The Death of Nuance & the Age of Ragebait

Is it just me or does everything feel like ragebait now? From racist ad campaigns, talk some fandoms fighting, political debate shows that happen to feature a literal fascist to outrageous and disgusting foods, $1 hotel room versus $100,000 hotel room or red carpet moments based on outrage, everything has become extremism and we have completely lost nuance. Where you can't just like some things about it and dislike some things about it anymore, instead you have to aimlessly defend your position until the end of time, developing this cultural race to the bottom to have the hottest take. Where every opinion has to be about getting the most likes or clicks or views, instead of actually trying to have a conversation, to acknowledge some points of the opposition and use that as a forum to learn something and create better understanding. And it breaks my heart to see how the internet used to be this tool for community and finding your people has now become the single greatest tool for dividing us. And there are two moments in recent culture that I really think cemented this race to the bottom. The Sydney Swini ad and this recent incident with Charlie Kirk. Where ragebait has become a tool to push an agenda, sell a product or rile up your fan base in a way that is so toxic and harmful to everyone involved. In this week's episode, we are going to talk about the economics of ragebait. Going deep into these two specific incidents, why businesses keep trying to use these outrage marketing tactics and why I think this is going to hurt them in the long run. Welcome back to Nikki and I, I'm your host, Nikki Rareden and I could not be more excited to talk to you all today. It has been a minute I feel since I've done a solo episode and it feels very good. I'm happy to be doing one. I love doing interviews and definitely will continue to have guests on it and whatnot. But also like solo episodes will always be a thing on this podcast. I don't know why I just love like the video essay sort of format and ranting about a topic and just like saying my thoughts, you know what I mean. And I very much like, you know, admire shows, like Call Her Daddy or Jake Shane or like Zack Seng and what they do. But I have very much realized that like I could not interview people all the time always. It's like I like, you know, doing stuff like this and just chairing like a random thought that I have. So sorry a bunch of them all having randomly at once. They honestly just all got scheduled back to back to back which was both exciting and super fun and I love doing them. But again, like we're gonna have a good mix from here on out. Also, I have an audio exclusive episode that went up about a week ago. It is called 10 Years of Therapy in 10 Minutes. It's only on Apple Pods, Spotify, you know, like the audio streaming versions 'cause I had my 10 year mark in therapy recently and I was really thinking about that. I was inspired by a video that Connor Frantum made with the same title. And when I hit my 10 year mark of being in therapy, I was like, oh my God, like I would really just love to do this. And it's very like psychological talking about like motivation and creativity and I think like what it means to pursue that sort of life. So if that's something you're interested in, it's a very wholesome episode I really love doing it and check it out and hey, like follow some Spotify. We are on the road to 30K. That is our goal for Spotify. We're at I think like 16 right now. So please go give it a follow. It's the number one thing you can do to help the show. And there's a bonus episode there for you if you want more Nicki content. So really talking about I think this sort of like rage bait marketing and the economics of rage bait and this overall cultural race to the bottom. I was really inspired by like two recent videos that I want to shout out first. One, this one by Madison Brown. I'm obsessed with her YouTube channel during gas, honestly, girl coming up hot at some point. I'd love to have you and also atriac is another YouTuber who made this really incredible video about the Charlie Kirk thing specifically, which we'll talk about later on. And I thought his takes were just so well spoken and also like not a reflective point of view that I think a lot of people have been embodying and talking about with this incident that I really want to talk like discuss. I think it's very, very important. So getting into sort of just this overall like rage bait marketing. When did it exist? When did it spawn? And why hasn't it become so rampant right now? I think the internet has very, very much perpetuated this and algorithms as I'll talk about in a minute. But I think it's important to acknowledge like this idea of rage bait as a marketing tactic has always existed, right? Like Kim Kardashian got famous from a sex tape. She is I think the eternal ultimate example where everything she has done is meant to be polarizing. You either love it or you hate it and there was no in between, right? Like when she did the Marilyn Monroe dress from the Met or released a nipple bra product, everything about Kim Kardashian has always been polarizing. And I think she's one of those people who has always known how to use her image and this sort of controversy around her image to her advantage, literally to sell a product is very, very fascinating. And another great example is Kanye West, right there or the two ultimate ones to do this. And I think Kanye is a very great example later on as I'll talk about how rage bait always runs out of steam. Like it always ends up imploding at some point. It might take years, it might take weeks, it might take months, I don't know. But I have more examples of like when this always ends up backfiring, which I think is a very big takeaway of this episode and sort of the Sydney, Sweden, even all that I'll talk about. But also I think another great examples of this are reality TV has always known how to use rage bait. I think it's honestly one of the most interesting and smart things they ever did, right? It shows the simple life or Jersey Shore were meant to kind of make you angry or you would look at Paris Hilton and be like, oh my god, she's so out of touch, blah, blah, blah. Or Jersey Shore was like, oh my god, these people are crazy. That was always a foundation of what made reality TV so talked about. And it's not saying that all press is good press, quote unquote. I'm not sure I agree with that statement, but at the very least, you can't deny that there is some way it works somehow, right? There is always gonna be some people who like the thing. And the more attention it gets, the more chances it has to reach that person. And then the last sort of rage bait marketing tactic that I think is super interesting is this idea of feud marketing has always really worked, right? Like are you Team Jacob or are you Team Edward? Are you Team Conrad or are you Team Jeremiah? Like when you pit two things against each other, it creates discussion. And that discussion is viral. It's also changing, right? Like some people in the summer, I turn pretty loved Jeremiah in the first season or two or whatever and now they hate him, right? And so people are switching sides and making videos about how they're switching sides or talking about it with their friends. And sports is like the ultimate example of this, right? Like they have built their entire business off of this type of marketing where you pick your team and you defend them aimlessly, regardless of whether they're really having a good season or not, right? Like you just, you stick to your team and you pick it and like that's your take and you're gonna stand by them and you're gonna watch all their games even if they're having a terrible season. And this idea of, you know, being polarizing or creating some sort of idea of like conflict or controversy really works is a very terrifying thing as we'll get into later on with this video, but like it is something that has worked, it's worked in sports, it's worked in film, it's worked with music, it's worked in fashion with Kim Kardashian or makeup, whatever. Like it is this universal thing. So why does that happen? What is the psychology behind rage bait marketing? Well, there is a study that shows that we feel negative emotion more deeply than positive emotion. And this study talks about this idea of contagion where they studied tens of thousands of tweets and social media posts and that people were more quickly to respond to something that made them angry than it were to respond to something that made them happy which is very fascinating. And they talk about this idea that anger spreads through something called weaker ties than joy does. Where no matter, even if you don't know the person, even if you don't like the person, if you've never seen their content, if they do something that pisses you off, people will respond to it. They will comment about it, they will do something. Whereas these sort of positive things don't always get that same sentiment. And I think it's because in order to truly feel happy about someone, you have to know who they are or have some context of why that thing is exciting to them. Whereas something that pisses you off feels very personal, right? Like you are mad. Whereas when you see joy, it's like they are happy. And thus this very interesting thing about negative emotion and why rage bait has become this massive marketing tactic is like psychologically, we remember it more. We feel it more. However, I think there is this interesting phenomenon where it's like, is people getting mad at your product driving a sale? I don't know and I don't think so, right? It is very, very good on a pitch deck. It's very, very good for an agency to report to their client about how many views they got and how successful that Sydney Sweeney ad was. But also how many people did it piss off, right? How many people are never going to buy American Eagle products ever again? That's not getting put in the pitch deck. That's not getting put in the marketing report. And then it is this very sort of interesting thing about the world of business. Is data doesn't lie, but that doesn't mean you can't interpret the data incorrectly. And the goal of every marketer or agency or everything is to impress their boss, impress. they're client, right? So they always are trying to get the biggest number possible, trying to have the most exciting deck report at the end of the campaign possible. But those things do not account for depth of connection, right? Like there is not the same level of careiness when you piss somebody off as it is when you do something that's very, very meaningful and kind and a good gesture towards them. The eternal example I use for this is like comparing TikTok as a platform to YouTube, right? Like on a raw marketing standpoint, you could look at something like TikTok and say, oh my God, it's so much easier to get a million views there, right? But if you get a million views on a 60 second video versus getting, I don't know, a 500,000 views on a 45 minute video, right? Like a 45 minute video on my YouTube channel, for example, is 45 minutes of watch time, right? Versus if that's a TikTok, that would be like a 60 second TikTok would be what a month and a half worth of content in one sitting from one view, not to mention that something, you know, someone on YouTube is doing every single week of the month. So in one month of YouTube consumption versus one month of TikTok consumption, you know, you're getting essentially what would be six months worth of watch time on TikTok from four YouTube videos, which is insane, right? But on the marketing deck, it's gonna say, well TikTok got a million views and YouTube got 500,000 views. So this TikTok was better, it was a better choice, it did better here. And again, it's not counting for this sort of depth of connection for the way it feels to stay with someone for a long period of time to experience the way they are as a human being, the way they speak, the inflections, the hand gesture, whatever, right? Like there is just this difference we feel in like watching someone's Instagram story for 60 seconds or like having a full long 45 minute conversation, right? Like even on a person to person level. And I think that is this very interesting thing about business. I say that as somebody who used to work in influencer marketing, like I've had to respond to RFPs and work with clients and also have done this like from the creator side of like they just want the most impressive thing. Everyone's just trying to look good for their boss. And a big, you know, misstep in that. It's again, it's not that the data is lying. It's just that they're not interpreting the data correctly. They're presenting it always in the way that looks best for them, which is very, very interesting. And I think the reason for this, you know, rise of extremism in the age of the internet is that algorithms reward engagement. They do not care whether it is positive or negative. If something is polarizing and it gets 500 hate comments versus you say something really great and 500 people tell to you, they love you. This mathematical equation of an algorithm reads those two things the same way, right? So when it is scientifically proven that we feel this negative emotion deeper that you are more likely to respond to something that angers you than you are to something that made you smile, you know, like that is why. Like, that's why these things continue to get pushed, right? And, you know, algorithms by design are these things to surface you content that it assumes you will like, right? It's looking at this sort of taste profile of things you've engaged with, which has really facilitated group thing, right? Like, if you hate something, it's not going to show you that thing or if you don't agree with that political party, it's not going to show you that thing, right? Like, I'm not getting videos of Ben Shapiro on my for you page all the time because like, I don't agree with his beliefs. Whereas somebody on the polar right is not getting a ton of videos of like a Hassan Piker because they don't agree with his beliefs. So then it just pushes people further, further into this extremism, right? We are constantly being surfaced with things that think the way we think that we know we're going to like. So we are not developing new perspectives. Over time. And that is this very, very, you know, scary thing about the way that algorithms work on the internet. And I'm not trying to like blame any particular social platform for that either. Like, you know, I think in general, it's a good thing and cool thing that we all live in this age of discovery that we're like any artist, any 15 year old, any 20 year old can just make something cool and it will find a way to be surfaced to people who like that thing, right? Like, there's a lot of beauty in upside to that. But also the downside to that is this group thing, is this extremism and this perpetuation of the same ideologies repeated over and over again, without any sort of nuance or conversation or like progress around those issues, which brings us to the Sidney Sweeney of it all. And the American Eagle campaign, great jeans. Which is, what was so interesting to me about the Sidney Sweeney ad is I can't tell if they just like didn't have any people of color in the room at all, it was like blatantly intentional. You know what I mean? Like, it's so crazy that either like, that just didn't get called out at all because there's no actual diversity within that company or like, they were just blatantly trying to be racist. Either way, it's problematic, I think. Like, it was such a fascinating thing to see that happen because like, you know, according to the company, they said that their stock prices increased by 33% and that that ad converted to real sales according to the company. And I have many, many criticisms of this ad, but I think it's interesting to acknowledge this sort of like, why it worked in air quotes type thing because when you think about these sort of mall brands, right? You know, Hollister was like the surfer brands. Paxton is like this skater brand. Abercrombie was always, I'd say, more of this like, upper class, you know, like millennial type thing. Pull around Florent was very preppy. What was American Eagle? Like, who was their core demo? They didn't have one, which is a very interesting thing, right? And this interesting era of like, how companies scale, right? Is they start niche and they start trying to speak to one specific person and then they have to like grow and get a new market and get a new demographic to like them. And that is what happened with all these mall brands. Like, I think they all started very, very niche. Victoria's secret felt like very niche, right? There was like a specific type of person who liked that. And then they grew and grew and grew and tried to be all of these things. And then that's when they sort of lost market share. And that is what happened to American Eagle, right? Like, you did not know what type of person liked American Eagle. And I think this from a marketing perspective was them trying to find a demographic that wasn't being spoken to out of those competitors. And that was like conservative middle America white people, right? Like, that was the way they were doing it. And not just in this sort of like luxury, you know, finance, bro, power low, Ralph Lauren, tennis player type of way, but in more of like a middle class America type of way. And that is what they did with this ad. That is who they were trying to speak to. Again, whether that was directly the intention upon like, ideating it or whether it was like, that was the reaction it got. And you know, Trump tweeted about it and they just had to lean in because there was nothing else that they could do. I don't know. But at the very least, like, I think that is why it works, right? It is actually an example of them like finding a niche that wasn't being filled by one of their competitors. However, I think marketers are really going to have the wrong takeaway from this. I recently did a podcast with my friends at Ford. They're an ad agency in New York. They're freaking incredible. They love to, if it's out by now, let link it in the comments. And we were talking a lot about this. How he has literally said like clients or things have like people are seeing that and realizing, like, do we need to make a racist ad? Like essentially it's like not directly, not directly, but like that is sort of like the sentiment that some of these marketers or ad people are feeling of like, they just saw something that worked so well. And I want to talk about why I think that's not true. And to do that, I want to sort of compare it to two things. One, what happened is sort of Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light situation a few years ago. And then two, this sort of cat's eye gap ad. I think is another, you know, very contrary example that is interesting. So like what people don't realize with again, this sort of discussion of negative emotion is that when somebody is actually a victim of something in their real life, that bothers them to a level that they won't forget, right? Like if you are somebody who's actually experienced racism or homophobia or misogy, bigotry and any kind, that is not something you are going to forget and forgive. And the ultimate example of this is like the Dylan Mulvaney situation, right? Like I remember Dylan Mulvaney did an ad. I think it was a Bud Light, right? And some like kid rock, the musician was so angry, his conservative man, like he literally posted a video on Twitter of him shooting Bud Light hands with a machine gun. And then Bud Light has this massive PR thing, they blow up, it blows up, it becomes this thing on Fox News, you know, the whole steak and then they walk it back, they end up throwing Dylan Mulvaney under the bus, which was so insane and absolutely ridiculous and brutal. And it like angers me to my fucking core, what they did to her is insane. But the crazy part about it was I think less than three months later, kid rock was spotted at anything a football game, drinking a Bud Light. And this is what I mean when I say like with this political, you know, bigotry and sort of leaning into that idea of conservatism or rage bait in your marketing is like, when people aren't a victim of the thing, they'll forget, right, like they don't care that much. It, you know, kid rock, I might not have aligned with his politics and might not have aligned with his religion, but like at the end of the day, he is not personally victimized. Whereas like somebody who has grown up with homophobia, like I will never drink a Bud Light. You will never catch me paying money for a Bud Light after that. That is not something I'm going to forget. It made me angry to see the way they betrayed her. And honestly, the way I think they set her up even is like, vial and evil. And I will never pay for a Bud Light again, right? Was either toward core demographic of Bud Light to begin with, probably not. But I won't forget that. And the culture of pendulum always swings, right? From like 2008 to like 2016, where in this era, progress was cool, right? I literally my first job out of college was working at American Eagle in the mall. And they did an ad campaign with Troys of On, like right in the big window. I remember how excited I was as an employee. I literally took the poster home. Because that was cool and a good marketing tactic for them at the time, right? Right now, the pendulum has swung back to this like rage-faith tactics to like conservatism in mainstream culture. And eventually, whether it's four years or eight years, I don't know, the pendulum will swing back to progress, right? You can delay progress. You can try and make progress difficult. But like things always make progress inevitably. Growth is inevitable. Change is inevitable. Like throughout history, the one thing that is constant is change, right? And when that pendulum swings back, and it's not cool to be, you know, touching on racism and conservatism anymore, the people like me or people of color are not going to forget American Eagle in this incident, right? And, you know, these conservative people or whatever that aren't directly impacted won't care as much, right? They might buy something from Polaroid Off-Ren. They might shop at Abercrombie. They might shop at Hollister. They may, right, like it's not as deeply personal for them. So in the long run, I think that they are shooting themselves in the foot. And I think that's what's going to happen, right? When you compare that to something like the Gap Katzai ad, you know, I think it was interesting because it definitely benefited off of the rage bait. There's no way they knew that when they planned the campaign. I saw a lot of people saying like this was a genius strategy. But if you have worked in marketing or advertising, you know how long it takes a campaign of that size to plan. Like at least a year they had to, you know, pitch it, secure the budget, go through multiple rounds of revisions, find a choreographer, hire them, final the dances, hire them, rent the studio space, pitch it to Katzai, get it approved, film it, edit it. Like there's just so many, it would have, it's like a minimum of a six month production, you know what I mean? So they really benefited, I think, from being the complete polar opposite of what that's in the Swini ad was, right? Like it was a group of entirely diverse women. And that was really, really exciting for people to see. Again, talking about this, you know, there's always an equal and opposite reaction on the other side of the spectrum. But what's interesting about the gap, Katzai ad, again, is no conservative person would look at that ad and get mad, right? No conservative person would look at that ad and be like, I can never shunt gap clothing. It might not have been speaking to them directly in the way that the American Eagle ad was, but there is no, again, it's not personal for them. It's not, it's not deep, it's not this thing that they've ever had to deal with in their real life. So there's not this real emotional stake to it. And because of that, they're not making any enemies. American Eagle has made enemies. And the enemies won't forget, whereas I think the people who liked it or people who didn't care as much will still shop other brands, you know? And like that's a very interesting thing. Like I don't think you can undo audience alienation. It is not something you can walk back ever, especially in this age of the internet and people's willingness to call people out, especially corporations out on their BS. Like it's just not going to work, right? So like, do I think that this is going to work in the short term for American Eagle? I really do. I do. And they did a Travis Kelsey campaign right after it and you get who they're targeting. But I think in the long run, they cannot sustain that way, right? You cannot sustain. What are you going to do? Keep making more like eugenics toned ads? Like that's crazy. You know, like I just don't think it has longevity. And there are some very fascinating downsides to this sort of rage-bait marketing. One I want to talk about is Jubilee. And why I think Jubilee is actually extremely problematic, even though I think they're a company with very admirable intentions and good intentions. And I think they are genuinely, I think, that sort of like 10 versus 1 series or whatever was started with the idea of trying to promote progressive politics, right? I believe that. However, I think like what people don't realize when you lean into this sort of rage-bait extremist ideology is that it humanizes the other side, right? It makes it look like it's like, oh, we're just two people who have disagreements. And we're going to talk about those disagreements, right? But like somebody on the far left calling for free health care versus somebody on the far right, like Charlie Quirk quote where he said, like I think having a few children die a year is like unnecessary expense to pay for keeping the second amendment. There's like one side clearly has a victim. And the other side doesn't, right? But when you put those two things next to each other's side by side, it creates this ideology that it's like, oh, well, these are just two people with very extremist beliefs. And one is far left and one is far right. But they're both human. And we're going to engage in this discourse. And I also think it facilitates this idea that that is a normal way to think, right? That there are tons of people out there who love fascism, because you see that opinion held on a video with like 20 million views. So it creates this false sense of group thing that like, wow, fascism is a great thing. I'm going to tell you something. Historically, fascism, not good for any country ever. Fascism, not bad. Fascism, not always. Like that is I think something, you know, all in Russia, in China, in Germany, and Cuba, like whatever fascism, not good, right? But it creates this idea. I remember this is a quote from my high school English teacher that allowed minority will always outweigh a silent majority. Even if the majority of people feel a certain way about something, if you hear a small group of people shouting it from the rooftops all the time, it gives us a illusion that that is this very, very widely held belief, because you're constantly hearing it and you're constantly being exposed to it. And I think that is what Jubilee has done. Like there's people that have gone in that show that are like openly claim themselves to be a Nazi or openly claim that they think women should be able to vote or that women should go back to the kitchen or that men should be able to cheat on women, but they can or that they are proud to have a fascist and that they think Donald Trump would be a great dictator or that they are okay with these violent crimes being committed against immigrants right now, right? Like that, it is normalizing that rhetoric. It is normalizing that ideology and it is putting it next to other ideologies that are actually based in some idea of progress or change. And that I think is a very, very downside of like, again, this rage-bady thing and why these, we've seen this like issue, I think with Jubilee, or like those sorts of formats, like the debate grows as a whole, right? It's like, I just don't think anybody's tuning into it unless they already have that belief or whatever. And if anything, it's pushing them further into extremism, which is very terrifying and entirely counterintuitive to I think what it was set out to do and to be. However, I will say before I get into this sort of like, Charlie Kirk of it all, I do not think all rage-bait is like victimizing. There's a lot of innocent rage-bait. I just don't like it, right? Like a great example of sort of this sort of like Mr. Beast, $1,000 or $100,000 hotel room or food videos on the internet is so example where you see them like dipping their hand into the sauce. They're just like doing gross things as rage-bait to get views. I think what I just hate about it is that so much of the internet as no longer grounded in realism, right? It's like, nobody's saying out of $1 hotel room, nobody's saying out of $100,000 hotel room. Both of those things are extreme and both of those things are ridiculous. And I just hate that so much of this internet that used to be based around like, I'm a real person and I wanna go on YouTube because I get to hear another real person with real experiences and real thoughts, right? Like that was the value of YouTube versus like television in my adolescence, right? Like if I wanted fiction and fantasy, I could turn on Cartoon Network or Disney Channel or whatever. But when I wanted like to feel seen and heard and just like people who got it, that's what the internet was for. And I think what's sad to me is the internet has now become this sort of again extremism because that's what works. And the more extremism there is, the more lack of real human experiences and real human connections, I think we're making. And that's also where this sort of weird monetization of Ragebait comes in, like literally I saw or earlier today was announced that like Ned Fomer, the former tri-guy who like cheated on his wife or everyone that was a scandal just announced a podcast called Rock Bottom, where the first episode is about him cheating on his wife. And I'm like, okay, like this is like, it's like when people hate you, the way they do it is like, well I'm gonna lean into the hatred to monetize it, right? Like that is this weird thing again, talking about the way internet has perpetuated this extremism and this Ragebait is like a view is monetized no matter what, right? It doesn't matter if it's like a video of him and a very healthy family or a video of him. I'm talking about cheating on his wife, right? Like if it gets a thousand or a million clicks, it monetizes the same way. So there has become this continuing, like, pushing off these weird social norms to monetize them. But again, I don't hate all forms of like rage bait or leaning into the bit. You know, like a great example was sort of like doja cat biting her lipstick on the red carpet of the VMAs. Like there's nobody that's a victim of that, right? Like, and I, you know, don't show this, like somebody who's known for being kind of wacky and out there and just crazy in her music videos. So like her doing that is like in character. It feels normal. But again, it's one of those interesting things where like, I am decently sure that that was a marketing campaign from whatever Likspsik company it was. But is her, her biting it most definitely got millions and millions of views that it was a press articles. It was all over the internet. How is anyone going out to buy a lipstick because doja cat ate it? I don't think so, right? I don't think so. So like, if it was a marketing campaign, it didn't work that well. If it was a marketing campaign, I'm gonna tell you they had a Banger recap report. They're client or boss or whatever. We're there like, look, we got featured in Billboard and Rolling Stone and this video of her doing it has three million views. And so, right. And it's like, that is this interesting thing. And even if that wasn't actually a marketing campaign or like a product placement thing, I think it's a fascinating example. Again, like this idea of noise has become people, people perceive it to have more value than I think it actually does. Or another example of where like, "Hotik, I didn't think it was that big of a deal" was the Spray and Carpenter album cover. Like, isn't my favorite album cover she's ever done? No. Do I think it is abhorrent and ridiculous and like, how could you do this? No, like, I just didn't care that much. Like, I think context is important. Sabrina Carpenter is somebody who's like known for being satirical. She's saying that me espresso and bed chem, right, camaraderie, come right on me. And her music videos have like, people getting chainsawed in half and her on a motorcycle shaped like a jet ski. Like, it's always rooted in satire. So I think that that is clear that it was meant to like, not be taken seriously. But again, it's like, isn't my favorite thing she, album cover she's ever done? No. I wouldn't have picked it. It's actually like, they always released the alternate artists for album covers. And I don't know if this is on the other one who thinks this. I'd be like, every time this happens, they pick the worst photo. I also felt this is the Taylor Swift album cover for the new one, life of a show girl. She like, I did not, I was not a fandom this recent album cover. I don't know why it's just like, was not the most striking image to me. And it's really eight other ones. I was like, oh, these are stunning. Why don't we pick this one? I don't know. Weird thing that I always feel like happens. But again, it's it's like this rage-bait thing, right? It got people talking about Supreme Carpenter. Like if you're talking about from a raw impression standpoint, from a raw earned media value standpoint, it does generate attention. However, I think it always runs out of steam and doesn't work. And there's two sort of examples of this, right? It always ends in one of two ways. Like one, you do it so often that people stop caring about it. The perfect example of this was Little Nas X, right? Like when he first blew up with like Old Town Road and like being gay, but making this ironic country song. And then he did the like those collab sneakers that were like Satan's shoes or whatever. And he was always doing crazy stuff, right? Like that so worked for him was so viral in the beginning. But then like three albums in, he kept doing the same thing over and over again. And people just stopped believing it or stopped caring, right? It's like we know that ideology is a part of what you think. And I think even like the conservative people who were like reacting to it initially and angry about it, stop caring, right? Like they've said what they had to say about it. Like I'm sure Ben Shapiro made his video about it or whatever. And like it's done. And what that left was like all of this marketing that didn't build a foundation for like a real brand and a real community in real like directions he could go as an artist. And I think he's even like open up about that recently, you know, like talking about it and struggling about it. If like, you know, like he, that it's been hard for him lately or it's been harder for him. And I think a big part of that is like we needed to show, like I loved it when the beginning. I thought it was great. I understood like who I was poking fun at and sort of using this own rhetoric against the conservative people who like feel that way and were angered by that thing. But it's like what else? Who are you? What is your perspective? What do you have to offer me? That I'm not getting from another artist, right? There's a million other examples of rage bait in the world. But it wasn't like building this foundation of like a real, you know, artistic message outside of being controversial. And I think that is where it really, you know, sort of shot, like it just loses steam over time. That's what I'm saying. And I also think it's something that's kind of happening with Sabrina Carpenter right now. And maybe she's, I think she's like starting to realize it is like, you know, like Sabrina Carpenter has been kind of like a character for the past year and a half or two, right? It's like the sexual innuendos and she's flirty. And again, like in the taste music video, she's getting chainsawed in half in the manchild music video. She's like tumbling out of the car. And like, it's very funny and witty and satirical. And we love that about her. But also like, there needs to be something else, right? Like, emails I can't send is a very substantive album. I felt like Short and Sweet had all like a lot of, you know, songs like "Dumb and Poetic" and "Light to Girls" that had that depth that really, I think, showed who she was deep as a human being. With, you know, songs like "Espresso" and "Bedcam" that are very cheeky and fun. And then, manchild or man's best friend, I felt like had the least of that that she's ever done. And it's also, I think, you know, like the one that got the most sort of like negative quote unquote fan reaction. And again, I'll say that there's not incredible songs in that album. I think that there's great bangers. When you get so hot, go go juice, I'm obsessed. But like, I think it was her sort of having this awakening moment that like this sort of character that she has developed is not holding steam in the same way it did last year. And then the other way that this inevitably ends up in people's face and blows up is like the whole Kanye West of it all. Where like you build a career and people like you for pushing the envelope and you keep pushing it by, you know, one inch with every album and you push it and you push it and you push it until eventually it's too far. Right? And it's like so not clear while you're on that trajectory where is too far until one day like Kanye's taking a man at the Super Bowl with a swastika in it, right? Like nobody's rocking with that, not a fan of that. Like we don't need to be doing that. And like again, was it something extremely widely talked about where if you were to look at the raw amount of views and impressions it generated on the internet, would it look good on a pitch deck? Yes. Do I think that made people like Kanye West more? Absolutely not. And again, that is one of the things. It's data doesn't lie, but that doesn't mean you can interpret the data incorrectly and the quality of the connection and the depth of the connection matters immensely. And those are not things that can be quantified. What can be quantified is views. And I'm sure, you know, that anti-Semitic message got a lot of views, right? But that's not a good thing. It's not a valuable thing to our society. And we shouldn't like that. And then finally, you know, with this whole like rage made of it all, I want to talk about this whole Charlie Kirk situation. So it's definitely this video made by the creator, Hrock. I'm obsessed with his videos. He's like one of my favorite YouTubers. And this take that he had that I think is so interesting like about the Charlie Kirk situation, where it really made you realize how quickly discourse explodes on the internet and how eager this sort of media machine is to use people's anger to generate profit. Right, like no matter what you think, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on within like 60 minutes of that announcement, there were a viral take shown to you on your for you page that you agreed with and a viral take shown to you somehow on the internet that was opposite of yours that you will see and then get mad at and then leave a comment about to be even more because you're so angry about how ridiculous and how wrong they are, which then is only pushing it in the algorithm further and you're somehow simultaneously told what to think while also being surfaced something that will make you furious. And what happens is there's so much noise, so much discussion, so much complaint about the social issue that people get tired of it and then there's no real change, right? And like the internal example of this is gun violence. It's once a month there's a school shooting and we talk and we talk and we talk and thoughts and prayers and all the things. And at the end of the day, like the number one cause of death among children is still gun violence. There is not background tracks among gun violence, right? And this was a sort of discourse where I feel like we really again lost nuance in a way that was upsetting, like the way people, you know, like Jennifer Coolidge and Kristen Chenowicz were coming out giving their thoughts and prayers to his family because they're like death is bad. And yeah, death is undoubtedly bad. Political violence is undoubtedly bad. I don't want to live in a country where there is political violence and I don't want there to be political violence committed against Charlie Kirk or even right wing fingers, right? Like if you don't want that on to be done to you or the people that you agree with, you don't want that to be done to the opposition either because then it creates a social norm, right? Where like now if if, you know, someone like Hassan Piker we're to get. shot, it wouldn't be as big of a deal because it happened to the other guy, right? And that's a very scary thing to normalize, a scary world to live in. However, I'm not going to go out and say I give thoughts and prayers to somebody who is lit by definition supported, like I think we should, it's fine for children to die in America. I think it's fine for children to die more percentage wise because of guns and anything else. I think it's fine. Right? I see the irony in that, right? That is what happened to him at a presentation at a school, right? Like more than one thing can be true at the same time. And that I think this is really, really, you know, terrifying thing about the internet. Again, it's like you have to have your take and it's this cultural race to the bottom where like you got to, you got to pick your team and stick to your team and no matter what happens to your team, ride it out, right? And it's, again, it's like all these people said that they voted for Trump because of the economy, for example, but then like, you know, the economy's bad still, but they're like riding for Trump still. And I'm like, okay, like you can admit that you were lied to. You can admit that like this is not in line with what you wanted and you are angry about that. You don't have to like, changing your mind is a good thing. And that's like to just scary thing about the society we live in is like, now if you change your mind, you're fake or a liar or not a good person or, you know, you weren't like, there's just this stagnantization around it when it's like, no, like it, as people are introduced to new information, they should be changing their opinions and accordance to that. And is it extremely frustrating that like all of us warned them this is going to happen? Obviously he was lying about it. Obviously he hasn't done it. Like, obviously, is it frustrating? Yes. But I don't want to sit here and be like, hi, I told you so. It's like, no, like we need to be welcoming those people to our side of the argument now. Like, yes, you have been lied to. That is what we have been trying to tell you for the past four years. This is a really scary issue. We need to fix it together, right? Like that is a very welcoming message and like that is I think where we have, again, lost any sense of like progress or change people are so angry and sad and frustrated that they want to say I told you so when I get it, I trust me. I've dealt with some people, my father, like, you know, I got I get it, I get it. But like that is sadly not going to be a tangible solution for us. Like, a tangible solution is going to be getting more than 50% of the United States population to think similarly so that we can vote accordingly and make change accordingly. And with that, there is going to have to be some sacrifice of, you know, wanting to say that and wanting to be tell those people who did that wrong to you and it's frustrating. And I think also with this whole like Charlie Kirk situation of it all, is it really made me realize how rapidly misinformation spreads and how eager people are to use tragedy to push a political agenda, right? You saw instantly how like every, every politician ever was like talking about how's an immigrant or talking about how is a trans person and said like, if this is a, we need to enact the maximum death penalty on this person as direct quotes from politicians. And then it came out that this was a conservative white male who did it and none of those people are pursuing a death penalty, none of those people are saying that same thing, right? Like, that it made me realize one, the second there is any attention on a thing. People now see that as an opportunity to force in some predisposed bias that they have. And the second thing with this calm misinformation spreading is that like people love to give, you know, their hot take. And even if that's 97% correct, the 3% of it is what people fixate on and what they leave a 100 comments about and what they leave a video response to. And then suddenly we've lost 90% of the agreement that we share. And we're all fixating on the 3% disagreement. If that makes sense, I don't know if I'm articulating that well, but like, that's this weird thing in the age of the internet, right? And that's why, you know, there is important value to like real journalism that is like peer reviewed and interviewing primary sources and has to vet it through an editor and right? Like, that is why journalistic integrity and there's a code of ethics and rules amongst journalists, right? Because there is an understanding of how spreading misinformation can be genuinely harmful. And in this age of the internet, it's, again, it's, it's not about what's the most accurate information. It's about what is the most viewable information, what is the most clickable information? And that is where again, we get so much conversation, but so little progress. And that is really where, you know, again, this, this antics of the rage beat of it all goes. And, you know, I'm not going to sit here and say thoughts and prayers for Charlie Kirk's family. But I'm also not going to sit here and tell you that like, I love that that happened, right? Like, I don't, the quote, the ATREC video, you know, where he talked about this. He's like, I don't, I don't make a habit of like going into hospitals that people have lung cancer and like laughing at them for smoking. You know, he's like, I just wish they didn't die. And again, I understand it doesn't feel similar when it's somebody like Charlie Kirk who's like, blatantly harmful and blatantly misogynistic and racist and homophobic and all of the things. But like, if you don't want it to happen to your side, you cannot want it to happen to the other side either. But again, I'm also not going to be like these random celebrities who are giving their thoughts and prayers to his family. Like, that's ridiculous. I do think that he opened the door for this to happen to him and it was blatantly supportive of agendas that are allowing this problem to perpetuate and worsen. And it's so frustrating to me that in all of this, again, that it's like, we're all talking about Charlie Kirk. There's so many videos about Charlie Kirk and it's like, still these people cannot, we cannot make progress. We cannot actually give background checks on guns. And I think that is really where I think about, you know, this with rage bay and extremism and like, how do we progress as a society is like the quality of the message you're delivering and the way you're delivering it matters. And yeah, you know, you can be very rage baity and get a bunch of views on a Jubilee type video or, you know, biting a lipstick or saying terrible things on the internet. But that does not mean that there's good, deep conversion, good positive emotion, real lasting enjoyable sentiment. And that is where I am both fearful of this death of nuance and this rise of like rage bait is a tactic and how harmful. I think that is to society and this ability to facilitate nuance and facilitate real discussion and conversation and change. So I think that's all I have to say about topic. I hope that it made sense. I know that this is like a weird controversial thing, but I really wanted people to think about this from a perspective they haven't heard yet. So with that, I love y'all. Thank you for tuning in. Don't forget to, you know, follow the Spotify, subscribe to us on YouTube, all that good stuff. And also don't forget, I just had, we posted an exclusive episode on Spotify and Apple. If you have one or two, go listen. There's some more Nicki content and a much more nice uplifting, good wholesome vibes video that I think you'll really enjoy. And it would mean the world if you'll support the actual like streaming audio of the show because we really got to grow it if we want this to be successful. So I love you, have a great week and I'll see you next week. Bye.