeral scene, where the hand can be seen making a salute eerily similar to the Nazi one; I could hear my classmates’ shock.

I was more baffled than shocked, as Czechoslovakia was a communist country, not a fascist one. Due to my slowness, it took me days to realise the film criticises authoritarianism in general, not just the communist Czechoslovakian government.

The film also subtly warns us to not fall for any forms of extremism. Your suffering under a far-left government cannot morally justify your support of a far-right government… and vice versa. One form of  zealotry does not justify the other.

I write as if I grasped the thematic depth immediately. I didn’t. Back then, my mind only thought about the Far-Left vs Far-Right.  It took me years to realise how the message is also applicable to any kinds of extreme dichotomies.

Yes, I know I seem to be reading too much into things again. The nazi salute may not be one after all and I don’t know enough about different types of salutes. I also cannot prove that extreme dichotomies in general were what Trnka had in mind.

But, you have to admit: the film does not target a specific ideology. My interpretation fits really well into the narrative.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My favourite sarcastic Youtubers

They are Boyoung AKA Bubbly, Chris Broad AKA Abroad in Japan, Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie, Joey Bizinger AKA The Anime Man, and Terry Song AKA TerryTV.

Unsurprisingly, their sarcasm often go over people’s heads and it leads to some viewers -especially the new ones- to take their words seriously. With Joey, he loves being sarcastic in his QnA video, consequentially frustrating even his long-time viewers who wish their questions are answered properly.

Also unsurprisingly, they also make Youtube commentaries from time to time, but not too often to the point where their channels become commentary ones. Consequentially, their contents have satirical inclination at times.

After watching them for years, I just realise another similarity between them that I didn’t notice before: I don’t find their annoying actions to be annoying.

Let me explain that extremely vague statement.

How they carry themselves on the platform is more or less similar to how their colleagues do it. When other Youtubers -including ones I am fans of- commit those certain actions, I am annoyed. But, when my favourite sarcastic Youtubers are the ones who commit them, I am strangely not.

Yeah, still vague.

Let me start straight away with the clickbaits.

Apart from Chris, all of those Youtubers I mentioned have embraced clickbaits in their video titles and thumbnails, albeit with varying level of intensity.

Boyoung and Terry prefer relatively subdued clickbaits (which suit their subdued sarcasm), Felix prefers to create bizarre ones (which suit his bizarre content) and Joey is the most shameless as he utilises nakedly clickbaity titles (which suit his snarky tendency); they remind me of the ones used by so-called “news” media outlets.

With Chris, I notice he loves re-using the same saccharine stock background music over and over again. But, it is not unlike the one used by many Youtubers.

It is more similar to the one used by American so-called “factual” TV programming; however, it still exude the same sugary, feel-good atmosphere. In his Journey Across Japan series, he used upbeat 80’s sounding theme song that -in my opinion- emits false optimism and pseudo-energy.

I may be wrong. But, I do notice that -unlike the ones of Felix and many other Youtubers- the online personas of Boyoung and Terry are immensely similar to their true personalities.

Their speaking intonations barely change and so do their body languages… apart from their eyes and mouths; as weird as it sounds, it’s the only way for me to determine whether they are in characters or not. Took me a long time to notice those details.

When Youtubers (and humans in general) do those things, I often perceive them as attention-seeking and fake individuals whose purpose in life is to look good instead of embracing their authentic selves, just for the sake of instant fame and fortune.

And yet, I am not annoyed when the Youtubers I am fans of commit those “sins”…. and the reason for that lies on the title.

Sarcasm is something in which everything that is being expressed is the opposite of their literal meanings. Not the most articulate elucidation. But, you get the idea.

Because of the constant stream of sarcasm, I am not predisposed to take those content creators too seriously, unless when morality is involved.

It also helps that they love to sprinkle a dose of self-deprecation here and there; I personally interpret it as their turndown to stand on high pedestals.

As a result, I don’t find their commentaries to be self-righteous and hypocritical whatsoever. The ones who think so are probably those who barely watch their videos.

Even though they don’t make much of them, I believers their commentaries are more superior than the ones spewed by most commentary Youtubers, who mostly appeal to emotions instead of reasons and don’t always practice what they preach.

Of course, I also have to admit I am being biased here. Not only I am a fan of those Youtubers, I am also a big fan of sarcasm; I regard it as one of the best tools to deal with those pesky humans and to express my anger. Way more satisfying than vandalising properties.

Oh, and I initially wanted to include Duncan Pain AKA PDR-San to the list.

Like them, he is also known for his sarcasm which does not always bode well to some people and and being self-deprecating.

But, he is also different from them because not only he has made even more commentaries (making his content more satirical in comparison), I don’t believe he is “guilty” of the “sins” I mentioned above. As I have missed many of his videos recently, I may be wrong.

I still mention him anyway because if he is indeed “guilty” of them, I would also not be annoyed.

And because I am a fan, of course.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

My thoughts about Trevor Noah

Okay, I should mention the controversy regarding his anti-Semitic jokes. While I do agree jokes don’t always represent a person’s true character, those Jewish jokes are particularly hard for me to handle.

My problem with them is not because they were crude, but because they were not expressed in any appropriate contexts; I have no problem if they are done while playing Cards Against Humanity or the joker mockingly portrays an anti-Semite. So, even though I don’t think Noah is an anti-Semite, I also cannot defend his jokes. I am also not surprised Comedy Central defended him. But, he did have an unlikely defender.

The chairperson of South African Jewish Board Of Deputies.

I can’t say if other South African Jews shared her sentiment. But, she did defend him by saying it was his style of humour and he was just being playful. The fact that a Jewish individual who led a Jewish organisation defended crude Jewish jokes seems mind-boggling to me.

This case convinces me that while there is nothing inherently wrong about getting offended by jokes, we should never do so on the behalf of others; our feelings are ours. Let the actual targets of the jokes decide whether they are offended or not.

The criticism against his past jokes is valid. But, there are other criticism that, to this day, I still find stupid.

First and foremost, some fans of the old Daily Show find Noah not funny. Obviously, not finding someone funny is not a bad thing; humour is subjective after all. But, instead of trying to be actual critics by pointing out the actual flaws in his humour, many prefer to use the ‘my-taste-is-better-than-yours’ argument.

Well, those particular people also have this way of discrediting Noah: just point out that he does not write his own materials! Of course, the method is stupid in so many ways. Not only it inherently does not prove his unfunniness, it shows how they know nothing about him and the entertainment industry.

Trevor Noah is not just a random South African dude Jon Stewart randomly picked. Before The Daily Show, not only he already had an established career, TDS was not even the first American show he had appeared on; prior to his ‘tenure’, he already had years of experience creating his own jokes. When he becomes the host, he is indeed assisted by a team of writers. But, he still writes his own jokes, nonetheless.

Those detractors also don’t realise virtually every scripted entertainment TV show in the US has a team of writers. So, if they really believe what they are saying, that means they believe every late night TV host in the country, including the beloved Jon fucking Stewart, is a talentless hack. Do they seriously think those TV hosts can long monologues almost daily… just by themselves? They are not Gods, they are human beings. If they try to do that, I am sure they would rage quit in less than a month.

If anything, I believe Noah performs much better without the writers. His scripted TDS performances often feel stilted and fail to encompass his trademark intercultural dynamism. The scripts fail to embody his personality. For me, his best performances are his solo stand-ups and his Between-the-scenes videos.

In the latter, not only he has proven himself as skillful in making jokes on the spot, he is able to engage with members of the audience and answer their impromptu questions intelligently and articulately. As much as I love Jon Stewart, I think Noah beats him in those departments.

Now about Noah being a foreigner…

His critics believe his status as a foreigner supposedly can make him emotionally detached from issues affecting Americans. On the surface, the concern seems valid; it is indeed very hard to get passionate about the plights of places you were not born and raised in.

Hard, but not impossible.

Just like Americans who have become invested in other countries’ problems (to the point of being proud interventionists), non-Americans like myself are also preoccupied by America’s internal issues. While the sympathy can be misguided or provoked by gross misinformation, its ability to transcend borders has been proven from time to time.

Americans should also be aware of their status as the world power (never mind Beijing catching up quickly). Like it or not, the world stage constantly focuses its many spotlights on America’s best… and worst. Like it or not, the world knows more about America than America knows about the world. If America can destroy other countries by installing dictators that serve its own national interests, foreigners have the right to join its domestic conversations.

I also believe Noah’s status as a foreigner can be a plus point. Many citizens all over the world, not just Americans, feel invaded when foreigners trespass the conversations. The feeling of being intruded is understandable. But, if we want the conversations to move forward and possibly reaching substantial solutions, we must be perceptive. We must lend our ears to dissenting yet reasonable voices.

And, like it or not, they include ones of well-informed foreigners.

If their words anger us, we should ask ourselves: are we angered by their falsehood or are we angered by their truthfulness? That depends on what kind of citizens we are. If we are ones who believe in our countries’ so-called flawless and inherently moral foundations, then it is obviously the latter.

Speaking for myself, I am strongly benefited by the consideration of foreign perspectives. They gave me lenses that I never knew existed, let alone I could utilise. Thanks to them, I learned something negative and positive about my home country that I had never realised before: while Indonesia is way more tolerant of bigotry than the US is, its embrace of diversity (when occurs) is also more sincere and less likely to be inflicted by feelgood tokenism.

And, if they are willing to listen, Americans can also learn a lot from well-informed foreigners like Trevor Noah.

In one Between-the-scene video, he noticed how South African police officers were more likely to see themselves as citizens with higher civic responsibilities than their American counterparts, who tended to see their badges as tickets to infinite amount of unaccountability.

In another Between-the-scenes video where he got a scathing letter from the French ambassador (who had so much time on his hand, it seemed) for declaring Africa the winner of the world cup, he observed how the US gives rooms to hyphenated identities while France only tolerates ones entirely derived from the la Métropole.

(I also have to add that France looks down on its own regional accents and is very eager to bring its own regional languages, which are not intelligible to French, to extinction; if anything, France seems to derive its identity almost entirely on the Parisian one. Correct me if I am wrong).

His words functioned as reminders to his American audience. They must remember that the police’s job is to protect us, NOT to oppress us. They must acknowledge that inclusiveness, NOT enforced homogeneity, is what makes America admirable on the world stage, it is what makes America great in the first place.

Okay, one may argue hiring him in order to add foreign perspectives is unnecessary; they could have chosen Canadians Jason Jones and Samantha Bee and Brit John Oliver as they also have the ability to add some. But, their backgrounds would not make much difference.

While Canada is an Anglo-Franco country, both Jones and Bee are Anglo-Canadians and they are very much almost indistinguishable from their cousins down south. Oliver is from the UK, which is another Anglo-western country that has been maintaining a strong alliance with the US for many years and sharing similar stances regarding international affairs.

Compared them to South Africa, a country which heritage is not only influenced by the diverse Bantu cultures, but also British, Dutch and Asian ones. Not to mention Noah is a biracial man who grew up under Apartheid and, apart from English, is able to speak Afrikaans -the descendant of Dutch-, German -the native tongue of his Swiss father-, and five Bantu languages.

If either Jones, Bee or Oliver was promoted instead, the shift in the show’s angle would not be as global. It would still be America-centric.

…

Almost every time I encounter criticism of him, the so-called critics love to make a big deal out of his nationality and act like their taste of humour is objectively the best in the universe. Almost every time, the criticism is far from actually constructive.

I consider myself a fan of his… and yet, I am able to bring myself to criticise him. I have a distaste for his past, edgy jokes and I think him labelling Antifa as ‘vegan ISIS’ shows how he still falls for false equivalences; I am open to being exposed to more of his flaws. But, the ‘haters’ did a horrible job of critiquing him.

If anything, they make me love him even more. If they never pointed out about him having a team of writers behind his back, I would never realised how good of a showman he is. If they never made a big deal out his nationality, I would never see it as an advantage his colleagues lack.

Okay, I make it sounds like all of his critics are just haters; I have no doubt reasonable ones who can provide constructive criticism also exist. But, somehow, the ones I encountered online were indeed just mere haters. If I explore more internet trenches, I am sure I would actually find good reasons to dislike him as a comedian, reasons why he is a horrible successor of The Daily Show.

…

Hours after I finished the previous paragraph, I just realised I did have encountered a good critique regarding the appointment of Trevor Noah, in which he is compared with Bassem Youssef. Some people may call the comparison unfair. But, I have to acknowledge it has some validity to it.

While Noah’s humour was already laced with cultural commentaries prior to TDS, I would not call him a political comedian; Bassem Youssef, on the other hand, started his entertainment career as one and he had to flee his homeland because of it. Unlike Noah, who was mostly a stand-up comedian, Youssef had made two political comedy shows when he was still in Egypt. While both have cited Jon Stewart as an influence, the latter would have a much easier time being his successor.

Oh, and Youssef is also a foreigner. He would also be able to bring a much more global outlook to TDS.

I do think Noah does a great job hosting. But, I also understand why some people think Youssef is a better choice.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Is Pewdiepie a member of the alt-right?

The answer is a definite no. If you actually watch his videos that are used as evidences by the media against him, you would know he was (and still is) being smeared.

Felix ‘Certainly-Not-Hitler’ Kjellberg

The video Fiverr video was never meant to be hateful. He found the idea of paying people to do anything for five dollars was ridiculous; when he paid the men to hold the ‘Death To All Jews’ sign, he did not expect them to actually do it.

In fact, he was horrified when they actually did. I know because I actually watched his reaction; contrary to popular belief, he was certainly not delighted and he was certainly not bursting into a laughter. He realised that he had just committed a horrible recklessness.

I also don’t get why people think making Nazi jokes makes one an actual Nazi. It is not. Call me heretical, but I believe jokes can be just… you know… jokes; they are not always representatives of the jokers’ actual viewpoints. If that’s the case, then Ben Fritz, the Wall Street Journal reporter who smeared him, is also an anti-Semite for making Jewish jokes as well.

Oh, and the allegedly anti-Semitic channel he was giving shout-out to, I cannot say if it really was considering I have not watched a single video. But, if the Youtuber behind it is indeed just a giant edgelord who love making edgy jokes, then it is not a channel that promotes anti-Semitism.

The ‘Bros’

Regarding the mosque shooter who said ‘subscribe to Pewdiepie’ before committing his horrible acts, many argued he mentioned the meme (as the Pewdiepie vs T-Series ‘rivalry’ was and still is raging) just to bring more infamy to himself. But, even if he was a sincere fan, I still don’t believe Felix is at fault here.

Not only he was quick to condemn the violence, he also has a history with condemning the irrational branch of his own fandom and that makes him hated by his ex-fans; he is one of those Youtubers who no longer appeases to fans. He is certainly different from Trump, who is not only willing to condemn violence done in his name, but also has called his Neo-Nazi supporters ‘fine people’.

He also condemned his fans for being racist against Indians just because the T-Series channel is from India; he even countered the racism by having a charity livestream where he and his not-racist fans donated to Indian children. He has been making charity livestreams for years, which, of course, the media love to ignore and are more interested in his income.

Ben-Ben

People are also mad at Felix for featuring Ben Shapiro in one of his videos. Well, I am personally annoyed because I see him as an insufferable pundit who certainly does not care about facts despite claiming to do so; Felix certainly could have chosen a better public figure. But, does this count as a promotion of the far-right ideology? No, it doesn’t.

One thing for sure, while he is indeed very conservative, Shapiro is also a critic of Donald Trump -the alt-right’s favourite politician- and he, an actual Jew, has experience anti-Semitic abuse from actual members of the alt-right. He is certainly not one of them.

Also, Shapiro was not given a platform to spew his political beliefs; he was there just to review memes. Felix is not one of those Youtubers and journalists whose intention to expose far-right individuals is not accompanied by intellectual rigour and willingness to drop their own ideological propensity, resulting in recklessly giving the extremists unchallenged platforms. Never mind far-right politics, Felix never gives one to its more moderate counterparts.

The n-word ‘oopsie’

Well, he did use the N-word on a gaming livestream and I cannot defend that; it was wrong for him to do it. But, I disagree the usage of any slurs instantly makes one bigoted; it may also means one is a reckless edgelord and he is certainly one. Not to mention he used the N-word against a fellow player whose race was unknown; he dropped the word purely out of frustration.

And I think his apology video is excellent. While Felix said it was not that great, people praised him for not making the video unnecessarily long, going straight to the point, owning up to his mistake and acknowledging his inability to learn from past controversies. Even to this day, I am still unable to make such sincere apology.

Thot thot thot thot thot

Oh, and don’t forget the misogyny accusation because he called Alinity, a female Twitch streamer, a ‘thot’. While he indeed called her such, he did not do so simply because she showed her cleavage; he called her a ‘thot’ because she attracted viewership by using nothing but her sexual appeal. So, like it or not, she is a thot.

Her defenders also ignore this one fact: Alinity copyright struck Felix’s video, despite him not breaking any copyright rules, while she was on her livestream with a fucking smirk on her face. Basically, she was not psychologically hurt by being called a thot; she was just using the situation to steal another person’s income and she even openly admitted she had abused the system many times. To this day, it is sad she is still being defended by people whose only source of info is that slanderous Vice article.

Her defenders also ignore ItsSkyLol, another female Twitch streamer who not only defended Felix, but also vented about how Alinity and her likes provoke horny male viewers to watch female streamers and expecting them to be their personal sex toys. If anything, Felix respect women more than Alinity’s defenders do.

The missing data

There is one 2014 episode of his now-defunct podcast where he was horrified by the rise of a racist and homophobic party in his home country of Sweden. But, sadly, that particular episode has been made private on Youtube and the entire podcast series is missing from SoundCloud.

For some time, I thought the missing episode would be enough to convince the more reasonable branch of his detractors that he is not a racist. But, not only the episode was created five years ago, some of the criticism against him is unfortunately valid.

When the ‘haters’ are right

Like it or not, arts and entertainment do have real-life implications.

Both, especially the latter, either affirm already-established societal beliefs or tell us to embrace certain beliefs, especially regarding gender, race and religion. They can be a force of good. But, we know damn well they are a bad influence most of the time.

I am all for edgy jokes. But, I also believe there is a time and a place for everything. Felix is a white Youtuber of western-upbringing who lives in the west, a part of the world where far-right politics is on the rise. Is it really wise of him to make Nazi jokes for the sake of being edgy?

Apart from the Christchurch terrorist (whose status as an actual Pewdiepie fan is doubted by many), I have not found a single evidence where Felix is admired by Neo-Nazis (unlike Trump who is beloved by them). But, just because he is not their favourite Youtuber, that does not mean he can’t be.

Just like how making ‘racist’ jokes (mind the airquotes) does not make the jokers racist, I also don’t think loving the jokes make us racist as well (and I wish SJWs should learn nuanced thinking). But, it also does not mean actual racists won’t love the jokes.

Why wouldn’t they? The content of the jokes clearly indulges their racism. In fact, I am sure they are glad the certain public figures make ‘racist’ jokes, especially when they are made for the sake of being offensive and lack some satirical elements.

And, in this era, Neo-Nazis are already politically empowered by the likes of Trump holding government positions. The last thing we need is for them to be culturally empowered, for them to believe the entertainment establishment tolerate their ideology. Eventually, they will be even more immensely motivated to spread their extreme ideology to the numerically-abundant impressionable individuals.

That’s why I also don’t have any good rebuttals when Oliver Thorn of Philosophy Tube implicitly call him the most famous Swedish Youtuber who spreads anti-Semitic messages. Twice, if I remember correctly.

Oh, and as a non-Jew, I don’t have the right to decide whether Jewish jokes are offensive or not. The only ones who do are the Jews. They are the actual targets of the jokes. While non-Jews can voice their opinions as well, we certainly don’t know how it feels to be Jews and we certainly only speak for ourselves.

Replace ‘Jews’ with other groups of people and my statement still stands.

What IF he is a racist?

Well, just take a look at those far-right politicians. Trump’s minions deny he is anything but a petulant, Nazi-tolerating and misogynist bully, despite the abundance of incriminating evidences in the forms of videos and his own tweets. Jair Bolsonaro’s minions deny he is anything but a misogynist, racist and homophobic dictator-wannabe who wants to destroy the environment, despite the fact it is the reason why he was famous in the first place!

And the same thing can happen to Felix’s fandom.

While I admittedly still fall for fake or patchily-reported news, I have learned to accept my idols as flawed human beings by rejecting their divine status. So, despite my fervent defence of Felix, I believe he can be (can be, not is) a horrible person and I have to brace myself if (if) he is revealed as a horrible human being; the earnestness of his words can be corroborated on the way he speaks, another thing his detractors willfully ignore.

But then, I am speaking for myself. We all know how fandoms behave. In spite of Felix’s increasing maturity over the years, some of his fans still defend him with such zeal no matter what, even if he is a (hypothetical) Neo-Nazi. And the media are not helping either.

They have been either petty or slanderous against him (and Youtubers in general) for many years. When they are not busy spewing pseudo-progressivism, they are too busy focusing on his wealth and implicitly encouraging their undoubtedly more traditional viewers/readers to despise the man who makes a living out of a so-called ‘not-real’ job. The media seed contempt among the minds of many Youtube fans.

And the contempt provides fans ammunition to attack the media. Every single Youtube news reported by the media will be disregarded as ‘fake’, regardless of their accuracy. Not only the media’s endeavour to get rid of their biggest industry rivals includes shooting their own feet, they will sway Youtube fans away from acknowledging potentially harsh truths about their idols.

If (if) Felix Kjellberg AKA Pewdiepie explicitly and unambiguously expose himself as a white supremacist and the story is picked up by the media, many on Youtube will never believe it.

Why should they believe the same entity who is infamous for spreading falsehood?

Conclusion

We can learn two things from this:

First, when one is a public figure, be careful with one’s actions and words. Like it or not, one will be seen as a role model by some members of the masses. Individuals have definitely become better or worse, thanks to their role models.

Second, a journalist must take his/her title seriously by actually embracing objectivity and pursuing truth. He/she must learn that having agendas like ‘looking progressive’ and ‘getting rid of the competitors’ does not make one a journalist. It makes one a pundit. An insecure one of that.

Okay, I make it sound like Felix and the media are equally in the wrong here. While I do criticise him, the content of his videos has become less recklessly edgy and more well-thought-out. He actually has made efforts to become a better, more responsible public figure. Compared that to the media.

At first, they tried to discredit him by pettily focused on his wealth. When that did not destroy his career, they took advantage of the rise of far-right movements by slandering him as a fervent supporter. None of them have yet to apologise and, every time they make a slanderous report of him, they also make sure their viewers/readers remember his past controversies.

Basically, not only they don’t have any guilt, they will keep doing it until they have reached their end goal.

And yet, they have to gall to be angry when the public call them ‘fake journalists’.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.