|
Astro Creep posted:There is no deeper meaning behind that episode(the episode in question being "The F Word"). The entire point of the episode is that "words only have power if you give them power(read: racial/ethic/sexual/gendered slurs)", and they make it blatantly obvious that that's the lesson to be learned, however ridiculous and insulting that lesson may be. A group of white college kids sitting around in the apartment above mine dropping N-bombs every 10 seconds are not improving society or the language, and they probably have no understanding of how uncomfortable it may be for the black guy who lives next door and hears them through their open windows (not to mention the entire rest of the apartment complex), while they play Madden and use casually cruel language from a perspective of pure privilege. Are they racist? Probably not - I bet they even have black friends (but those black friends of theirs aren't getting invited to Madden Night, because this is bros night out, not political correct night out.) It's similar to that asian comedienne's CancelColbert thing recently, where she wanted to point out that having a white male use racist quips to speak to a broad audience in order to poke fun at other also arguably inappropriate racism, is, well, problematic. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Apr 7, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Yeah South Park's pretty awful. Even when it's on the right side of things, it's boringly preachy and obvious with its messaging, and endlessly smug and self righteous. Stone and Parker think they're infinitely smarter than they actually are, and it painfully comes across in their writing. IMO, if you want a properly progressive comedy to base a videogame off of, I'd recommend Parks and Recreation. It'd make a loving awesome Walking Dead style game. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
I quit being a real fan of South Park when the movie came out. I went with my friends and dropped 15 bucks or some ridiculous amount for a ticket, and then sat in a theater feeling like Matt and Trey were shoveling manure down my throat in the form of a 2 hour "Saddam Hussein is a queer who likes Satan's dick" joke, while they laughed all the way to the bank. I know they're savvy, I know they often have a good point they're attempting to make however, I don't want or need to be preached at via their medium at this point in my life. The game brings back a lot of the charm of the show (that sense of being a kid playing in a backyard, swapping dirty jokes and changing the rules on the fly while waving around cardboard swords) that I forgot about, which is a reason I really hope Danielle goes on to play it, and then might be able to discuss her feelings on the game, with the thumbs crew at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:The issue with "taking it back" is that you're walking a really thin line. And it also allows some aberrant individuals to continue to use a word without any of the baggage involved, despite likely being a white cismale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Hell, just the idea that "slurs only have the power you give them" or whatever is extremely pervasive and extremely dangerous; I'd write off South Park as actively harmful to social equality just on the basis of helping to spread that poo poo, and it's certainly not the only or probably even the greatest offense its writers have committed. The more I think about how much time was spent discussing it in anything resembling a positive light, the more it makes me kind of ill, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:Hell, just the idea that "slurs only have the power you give them" or whatever is extremely pervasive and extremely dangerous; I'd write off South Park as actively harmful to social equality just on the basis of helping to spread that poo poo, and it's certainly not the only or probably even the greatest offense its writers have committed. "How do we really mock somebody we don't like who just died? I know, make them very effeminately gay and having gay sex with gay Satan!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:The more I think about how much time was spent discussing it in anything resembling a positive light, the more it makes me kind of ill, honestly. Combined with the way he jumped all over the start of seemingly every one of Danielle's points, totally derailing her on multiple occasions, this episode really didn't cast Sean in the best light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Pasco posted:Combined with the way he jumped all over the start of seemingly every one of Danielle's points, totally derailing her on multiple occasions, this episode really didn't cast Sean in the best light. I agree, I was listening to the episode with company and they complained about the women on the show being talked over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
I go to sleep and wake up to this? Guys, you didn't have to...  Outside of the episode, I was fairly upset at the reaction that Danielle received versus what she said, it was inversely proportional to the content of what she said. Saying things such as "I'm a feminist", "I used to like South Park, but I can't say I do now", and "I'll give it a shot since you seem to be really into it" really shouldn't bring out the awful side of white dudes on the internet. It's really bizarre for me because I would figure that Idle Thumbs is fairly off the beaten path when it comes to the entire video game scene and I would like to think that there wouldn't be a redditesque backlash on the Idle Thumbs' forums, but it's just more fodder for the People Who Identify As "Gamers" Are Awful Human Beings pile. Carolyn Petit having the audacity to give GTA5 a 9/10 seems like a pretty decent analogue to Danielle Riendeau saying "I'm lukewarm on South Park".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:The issue with "taking it back" is that you're walking a really thin line. And it also allows some aberrant individuals to continue to use a word without any of the baggage involved, despite likely being a white cismale. However when the oppressed group is the one trying to do so it is a potentially useful and appropriate tool to bring about change or at least reduce the sting of some hurtful words and ideas. I grew up hearing a lot of "wetback" jokes because part of my family are only a couple generations from having possibly literally having swum across a river into the country, but only they talk like that, around each other. If someone made a wetback joke near my mom, my dad would let them know it's not appropriate. That said, I personally am proud that some of my ancestors managed to do such a thing, and that my life is easier because of their actions back then, as are most of the rest of my family on that side. Oh yeah, totally. I have no problem with reclamation, and if I didn't break out in a cold sweat upon hearing the f-word, I wouldn't be opposed to using it(extremely sparingly, because it's just not A Nice Word). It's a very powerful thing, it'd just be nice if people would leave the job to those actually affected by the words that need reclaiming We don't need a couple of guys with an obsession with grey area politics and characters that are walking stereotypes to help us reclaim slurs, imo.Jetsetlemming posted:Yeah South Park's pretty awful. Even when it's on the right side of things, it's boringly preachy and obvious with its messaging, and endlessly smug and self righteous. Stone and Parker think they're infinitely smarter than they actually are, and it painfully comes across in their writing. Their whole "equal opportunity offenders" schtick is just so tired. Even when they're "right" on an issue, it's still clouded in the same old "the truth is in the middle, no one is 100% Right or 100% Wrong(except us. we're right.)" framing that they've been using since day one. And when they're "wrong", a not-insignificant portion of the audience runs with it because they either really believe in that stance on the issue in question, or they repeat the problematic speech/jokes and have South Park to use as an excuse if someone calls them out on their behavior. And yeah, like I said before, the response to Riendeau during that pretty big chunk of time on the podcast came off as really disrespectful. Maybe there was some stuff edited out, but it seemed like she couldn't get a word in edgewise. VV I meant during the initial bit, but if I missed something after that, I sincerely apologize. My phone does this thing sometimes where it'll download most of a podcast just fine, but then it'll throw a chunk of a random podcast in the middle, or just omit a piece. I'm gonna go listen to the version on the site just in case
Astro Creep fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Maybe it was the 45 minute segue into boxing chat that they cut out? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:It's similar to that asian comedienne's CancelColbert thing recently, where she wanted to point out that having a white male use racist quips to speak to a broad audience in order to poke fun at other also arguably inappropriate racism, is, well, problematic. I agree with everything else you said, but this is a bit of a sticking point for me. Obviously there exists a very thin line between "making fun of racism" and "real actual racism," but the colbert thing seems to clearly fall in the latter. How else would a parody comedian mock a racist? There's a huge difference between the view of "racism is over so I will use racist terms casually" versus pointing out how racist something is by drawing parallels between it and something more evidently racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
After hearing it discussed on the last two or three episodes of Idle Thumbs, I'm still not on board with the staunch anti-objectivity stance with respects to game reviews. I wonder if it might be a difference on what "objective" means in my eyes vs yours. To me "objective" means that you're taking out any sort of personal connection or investment you might have in the work, and looking at it simply as-is. An example of this is that when I was in grad school, it wasn't out of the ordinary for my advisor to be skeptical or simply not believe in a publication put out by one of his collaborators, even if they were working with us on something else at the time. It was never a knock against the author, but at the same knowing and working with the author didn't stop him from looking at the argument of the paper with a critical eye, which is really important. I really think that an effective game review has to lack any sort of personal backdrop in order to get the message across to a wider audience. A reviewer can write "this story really pulled at my heartstrings because I know the writer was thinking of ______ when making it" but few other people are going to also know that going in, so that's not an effective argument for the game in such a case. I do think it's OK for a reviewer to say that some part resonated with them because of an experience in their own life, but again I don't think that's very effective because not everyone has that experience to call upon. On the other hand, towards the end of the most recent discussion I felt that you guys might be "objective" as "how much of this experience can we quantify?", which I'm totally fine with being against. I don't think you should put a discrete number to every part of a game for the reason I stated above, that not everyone is coming into a game with the same knowledge or goals. I think it's why stuff like Giant Bomb's Quick Looks or Let's Players on Youtube have gotten so popular as ways to show off and discuss games, because for the most part they just show the game and let the viewer interpret it as they wish, to an extent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:After hearing it discussed on the last two or three episodes of Idle Thumbs, I'm still not on board with the staunch anti-objectivity stance with respects to game reviews. I wonder if it might be a difference on what "objective" means in my eyes vs yours. To me "objective" means that you're taking out any sort of personal connection or investment you might have in the work, and looking at it simply as-is. An example of this is that when I was in grad school, it wasn't out of the ordinary for my advisor to be skeptical or simply not believe in a publication put out by one of his collaborators, even if they were working with us on something else at the time. It was never a knock against the author, but at the same knowing and working with the author didn't stop him from looking at the argument of the paper with a critical eye, which is really important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:After hearing it discussed on the last two or three episodes of Idle Thumbs, I'm still not on board with the staunch anti-objectivity stance with respects to game reviews. I wonder if it might be a difference on what "objective" means in my eyes vs yours. To me "objective" means that you're taking out any sort of personal connection or investment you might have in the work, and looking at it simply as-is. An example of this is that when I was in grad school, it wasn't out of the ordinary for my advisor to be skeptical or simply not believe in a publication put out by one of his collaborators, even if they were working with us on something else at the time. It was never a knock against the author, but at the same knowing and working with the author didn't stop him from looking at the argument of the paper with a critical eye, which is really important. Lack of strict objectivity doesn't necessarily mean "this reminds me of this experience I had in my life." That's ONE way of writing criticism but I don't think it's the only way to write personal or subjective reviews. What's more important is an ability to look at the game holistically, in whatever way seems appropriate for the particular game--contextualizing the game meaningfully, and evaluating the choices it makes relative to all the other choices it makes, as opposed to the traditionally "objective" style of game reviewing which seeks to establish some kind of consistent scale by which all games can be judged. I don't think the way I feel about this is heavily at odds with the way you do, depending on how one interprets the first sentence of your second paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
I think part of the problem is that moreso than a theatrical film or something, buying a new AAA console or PC game is a non-trivial investment for most people. $60 is over six months of Netflix. It's a month or more of a kid's savings. I'm not saying games are necessarily overpriced, but I do think consumer advocacy is worth something, probably more than it is when The A/V Club reviews a TV sitcom or whatever. $60 is a lot to pay for a broken product or a 4-hour game you play once and then use as a coaster (unless that one time is incredible, but if it is, you might play it again). Ideally, we'd live in a world with a lot of good consumer advocates and a lot of good critical theory about games. We don't really have either right now, and the way mainstream critics try to mash up both often just produces milquetoast, meaningless reviews that are of no practical value to anyone. This was Ebert's approach, but Ebert was in some ways a pretty singular talent; look at the myriad of terrible "film critics" who flounder around with his approach all over your local newspapers. Baku fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Sounds like Danielle's recommended site, Objective Game Reviews, would be more your speed. This site is way more useful then I thought it would be when it was mentioned on the cast. It's obviously a joke but just straight up knowing the content of a game is actually super interesting as information for if I might enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Games are also able to fail in ways that movies and books cannot. The multiplayer servers for the new Harry Potter book do not go down under load. You will never have framerate issues and crashes reading Cormac McCarthy's latest book outside after 3 p.m. when using a cloth bookmark. Some level of attention on their performance as products is required and probably won't be going away, because making perfectly stable software (and hardware) is difficult, if not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Chris Remo posted:I don't think the way I feel about this is heavily at odds with the way you do, depending on how one interprets the first sentence of your second paragraph. I'd agree with you on that one because this Chris Remo posted:What's more important is an ability to look at the game holistically, in whatever way seems appropriate for the particular game--contextualizing the game meaningfully, and evaluating the choices it makes relative to all the other choices it makes is something I can get behind. Maybe the difference is that I think a reviewer should approach playing a game for review from the same baseline with which the general gaming public approaches the game, while the impression I get from you is that it's OK for a reviewer to let their experience from playing or making other games (or talking to developers) influence their opinion on the finished product. I think it hinges on what you mean here by "contextualizing", because I think that a review should be more about the final game and less about the process that went into making it (if that gets discussed in the review at all). You and I might actually agree on this, but we're just speaking different languages about it. I could very well be putting words in your mouth though, I listened to this at 7 AM this morning and am only now posting about it, so as soon as I remember the airtight argument I came up with in the car you'll all be sorry!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:Games are also able to fail in ways that movies and books cannot. The multiplayer servers for the new Harry Potter book do not go down under load. You will never have framerate issues and crashes reading Cormac McCarthy's latest book outside after 3 p.m. when using a cloth bookmark. Some level of attention on their performance as products is required and probably won't be going away, because making perfectly stable software (and hardware) is difficult, if not impossible. There are lots of Amazon reviews about terrible DVD cases that don't hold the discs properly and books with bad bindings that let pages drop out. I would assume at some point in history a professional film critic has blamed a film for a plot hole that was actually a projectionist error, or even been unduly harsh due to an uncomfortable seat. coyo7e posted:Maybe it was the 45 minute segue into boxing chat that they cut out? Seg. moller fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I think that a review should be more about the final game and less about the process that went into making it (if that gets discussed in the review at all).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:After hearing it discussed on the last two or three episodes of Idle Thumbs, I'm still not on board with the staunch anti-objectivity stance with respects to game reviews. I wonder if it might be a difference on what "objective" means in my eyes vs yours. To me "objective" means that you're taking out any sort of personal connection or investment you might have in the work, and looking at it simply as-is. An example of this is that when I was in grad school, it wasn't out of the ordinary for my advisor to be skeptical or simply not believe in a publication put out by one of his collaborators, even if they were working with us on something else at the time. It was never a knock against the author, but at the same knowing and working with the author didn't stop him from looking at the argument of the paper with a critical eye, which is really important. I can't believe you got all the way through grad school without learning the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in criticism. What were you, a STEM major or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'd agree with you on that one because this This is all based on your assumption of who a review is for. A review of a game for the New York Times (super general audience) is going to cover the game with a different focus than one for an enthusiast site like Polygon or Giant Bomb (which are both comfortable deep diving into creative content or mechanics with an assumed baseline literacy of the medium and industry that produces the games), or a hardcore enthusiast site (eg a strategy and wargaming site doing an in depth review of Dawn of War DLC), or development-focused enthusiasts (a lot of the indie space) or your own personal interests relative to the game you're discussing. I don't feel like reviews need to be a strictly commercial product whose job is to maximize the audience size for a given review (again, unless you are being paid to write with that end, eg for a general-media outlet). There is plenty of review-formatted criticism of that slant already anyway, because it is the default mode reviewers are paid to write. I'm glad for the variety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
It's not extremely different from niche reviews for fiction. Presumably, a lot of people who go out of their way to hunt down lots of books, are going to come from a different background and be receptive for an entirely different perspective. If you name-drop "Flowers for Algernon" to someone who paid attention in school and who was fortunate enough to have some decent Lit classes, they'll know exactly what's going on. Tell that to your average group of teens at the mall and they'll probably call security on you. Recently I watched a newer Mathew McCounaghey movie on Netflix Instant, Mud, which I had no idea what it was going to be going in. I immediately began flashing to Stand By Me and Goonies however after getting halfway through the movie I realized that it was not very Goonies and indeed, more truthfully a simple rewrite of The Adventures of Tom Saywer as well as The followup book Huckleberry Finn. I can list those three stories in rapid succession to a certain audience and well, they likely would know exactly what kind of story is coming. In fact thinking on it, Stand By Me is, in large, a likely rehashing of both the book Tom Sawyer despite the author's darker (for the time) take on things - but really there was even a dead body to go investigate for christ's sake..! Some people may strongly disagree with my take, some may be offended by my "reductive" method of summarizing the story in a pointed and succinct manner. Some could even claim I just spoiled the movie for them if they wanted to really get their fur in a ruff. In another place/publication/etc, that is obviously not going to be an appropriate way to write a review for your audience however, being totally objective can often become so dry as to not give you any actual information as the reviewer will often spend scores of words (naming actors and directors and movies you may have seen that they were involved in,) and for some people, that's exactly the kind of info they need. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Chris Remo posted:Lack of strict objectivity doesn't necessarily mean "this reminds me of this experience I had in my life." That's ONE way of writing criticism but I don't think it's the only way to write personal or subjective reviews. What's more important is an ability to look at the game holistically, in whatever way seems appropriate for the particular game--contextualizing the game meaningfully, and evaluating the choices it makes relative to all the other choices it makes, as opposed to the traditionally "objective" style of game reviewing which seeks to establish some kind of consistent scale by which all games can be judged. I don't think the way I feel about this is heavily at odds with the way you do, depending on how one interprets the first sentence of your second paragraph. Hey Chris, I'm curious, how many samples did you end up using for the backing vocals in the new theme song?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Whoah I had no idea about anything of this Luftrausers stuff that thumbs talks about this week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Its a game about German pants. Obviously. Looking at the game's trailer it looks pretty slick, and I'm getting some Risk of Rain vibes although that may be entirely mistaken on my part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
A new episode of Besties is out and I have to wonder how long they're going to stay with this format. They spend the first 8 minutes of the episode talking about why they're not talking about certain games, and Griffin even jokes about how goofy it is that they won't talk about his two favorite games that came out in March because ~reasons~. And they're waiting another month to talk about DS2, which means by the time that episode comes out it'll be two months since the 360/PS3 versions came out, so I'm not sure what fresh and exciting perspective they hope to provide. It's not like the PC version is drastically different in terms of content/gameplay that it makes sense to save discussion of it until it's out. And even this episode kind of had to cover hot bangers like Infamous and Titanfall, which if it weren't for the 360 release wouldn't even be getting discussed anywhere else right now. I dunno, the choice to go monthly is seeming more and more bizarre with each new episode. e: Haha, during the Infamous segment. "Why are you so bad at this?" "...I played it a long time ago." VDay fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
VDay posted:And they're waiting another month to talk about DS2, which means by the time that episode comes out it'll be two months since the 360/PS3 versions came out, so I'm not sure what fresh and exciting perspective they hope to provide. It's not like the PC version is drastically different in terms of content/gameplay that it makes sense to save discussion of it until it's out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
This is a relatively last-minute request, but we're taking responses for the Hardware episode of Watch Out for Fireballs!. We're looking for your stories about weird controllers, regular controllers, weird consoles, and regular consoles... Did you blow on a NES cart? We'd like to hear about it. http://duckfeed.tv/contact We're recording tomorrow (Saturday) around 12pm PST, so we'll take responses up through then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Song For The Deaf posted:This is a relatively last-minute request, but we're taking responses for the Hardware episode of Watch Out for Fireballs!. We're looking for your stories about weird controllers, regular controllers, weird consoles, and regular consoles... Did you blow on a NES cart? We'd like to hear about it. I feel bad because I don't have time to really respond but I own a TrackIR, which is this weird head tracking solution you strap to a baseball cap. It's mostly used for weirdo flight sims but I ended up using it for mouse emulation in Skyrim. But not for like intense face pointin combat but just to find a peaceful place to park and look around while the day night cycle passes over you. It was also great with Proteus for similar reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
VDay posted:e: Haha, during the Infamous segment. "Why are you so bad at this?" "...I played it a long time ago." In the same segment, he complains about having to carefully paint the graffiti inside the lines and no one said anything, apparently none of them knows how a stencil works 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
yo Chris Remo recommend me movies. I realized last week I've re-watched Tinker Tailor more then any other movie by a long shot. Then I read the book, got a whole new appreciation for the film, and watched it again. What a good rear end movie. I'm not sure whats so fascinating about it; some combination of how muted it is, charisma of older british actors, completely human focused drama, general ambiguity? Whatever the case, I checked out one of Tomas Alfredson's other movies (Let the Right One In) and while I enjoyed it, it didn't have whatever quality TTSS does. So I figured I could try asking you, since you're the one who put me onto the movie in the first place.  video games
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
It's not the same but have you seen Zodiac?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I've caught up on Idle Thumbs and I have something to say. You guys should love Dave Barry. I listened to an old audiobook of his recently and rediscovered him and he is if not intentionally a pioneer of the kind of everyday humor plus references plus stream of consciousness plus a little dash of morbidity that funny people on the internet use. I'm not kidding. Whether he has that many points of contact, I think his style of humor is hugely tied up with the way jokes are written on the internet. Cf.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFKYbacZPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNjfShLldYE
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Dave Barry is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
I wouldn't say he's a pioneer of podcasting though, more like a comedic lion of newspaper editorial columns. I don't think "reference comedy" is a geneology worth tracing though, as I feel it's mostly a navel-gazey way for lazy people who don't do anything but consume pop media, to feel superior that they recall consuming a great deal of pop media.. That's more of a Groening/McFarland type thing rather than a Dave Barry thing though, and I'm fully aware that being smug over people who can reference every sitcom for the last 30 years are doesn't mean that they're necessarily inferior to someone who memorized Ambroce Bierce and Samuel Clemens back in the day. Although I suppose Charles Kuralt was makin' some callbacks in his poo poo, too. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
it makes me so sad that print humorists wont be a thing after dave barry dies (i know about shouts and murmers in the new yorker and mcsweenys exist which are basically the action potential you get if you staple a nerve between new york and california).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I wouldn't say he's a pioneer of podcasting though, more like a comedic lion of newspaper editorial columns. He's not a pioneer of podcasting (althought I'll admit that I consumed most of his stuff through audiobooks as a child) but I really do think that his kind of humor literally criss-crosses the kind of jokes we make in every way
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
I'm sorry, I just don't know who this royal "We" is referring to, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:42
|
|