I think Inside does make it clear that Burnham knows this is all an unhealthy coping mechanism. He's trying to capture and present a very specific time period and state of mind, but there's a lot in the special that makes it clear that Burnham, the artist making a movie, doesn't really agree with Burnham, the main character from Inside.
Like at the very end of the special, he finally goes outside, but the door locks behind him. He claws and pounds at the door, trying desperately to crawl his way back into isolation - as dark and cramped and lonely as it was, it's easier than dealing with the spotlight and the crowd jeering at him. The final shot is Burnham watching this same scene in his editing software, laughing at his own foolish antics - Burnham telling us that he's not the character he's playing here.
Or there's the song Look Who's Inside Again:
"Well, well
Look who's inside again
Went out to look for a reason to hide again
Well, well
Buddy, you found it"
Even in songs like "White Woman's Instagram," when recounting the scenes of happy dogs and pumpkin patches, he asks, "Is this heaven?" He then paints a legitimately touching portrait of a young woman healthily dealing with the terrible grief of her mother's early death, but still finding joy in living her life to her fullest - the exact opposite of Burnham (the character), who has everything and hates all of it (in 30 he even makes a joke about how he feels pathetic for spending time with his own mom as a grown man). The butt of the joke isn't really the woman who owns the Instagram account, it's the cretin who sees a happy, emotionally healthy person as a figure worthy of derision.
I think you're missing the layers of meta irony that's at the heart of inside. The thing you're critiquing about inside isn't an oversight but the point of it. It's not pro doomer culture, it's a criticism of the doomer culture acting as the doomer culture in an apparent paradox.
Consider the bit about healing the world with comedy, the joke is that if he's successful with his work he does help heal the world with comedy and the world does need direction from a white guy like him. And yet he has to act dismissively towards the concept because his audience can't handle the possibility that it might be the case. If he were to take his project seriously not as a joke it would come off pretentious, but by making it a joke we're forced to consider the possibility and dismiss it at the same time that it's doing the thing that he's acting dismissive of. The rest of the work also operates on similar paradoxes.
Nailed it. The theme of him existing outside of himself and watching and critiquing himself is evvvvvvverywhere in that special (and a lot of his other work)
Could it be a bit of both/and? The meta aspect portrays a person who is both experiencing and observing the experience with critique and disgust (but make it funny.) Like most things we encounter, we can rarely meet them beyond our own context.
Inside was indeed a work of art, made by an extremely smart and emotionally intelligent man that had his finger on the pulse of culture. Despair in a world of suffering isn’t exactly a take so much as a result of disillusionment. The “what we were promised” narrative is grief on full display in a society that has intentionally or unintentionally kept us from the exploration of our pain. The need for it to be acknowledged has created a pressure cooker warping our perception of reality. Wounds need treatment, care and attention.
It can feel overwhelming to think about all the unacknowledged pain- where would we even start? This piece does a great job at balancing the scales of appreciation and detachment. Being someone who connected with Inside I’m grateful because I believe that piece of art was a brilliantly crafted intervention for Bo and all of us. But the question remains, and I think about it daily- how do we get back outside, individually and together?
This was an interesting read, especially the analysis on "doomerism" being both the cause and a symptom of the suffering. Ironically, the reality that live goes on after the apocalypse can be even more anxiety inducing—that even after everything comes crashing down I'll still have to suffer and go to work on Monday.
However, one gripe I have is the discussion of the left-leaning fearmongering. I think the way that you describe it is a bit hyperbolic, you even point out how insane it sounds after writing it out. I'm not saying there isn't a subsection of the left that acts like or believes this, but it's certainly a vocal minority and almost a right-wing caricature of progressives. Even your analysis nearly falls into the same pitfall your discussing, of being over critical without offering any relief. I guess what I'm getting at is that there are certainly people offering up real solutions for our situation without attacking both those who believe the situation is dire and those who aren't quite with it, they just get drowned out by the more emotionally charged stuff that gets more engagement.
Nonetheless, I still think you made some very interesting points and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay. Thanks for writing it.
Agreed. It was an interesting read and makes some valid points, but I wonder just how many people are using "doomerism" as a coping mechanism like any other form of dark humor.
Yep. You pretty much nailed how I feel. This was a well written and thought-provoking piece, but there are a few jumps here and there that I feel mistake Burnam’s point. For instance, the sentiment “don’t worry, it’ll be over soon”, isn’t someone wishing for the end of the world, it is someone who knows what we’re heading towards and attempting to meet it on your own terms. We can try to stop it but we have very few options left. It’s a laugh to keep from crying response. he doesn’t equate Logan Paul and climate catastrophe, the juxtaposition is intentional. Something so petty like singling out a big dumb bro vs. the collapse of our environment are VASTLY different in scope but also deeply related.
Love the analysis of Bo and the internet age and how frustratingly ineffective leftist activism has become lately. I do genuinely think you're not taking the massive right wing pivot in us policy seriously enough tho. We can't “both sides” our way out of the budding fascist regime, and people aren't wrong to feel scared about it
People have been calling Trump and co. fascist ten million times a day since 2015. It doesn't work. You can't "both sides" your way to victory, but you have to build a stable coalition, which has not happened. Unnecessary cultural alienation is a key reason for this.
The left has struggled to build a good response to MAGA, but calling Trump and co. fascists is fully accurate and it was fully accurate on day one. They're malignant liars and they only won because they were the accelerationist option.
And I'll reiterate what I already said. The left does need to actively remind everyone that they have better policy positions, and in order to do that they need to rally around common goals and community building. They need to build third spaces.
We can do that and at the same time continue to call a spade a spade. I belong to the "anti leopards eating people's faces" party, and as people continue to be victimized by the Trump administration they should be welcomed into the leftist fold, which I'm not seeing enough of. But that doesn't mean we're gonna stop calling the guy responsible a fascist, because that's what he is.
My theory is that everyone is thinking to hard about why people voted for him and what it all means. The things he says he stands for could only ever have convinced a some, and he is suspicious as hell for so many reasons, so why? The reason he won anyway, is basic as fuck: trump could only ever have, and only ever has, won elections against women. If democrates had nominated a man--any man--he would never have been president nor reelected. Which is sad, i thought the country was ready for a woman, but it is not.
I think all three candidates that the Dems have run against Trump were bad, voters were just more willing to see that when the candidates were women. If they ran a decent female candidate, she could win just as the crappy male candidate won.
There was nothing at all wrong with her or even hilary as candidates. They both would have been PERFECT. Ive never heard an opinion on her that wasnt just a rationalization of "my boss, a woman? Helll no".
Well, that and all three of them were in the pockets of the billionaire class that's causing the housing crisis and steadily worsening inequality that are bleeding people dry. Don't get me wrong, Trump and Musk are just cutting out the middleman--they are that oppressive class. But the Dems have been enablers for decades now.
It's aged perfectly; now that Trump is destroying domestic and international institutions and openly siding with Russia and China, his approval is still break even give or take a few points. If the opposition was adequate, he should be sitting at -20 like in term one.
Huh? It was four days later. What do you think happened in those days, or even possibly could? If he ends up somehow making things better for anyone not already rich (this time around) ill be happy to apologize.
It's good to critique the practical problems with leftist despair and praying-for-the-apocalypse politics, I think that's really unproductive. The Revolution is just the Rapture in disguise.
However I don't think it's a bad thing that headlines rn are “24/7 Trump/Musk outrage”. We should be outraged. It's genuinely really bad. They want to lock up or deport a fifth of the country and beat up the third of the country that wants to stop them.
JP is one of my faves. He's smart, and more importantly he's really thoughtful. This is just the thought that I want to add to the conversation.
There's some good points here, but I don't know if I accept the premise that young men going right is entirely (or even mostly) based on the doomer rhetoric of the most chronically online sliver of the left, because that kind of implies all the converts are just as chronically online, which seems an unreasonably high number.
Like, think of all the characters in Black Box of Doom who were like "this shit’s viral! EVERYONE is following this" and "EVERYONE" was what? A six- or seven-digit number of mostly reddit users? Which is a lot, sure, but also barely a blip compared to the population of the US.
Maybe I'm wrong as I haven't deeply studied the relevant stats, but that's the same "EVERYONE" I'm picturing when I hear "EVERYONE is getting pushed right because EVERYONE on the left is an obnoxious bummer."
Too online college educated liberals controlled the commanding heights of the culture for the better part of a decade. Very few people were on Twitter, but a lot of people watched TV shows made by people who cared a lot about what twitter lefties thought.
Fun fact: there is no hope. On The Happiness Lab podcast, Harvard psychologist Prof. Dan Gilbert talks about how one, when one communicates about climate change, must necessarily choose between instilling hope and telling the truth, because one can't do both.
It's a great episode, check it out: "Why our Brains Don’t Fear Climate Change Enough"
If there's really no hope, then stop pretending to give up and really give up. You were always going to die anyways, and so was everyone else. Your country was always going to fade, and your universe was always going to freeze over and pass into night.
Buy a gun and join a self-sufficient commune, or make peace with your death and live in a way you won't regret, but don't say that there's no hope and then stay locked pathologically in that state because you want to make other people hopeless.
I’m not really one to defend celebrities but your argument ends on the point that Burnham should be providing some kind of moral alternative and spearheading a movement, but you also criticise leftist internet culture for exactly this kind of sanctimoniousness. At the same time, your own argument is also openly moralisitic…
I thought this was a very well written piece, but it’s a little hypocritical and I don’t agree with the underlying sentiment. ’Inside’ was already very obviously aware of the internal contradictions you highlight whilst still providing the necessary levity and emotion to offset the strength of the irony choke-hold. I thought it was an extremely well balanced piece of work which skillflly navigates the socio-political intricacies of the time whilst also acting as a genuine emotional outlet for both Burnham and the audience. Burnham is under no obligation to be a role-model and it feels like a strange requirement for a creative work.
Agree. And if you struggle with depression, low self-esteem and catastrophizing, even *when you know it is irrational*, “Inside” takes on an entirely different import. I was thrilled by it; it absolutely spoke to me. If you ask me he made this *precisely because* his thoughts and emotions don’t line up with Social Prescriptions for the Privileged.
Oh and speaking of catchy tunes, my husband and I love the “Jeffrey Bezos” song and call it “Bezos-ing” when my dog poops, because “[he] did it!”
A fantastic read. One insight I find genuinely unique was the last one: people don’t want their mental heath validated, they want it cured.
Now, in their defense, no political movement will cure your mental health: validation is important and is about as far as vague politics can do for any given individual. But there’s something to be said about ‘your problems are valid!’ when paired with ‘your problems are unsolvable!’
to be fair, at the time.., I was hearing about dead people filling up sidewalks in NY. And even roomates in total covid isolation, still reinfecting each other. So there was a whole lot of "is this going to last forever" thoughts. iirc there was no vaccine when inside was released (when i watched it, i sure wasnt)
Exactly. I always felt that’s what the line “You say the whole world’s ending, honey, it already did” was referencing, the unknown endlessness of Covid. (Which people continue to die from, we’re just used to it by now.)
that doesn't change the essay's overall point; bad stuff will happen to anyone, to treat any catastrophe as the end of the world and an excuse to withdraw is just solipsistic
Exactly; I remember feeling mowed over by it because - wealth talent privilege etc regardless - it captured that feeling of being lost, scared, isolated so well, while being catchy and funny
If you thought White Woman's Instagram was mocking positive sincerity I'm not sure you listened to it the whole way through. That's exactly the impression you're supposed to have at the beginning, but by the end when it becomes clear she's documenting small moments of joy she would have liked to share with her dead mother, it becomes pretty clear that the message is "you don't know people's real lives, so don't judge them on the basis of a social media feed"
White Woman’s Instagram to me means that even the most shallow are usually good people with deep authentic feelings.
And I think the whole entire song just exists as a counterpoint to the lonely alone boy alone with his screen at night in the dark by himself, who deep down is a good person with deep feelings too.
What an observation. I can certainly see what you're talking about. I'm not sure if I totally agree, but I definitely understand. Thanks for thinking so deeply on this subject. Mrs Coffey and I love ALL of your books.
There's this trope that "everyone puts a falsely positive version of their life on social media" and every time I see that claim, I'm like, are we in different bubbles, or are you repeating a platitude without thinking about whether it matches your experience?
Cause yeah, what i see is much more people putting up a "lowlights reel" (often clearly signalled as humour, but still portraying themselves as hapless or w/e)
I find your entire argument to be coming from an elitist perspective itself. As someone who is intelligent, creative, and talented, I know that it doesn't bring happiness. In fact, the rest of my life has been pretty fucking shitty despite being raised in an upper middle class household. When I say shitty, I mean parental abuse, parents with personality disorders, mental health struggles, suicidality, abusive relationships, children who have their own struggles with developmental and mental issues, multiple chronic health conditions, poverty, and an utter lack of a support system. Young white men skewing right wing is about selfishness, not about despair on the left. You don't get to decide for Bo Burnham how much pain he feels, or how much what shared is real. You also don't get to sit in judgment of anyone who identified with the show. I have a dissociative disorder and panic attacks. I have some ideas of what it looks like. Those of us who hurt are not endulging in our victimization. If you experienced it, you might actually know how much shit you have to eat from the world and what a struggle it is to keep fucking going. Maybe your viewpoint is derived from working at Cracked at looking down your nose at people, but I don't see you owning up to that shit. Congratulations on your condescension, dude. I hope it keeps you warm at night
Anyone agreeing with this Inside-hating essay has holes in their brain and in their heart where their creative spirit is supposed to reside. We are righteous. They have holes.
> First off: if you haven’t seen the award-winning 2021 Bo Burnham Netflix special Inside, you absolutely should watch that instead of reading this or whatever other bullshit I put out this month.
Does this mean you're putting out more "b/s" this month? Please?
I think Inside does make it clear that Burnham knows this is all an unhealthy coping mechanism. He's trying to capture and present a very specific time period and state of mind, but there's a lot in the special that makes it clear that Burnham, the artist making a movie, doesn't really agree with Burnham, the main character from Inside.
Like at the very end of the special, he finally goes outside, but the door locks behind him. He claws and pounds at the door, trying desperately to crawl his way back into isolation - as dark and cramped and lonely as it was, it's easier than dealing with the spotlight and the crowd jeering at him. The final shot is Burnham watching this same scene in his editing software, laughing at his own foolish antics - Burnham telling us that he's not the character he's playing here.
Or there's the song Look Who's Inside Again:
"Well, well
Look who's inside again
Went out to look for a reason to hide again
Well, well
Buddy, you found it"
Even in songs like "White Woman's Instagram," when recounting the scenes of happy dogs and pumpkin patches, he asks, "Is this heaven?" He then paints a legitimately touching portrait of a young woman healthily dealing with the terrible grief of her mother's early death, but still finding joy in living her life to her fullest - the exact opposite of Burnham (the character), who has everything and hates all of it (in 30 he even makes a joke about how he feels pathetic for spending time with his own mom as a grown man). The butt of the joke isn't really the woman who owns the Instagram account, it's the cretin who sees a happy, emotionally healthy person as a figure worthy of derision.
Perfectly said!
I think you're missing the layers of meta irony that's at the heart of inside. The thing you're critiquing about inside isn't an oversight but the point of it. It's not pro doomer culture, it's a criticism of the doomer culture acting as the doomer culture in an apparent paradox.
Consider the bit about healing the world with comedy, the joke is that if he's successful with his work he does help heal the world with comedy and the world does need direction from a white guy like him. And yet he has to act dismissively towards the concept because his audience can't handle the possibility that it might be the case. If he were to take his project seriously not as a joke it would come off pretentious, but by making it a joke we're forced to consider the possibility and dismiss it at the same time that it's doing the thing that he's acting dismissive of. The rest of the work also operates on similar paradoxes.
Nailed it. The theme of him existing outside of himself and watching and critiquing himself is evvvvvvverywhere in that special (and a lot of his other work)
Could it be a bit of both/and? The meta aspect portrays a person who is both experiencing and observing the experience with critique and disgust (but make it funny.) Like most things we encounter, we can rarely meet them beyond our own context.
Inside was indeed a work of art, made by an extremely smart and emotionally intelligent man that had his finger on the pulse of culture. Despair in a world of suffering isn’t exactly a take so much as a result of disillusionment. The “what we were promised” narrative is grief on full display in a society that has intentionally or unintentionally kept us from the exploration of our pain. The need for it to be acknowledged has created a pressure cooker warping our perception of reality. Wounds need treatment, care and attention.
It can feel overwhelming to think about all the unacknowledged pain- where would we even start? This piece does a great job at balancing the scales of appreciation and detachment. Being someone who connected with Inside I’m grateful because I believe that piece of art was a brilliantly crafted intervention for Bo and all of us. But the question remains, and I think about it daily- how do we get back outside, individually and together?
This was an interesting read, especially the analysis on "doomerism" being both the cause and a symptom of the suffering. Ironically, the reality that live goes on after the apocalypse can be even more anxiety inducing—that even after everything comes crashing down I'll still have to suffer and go to work on Monday.
However, one gripe I have is the discussion of the left-leaning fearmongering. I think the way that you describe it is a bit hyperbolic, you even point out how insane it sounds after writing it out. I'm not saying there isn't a subsection of the left that acts like or believes this, but it's certainly a vocal minority and almost a right-wing caricature of progressives. Even your analysis nearly falls into the same pitfall your discussing, of being over critical without offering any relief. I guess what I'm getting at is that there are certainly people offering up real solutions for our situation without attacking both those who believe the situation is dire and those who aren't quite with it, they just get drowned out by the more emotionally charged stuff that gets more engagement.
Nonetheless, I still think you made some very interesting points and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your essay. Thanks for writing it.
Agreed. It was an interesting read and makes some valid points, but I wonder just how many people are using "doomerism" as a coping mechanism like any other form of dark humor.
I had the same thought.
Yep. You pretty much nailed how I feel. This was a well written and thought-provoking piece, but there are a few jumps here and there that I feel mistake Burnam’s point. For instance, the sentiment “don’t worry, it’ll be over soon”, isn’t someone wishing for the end of the world, it is someone who knows what we’re heading towards and attempting to meet it on your own terms. We can try to stop it but we have very few options left. It’s a laugh to keep from crying response. he doesn’t equate Logan Paul and climate catastrophe, the juxtaposition is intentional. Something so petty like singling out a big dumb bro vs. the collapse of our environment are VASTLY different in scope but also deeply related.
I agree! The last line of one of the raps on my album is "I've got that funny feelin' Bo Burnham's gonna live" and this post is what I mean by it.
This is so spot on omg
Was just gonna send this to you Lidija!
I think I’m gonna have to write a follow-up hahah. Synchronicity!! Thanks for thinking of me ⭐️
coattailin!
Love the analysis of Bo and the internet age and how frustratingly ineffective leftist activism has become lately. I do genuinely think you're not taking the massive right wing pivot in us policy seriously enough tho. We can't “both sides” our way out of the budding fascist regime, and people aren't wrong to feel scared about it
People have been calling Trump and co. fascist ten million times a day since 2015. It doesn't work. You can't "both sides" your way to victory, but you have to build a stable coalition, which has not happened. Unnecessary cultural alienation is a key reason for this.
The left has struggled to build a good response to MAGA, but calling Trump and co. fascists is fully accurate and it was fully accurate on day one. They're malignant liars and they only won because they were the accelerationist option.
Okay, well I would reiterate what I already wrote. It's not working at all. You have to find a different strategy.
And I'll reiterate what I already said. The left does need to actively remind everyone that they have better policy positions, and in order to do that they need to rally around common goals and community building. They need to build third spaces.
We can do that and at the same time continue to call a spade a spade. I belong to the "anti leopards eating people's faces" party, and as people continue to be victimized by the Trump administration they should be welcomed into the leftist fold, which I'm not seeing enough of. But that doesn't mean we're gonna stop calling the guy responsible a fascist, because that's what he is.
It may be accurate, but it’s not effective.
My theory is that everyone is thinking to hard about why people voted for him and what it all means. The things he says he stands for could only ever have convinced a some, and he is suspicious as hell for so many reasons, so why? The reason he won anyway, is basic as fuck: trump could only ever have, and only ever has, won elections against women. If democrates had nominated a man--any man--he would never have been president nor reelected. Which is sad, i thought the country was ready for a woman, but it is not.
I think all three candidates that the Dems have run against Trump were bad, voters were just more willing to see that when the candidates were women. If they ran a decent female candidate, she could win just as the crappy male candidate won.
There was nothing at all wrong with her or even hilary as candidates. They both would have been PERFECT. Ive never heard an opinion on her that wasnt just a rationalization of "my boss, a woman? Helll no".
Well, that and all three of them were in the pockets of the billionaire class that's causing the housing crisis and steadily worsening inequality that are bleeding people dry. Don't get me wrong, Trump and Musk are just cutting out the middleman--they are that oppressive class. But the Dems have been enablers for decades now.
your comment here is aging like milk
It's aged perfectly; now that Trump is destroying domestic and international institutions and openly siding with Russia and China, his approval is still break even give or take a few points. If the opposition was adequate, he should be sitting at -20 like in term one.
you are bad-faith disingenuous, clear as day.
LOL unreal
Huh? It was four days later. What do you think happened in those days, or even possibly could? If he ends up somehow making things better for anyone not already rich (this time around) ill be happy to apologize.
have you had a lot of productive dialogue with trumpees these past nine years or something
Hardcore maga no, softcore maga + moderates yes
what does both-sides have to do with the united states ratcheting further right?
It's good to critique the practical problems with leftist despair and praying-for-the-apocalypse politics, I think that's really unproductive. The Revolution is just the Rapture in disguise.
However I don't think it's a bad thing that headlines rn are “24/7 Trump/Musk outrage”. We should be outraged. It's genuinely really bad. They want to lock up or deport a fifth of the country and beat up the third of the country that wants to stop them.
JP is one of my faves. He's smart, and more importantly he's really thoughtful. This is just the thought that I want to add to the conversation.
There's some good points here, but I don't know if I accept the premise that young men going right is entirely (or even mostly) based on the doomer rhetoric of the most chronically online sliver of the left, because that kind of implies all the converts are just as chronically online, which seems an unreasonably high number.
Like, think of all the characters in Black Box of Doom who were like "this shit’s viral! EVERYONE is following this" and "EVERYONE" was what? A six- or seven-digit number of mostly reddit users? Which is a lot, sure, but also barely a blip compared to the population of the US.
Maybe I'm wrong as I haven't deeply studied the relevant stats, but that's the same "EVERYONE" I'm picturing when I hear "EVERYONE is getting pushed right because EVERYONE on the left is an obnoxious bummer."
Too online college educated liberals controlled the commanding heights of the culture for the better part of a decade. Very few people were on Twitter, but a lot of people watched TV shows made by people who cared a lot about what twitter lefties thought.
this isn’t remotely true and it’s crazy how often this gets regurgitated.
apparently you were heavily influenced by leftist TV producers
Fun fact: there is no hope. On The Happiness Lab podcast, Harvard psychologist Prof. Dan Gilbert talks about how one, when one communicates about climate change, must necessarily choose between instilling hope and telling the truth, because one can't do both.
It's a great episode, check it out: "Why our Brains Don’t Fear Climate Change Enough"
https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/the-happiness-lab-with-dr-laurie-santos/why-our-brains-dont-fear-climate-change-enough
If there's really no hope, then stop pretending to give up and really give up. You were always going to die anyways, and so was everyone else. Your country was always going to fade, and your universe was always going to freeze over and pass into night.
Buy a gun and join a self-sufficient commune, or make peace with your death and live in a way you won't regret, but don't say that there's no hope and then stay locked pathologically in that state because you want to make other people hopeless.
I’m not really one to defend celebrities but your argument ends on the point that Burnham should be providing some kind of moral alternative and spearheading a movement, but you also criticise leftist internet culture for exactly this kind of sanctimoniousness. At the same time, your own argument is also openly moralisitic…
I thought this was a very well written piece, but it’s a little hypocritical and I don’t agree with the underlying sentiment. ’Inside’ was already very obviously aware of the internal contradictions you highlight whilst still providing the necessary levity and emotion to offset the strength of the irony choke-hold. I thought it was an extremely well balanced piece of work which skillflly navigates the socio-political intricacies of the time whilst also acting as a genuine emotional outlet for both Burnham and the audience. Burnham is under no obligation to be a role-model and it feels like a strange requirement for a creative work.
Agree. And if you struggle with depression, low self-esteem and catastrophizing, even *when you know it is irrational*, “Inside” takes on an entirely different import. I was thrilled by it; it absolutely spoke to me. If you ask me he made this *precisely because* his thoughts and emotions don’t line up with Social Prescriptions for the Privileged.
Oh and speaking of catchy tunes, my husband and I love the “Jeffrey Bezos” song and call it “Bezos-ing” when my dog poops, because “[he] did it!”
A fantastic read. One insight I find genuinely unique was the last one: people don’t want their mental heath validated, they want it cured.
Now, in their defense, no political movement will cure your mental health: validation is important and is about as far as vague politics can do for any given individual. But there’s something to be said about ‘your problems are valid!’ when paired with ‘your problems are unsolvable!’
to be fair, at the time.., I was hearing about dead people filling up sidewalks in NY. And even roomates in total covid isolation, still reinfecting each other. So there was a whole lot of "is this going to last forever" thoughts. iirc there was no vaccine when inside was released (when i watched it, i sure wasnt)
Exactly. I always felt that’s what the line “You say the whole world’s ending, honey, it already did” was referencing, the unknown endlessness of Covid. (Which people continue to die from, we’re just used to it by now.)
that doesn't change the essay's overall point; bad stuff will happen to anyone, to treat any catastrophe as the end of the world and an excuse to withdraw is just solipsistic
as someone who has already been canceled by the trumpee cult, this line really hits home for me, maybe a bit differently than intended
Exactly; I remember feeling mowed over by it because - wealth talent privilege etc regardless - it captured that feeling of being lost, scared, isolated so well, while being catchy and funny
If you thought White Woman's Instagram was mocking positive sincerity I'm not sure you listened to it the whole way through. That's exactly the impression you're supposed to have at the beginning, but by the end when it becomes clear she's documenting small moments of joy she would have liked to share with her dead mother, it becomes pretty clear that the message is "you don't know people's real lives, so don't judge them on the basis of a social media feed"
White Woman’s Instagram to me means that even the most shallow are usually good people with deep authentic feelings.
And I think the whole entire song just exists as a counterpoint to the lonely alone boy alone with his screen at night in the dark by himself, who deep down is a good person with deep feelings too.
What an observation. I can certainly see what you're talking about. I'm not sure if I totally agree, but I definitely understand. Thanks for thinking so deeply on this subject. Mrs Coffey and I love ALL of your books.
"What an INTERESTING observation,"
There's this trope that "everyone puts a falsely positive version of their life on social media" and every time I see that claim, I'm like, are we in different bubbles, or are you repeating a platitude without thinking about whether it matches your experience?
Cause yeah, what i see is much more people putting up a "lowlights reel" (often clearly signalled as humour, but still portraying themselves as hapless or w/e)
Ah, I just hated it because it was misogynistic and self-indulgent.
I find your entire argument to be coming from an elitist perspective itself. As someone who is intelligent, creative, and talented, I know that it doesn't bring happiness. In fact, the rest of my life has been pretty fucking shitty despite being raised in an upper middle class household. When I say shitty, I mean parental abuse, parents with personality disorders, mental health struggles, suicidality, abusive relationships, children who have their own struggles with developmental and mental issues, multiple chronic health conditions, poverty, and an utter lack of a support system. Young white men skewing right wing is about selfishness, not about despair on the left. You don't get to decide for Bo Burnham how much pain he feels, or how much what shared is real. You also don't get to sit in judgment of anyone who identified with the show. I have a dissociative disorder and panic attacks. I have some ideas of what it looks like. Those of us who hurt are not endulging in our victimization. If you experienced it, you might actually know how much shit you have to eat from the world and what a struggle it is to keep fucking going. Maybe your viewpoint is derived from working at Cracked at looking down your nose at people, but I don't see you owning up to that shit. Congratulations on your condescension, dude. I hope it keeps you warm at night
Thank you.
Anyone agreeing with this Inside-hating essay has holes in their brain and in their heart where their creative spirit is supposed to reside. We are righteous. They have holes.
> First off: if you haven’t seen the award-winning 2021 Bo Burnham Netflix special Inside, you absolutely should watch that instead of reading this or whatever other bullshit I put out this month.
Does this mean you're putting out more "b/s" this month? Please?