[HN Gopher] The Brilliance of All Gas No Brakes
___________________________________________________________________
The Brilliance of All Gas No Brakes
Author : Balgair
Score : 97 points
Date : 2020-08-15 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bigtechnology.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bigtechnology.substack.com)
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| _In a visit to the Portland protests, for instance, Callaghan
| shows that the attendees don 't neatly fit into the narrative you
| see on TV. Fox News' Tucker Carlson, for example, calls the
| protestors "Biden voters," yet many on the streets disdain Biden.
| There's something to what he's doing._
|
| I don't know if Tucker Carlson is the gold standard of journalism
| that you want to exceed.
| tjr225 wrote:
| That's exactly the point of what he is doing. I would guess
| most people who watch Fox News consider Tucker Carlson to be a
| reliable source. That's a problem because he obviously isn't.
| nraynaud wrote:
| There was this incredible TV show in the French speaking world
| called "Strip-tease" it was like a documentary, but with no
| narrator nor journalist. You would just see the people live and
| talk. It was a lot of rural and small town stuff.
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| Of course, the act of being filmed is already a transformation
| on people's "real life". You're affecting it somehow, even
| without a person, there's a microphone and a camera, they're
| the "journalist".
| d33lio wrote:
| I absolutely love All Gas No Brakes (no pun intended) however I
| was a bit troubled by some of Andrew's comments speaking with
| Ethan and Hila on the H3H3 podcast.
|
| We need to remember that this is entertainment, plain and simple.
| This is meant to be raw, groundbreaking and "fresh" which is why
| myself and many others love the cut and dry nature of his content
| - however his comments regarding the protests in Portland and
| Minneapolis were troubling. Specifically, how he articulated
| looting, destruction of businesses (including immigrant and
| minority owned businesses) as a "logical response to the death of
| George Floyd".
|
| AGNB will have a great future, but I think it's critical to
| remember that this IS ENTERTAINMENT and not in the slightest form
| meant to be informative.
|
| That said, godspeed Andrew lets take AGNB to the next level!
| m3kw9 wrote:
| I have a feeling that AGNB has a biased towards more sensational
| content. But people saying normal things aren't that
| entertaining, just imagine all 10 min of a episode with people
| making sense and what you already sort of know.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| He definitely "growth hacked" his channel to grow his audience.
| I'm glad to see him make the pivot to serious content after his
| Patreon could support him and his crew full time.
| anticsapp wrote:
| Jeff Krulik pioneered this approach in the 80s. Not to diminish
| what AGNB is doing, but it's almost like The Office to his Spinal
| Tap.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Metal_Parking_Lot
| pgrote wrote:
| Lily Hanson did this in the early to mid 2010s. Her videos were
| incredible for capturing culture, though she did participate in
| many of activities.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Hanson
|
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfR7gRIYmZbGjhhrRJCwpmw
| [deleted]
| erulabs wrote:
| All Gas No Brakes is fantastic - strongly recommend to anyone
| remotely interested in journalism. This article sort of suggests
| he's not a journalist - which I have to take issue with... He
| asks as few questions as possible and intentionally doesn't steer
| the conversation - which is maybe not the kind of investigative
| drilling were used to in modern times - but is exactly what
| journalism needs. Every video provides enough context that you
| don't feel silly commenting on it - you aren't nagged by that
| "what did they say right after that clever edit back to the
| studio..." feeling.
|
| Extremely happy AGNB got signed to AbsoLutley. I want Tim & Eric
| to do to news what they did to comedy.
| AndrewOMartin wrote:
| This was the interviewing technique that impressed me most when
| I listened to Joe Rogan (the few times that I have). Shutting
| the fuck up means that you allow the interviewee to steer the
| conversation, and if you'll allow me to torture the metaphor,
| you quickly learn whether they're able to confidently navigate
| the conceptual terrain or promptly drive into a ravine.
|
| I've even tried it myself a few times in social situations and
| the quality of the conversation often shoots up.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| The style works for All Gas no Brakes because he wants to
| give people an insight into a niche subculture and often it
| is humorous, so that's no problem.
|
| But Joe Rogan fails horribly to actually call guests out on
| their bullshit given the amount of crazy people he invites.
| He simply let's them talk because 99% of the time Rogan
| doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place.
| Guests on Rogan frequently opine on serious questions as if
| they're speaking from a position of authority, and Rogan
| doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest or
| contextualising what's going on, which is the basic function
| of an interviewer in such a situation.
| overgard wrote:
| Having listened to a lot of episodes, I don't really agree.
| I think his style is very conversational and deferential to
| his guests in letting them make their point without
| interrupting, and he definitely seems very careful never to
| "ambush" a guest, but if a guest makes an extraordinary
| claim he'll frequently challenge them on why they believe
| that. He might not say they're _wrong_, but he'll ask why
| they think that. To me, that's his primary job. The dude is
| a comedian and a tv host, I don't need or expect him to
| filter and debate every subject. He finds interesting
| people and interviews them in a style that lets them get
| into depth. I think that's worthwhile and I don't think he
| has a responsibility outside of that.
|
| This is probably just a very fundamental philosophical
| disagreement. I _really_ disagree with the notion that the
| way to deal with crazy people and extreme viewpoints is to
| deplatform them. In my experience that just pushes the
| crazy underground and somewhat legitimizes their feeling of
| being marginalized. If I'm dealing with crazy people, I
| want to at least know what their crazy beliefs are and why
| they believe those things.
|
| I mean, sure I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot, but
| he also has enough influence that it's important to
| understand how he formed his audience in the first place.
| It's easy to believe that Alex Jones just tricked a bunch
| of people, but it's more likely that there were people out
| there wanting what he eventually sold them. IE, he's been
| riding a wave, he didn't create the wave. It's important to
| know why that wave is there.
| amscanne wrote:
| > Rogan doesn't live up to the task of keeping them honest
| or contextualising what's going on, which is the basic
| function of an interviewer in such a situation.
|
| You're begging the question. Who's to say Rogan's intent
| isn't "to give people an insight" into some crazy person's
| ideas? I don't think the role of an interviewer is to
| unilaterally keep people "honest" or contextualize.
| Sometimes it's simply to steer the conversation through
| different arenas and keep it interesting.
|
| I like to read a lot of articles by people all over the
| political spectrum. They don't need "contextualizing" in
| order for me to evaluate them critically, and neither do
| interviews.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's fine if you can do it, but not everyone can. When he
| had Alex Jones on his podcast I actually had this debate
| with someone else, and I went to Facebook, I searched for
| discussions or posts of the video (you can do this right
| now too I guess), and the amount of people who actually
| believed Alex Jones is crazy, in some comment sections it
| probably was the majority of users.
|
| You had people repeating everything from Jews running the
| world, to Sandy hook victims being actors, to pizzagate,
| and so on. Joe Rogan has 30 million listeners, he has a
| _responsibility_ when it comes to what he puts out into
| the world. As it stands it basically a clearinghouse for
| bad ideas and conspiracy theories.
| nemothekid wrote:
| My distaste for Joe Rogan is the same as the parents in
| this thread - may times he is in over his head while his
| guest plainly states bullshit that goes unchallenged. Joe
| has shown he can push back but his style of interview
| isn't a debate.
|
| However, the idea that Joe has a _responsibility_ is
| something I heard and don 't understand. Who bestow'd on
| Joe this responsibility? How has the responsibility
| changed from when he had 30,000 viewers? And why is he
| supposed to change his format?
|
| I ask this question for two reasons. One, the very idea
| of saying "you can no longer talk about X because you
| have Y million viewers" is an odd sort of censorship.
| Does my Freedom of Speech end when I gain Y amount of
| followers? Two, when did the World become so helpless
| that Joe "Wow look at the size of that Gorilla" Rogan has
| become the Messiah of the people?
| kelnos wrote:
| I think if you're going to provide people a platform to
| spread their ideas, you have a responsibility to
| challenge what you believe to bad ideas, publicly (but
| also give the person the space to respond to your
| challenge). Allowing people greater reach in spreading
| bad ideas, unchecked, is irresponsible.
|
| As the person running the show, that responsibility
| increases as your audience increases.
|
| I still have yet to check out Rogan's show, but if he's
| just providing nutjobs a platform to spread lies and
| misinformation, without Rogan giving enough context,
| that's incredibly irresponsible of him.
| benrbray wrote:
| Not a legal responsibility, an ethical one. Whether we
| like it or not, people tend to idolize public figures and
| believe what they say.
|
| When people regularly tune in to his show, they may be
| exposed to a certain topic / idea for the first time, and
| their only exposure to this idea may be what Joe Rogan
| and his guest have to say. I would say he therefore has a
| moral obligation to TRY not to mislead his listeners.
| donkeyd wrote:
| I think I first saw them when they'd just uploaded their 3rd
| episode and instantly subscribed. I'm really amazed at how much
| they've grown already!
| crocodiletears wrote:
| By my estimate, he's probably one of the few people worth
| calling a journalist anymore. Watered-down as the term has
| become with bloggers, hacks who spend all their time on Twitter
| railing against the immaturities of our present administration
| in hot-takes devoid of original investigation or thought, and
| self-important ideologues who think they exist to
| intellectually shepherd the unwashed masses to whatever
| promised land their politics would have them believe in.
|
| All Gas No Breaks provides an impressively sweeping look at
| anyone and everyone you might encounter wherever he chooses to
| visit. He presents the fanatics and the well reasoned in pretty
| much even measure. If he does anyone editorial favors, it's
| hard to see where. It's a refreshing change from the staged
| shots and selective presentation we've become accustomed to
| seeing from the likes of Fox, the NYT, MSNBC, Breitbart, WaPo,
| and CNN.
| Taek wrote:
| I was at Area 51, which he covered. And while his video was
| very entertaining, it did not represent at all what it was like
| to be there.
|
| AGNB is exceptional at finding the crazy people and encouraging
| them to be themselves on camera. 98% of the people at area 51
| (admittedly a lower percentage than most events) were
| completely normal, non-conspiracy individuals, mostly from the
| midwest.
| ethanbond wrote:
| But... they were at Area 51...
|
| It seems that alone would indicate that they are not non-
| conspiracy individuals.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The Area 51 thing was a viral meme on social media. It hit
| the mainstream. It was a little like a flash mob. Even its
| origin was comedic.
| djmips wrote:
| You just mentioned Area 51. You must be a conspiracy
| individual!
| klyrs wrote:
| Consider that your assumptions may skew how you're reading
| GP's comment. What I take from this is that AGNB may have
| selected the most entertaining people to interview, and
| ignored the majority of fairly humdrum folks who were there
| for various reasons. Sounds like a recipe for confirmation
| bias to me; more like shock reporting, less like good
| journalism.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| I was friends with a journalist who had to do those "man on
| the street" interviews where they ask questions like, "How
| many states are there?" "Is Puerto Rica part of America or
| its own country" etc. etc.
|
| I asked if it was depressing and she said no: she'd often
| spend all day trying to find people who could not answer the
| questions or would say something wacko. In general most
| people knew the answers or had pretty milquetoast opinions
| but that doesn't make for a good segment.
|
| I love All Gas No Brakes; I do not take it for a minute to be
| representative of majority opinions in the US. I think its
| whole purpose is to reveal certain things which the media
| incorrectly identifies as being a "significant" or
| "reasonable" opinion or to reveal the absurdism living under
| most American life.
|
| For eg. the most recent video on Portland reveals the
| hollowing out of those protests as they have disassociated
| from BLM, not because they represent what BLM has become but
| precisely because they do not.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Interesting that they were mostly from the midwest.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| But is it informative? I've watched a few of his videos now and
| they feel unrepresentative of the topic or group he's covering.
| It feels like he cherry picks the zaniest people in the room,
| which is great for comedy and entertainment value but leaves me
| thinking: ok these people have some _interesting_ things to
| say, but are they representative of any group or movement or
| anything important?
|
| I end the video questioning if I've actually learnt anything
| meaningful about the world and its problems, or if I've just
| watched a modern-day freak show.
| fiblye wrote:
| The newest videos about the recent protests offer a slice of
| every viewpoint. They show the people who just want to make a
| mess, the people who think there should be peaceful change,
| the people who think there should be violent change, and the
| people who just don't care. Of course, the wildest people
| stand out, but they're all given pretty fair time to explain
| why they're doing what they are.
|
| And I think the point is to clearly avoid the polished and
| prepared representatives who have a quote perfectly prepared
| for the media. The point is to find the people who aren't
| polished and show what they're doing.
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| The last videos and the most political ones are clearly
| showing the effort to portray a little bit of everything.
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| That's exactly what it is. And it's why it is "important".
|
| He's not pretending to give a message about the issue he's
| "covering".
|
| He's covering the event and showing some part of that.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Reminds me of a quote from Chesterton: "When men choose not to
| believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they
| then become capable of believing in anything."
|
| The quote is deeper than it might appear and presupposes that you
| understand that institutions are not the _sources_ of meaning as
| the article suggests, but, when legitimate, guard some of the
| things that _are_ meaningful. Not a projection of fiction on a
| dead existence, but actually meaningful and intelligibly so
| (i.e., not some kind of mere passing feeling). Ideologies have
| attempted to create simulated meaning time and again, silly
| beliefs that drive people into madness, great and small. They
| have always failed because the "meaning" they provided was bogus,
| a deception that might animate people for some time, but is
| ultimately a fiction that ceases to maintain a lasting grip
| precisely because it is false. Only someone crippled by nihilism,
| stupidity, or opportunistic vice could latch onto something like
| that.
|
| The trouble is that we have been sliding into nihilism for some
| time. Nietzsche observed this slide during his era. He did not
| believe in God himself, but he saw atheism as a dreadful,
| horrible thing. In his parable of the madman, the madman
| frantically asks the people in town where God is. They are amused
| at the spectacle, suggesting in jest that perhaps God is hiding
| beneath something over here, or other there. The townsfolk
| represent the people of his day, the atheists of the 19th
| century. The madman, of course, realizes the consequences of
| God's "death" the horror of which the townsfolk have not yet come
| to understand. They are still dwelling in that twilight of the
| idols, fragmented and perverted pieces of the whole that was once
| held together by God before the earth was unchained from the sun
| and lost its orientation (Nietzsche gave the cult of Science some
| noteworthy attention as an example of one of these idols). The
| twilight does, sooner or later, come to an end, of course, and
| that's when even the idols can no longer pacify our fears.
|
| I think most people are like those townsfolk. True nihilism is
| unbearable. Anyone who claims otherwise is like the foolish
| teenager who is merely spiting his parents in an act of
| rebellion. Some of us sense the nihilism festering in our souls
| and begin to attach ourselves to various causes, fads, fashions,
| distractions. Anything to avert our gaze from the horrific void
| within us and before us. And America has always been a land of
| heretics (to borrow a characterization from Douthat), so perhaps
| the diversity of bizarre superstitions should be greater in the
| US than elsewhere. At the same time The "mainstream" pop culture
| is also vacuous, commercial, ideological, and stupid, itself
| dripping with hedonistic escapism from nihilism as much as any
| fringe movement (you should also expect a ascetic reaction for
| every hedonistic indulgence; each excess breeds its corresponding
| deficiency). Actually, we are in the throes of a kind of new
| gnosticism, a new Albigensian movement wherein the "true meaning"
| of the world, the "true self", is beyond the world of facts and
| can in fact contradict the facts. The facts are an illusion, not
| the "really real". They're "socially constructed" much like the
| material world is the deceptive construction of the evil creator
| god of the Old Testament, at least according to the gnostics. It
| is a dangerous, noxious amalgamation of pride and delusion, a
| slide into self-destruction, something Man has always excelled
| at. It is not unreasonable to think that gnosticism is, for many,
| an attempt to escape their nihilism into a world of pure
| imagination, giving their perverted appetites an inviolable
| infallibility and sanctity. We don't need AI and robots to create
| the Matrix. Many of us are in it now.
| 0134340 wrote:
| >When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter
| believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in
| anything."
|
| That quote is deceptive though and and it's sometimes used, as
| in your case, to push religious propaganda. For every secular
| view you'll likely find a theistic view with many
| commonalities. Theism doesn't stop people from justifying or
| believing in many of the things agnostics do because out of
| thousands of denominations of thousands of theistic religions
| of thousands of gods and thousands of years, theistic belief is
| just as varied as non-theistic belief. And often they're just
| as vague and meaningless while virtue-signalling as something
| more meaningful and sometimes the love they espouse is
| something committed only for that tribe or out of fear of gods
| rather secular motives which may often be for the tribe but not
| because they feel they have to. Sorry if I seem course but I'm
| tired of this meaningless 'life has no meaning without belief
| in gods' trope pervade my favorite forum for which I'd rather
| view tech news and not be denigrated for not having found any
| believable gods yet. Nihilism isn't defined by lack of belief
| in gods.
| [deleted]
| forinti wrote:
| It is like low budget Louis Theroux. Very entertaining though.
| trynewideas wrote:
| Most of AGNB is great, but I wish the protest videos at least
| included resources from local jouranlists alongside it for
| context.
|
| Especially the Minneapolis and Portland protest ones recently put
| up -- they showed a narrow slice of what was happening to drive
| home some really salient points, but if you watch them and think
| "THAT'S what's it's like in there", it's off base by quite a bit
| compared to the less entertaining local journalists (or even just
| streamers with a camera on a pole) who've been out there
| livestreaming, interviewing, and documenting for months instead
| of weeks or days.
|
| Context is important; I can't speak for Minneapolis, but the
| Portland protests weren't just (and aren't just, and for most of
| the nearly 70 straight days of them haven't ever been) about the
| federal courthouse or the federal officers. The BLM-led Justice
| Center protests weren't the chaotic courthouse protests, and the
| 2-3k who came out for a week of feds has been less than 500 for
| most of the other 2 months and change. The west-side downtown
| protests in a 4-block zone around the center and courthouse
| aren't the east-side precinct and police union HQ marches with
| local police chasing protesters and beating media into
| residential neighborhoods.
|
| Or maybe I'm still just pissed about AGNB showing mayor Ted
| Wheeler in a sympathetic context, complete with his theatric tear
| gassing the one time he came out to a protest, without the other
| context of how the PPB he runs as police commissioner beats and
| gasses media and protesters as soon as cameras like AGNB's left
| the fed protest stage - literally, PPB went out threatening to
| gas the same crowd he stood with within 45 minutes of Wheeler
| leaving the protest.
|
| I guess my feeling is, some things aren't simple or clear enough
| to be accurately served by pithy but entertaining 5- or 10-minute
| videos. It's one lens, and a good one, but I get real nervous
| when people say AGNB is the model for news.
|
| Very few links of people on the ground:
|
| https://twitter.com/MrOlmos
|
| https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia
|
| https://twitter.com/PDocumentarians
|
| https://twitter.com/Clypian
|
| https://twitter.com/IwriteOK
|
| https://twitter.com/hungrybowtie
| briga wrote:
| The brilliance is how Andrew never mocks or judges his interview
| subjects, no matter how outwardly insane or ridiculous they might
| be. Obviously the videos are edited for comic effect, but I don't
| think he could have gotten half his material if he didn't just
| allow people be their raw unfiltered selves. The results are
| pretty fascinating and funny, you could probably write whole
| anthropological dissertations on some of these videos.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I just found out about AGNB here. Watched a couple. It's clear
| from his facial expressions that he's reacting to some of the
| crazy.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Honestly, I think this is taking AGNB too seriously. It's a
| hilarious channel where a guy finds the weirdest people possible
| and lets them spew insane stuff on camera. I love it, but I don't
| get the sense that he's doing it for journalistic purposes (which
| is obviously fine!).
| 1propionyl wrote:
| He said himself in an interview that up until the Minneapolis
| and Portland videos, he was doing it purely for entertainment
| value, and didn't consider it any form of journalism.
|
| His strategy was just to get the weirdest weirdos on camera and
| let them talk. With the Minneapolis/Portland videos you can see
| a significant shift towards a more journalistic disposition.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Sure, I give him kudos for showing real activists in the
| protest videos alongside the usual AGNB characters.
| solarkraft wrote:
| I'm not sure about that reading. Andrew clearly lets people be
| themselves, but the people themselves and the format obviously
| select for the crazier ones.
|
| I found the h3h3 interview quite interesting:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=lxt6virxkio
| anm89 wrote:
| I think the narrative of people using these subcultures as a way
| or fill the void left by the lack of traditional societal
| structures that people used to find meaning in life is spot on.
|
| It's interesting how half of the people in these subcultures seem
| to be in on the absurdity of it and the other half aren't but it
| doesn't really seem to matter to a lot of them.
| 0134340 wrote:
| >fill the void left by the lack of traditional societal
| structures that people used to find meaning in life
|
| Or maybe they're finding meaning in the void that traditional
| structures couldn't fill.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-15 23:01 UTC)