I admire your intent, but you've picked the wrong target for this kind of critique.
Nat seems to be achieving the opposite of what you say you're concerned about.
The point of these videos is to educate people how easy and affordable it is to eat fresh, nutritious and tasty food at home.
He's attracted millions of views before any mainstream media outlets have given him any attention, and he's done it by being quirkily entertaining, as well good natured and encouraging to his viewers (exemplified by lines like “Just have a go, you’re more talented than you realise”).
The only thing he's swearily abusive towards is lowest-common-denominator, anti-nutritious, big-corporate-commoditized food.
Earlier videos that have attracted a lot of views involve highlighting the absurdity of conspicuous largesse (luxury boat shows) and masculine hooliganism (e.g., burnouts in cars).
These seem like the very things that would be most associated with the style of politics you're most concerned about.
Yep he has tattoos and swears, but from what I can see he's only trying to raise society's standards, not lower them.
Sometimes it takes a trojan horse to get the payload to its target.
Fair enough. I watched a few of his videos and was immediately put off by the constant unnecessary ‘fucks’ every few sentences. It doesn’t seem like he is dramatically more popular than a whole host of other cooking channels which manage to be both insightful, entertaining and not vulgar. So, I don’t see why The Guardian needs to pick this channel when plenty of others exist.
I also don’t really appreciate the ‘pearl-clutching’ bit. Not wanting to hear swear words constantly doesn’t make me some ancient conservative who wants kids off my lawn.
> So, I don’t see why The Guardian needs to pick this channel when plenty of others exist.
It's because he's reaching an audience that normally wouldn't seek content about healthy home cooking. He also has an interesting personal backstory.
I've edited my comment to take out the personal jibe, but I would encourage you to think about the impression your comments give if you don't want to be seen that way.
Content doesn't always have to be pleasing to us personally for us to be able to peel back a layer and understand its place in the world.
Nat seems to be achieving the opposite of what you say you're concerned about.
The point of these videos is to educate people how easy and affordable it is to eat fresh, nutritious and tasty food at home.
He's attracted millions of views before any mainstream media outlets have given him any attention, and he's done it by being quirkily entertaining, as well good natured and encouraging to his viewers (exemplified by lines like “Just have a go, you’re more talented than you realise”).
The only thing he's swearily abusive towards is lowest-common-denominator, anti-nutritious, big-corporate-commoditized food.
Earlier videos that have attracted a lot of views involve highlighting the absurdity of conspicuous largesse (luxury boat shows) and masculine hooliganism (e.g., burnouts in cars).
These seem like the very things that would be most associated with the style of politics you're most concerned about.
Yep he has tattoos and swears, but from what I can see he's only trying to raise society's standards, not lower them.
Sometimes it takes a trojan horse to get the payload to its target.