Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
If he was making these jokes about an "uncool" skater you guys would be clapping like seals.
I find funny how he picked the most bland ass dude to rip and suddenly SLAP became a shitshow, yall gagging too hard on that soy latte boy
For me it’s not so much his targets, it’s just that the world is full of so much pointless negative influence, that someone building an entire platform around that feels regressive and stagnant.
It’s akin to someone who peaked in highschool, and has not the self awareness to evolve or grow as a human being.
In regards to coming after Tom though, it does feel like GH is punching down a bit. Or that it’s a soft undeserving target.
oh come on. I like Tom Knox a lot but that is absolutely ridiculous.
I guess I just feel like Tom Knox seems like a decent dude who’s not really out there doing anything kooky.
It’s soft prey.
Micky Papa seems like a nice guy who had an extremely troubled upbringing, and nobody bats an eye when he gets endlessly shit on. Tom has his name on New Balance and Dickies products. I think he'll be okay.
It sounds like you’re trying to use Micky as an example of why it’s ok to shit on people, but it’s kinda lame in either case.
We’re talking about a grown man who has an entire platform based on tearing people down. I’m not entirely sure how particular sponsor’s are relevant in the matter.
Those particular sponsors are relevant because you think a YouTuber making fun of a guy with multiple corporate sponsors is “punching down”. I don’t know what you think punching down means, but it is not that.
You make it seem as if Tom Knox has those sponsors not by the merit of his own work or accumulated skills. He earned those sponsorships, they weren’t gifted to him.
My feelings on the matter aren’t economic based, nor referring to sponsorships, but more to the character of the individual himself. I didn’t watch, nor do I care to consume GH’s content, so I can’t speak to the severity of anything he said. I just simply think it’s kind of dumb when people build a temple around negative energies. It’s exactly what the world needs less of.
I think it’s punching down because his target is unassuming and inoffensive.
How on earth have you arrived at that conclusion?
You appear to be equating lucrative sponsorship to some sort of elevated status of being.
That it can’t possibly be punching down as Tom’s sponsors seem to afford him some sort of standing above GH?
It just seems like a strange argument to make, especially given GH is just as much part of the industry as Tom is.
By that logic the argument is even stronger since Tom has a tangibly higher status in the skateboarding industry than GH, if that is an actual point you are trying to make.
I’m not the one that implied there was any sort of hierarchy. That was the argument you made by mentioning Dickies and NB.
They are equal differing (vastly) parts of the same industry.
Do you actually think it is the same status, or are you just saying things for the sake of saying them?
Skill wise they are not even close to equals, but GH has a rather large draw that comes with its own brand of influence.
They are both parts of the same industry, just differing facets.
I don’t believe in perceived hierarchies in this instance. That’s why I think it’s silly that you think it can’t possibly be “punching down”.
My usage of “punching down” was in reference to the character of the individuals, absolutely nothing to do with sponsorship or your ideas of standing.
It sounds like “punching down” in your mind must only strictly apply in reference to status. Which I can understand, but we’re getting way off topic if your argument is centered around my usage of a phrase.
i appreciate some of the points you're trying to make, but the phrase 'punching down' specifically refers to picking on someone of lower status, or with less power (whatever that might mean in context). gh is targeting tom in the context of his standing in the industry - which is very high. so it might be whack as fuck, but it isn't 'punching down'.
also, as much as i disagree with his criticisms of tom, none of it's been particularly hateful. for the most part, he tried to give a detailed, dispassionate critique of why he found his recent stuff underwhelming. personally, i don't think he succeeded - a lot of his arguments were contradictory or half-baked. but they were made in good faith i think.
the meaner stuff like calling him a plonker just scans as silly/playful to me (as a massive tom knox fan). 'plonker' is more or less the mildest insult in all of english, and as far as connotative meaning goes, it has an affectionate undertone.
i think the 'hater' part of his moniker is supposed to be self-depreciating. he doesn't really strike me as waving a flag for negativity. he just prefers chatting shit about skating and making loads of money to getting a real job, which i can understand to be fair.
Poll
Topic: Thoughts on Gifted Hater? (Read 407617 times)