I agree, Dv8, with your statement about not trusting anything in the age of deep fakes. I extend that to most everything I read or see. Regarding Crowder, I lean more towards authentic, but does that lessen my opinion of him?Yes and no -- I’m more curious to see how he addresses it and the impact it will have on his new Mug Club business venture and his future as a Breitbart-style Conservative.
I think he’s done. Consider:
1 He secretly recorded and released the audio of his phone call with Jeremy Boreing of Daily Wire earlier this year.
2 He publicly announced that he and his wife were divorcing last Monday on his show, and he did it an odd way.
3 Former co-host, comedian Dave Landau, opened up last week about why he wasn’t returning to Mug Club.
None of these things paint Crowder in a favorable light. He can’t claim to be the victim of an unethical leak of private video when he essentially did the same thing with Boreing. His divorce statement painted his wife in an unflattering way, while the video just released shows him to to be the a**hole while his wife seems reasonable and sympathetic. Although Landau refrained from really blasting Crowder, his details on their contract negotiations kind of reveal that Crowder treated his employees in the same fashion that Crowder was being treated by Daily Wire.
I don’t see a good path forward for him and his new business.
Peoples personal lives don’t interest me in that way, I guess. The only involvement I have with Crowder is this:
Are the political assertions he makes true, or accurate?
People are continually involved with this idea of whether or not they like a certain creator or politician, or whatever. The only thing that really matters is this question.
Ayn Rand had mood swings and may have been addicted to stimulants??
Is what she stated true or factual or accurate or not.
Donald Trump makes mean tweets?
Is what he says true or factual or accurate or not.
Etc.
Maybe I’m a weirdo. But that’s how I see it.
Crowder’s business will probably survive in some form or may even grow in size. It will be based in part on how he handles some of this personal stuff. I see that as a problem with a non independent creator going independent for the first time.
How PewDiePie became independent can serve as a model for how this is done. Something bad happens. But you come up with a non standard way to react to it. Ultimately that determines how you will come out of it, because bad and messy stuff happens to everybody.
But… Does his content inform or enhance my life? In the above example: Yes it does.
Crowder is a pretty savvy guy. So It’s possible that he will come out ahead in this.
The bottom line here is that if a scandal happens to you that gets uptake in the wider media, well then, more people know who you are.
Nobody heard of Andrew Tate until he got canceled. Now, practically everyone knows his name.
The same thing may happen with Crowder--is very likely to happen….
Q: “Did you know that Steven Crowder is a horrible person?”
A: Do the points he makes about the culture war and/or geopolitics make sense? Because that’s the only significant contact I (and you) will most likely ever have with Crowder.
On a slightly related note. A lot of people say these kinds of things. In essence:
I cannot believe my eyes and ears; I therefore will believe my eyes and ears. That is essentially paragraph one and paragraph two of your above presentation. Not just yours, but essentially everyone’s, really.
On the other hand. Paragraph three in your above statement is very valid: How will these things, factual or not, be perceived? In my estimation, as above, that largely depends on what the target, in this case, Crowder, does with them.
More people will now know who he is, so he has an opportunity that you often only get from a bad publicity event such as this.
Let me give a twitter analogy also in a separate comment:
On twitter, I don’t just follow people blindly. I look at their profile, and subject it to a number of metrics, some objective, some subjective.
(it’s a lot of work, by the way, in what has become a second job that I don’t get paid for doing : )
Once I determine that someone is somewhere in the universe of alignment with me, then apart from some minimal engagement, until they distinguish themselves in some way, my interaction with them is done.
When examining someone that is not so much in alignment with me, I and most other people spend more time investigating them and their statements and views.
Now… if I did what most other people did, I would also engage more with people with whom I disagree which would really tip the scales in favor of engagement with those people, but since I know what “The Beast” ™ wants, I don’t engage with such people. But the point is, that, in general, when you perceive someone to be “bad” you actually tend to engage with them more than if you perceive them as “good”
So this is a mechanical representation of the statement “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” Although, I would amend that statement by saying it this way: “Bad publicity is the kind that you actually want, but you have to understand how to leverage it.”
Bad publicity usually gets you more recognition than good publicity does. But you do need to figure out what you are going to do with all these new eyes that are now upon you. But… if you don’t have the new eyes, then the whole discussion is moot.
The fact is… that you do have the bad publicity, you do have the new eyes on you. So, if you realize that, you can turn it into … something.
My guess is that Crowder will leverage it, because he understand how publicity works. It appears, at least, that he has obviously done these things quite deliberately. So… you can draw your own conclusions. But things generally don’t work the way we feel like they should work. So even if it is true that Crowder is a horrible person, he may come out of all this better than when he started.
The truth is probably closer to this: Crowder is simply a person. I know if I were not a public figure, or if I were, I wouldn’t want anyone to see me at my worst. That holds for you, or indeed, anyone that I know.
Well… I would not want anyone to know me at my worst… unless I wanted more eyes on me, and had a notion of what to do with them when I got them.
I would suggest that in Crowder’s case, he’s built a persona and a following based not just on facts, humor, and a willingness to engage those on the other side, but as a leader of the opposition to current woke culture. Leadership demands more than just an airing of facts. Putting aside this leaked video, I found his treatment of Dave Landau, assuming that’s accurate, to be close to what he himself railed against when discussing the Daily Wire’s offer to him. It strikes me as more than a little hypocritical – DW operating as a business and not true believers – while he’s docking pay from Landau for being “tardy” to work, not publicizing his shows, and insisting that Landau move to Texas, and basically give up his comedy career.
Crowder is building a business – his stuff isn’t free. Reputation figures into that and I don’t think his actions this year since leaving The Blaze show him in a good light. And I think that will be reflected in fewer people signing up for his club.
Should it? I don’t know. For myself, if an artist that I like for their art, spews bullshit talking points tearing down my beliefs and associations, then regardless of how much I liked their product I’m done with them.
Re your last paragraph above. Perhaps that’s why so many fewer people watch the Oscars or follow Sportsball. But I guess it does depend somewhat on circumstances. I would personally prefer people keep their personal lives private as well as their political views, if their professions are not about politics, anyway.
But on the other hand, there are certain talented people that I’ll tolerate a lot of nonsense from because they are just so brilliant or talented. I have talked to other people who feel this way as well, although that appears to be changing as the culture war rages on.
A lot of people stopped watching the NBA or other sports when the leagues or their members started bringing their politics to the fore. The same seems to be happening with Disney, and even with Hollywood in general. People are just spending less money on these things than they used to.
I personally haven’t been to a movie in 4 years, I think, and am pretty picky about what I do pay for on streaming when I do pay.
Poor Uranus -- always the butt of jokes, and even worse, puns.
I agree, Dv8, with your statement about not trusting anything in the age of deep fakes. I extend that to most everything I read or see. Regarding Crowder, I lean more towards authentic, but does that lessen my opinion of him?Yes and no -- I’m more curious to see how he addresses it and the impact it will have on his new Mug Club business venture and his future as a Breitbart-style Conservative.
I think he’s done. Consider:
1 He secretly recorded and released the audio of his phone call with Jeremy Boreing of Daily Wire earlier this year.
2 He publicly announced that he and his wife were divorcing last Monday on his show, and he did it an odd way.
3 Former co-host, comedian Dave Landau, opened up last week about why he wasn’t returning to Mug Club.
None of these things paint Crowder in a favorable light. He can’t claim to be the victim of an unethical leak of private video when he essentially did the same thing with Boreing. His divorce statement painted his wife in an unflattering way, while the video just released shows him to to be the a**hole while his wife seems reasonable and sympathetic. Although Landau refrained from really blasting Crowder, his details on their contract negotiations kind of reveal that Crowder treated his employees in the same fashion that Crowder was being treated by Daily Wire.
I don’t see a good path forward for him and his new business.
Peoples personal lives don’t interest me in that way, I guess. The only involvement I have with Crowder is this:
Are the political assertions he makes true, or accurate?
People are continually involved with this idea of whether or not they like a certain creator or politician, or whatever. The only thing that really matters is this question.
Ayn Rand had mood swings and may have been addicted to stimulants??
Is what she stated true or factual or accurate or not.
Donald Trump makes mean tweets?
Is what he says true or factual or accurate or not.
Etc.
Maybe I’m a weirdo. But that’s how I see it.
Crowder’s business will probably survive in some form or may even grow in size. It will be based in part on how he handles some of this personal stuff. I see that as a problem with a non independent creator going independent for the first time.
How PewDiePie became independent can serve as a model for how this is done. Something bad happens. But you come up with a non standard way to react to it. Ultimately that determines how you will come out of it, because bad and messy stuff happens to everybody.
But… Does his content inform or enhance my life? In the above example: Yes it does.
Crowder is a pretty savvy guy. So It’s possible that he will come out ahead in this.
The bottom line here is that if a scandal happens to you that gets uptake in the wider media, well then, more people know who you are.
Nobody heard of Andrew Tate until he got canceled. Now, practically everyone knows his name.
The same thing may happen with Crowder--is very likely to happen….
Q: “Did you know that Steven Crowder is a horrible person?”
A: Do the points he makes about the culture war and/or geopolitics make sense? Because that’s the only significant contact I (and you) will most likely ever have with Crowder.
And that’s the name of that tune.
On a slightly related note. A lot of people say these kinds of things. In essence:
I cannot believe my eyes and ears; I therefore will believe my eyes and ears. That is essentially paragraph one and paragraph two of your above presentation. Not just yours, but essentially everyone’s, really.
On the other hand. Paragraph three in your above statement is very valid: How will these things, factual or not, be perceived? In my estimation, as above, that largely depends on what the target, in this case, Crowder, does with them.
More people will now know who he is, so he has an opportunity that you often only get from a bad publicity event such as this.
Let me give a twitter analogy also in a separate comment:
On twitter, I don’t just follow people blindly. I look at their profile, and subject it to a number of metrics, some objective, some subjective.
(it’s a lot of work, by the way, in what has become a second job that I don’t get paid for doing : )
Once I determine that someone is somewhere in the universe of alignment with me, then apart from some minimal engagement, until they distinguish themselves in some way, my interaction with them is done.
When examining someone that is not so much in alignment with me, I and most other people spend more time investigating them and their statements and views.
Now… if I did what most other people did, I would also engage more with people with whom I disagree which would really tip the scales in favor of engagement with those people, but since I know what “The Beast” ™ wants, I don’t engage with such people. But the point is, that, in general, when you perceive someone to be “bad” you actually tend to engage with them more than if you perceive them as “good”
So this is a mechanical representation of the statement “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” Although, I would amend that statement by saying it this way: “Bad publicity is the kind that you actually want, but you have to understand how to leverage it.”
Bad publicity usually gets you more recognition than good publicity does. But you do need to figure out what you are going to do with all these new eyes that are now upon you. But… if you don’t have the new eyes, then the whole discussion is moot.
The fact is… that you do have the bad publicity, you do have the new eyes on you. So, if you realize that, you can turn it into … something.
My guess is that Crowder will leverage it, because he understand how publicity works. It appears, at least, that he has obviously done these things quite deliberately. So… you can draw your own conclusions. But things generally don’t work the way we feel like they should work. So even if it is true that Crowder is a horrible person, he may come out of all this better than when he started.
The truth is probably closer to this: Crowder is simply a person. I know if I were not a public figure, or if I were, I wouldn’t want anyone to see me at my worst. That holds for you, or indeed, anyone that I know.
Well… I would not want anyone to know me at my worst… unless I wanted more eyes on me, and had a notion of what to do with them when I got them.
I would suggest that in Crowder’s case, he’s built a persona and a following based not just on facts, humor, and a willingness to engage those on the other side, but as a leader of the opposition to current woke culture. Leadership demands more than just an airing of facts. Putting aside this leaked video, I found his treatment of Dave Landau, assuming that’s accurate, to be close to what he himself railed against when discussing the Daily Wire’s offer to him. It strikes me as more than a little hypocritical – DW operating as a business and not true believers – while he’s docking pay from Landau for being “tardy” to work, not publicizing his shows, and insisting that Landau move to Texas, and basically give up his comedy career.
Crowder is building a business – his stuff isn’t free. Reputation figures into that and I don’t think his actions this year since leaving The Blaze show him in a good light. And I think that will be reflected in fewer people signing up for his club.
Should it? I don’t know. For myself, if an artist that I like for their art, spews bullshit talking points tearing down my beliefs and associations, then regardless of how much I liked their product I’m done with them.
I guess we’ll see what happens. Those were just some thoughts I had about publicity.
Re your last paragraph above. Perhaps that’s why so many fewer people watch the Oscars or follow Sportsball. But I guess it does depend somewhat on circumstances. I would personally prefer people keep their personal lives private as well as their political views, if their professions are not about politics, anyway.
But on the other hand, there are certain talented people that I’ll tolerate a lot of nonsense from because they are just so brilliant or talented. I have talked to other people who feel this way as well, although that appears to be changing as the culture war rages on.
A lot of people stopped watching the NBA or other sports when the leagues or their members started bringing their politics to the fore. The same seems to be happening with Disney, and even with Hollywood in general. People are just spending less money on these things than they used to.
I personally haven’t been to a movie in 4 years, I think, and am pretty picky about what I do pay for on streaming when I do pay.
Happy Caturday, Gerbil Nation! Now with moar wind breaking!
Good morning, Sven!
Sven -- I agree. This does not look good for Crowder.