He actually did make a point. It was that watching other people play video games is virtual times 2. You don't think that's a valid point? Do you think that it's not a point at all? I do. You think it is as funny as the points on your list? Your list isn't funny. You need to write it in a funnier way to make it funny. That's what he did - he made something normal sound funny. You don't think he's funny. Guess that's a good reason to wish him dead. Or to have some coffee first, dude.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

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

P(Jimmy Kimmel gives a damn) = f(ad revenue of online gaming addressable from Jimmy Kimmel Live/total ad revenue for Jimmy Kimmel Live)

I suspect that f is tiny, but is growing faster than linear today. It will asymptotically approach 1 when online gaming becomes as popular as NASCAR.

Remember people used to make fun of NASCAR and stock car racing fans in general, but I don't think any late-night TV host is going to say, "Hey, you know what's stupid? People who watch other people drive around in circles at 200 miles an hour." Of course, if anyone does, some marketing executives will stop by for a chat.

You can find comedians making fun of nascar, football, baseball, and many other popular sports/hobbies. Gaming should be considering itself big when it is made fun of on a regular basis.

What's stupid is that people watch people throw balls into nets.

That's a positive way of looking at it, along the lines of: there's no such thing as bad publicity. I think you have a good point. Because of Jimmy Kimmel, there may be more people now checking out video game streaming sites that were not aware they existed before.

Still, I think with popular sports, I have seen comedians make fun of specific players who have done embarrassing things, maybe some teams that are losing a lot, but it is less common to see a direct insult to the fans of a sport that is very popular with the target audience.

It got better when they got the idea to put a hole in the bottom of the basket so the ball could come through.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Self-effacing. It doesn't have the same sting.

It's a bit hard for me to find that articulated well in the YouTube comments. Is there someone presenting that argument publicly in a way that's readable?

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.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

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.

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)

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.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

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.

Herman, what do the rugby fans say

Rugby fans are capable of speech?!

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

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

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

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

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)