I dropped in on the stream without knowing much of anything about Keanu, and it was kind of mind-blowing to realize that she was an actual retard - not "lol u dumb", but legitimately mentally disabled. When was the last time you talked to someone who couldn't read or follow simple instructions? For most of us, myself included, probably never.
Maybe it's a little flustering with some overbearing guy barking at you, especially when time after time what he's fussing at you about has no real interest or import. You know he's that guy who goes into a secretary's cubicle to stand too close and loom over her from behind while snapping orders and micromanaging how she's doing what he's hurrying her through.
At the beginning I thought he was going to be very organized, and I was even patient with a meandering build-up...until it became clear that though there
was a pattern and string to what he was showing, it ran more to the autistic brand of conspiracy-style thinking - 80 minuscule things they think paints a clear picture but just don't objectively show what they think it shows. Not every page full of dots is a
Seurat.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think she knew what to do with all of the off-topic wandering or how to wring out of him why he thinks x is important and new. She seemed to want to be overly polite and accommodating and so didn't have control of the show. And unless he just sent his 50 million clips and info to her that day and didn't give her the sequence he wanted them (pro tip: if you want someone to follow & help execute your strings on the bulletin board narrative, give them a document with an outline and embedded files or links), she seemed unprepared for what was going to be in them (and so when it was nothing, didn't know what to say or how to make him tie it together for the audience).
As for him, as I said, I could see how in his mind he was building a narrative, but it came across as haphazard; instead of building a foundation and layering on top of it, it was three or so random observations that just didn't cohere very well - and what there that was "new" was so lacking in detail and vague in general that it ended up him just asserting "iceberg" 70 times. Yeah, sure, and there are probably 50,000 of the 194,000 comments here expressing similar extrapolations. And maybe also don't advertise a big reveal in 2 weeks then come on and start with, "I only researched this for a week-and-a-half." First, it means you advertised before having any reason to - or you thought you had something but spoke too soon or aren't willing to say it out loud. Second, undercutting ("I barely know anything about this") to distance yourself from what you know isn't great work is lame. Far better to say, "I thought I had something, but on reflection it's either old news, just my opinion, or the people I spoke to aren't willing or able to provide enough for me to be comfortable giving specifics or providing tangible substantiation. Sorry, folks, maybe another time."
But also, Gabe, sharpen up your presentation of evidence. If it's not bang on the money, don't bother showing it. And you don't need 4 30-120 second clips to make a single point, unless what is shown is previously unknown and very sharply showing a specific thing. Most of what was clipped/aired was just background information (here's Nick supporting a probably bad person, here's Nick being wrong, etc.).
And that last little thing was not a finale; it was a garden-variety ill-advised video by some guy having a bad time and looking rough - and for some reason sharing info about very bad things from childhood. Don't know anything about that guy except his name floating around here, but even if he's a terrible person, going "Ha-ha, you just filmed yourself admitting you got raped as a child and even as an adult can get a bad Proustian moment when you smell your rapist's cologne" is...childish at best, tacky, and possibly cruel - but also uninteresting...and off-topic. Like, no idea what thought process led to including that.
