The Brilliant Idiots: Hollywood Driveby (w/ Immotal Technique)

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Thank you for accurately and succinctly summing up my feelings.

I don't know if I'll ever stop listening, but there are probably 5-7 episodes that I have stopped less than half way through and deleted from my phone because of Andrew's incessant and single minded way of belabouring and defending a point.

I think if you wanted to, you could make a 5 minute montage of him saying "That's not what I said/that's not what you said" because of the amount of times he's said something and half way through his own point flipped sides and confused his own argument. Not only does he not listen to other people, he doesn't listen to himself, which is a mark of a person who doesn't want to be understood, but a person who simply wants to be heard.

Even in this ep, it took Charlamagne and Morrow almost 20 minutes to convince him that they weren't arguing that he was wrong last episode, but that he asked for one thing, and then said he didn't - even after they played a clip of him doing so.

I could go further into why I also don't like Schulz, but I really don't want to dedicate more than the few hours a week I'm listening to the podcast to thinking any more about him than I have to lol

I agree that Andrew is a c*nt a lot more these days, but Charlemagne argues like the uneducated moron he is sometimes and you can tell he's not even intelligent enough to say some of the low-brow pseudo-academic fake-deep shyt he thinks he's saying.

They're both annoying.

But hey, this is literally what happens when you have brilliant idiots.

Schultz could calm down a lot though. Cause as much as Charlamgne is an actual idiot, Schultz is a socially tactless a$$hole these days.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Not word for word but he basically said he doesn't know much about it. Don't be that dude.

You wanna go there?

Lets go there.

Schultz had MANY times his parents were in the art world. Dude grew up in NYC. He IS NYC. TO say he doesn't understand the political messages or artistic messages in graffiti is stupid, for even someone like Schultz.

He gets it.

Just cause IT wants to create ultimate fealty in the form of an argument, which is what he was doing like a narcissistic know-it-all smug liberal (i'm a lefty myself), doesn't make him right.

Its one thing to say Schultz may not understand social oppression, but to say Schultz is wrong about the act of property defamation or destruction is flat out wrong.

 

[steadyrighteous]

Sorry for the novel this used to be one of my favorite podcasts but I've had to stop multiple episodes b/c of this talent-less miserable fukk.

I completely understand where you're coming from.

This is a podcast that could really do with a rotating panel of guests revolving around Charlamagne as the constant, but at this point it's too established to become that. I don't know much about the Van guy from TMZ, but he seems to be different enough from Charlamagne that a pod with the two of them wouldn't sound like an orgy of agreeance. That Letty chick is an air-head (in the least mysogynistic way, men can be air-heads too) and Wax is so woefully and proudly ignorant and brutish that at first where his beliefs and rhetoric was slightly entertaining, the more you come to terms with the fact that it's who he is, it actually becomes disturbing.

To me, one of the things Andrew suffers from that a lot of comedians suffer from is this false mantle of Comedian As Social Commentator. I listen to a lot of podcasts fronted by comedians, and especially New York bred comedians suffer from this.

The greatest comedians of a generation wear this title, your Chris Rocks, Pryors, Carlins etc., but just because some comedians are excellent social commentators, doesn't mean they all are. But some of them (like Schulz) believe themselves to be more poignant than they are, when all they are is joke slingers.

Rock breaks down society, Dane Cook tells jokes.

Nas at his best writes urban poetry, T.I. spits raps.

Schulz is both not as funny as he thinks he is, nor as smart as he thinks he is.

Rant over lol. Just had to get this off my chest. I hope one of those nikkas is reading this (namely Chris Morrow, because he could actually do something about it)

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

There are no research polls that can be proven as a fact. Why are you struggling to comprehend this? Studies are not facts. They're studies and people use them to come up with the highest probability but they aren't facts because you'll never get enough of a percentage of people doing these surveys to be 100 percent factual. You and Andre are treating surveys and polls like they are facts when they are not.

Which is it? Now its "you can't prove it"...

This just sounds like a resistance to information.

I didn't say these were "facts"...I said theres "evidence"...you want evidence to mean what its not asserting.

Now you're saying polls aren't reliable? So what are you arguing and why are you debating me?

I've looked at this shyt for years. I'm a black atheist. Its damn near a hobby for me to know this shyt.

Gallup Polls:

Gallup: Blacks Most Religious Group in U.S.

Pew Research Polls:

Blacks Are The Most Religious Americans

Independent Theological Research:

Are Black Americans the Most Religious -- and Virtuous -- of All?

Kaiser Family Foudnation:

Black women are among country’s most religious groups

By all metrics, as a percentage of their demographic, more black people are religious as a percentage of all black people, than hispanics of the hispanic demographic, and whites of the white demographic.

 

[FreshAIG]

You wanna go there?

Lets go there.

Schultz had MANY times his parents were in the art world. Dude grew up in NYC. He IS NYC. TO say he doesn't understand the political messages or artistic messages in graffiti is stupid, for even someone like Schultz.

He gets it.

Just cause IT wants to create ultimate fealty in the form of an argument, which is what he was doing like a narcissistic know-it-all smug liberal (i'm a lefty myself), doesn't make him right.

Its one thing to say Schultz may not understand social oppression, but to say Schultz is wrong about the act of property defamation or destruction is flat out wrong.

You just said a whole lot of nothing. His parents owning property is irrelevant. His parents being in the arts is irrelevant and him being from NYC is irrelevant. I'm not shifting through the entire episode again to point out the moments but he said through his words he doesn't understand graffiti and that it's ugly. He also called it bullshyt and said people used it in films to make NY look shiity. Nobody who understands Grafitti would ever say that. And it just flat out wrong. Directors use it to show the culture of NY.

I never once said Schulz was wrong when he said you should not be putting Graffitti on property. So you're arguing with yourself there. Or IT, I guess

 

[Deltron]

I'd say Mike Rappaport's podcast is a good mix of commentary/comedy. G Moody got some nice beats too haha.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You just said a whole lot of nothing. His parents owning property is irrelevant. His parents being in the arts is irrelevant and him being from NYC is irrelevant. I'm not shifting through the entire episode again to point out the moments but he said through his words he doesn't understand graffiti and that it's ugly. He also called it bullshyt and said people used it in films to make NY look shiity. Nobody who understands Grafitti would ever say that. And it just flat out wrong. Directors use it to show the culture of NY.

I never once said Schulz was wrong when he said you should not be putting Graffitti on property. So you're arguing with yourself there. Or IT, I guess

1. He understands the sociopolitical influences of graffiti. He even brough up the point of "TRAVIS" graffiti to highlight that all of it IS NOT socio-political.

2. It IS ugly and its ok for him to say that. Its also ok for you to disagree

3. You want him to accept graffiti. he doesn't have to, and it doesn't mean he doesn't understand why people do it.

He just disagrees with it as an art form, form of expression, or its presence.

 

[FreshAIG]

Which is it? Now its "you can't prove it"...

This just sounds like a resistance to information.

I didn't say these were "facts"...I said theres "evidence"...you want evidence to mean what its not asserting.

Now you're saying polls aren't reliable? So what are you arguing and why are you debating me?

I've looked at this shyt for years. I'm a black atheist. Its damn near a hobby for me to know this shyt.

Gallup Polls:

Gallup: Blacks Most Religious Group in U.S.

Pew Research Polls:

Blacks Are The Most Religious Americans

Independent Theological Research:

Are Black Americans the Most Religious -- and Virtuous -- of All?

Kaiser Family Foudnation:

Black women are among country’s most religious groups

By all metrics, as a percentage of their demographic, more black people are religious as a percentage of all black people, than hispanics of the hispanic demographic, and whites of the white demographic.

What do you mean what is? I never once changed my stance, you didn't even bring up me having conflicting points. You start off by saying "which one is it" without providing any evidence that I made contradictory arguments.


And You're lying. You said it was facts numerous times. It's sounds like you, just like Schulz, want to argue a point using surveys and trying to pass it off as factual when it's not. You can type until your fingers bleed, all the polls you post are never going to make it a fact. At best their estimates based off the best they can do. I took statistics too. I understand how it works. Polls, surveys, studies are good estimators not facts.

2+2=4 is a fact. Obama is the president is a fact.

Black being more religious than whites is not a fact. This is simple.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@FreshAIG Don't even come at me by thinking that if you don't accept all forms of graffiti as some expression of socio-political revolt and protest, that therefore you don't understand what graffiti is or why people do it.

You're smarter than that.

I understand protest art, it doesn't mean I have to like it, accept it, or promote it.

Andrew is 100% right. Imm.Tech. is trying to put words in Schultz mouth and I saw that shyt with him talking faster about some shyt he learned on wikipedia as if that justifies property destruction by spray paint.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What do you mean what is? I never once changed my stance, you didn't even bring up me having conflicting points. You start off by saying "which one is it" without providing any evidence that I made contradictory arguments.


And You're lying. You said it was facts numerous times. It's sounds like you, just like Schulz, want to argue a point using surveys and trying to pass it off as factual when it's not. You can type until your fingers bleed, all the polls you post are never going to make it a fact. At best their estimates based off the best they can do. I took statistics too. I understand how it works. Polls, surveys, studies are good estimators not facts.

2+2=4 is a fact. Obama is the president is a fact.

Black being more religious than whites is not a fact. This is simple.

Bruh, there are STATISTICS that prove this point.

If you're mad at how statistics are used by samples to infer population trends, then you're a bigger fukking idiot than you came in here looking.


"Well we can't poll everyone, so we can't know anything"

Dumbass

Yet I bet you're out here looking at Hillary/Trump "poll numbers" on the daily

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@FreshAIG

 

[FreshAIG]

1. He understands the sociopolitical influences of graffiti. He even brough up the point of "TRAVIS" graffiti to highlight that all of it IS NOT socio-political.

2. It IS ugly and its ok for him to say that. Its also ok for you to disagree

3. You want him to accept graffiti. he doesn't have to, and it doesn't mean he doesn't understand why people do it.

He just disagrees with it as an art form, form of expression, or its presence.

1) he dismissed Immortal Techniques point that people use it as a means to a message when they're not heard, and said most people don't use it for that. Another assumption based off nothing. Again he doesn't understand Graffitti because he doesn't understand the culture and environment from which it comes. I don't care how many Jamal's he played basketball with in high school that makes me think he's culturally diverse

2) yes it being ugly is a subjective opinion but if you understand arts, you wouldn't completely dismiss an entire genre of art as "ugly"

3) I don't give a fukk about what Schulz excepts. I don't care what Schulz does

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

1) he dismissed Immortal Techniques point that people use it as a means to a message when they're not heard, and said most people don't use it for that. Another assumption based off nothing. Again he doesn't understand Graffitti because he doesn't understand the culture and environment from which it comes. I don't care how many Jamal's he played basketball with in high school that makes me think he's culturally diverse

2) yes it being ugly is a subjective opinion but if you understand arts, you wouldn't completely dismiss an entire genre of art as "ugly"

3) I don't give a fukk about what Schulz excepts. I don't care what Schulz does

1. And he's right to do that. He has that right and he's not wrong to reach those conclusions. I don't care if drawing pictures of dikks on a piece of paper is your idea of protest art, it doesn't mean you have the right to do it on random buildings.

2. I can, and I will and you don't have to accept it. Deal with it. I think, personally, graffiti is shyt. But thats my opinion as well.

3. You have that right, but his opinion, is entirely valid. Schultz thinks that even if its illegal, it doesn't excuse whatever motive you have for doing it. Just like BLM blocking highways. Protesting makes people inconvenienced, but it doesn't make it "legal" or "permissible" ...not everyone has to accept it.

Ya'll are more interested in finding people who agree with you, than you are in accepting that others have legitimate arguments.

You're exhibiting the height of stupidity by asserting that since andrew doesn't understand where graf came from, which he does, then he doesn't or can't appreciate it, which is also bullshyt.

 

[FreshAIG]

Bruh, there are STATISTICS that prove this point.

If you're mad at how statistics are used by samples to infer population trends, then you're a bigger fukking idiot than you came in here looking.


"Well we can't poll everyone, so we can't know anything"

Dumbass

Yet I bet you're out here looking at Hillary/Trump "poll numbers" on the daily

Lmao so first in smarter than that now I'm an idiot because I don't think polls are an accurate enough method to prove anything as factual. You sound crazy.

I didn't say we don't know anything, I said you can't use polls to prove a point, you can use it as a means to defend your argument but it can't be used as factual evidence for anything. This is a simple concept and you're complicating it.

I don't check any political polls. Again, you like Andrew constantly make assumptions based off nothing to back up your claims.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Lmao so first in smarter than that now I'm an idiot because I don't think polls are an accurate enough method to prove anything as factual. You sound crazy.

I didn't say we don't know anything, I said you can't use polls to prove a point, you can use it as a means to defend your argument but it can't be used as factual evidence for anything. This is a simple concept and you're complicating it.

I don't check any political polls. Again, you like Andrew constantly make assumptions based off nothing to back up your claims.

Bruh...yes you can. Statistics are valid unto themselves and the arguments they frame and assert. Its the analysts and dummies () who extrapolate beyond that

Yes, based on every known statistic and polling measure done to date, blacks are THE most religious demographic in this country.

That does not, however, equate to if they're the most homophobic demographic and I have not seen any evidence linking the two, however there may be some casual interaction or confounding there.