Thanks to Brent Bandhauer.
Channel: / brentbear1
Source video: • Lawn Darts
*****
A funny thought had occurred to me while filming this video. Since this one was already ankle-deep in satire, the compulsion to wade in further began to build pressure. Only the cosmos knows why I want to subject myself to it, especially since I already know so well how bad it sucks to be misinterpreted. Anyway, here's the thought: take a look at the statistics, and you'll see that-over the last decade-Horseshoes have killed, maimed, and destroyed far more than Lawn Darts have. And here you, sensible viewer, roll your eyes and chuckle, because you understand that Lawn Darts, having become the pariah of risky backyard toys, no longer have a comparable market share. It's no longer funny when I explain it, but that's why I'm now giving you THIS explanation, because neither is IT funny; the pressure to include everyone in the joke is real, and it sucks. Satire leaves the thick behind, but we can't have that.
Note that in my most recent video, the one that you didn't watch in its entirety, a rather well-crafted but subtle argument was presented to a distribution of video game players. The argument was difficult to conceptualize at its theoretical far end, enough so that I'm somewhat uncertain about its validity. But one thing about which I am certain is that if the argument was off base, it isn't because of some simple, three-word dismissal like 'your just nostalgic.' Chances are that I'm wrong, alright. But not because of some simple, glaring omission; I'm wrong because the actual case is too complex for me to account for, too deep for me to entirely see, and just too downright complicated for me to ever be able to understand. Remember, by all realistic measures, the causal chain that you and I operate on is de facto endless, and as such, the only consistent worldview is one that requires infinite elaboration. Anyone who believes otherwise was probably beaned on the head by a horseshoe as a kid.
Just remember, as you ingest your daily sensational-but-empty media content, that it's the fairness crabs who are pulling the risqué back down into the bucket. Don't call this tendency by an 'ism,' because such would be a gross miscategorization and an over-simplifying generalization. What's really going on here is the emergence of a natural order that preferences an inclusive distribution, not for any idealistic reason, but simply for the sake of economy, and thus, for self-preservation. Content (and that means jokes & satire) is made for the masses, and that mass is mostly made of the dullard of double-digit IQ, with an extra point thrown in for good measure. Media aim for the center of the bullseye. Aim at a different target at your own risk. Ay me, to be misunderstood! Lol. I'm not really so selfish as the previous sentiments express, nor as arrogant as the following Schopenhauer quotation suggests:
“talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see.”
No, my own self-regard is somewhat more dismal and depreciative. I'm just here to entertain you by lobbing some clever media through the air. Yes, at times, an innocent gets hurt in the process. And that's the price you pay to preserve the option: risk. If you don't like it, vote me down and back into the bucket. But don't ask me to put away my sharp objects because you don't understand how to use them.