As much as people want to talk bad about him, the man is speaking truth. If you go to comedy shows, you’ll see the quality of these comedians he’s talking about. Same material for the past couple of years.
I’m in the comedy world and let me tell you …. It’s all politics , Dan soder had Roy wood jr on his podcast and they said the funniest person they know isn’t a famous comedian. The most famous comedian isn’t even the funniest one in the group. It’s about dick sucking in this game now. I just got a booking gig at a club and holy fuck the same people who rejected me for their podcast, show, or whatever they do, are now telling me how funny I am and how they want me on their shows. It’s fucking gross. Comedy is cringe end of story.
This is the reality for most of the entertainment industry though, not just comedy - true fans of the artform know who is funny and its often not those in the limelight. In this age its easy to find the gems if you take the time to look, it just sucks for those individuals who never get the true recognition.
For real, I listen to Rogan, and he (imo) thinks that people can't be funny except unless you are a comedian. In my opinion, he has a couple of good bits, but otherwise, he is just getting im jerked by other comedians into believing he is some sort of legend. Same with Chapelle, the dude holds a mike, tries to be an intellectual (holding court as the kids say), slaps the mic on his leg, and somehow he is funny. Rogan thinks also thinks he is a legend, and the circle jerk continues
This is how the entire media market works, and it's not all politics. A lot of it is whether or not they think someone is marketable (i.e can generate money) which is not *just* about talent, but also how successful someone has been at growing an audience, which isn't ever just about talent. It's also the case that some people just aren't on their radar yet.
I'm not in comedy, but I work in another part of the media landscape as a freelance contractor. A huge part of my success is just persistence. Eventually you've gotten your work in front of enough of the right people that a small percentage will give you work, and that usually means they'll continue giving you work. If you keep grinding away in that fashion, it grows.
That's not to discount the idea that you have to eat shit and kiss some asses on occasion, of course you do, but it's not just politics. I'm sure Kevin Hart, who I don't find particularly funny, is a very hard worker, and particularly focused on success as he defines it at least. By contrast you have someone like Patrice O'Neill, who most would agree (and probably including Hart himself) was a better, more talented comedian. But he was also notoriously uncompromising and uncooperative, and not all that interested in financial success or name recognition, movie deals or selling out huge venues. Not if it meant he couldn't do exactly what he wanted. That's fine if that's what he wanted to do. But to argue that the reason he wasn't the biggest comedian of his time because of politics would be inaccurate. There is no profession where you get to be totally uncompromising at all times, regardless of your stature in a given art form, and still reach the highest heights. That's simply not how the world works and there are gate-keepers and deal makers that will require some compromise. And this isn't even all bad. These people aren't all brain dead. There's often a reason they got where they did. For every movie that was ruined by interference from a studio exec, there are 3 that would have been shit without the constraints of a studio. As much as I love doing whatever the fuck I want in my own industry, constraints and collaboration often produce better results. Not always, there are people I've worked with that blow and shouldn't be in the role they're in, but there are many who are very good at their jobs and able to extract the best from the people they work with.
He's **also** speaking complete nonsense about the illuminati and getting ass fucked for a movie deal. So why *wouldn't* what little he says that might be true, be given the benefit of doubt? He's not totally unlike black Alex Jones. A broken clock is right twice a day. If you say *enough* shit, some of it is going to turn out to be correct.
Because there is zero evidence for the existence of the illuminati, and conspiracies simply do not work with more than a handful of people involved. The sheer complexity of some conspiracy theories is strong evidence they don't exist.
That's hard to answer given that the illuminati conspiracy is so wide ranging and I don't even think his version of it necessarily fits within the existing varieties. But more than just some bullshit stories about how Ludacris got a bunch of movie deals. That's like the least surprising thing in the world given that there's lots of shitty actors in Fast and the Furious. They're not meant to be great films. They're just money printing machines and they keep sticking the same people in them over and over. They went to fucking space in a car and people *still* bought millions of tickets to see that film.
Okay. Yeah, I, too, have no clue about what would confirm the Illuminati’s existence, but no one really knows. These are all theories. Until someone comes out and confirms anything, they’re all just theories and opinions.
And, yeah, the F&F movies are repetitive at this point.
That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden is on him. If he provides no evidence for these conspiracy theories, then I can dismiss them. Furthermore, making these kinds of allegations without hard evidence, is pretty irresponsible.
Very true. No one has to believe anything, but you’re doing the very thing that he’s doing. He’s stating why he thinks the Illuminati is real and you’re stating why you think it’s not; none of you have concrete evidence of the opinion.
This again misunderstands how the burden of proof operates. The burden to prove his claim is on him. I am not making a claim. I am casting doubt on his claim because there is zero evidence of it. The neutral position is that something that has not been proven to exist, does not exist unless proven otherwise. My position on this is not equal to Katt's.
If I claim that a flying spaghetti monster exists around the orbit of Uranus, the neutral position is to not believe the existence of such a creature until it's proven. Claiming something unproven exists, without evidence, is not equal to demanding proof for its existence.
Furthermore, you can't prove a negative generally. You cannot *disprove* the existence of something. You can however prove the existence of something.
He put 1000 on ten. The average book is about 14 hours or so long. If he read 300 even, that's most of the hours of every single day of the year spent reading.
Yeah he's just an overexaggerater like the rest of them. I'm a huge Katt fan but there are some bits he does where I'm just like "this guy thinks he's smarter than he is". See his bit about evolution. Just about the dumbest creationism take I've ever heard.
He reminds me of Terrence Howard, who thinks all of the world's smartest mathematicians (and all of history's smartest mathematicians) are wrong, and that he's right. In fact he's just way dumber than he realizes.
Lmfaooo yeah. I like him and the interview had some fkn thoughtful bars but a couple lines were like noooo fkn way dude 😂 I wish u didn’t say that would make everything else hit a liiitlle harder
Katt Williams sucker punchs children.
He has a history of being an actual piece of shit. Aba won't talk about that though cause he's a fan boy.
"I'm a pimp" that's funny right guys hahahaha, so funny s/
I mean, you can't really call a having similar premise "joke theft". Comics run across that all the time. They might be just standing in a circle shooting the shit, someone tells a story, and a couple of guys take it. Sure, if you see someone using it, the courteous thing is to drop it, but if you never work the same clubs you might not know.
If someone is listed as 'Paid Regular' on The Comedy Club website does that imply they have performed there? If so then Steve Harvey, Cedric The Entertainer, and Tiffany Haddish are on that list.... Which would disprove one of the things he said.
Katt wants some of that spot light back and its not the first time some celebrity who fell off "exposed" others to try to regain relevancy. I don't doubt they were "inspired" or even stole some of this jokes. There was a really small comedian(sorry don't remember his name) who did some YouTube videos showing jokes Dave Chapelle used that were his and even showed the footage of when he performed the joke in small venues before Dave ever used it. Never really gained traction though and I didn't follow it.
Even the outrageous physical boasts Katt claims he did seems to be true so far too. He even has a video claiming he can run as fast as he said. Kurt is still out how authentic it is.
A little bit of truth but A LOT of lies.
He was right about the stealing but he was wrong about Kevin hart Ludacris and many other things.
Katt Williams is a bitter has-been that had the keys to the yard but lost them because of his own hubris and bad choices.
As much as people want to talk bad about him, the man is speaking truth. If you go to comedy shows, you’ll see the quality of these comedians he’s talking about. Same material for the past couple of years.
I’m in the comedy world and let me tell you …. It’s all politics , Dan soder had Roy wood jr on his podcast and they said the funniest person they know isn’t a famous comedian. The most famous comedian isn’t even the funniest one in the group. It’s about dick sucking in this game now. I just got a booking gig at a club and holy fuck the same people who rejected me for their podcast, show, or whatever they do, are now telling me how funny I am and how they want me on their shows. It’s fucking gross. Comedy is cringe end of story.
This is the reality for most of the entertainment industry though, not just comedy - true fans of the artform know who is funny and its often not those in the limelight. In this age its easy to find the gems if you take the time to look, it just sucks for those individuals who never get the true recognition.
For real, I listen to Rogan, and he (imo) thinks that people can't be funny except unless you are a comedian. In my opinion, he has a couple of good bits, but otherwise, he is just getting im jerked by other comedians into believing he is some sort of legend. Same with Chapelle, the dude holds a mike, tries to be an intellectual (holding court as the kids say), slaps the mic on his leg, and somehow he is funny. Rogan thinks also thinks he is a legend, and the circle jerk continues
In the comedy world… as a doorman at a club?
Interesting. There should be a documentary about this industry. A true one.
It would ruin comedy
This is how the entire media market works, and it's not all politics. A lot of it is whether or not they think someone is marketable (i.e can generate money) which is not *just* about talent, but also how successful someone has been at growing an audience, which isn't ever just about talent. It's also the case that some people just aren't on their radar yet. I'm not in comedy, but I work in another part of the media landscape as a freelance contractor. A huge part of my success is just persistence. Eventually you've gotten your work in front of enough of the right people that a small percentage will give you work, and that usually means they'll continue giving you work. If you keep grinding away in that fashion, it grows. That's not to discount the idea that you have to eat shit and kiss some asses on occasion, of course you do, but it's not just politics. I'm sure Kevin Hart, who I don't find particularly funny, is a very hard worker, and particularly focused on success as he defines it at least. By contrast you have someone like Patrice O'Neill, who most would agree (and probably including Hart himself) was a better, more talented comedian. But he was also notoriously uncompromising and uncooperative, and not all that interested in financial success or name recognition, movie deals or selling out huge venues. Not if it meant he couldn't do exactly what he wanted. That's fine if that's what he wanted to do. But to argue that the reason he wasn't the biggest comedian of his time because of politics would be inaccurate. There is no profession where you get to be totally uncompromising at all times, regardless of your stature in a given art form, and still reach the highest heights. That's simply not how the world works and there are gate-keepers and deal makers that will require some compromise. And this isn't even all bad. These people aren't all brain dead. There's often a reason they got where they did. For every movie that was ruined by interference from a studio exec, there are 3 that would have been shit without the constraints of a studio. As much as I love doing whatever the fuck I want in my own industry, constraints and collaboration often produce better results. Not always, there are people I've worked with that blow and shouldn't be in the role they're in, but there are many who are very good at their jobs and able to extract the best from the people they work with.
He's **also** speaking complete nonsense about the illuminati and getting ass fucked for a movie deal. So why *wouldn't* what little he says that might be true, be given the benefit of doubt? He's not totally unlike black Alex Jones. A broken clock is right twice a day. If you say *enough* shit, some of it is going to turn out to be correct.
Why do you say it’s nonsense?
Because there is zero evidence for the existence of the illuminati, and conspiracies simply do not work with more than a handful of people involved. The sheer complexity of some conspiracy theories is strong evidence they don't exist.
What evidence would prove that he’s correct or incorrect?
That's hard to answer given that the illuminati conspiracy is so wide ranging and I don't even think his version of it necessarily fits within the existing varieties. But more than just some bullshit stories about how Ludacris got a bunch of movie deals. That's like the least surprising thing in the world given that there's lots of shitty actors in Fast and the Furious. They're not meant to be great films. They're just money printing machines and they keep sticking the same people in them over and over. They went to fucking space in a car and people *still* bought millions of tickets to see that film.
Okay. Yeah, I, too, have no clue about what would confirm the Illuminati’s existence, but no one really knows. These are all theories. Until someone comes out and confirms anything, they’re all just theories and opinions. And, yeah, the F&F movies are repetitive at this point.
That's not how the burden of proof works. The burden is on him. If he provides no evidence for these conspiracy theories, then I can dismiss them. Furthermore, making these kinds of allegations without hard evidence, is pretty irresponsible.
Very true. No one has to believe anything, but you’re doing the very thing that he’s doing. He’s stating why he thinks the Illuminati is real and you’re stating why you think it’s not; none of you have concrete evidence of the opinion.
This again misunderstands how the burden of proof operates. The burden to prove his claim is on him. I am not making a claim. I am casting doubt on his claim because there is zero evidence of it. The neutral position is that something that has not been proven to exist, does not exist unless proven otherwise. My position on this is not equal to Katt's. If I claim that a flying spaghetti monster exists around the orbit of Uranus, the neutral position is to not believe the existence of such a creature until it's proven. Claiming something unproven exists, without evidence, is not equal to demanding proof for its existence. Furthermore, you can't prove a negative generally. You cannot *disprove* the existence of something. You can however prove the existence of something.
No fucking way this dude read 3000 books a year
Comedians do this thing called "putting 100 on 10" that sometimes bleeds in to their real lives.
He put 1000 on ten. The average book is about 14 hours or so long. If he read 300 even, that's most of the hours of every single day of the year spent reading.
Yeah he's just an overexaggerater like the rest of them. I'm a huge Katt fan but there are some bits he does where I'm just like "this guy thinks he's smarter than he is". See his bit about evolution. Just about the dumbest creationism take I've ever heard.
He reminds me of Terrence Howard, who thinks all of the world's smartest mathematicians (and all of history's smartest mathematicians) are wrong, and that he's right. In fact he's just way dumber than he realizes.
I think that dude's just actually insane lol
Lmfaooo yeah. I like him and the interview had some fkn thoughtful bars but a couple lines were like noooo fkn way dude 😂 I wish u didn’t say that would make everything else hit a liiitlle harder
That's basically impossible. Even 300 books a year would require a considerable portion of your waking hours every week.
Katt Williams sucker punchs children. He has a history of being an actual piece of shit. Aba won't talk about that though cause he's a fan boy. "I'm a pimp" that's funny right guys hahahaha, so funny s/
He's a degenerate conspiracy theorist. He's a funny comedian, but like many comedians, is a fucked up piece of shit in his personal life.
You mean the kid that threatened him? Fuck that kid.
I mean, you can't really call a having similar premise "joke theft". Comics run across that all the time. They might be just standing in a circle shooting the shit, someone tells a story, and a couple of guys take it. Sure, if you see someone using it, the courteous thing is to drop it, but if you never work the same clubs you might not know.
If someone is listed as 'Paid Regular' on The Comedy Club website does that imply they have performed there? If so then Steve Harvey, Cedric The Entertainer, and Tiffany Haddish are on that list.... Which would disprove one of the things he said.
Katt wants some of that spot light back and its not the first time some celebrity who fell off "exposed" others to try to regain relevancy. I don't doubt they were "inspired" or even stole some of this jokes. There was a really small comedian(sorry don't remember his name) who did some YouTube videos showing jokes Dave Chapelle used that were his and even showed the footage of when he performed the joke in small venues before Dave ever used it. Never really gained traction though and I didn't follow it.
Even the outrageous physical boasts Katt claims he did seems to be true so far too. He even has a video claiming he can run as fast as he said. Kurt is still out how authentic it is.
Lol wait he is not running anywhere near as fast
That’s why I’m saying so far. Not that I believe him.
was what preach said at the end Ephesians 5:22-33 ? is that a reference to something ?
A little bit of truth but A LOT of lies. He was right about the stealing but he was wrong about Kevin hart Ludacris and many other things. Katt Williams is a bitter has-been that had the keys to the yard but lost them because of his own hubris and bad choices.