Some gamers v. Jimmy Kimmel

[daal]

It's not the point itself that people are rustled about, but how he conveyed it...

The interaction reminds me of a classic parent-child conflict in which the parent says that the child is wasting their life and the child throws a tantrum. I don't think it matters how the parent says it.

Full disclosure: in my life I have spent about the same amount of time watching Jimmy Kimmel as I have spent watching people playing video games online - about 20 mins.

[HermanHiddema]

Ah yes, the old "comedy is only funny until it is about something you care about".

Example:

Comedian: "American Football is for pansies, they're so afraid to get hurt, they wear full-body armor!"
Soccer fans: "Hahaha, yeah, exactly"
Gridiron fans: "Oy, that's bullshit!"

Comedian: "Soccer is for pansies, they fall over and roll on the ground when you so much as look at them wrong!"
Gridiron fans: "Hahaha, yeah, exactly"
Soccer fans: "Oy, that's bullshit!"


You don't have to think Kimmel is funny here, but the people who are throwing insults and trying to make comparisons to watching sports are missing the point completely.

[Knotwilg]

Herman!

Your "and" prompted me.

Indeed there are different discussions going on:

1. Does Kimmel have a point (answer: probably not, because there are many things akin to watching someone play a video game, such as watching sports, which you can ridicule)
2. Is Kimmel funny (no answer possible by definition, I know people who find blatant racist remarks very funny)
3. Is it okay to insult Kimmel (answer: maybe, to the extent that the insults are as humorous and to the point as Kimmel's ridicule of video game watchers, and we're back to square 1).
4. or threaten him and his family (answer: no)

[daal]

1. Does Kimmel have a point (answer: probably not, because there are many things akin to watching someone play a video game, such as watching sports, which you can ridicule)

You might remind yourself why you once proclaimed your distaste for analogies. Just because two things are similar does not make them the same. There is a difference between making fun of people watching sports and making fun of people sitting at a computer watching someone else sitting at their computer. First, the latter has an obvious humorous element whereas the former does not. Second, while both can serve as culture criticism, they are criticizing different elements of culture - for a start, laziness as opposed to screen fixation.

[HermanHiddema]

Herman!

Your "and" prompted me.

Indeed there are different discussions going on:

1. Does Kimmel have a point (answer: probably not, because there are many things akin to watching someone play a video game, such as watching sports, which you can ridicule)

I don't think it matters. As long as a significant part of Kimmel's viewers think he is funny, he is doing his job. Comedy doesn't have to "have a point", it just has to appeal to some people's sense of humor. A lot of times, to make fun of something, you stereotype it, make it more absurd, ridicule the most extreme form of it.

If you take comedy seriously and try to show that some joke is "wrong", you're missing the point.

[Uberdude]

Herman, what do the rugby fans say

[HermanHiddema]

Herman, what do the rugby fans say

Rugby fans are capable of speech?!

[Knotwilg]

1. Does Kimmel have a point (answer: probably not, because there are many things akin to watching someone play a video game, such as watching sports, which you can ridicule)

You might remind yourself why you once proclaimed your distaste for analogies. Just because two things are similar does not make them the same. There is a difference between making fun of people watching sports and making fun of people sitting at a computer watching someone else sitting at their computer. First, the latter has an obvious humorous element whereas the former does not. Second, while both can serve as culture criticism, they are criticizing different elements of culture - for a start, laziness as opposed to screen fixation.

Analogies are different from comparisons (!). You compare watching sports with watching video game executions yourself here and while I don't agree with the comparison, it's a least a fairer argument than resolving to one to prove the other, which an analogy does.

Okay, I'll grant you that watching other people sit at a computer has a humorous element. I actually don't think the viewers are watching the bodies of the players, rather the screen. But it's the idea that matters. Yes, I find it somewhat funny. As I said in 2, that's something we can hardly argue about, we both find it funny.

Let's make a comparison:

- we watch a live game between Lee Sedol and Gu Li
- we watch a live game rendered online between them
- we watch an online game between them (whether or not staring at them mouse clicking)

Which one is funnier?
And how different is this from

- watching Barcelona - Man U on TV
- watching that match in FIFA 16

Is it the fact that physical capabilities are simulated or even bypassed in a video game that makes it so funny?
So watching someone play minecraft would be less funny (and closer to Go) than watching someone play GTA?

In the beginning I thought this discussion was futile but it becomes more interesting when participating in it than purely watching it

[wineandgolover]

Is this thread just like a chat-argument on Twitch, just a thousand times slower?

[SpongeBob]

Is there a link to the show where he made fun of game-watchers in the first place?

[SpongeBob]

His whole point is based on the premise that you find playing video games a total waste of time. If you agree with that, you can pretty soon agree that watching people play video games (and thereby even removing the supposedly fun part of the activity) is a ridiculous waste of time.