"I want to edge Bert Kreisher being ripped limb from limb. But make no mistake, this does end with him annihilated, with me rolling around in his guts, cackling until my dehydrated throat surrenders the vomited remains of his genitals and rectum."
I was not familiar with the name Bert Kreisher when I started reading this post. I Googled him and learned that he's a comedian and podcaster, but I still have no idea what would motivate the quoted passage. It definitely sparks a WTF but not necessarily a desire to continue reading.
Would have been helpful to include some of this Bert guy’s work (vid clips/screen shots). Hard to appreciate the main point when the reader lacks key information. Context helps clarification.
Appreciate the suggestion but the Tooky's Mag style guide does not allow for full color pictures, much less YouTube clips, instagram reels, and twitter screenshots. There are a million other subs doing that, but we fly a very particular freak flag here.
Me: I started to read this but got turned off by the drawing and quartering paragraph. I don't really know who Bert Kreisher is or why the author of this blog post hates him so fervently. Would you please summarize this post and explain the vitriol?
Claude (free version): This blog post seems to be an aggressive rant against comedian Bert Kreischer. The author presents a theory that celebrities like Kreischer serve as symbolic "sacrifices" that society can rally against and mock in order to vent societal tensions.
The author expresses intense hatred and vitriol toward Kreischer, going into graphic detail about wanting to torture and violently kill him in brutal ways. This level of violent rhetoric appears very excessive and unhinged.
The author ties Kreischer's supposed cultural relevance to ideas about retribalization, technology overtaking individuality, and power structures absorbing fringe ideas. However, the train of thought gets lost amidst the aggressive anger directed at Kreischer personally.
Overall, while attempting to make philosophical points, the post comes across as an irrational and concerning expression of rage toward a public figure the author seems to resent for shallow reasons related to his comedic persona and perceived selling out. The vitriol seems disproportionate and unproductive.
You were not laughing alone, I too wish these things
"I want to edge Bert Kreisher being ripped limb from limb. But make no mistake, this does end with him annihilated, with me rolling around in his guts, cackling until my dehydrated throat surrenders the vomited remains of his genitals and rectum."
I was not familiar with the name Bert Kreisher when I started reading this post. I Googled him and learned that he's a comedian and podcaster, but I still have no idea what would motivate the quoted passage. It definitely sparks a WTF but not necessarily a desire to continue reading.
Would have been helpful to include some of this Bert guy’s work (vid clips/screen shots). Hard to appreciate the main point when the reader lacks key information. Context helps clarification.
Appreciate the suggestion but the Tooky's Mag style guide does not allow for full color pictures, much less YouTube clips, instagram reels, and twitter screenshots. There are a million other subs doing that, but we fly a very particular freak flag here.
Me: I started to read this but got turned off by the drawing and quartering paragraph. I don't really know who Bert Kreisher is or why the author of this blog post hates him so fervently. Would you please summarize this post and explain the vitriol?
Claude (free version): This blog post seems to be an aggressive rant against comedian Bert Kreischer. The author presents a theory that celebrities like Kreischer serve as symbolic "sacrifices" that society can rally against and mock in order to vent societal tensions.
The author expresses intense hatred and vitriol toward Kreischer, going into graphic detail about wanting to torture and violently kill him in brutal ways. This level of violent rhetoric appears very excessive and unhinged.
The author ties Kreischer's supposed cultural relevance to ideas about retribalization, technology overtaking individuality, and power structures absorbing fringe ideas. However, the train of thought gets lost amidst the aggressive anger directed at Kreischer personally.
Overall, while attempting to make philosophical points, the post comes across as an irrational and concerning expression of rage toward a public figure the author seems to resent for shallow reasons related to his comedic persona and perceived selling out. The vitriol seems disproportionate and unproductive.