A Brooklyn Culture Mafia

shiels

shiels

_
ok sorry mate, yes those are big numbers and she has a nice face. but back to the nub - reconciling sex, fame, pettiness with leftism

the nearest UK equivalent Novara do some of this and get the same criticism. Links with the arts world not the same but Narcissists sanctimoniously speaking on behalf of the working class etc.

broadly, without actually listening to anything they have said, despite feeling sick when I’ve tried, I actually endorse the slightly more honest messier, funnier less pious ‘trashy’ aspects of the left dirtbags. But I don’t like it when that tips over into a celebration
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus
shiels

shiels

_
But I’m all for embracing your inner cunt. Openly discussing your shameful prejudices and perversions etc, laughing at them, using them as a means to empathise with others even those on the dark side
 
linebaugh

linebaugh

Well-known member
there is infrastructure around these people that wasn't there prior for the micro celebrity. They may be local, 'not famous' - your mom doesnt know what chapo trap house is - but as Gus pointed out they have their own media empires that produce millions in revenue. And its a two way system, you could likely interact with these people online if you really wanted to. you could even argue that's the primary revenue generating mechanism: the patreon platform's express purpose is to sell access.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
I listened to the Red Scare episode featuring @blissblogger and it was pretty good, mostly because he did 80% of the talking (sadly, no dissensus shoutout, tho). also listened to about half of the episode with Steve Bannon and it was hilarious because he's such a full of shit motormouth who hooks you by dropping occasional tiny nuggets of smart observations and insights into his stream of consciousness rants. so again, because he as the guest did the majority of the talking.

while I understand the attraction of just the two hosts chatting, I find the guest-less shows less interesting because their opinions don't seem particularly well formed and supported. but as Gus said, they are fairly successful financially: wikipedia says "As of October 2020, the show has generated over $35,000 per month from over 7,000 subscribers". $420k per year split between the two of them for one hour of chatting per week ain't a bad gig.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sus
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
not that financial revenue should be the measure of whether a venture is successful. that's American thinking.
 
entertainment

entertainment

Well-known member
shiels said:
But I’m all for embracing your inner cunt. Openly discussing your shameful prejudices and perversions etc, laughing at them, using them as a means to empathise with others even those on the dark side
Click to expand...
i agree but none of that means anything. the minute something like 'dirtbag left' is entered into the reality of social politics, it becomes calcified and detached from it's real world context. it no longer belongs to the neural substrate of human impulse that we can relate to outside of the political culturel sphere. it has become a piece to move around, a tag, a position to take. it's evacuated of real world meaning and re-filled with a flat significance of who it is applied by, how it is assigned, who likes it, who makes fun of it.
 
linebaugh

linebaugh

Well-known member
Linebaugh said:
there is infrastructure around these people that wasn't there prior for the micro celebrity. They may be local, 'not famous' - your mom doesnt know what chapo trap house is - but as Gus pointed out they have their own media empires that produce millions in revenue. And its a two way system, you could likely interact with these people online if you really wanted to. you could even argue that's the primary revenue generating mechanism: the patreon platform's express purpose is to sell access.
Click to expand...
its gives the impression that theres a you sized hole in the scene. all the more painful for those on the periphery. a few well placed tweets and a brooklyn residence could be all thats necessary for your pet project to make it
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
he's really smart and articulate, makes you wonder why he still engages here with our nonsense sometimes.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sus
linebaugh

linebaugh

Well-known member
luka said:
Sometimes he portrays it as, like, this is the premier league. There's only one premier league and if you want to play at the top, that's the only thing there is to aspire to. BCM league. And then this fascination and fury. Wanting to be part of it, being on the periphery of it but nowhere near being given a membership card.
Click to expand...
theres a paradoxical effect at play where the BCM is both what anyone can do and also the only place to be. it represents how unnecessary the internet has made established institutions and local privilege. yet the appeal is undeniable. and I understand it, despite being disgusted by the whole spectacle of it all it feels like Brooklyn is the only place to be for anyone my age that's not into football
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
suspendedreason said:
As much as I love Yyaldrin's post, or ah—appreciate—the psychoanalyzing from Luka et al, I think y'all are confusing your own provincialism with these folks' cultural importance. The Chapo, Red Scare, Cumtown trifecta has a few million listeners between them—Chapo pulls $2m a year on Patreon subscriptions. Annie Baker (Gettysburg gal) is literally the most celebrated under-40 playwright in the world; anyone who's into theater knows who she is. Andrea Long Chu is the hottest figure in trans studies the last five ten years. Artforum is the most important visual arts publication of the past century.
Click to expand...
UK drill videos have a few million views. They're made by teenage stabbing gangs from the worst estates in Britain. You're radically overestimating the value of millions.
 
sus

sus

Moderator
Leo said:
while I understand the attraction of just the two hosts chatting, I find the guest-less shows less interesting because their opinions don't seem particularly well formed and supported.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed. Early on, when I felt like I could glean some social or psychological insight out of their chit-chat, I enjoyed a coupled of their chit-chat seshes, but long-term it's bad content—uninformed, unprepared, rambling, revisiting the same topics and hot takes over and over.

One question I always have, when it seems like people with big platforms could do so much more with them—really develop a worldview rather than recapitulate provocations, and squeeze affordances out of the medium—is whether they're successful despite an underwhelming product, or because of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top