Menu

Episode 28

You Made It Weird

Nate Craig

user avatar

You Made It Weird #28: Nate Craig

Pete sits down and gets real weird real fast with his longtime Chicago buddy Nate Craig, with whom (how fancy! “with whom”!) he started standup back in 2001. So they get nostalgic, crispy, weird, all of it. Plus some of the deepest and bittersweet relationship stuff we’ve had so far. Please enjoy!!

Follow @natecraig1 on Twitter!

Follow @peteholmez on Twitter and Like the show on Facebook!

Special thanks to Carvin for supplying us with the equipment we need to record this podcast! Check out Carvin.com for more information on recording equipment, guitars, amps and more!

Support the show and click on the banner to get a 15 day free trial with GameFly!

Tags , ,

43 comments

  • Pete,

    I think you need to read some definitions.

    atheism is what you think, agnosticism is about what you know.

    most atheists are agnostic atheists – meaning that they dont know if there is a god, but based on the evidence available they believe that god(s) do not exist.

    if someone claims that they are a gnostic atheists, that they know that there is no god, they are as foolish as theists who claim that there is a god.

    You sound really confused about this, if you have more questions, i’d be happy to explain.

  • Good episode. on the discussion about atheism at the end, allow me to make the following point(s).

    Theological beliefs should really be evaluated on 2 spectrums: Gnosticism and Theism. Gnosticism describes the extent to which you “know” or are sure of yourself (hence agnostic meaning “I don’t know”) while Theism describes your belief in a god.

    So, someone like Anthony Jeselnik(sp?) who is an atheist but is ok with being wrong would be more of an agnostic atheist. If someone believes in god and is absolutely sure of it would be a gnostic theist.

    Make sense?

  • … spicy. (Also, Andrew, let’s be best friends.)

    Pete, you’re doing it right. I don’t mess with Gnostics unless I want to get all Coptic on someone’s ass. Addressing interdenominational word choice, Mideast-style= not usually worth it. Unless instead of Mormons and TJ you want to see Anthro nerds fight philosophy geeks. It’s way less fun. No bear references and philosophy kids are all biters.

    Anyhowsen, Nate was so fun! This episode tugged on all my heart strings. Even the ones that find military trumpet rifts romantic.

  • (Haven’t listened to this week’s yet, will ASAP) One of the reasons I love this show so much is I feel Pete and I had similiar backgrounds, I was really religious until my 20s, even was re-baptised as an adult, but I really just don’t believe anymore. And since I live in Oklahoma I just feel like there’s not many agnostic atheists around here, and most agnostic atheists I listen to come from backgrounds nowhere near as religious as mine, so it’s refreshing to hear about religion from someone like Pete.

  • Cannot resist. Hate me if you like.

    The gender thing is really out of hand on this episode. “Sticking it in randoms”? That is a really objectifying and evil way to talk about women. It’s really not that different from what Todd Glass was talking about re: the use of “gay” and “fag” and its effects on the people who hear that kind of talk, gay and straight. You have a platform. You don’t seem to be a dick. Why are you carrying on like one and modeling this kind of nonsense for others?

    The lame-o handling of “faggoty?” Not to mention the relentless dude-ness of the whole thing, compounding the amazing run of male guests and absence of women. Coming on the heels of the weird Bill Burr misogyny stream re: prenups, the dodging of the fact that TJ Miller’s response to Dane Cook was actually about the ugliness of Cook’s sexism and hostility towards women (“chainsaw fucking”?) as much as about the “comic’s code” and bumping, the “chucklefuckers” conversation with Kumail Nanjiani, the having Emily Gordon to talk mostly about her relationship with male comics. It’s all too much.

    This is a very hard podcast for a feminist to listen to. I think that might not be a problem for many listeners/comedy fans. ,May not be a problem for Pete Holmes. But it’s something you should probably know. I know that the sexism thing is about the comedy scene and even society more generally. But we’re adults. It’s not an excuse.

    I’ll go away now.

  • Thanks everyone! And Josephus, I don’t hate what you said, thanks for taking the time to let me know how some things strike you. It must be a blind spot for me, we all have them I suppose, and I’ll try to be more sensitive to these sorts of things in the future. Thanks for listening!

  • I second Josephus T. Failure’s comment.

    “Coming on the heels of the weird Bill Burr misogyny stream re: prenups”

    I wasn’t sure what to think about that in Burr’s episode because there may be some real problems with divorce laws, however the issue for me with Burr’s rant is it feels like he *wants* to find anything that could affect men more often and rage about it and ignore any context.

    It reminds me a little of Jimmy Kimmel’s interview with Marc Maron when he explained how he started the Man Show out of frustration (I am not calling Kimmel sexist). He told Marc he was tired of auditioning to host day time shows and being told he had to be more likable to women. But traditional sexism is part of the reason women were/are daytime TVs biggest audience. If women or men are both likely to be the bread winner or housemom/dad then there would be a bigger daytime male audience as well, this problem he had is in no way the work of raging feminists and almost close to the opposite.

    There are also a lot of comedians that claim that Oprah bashes men. I would like to challenge them to find as many clips of Oprah being sexist against men as I could find of these types of comedians being sexist against women.

    (Note I’m not saying there aren’t issues that men face and that those issues aren’t important.)

  • I just want to back up Josephus, too. To be honest, I should have backed up their comment they made on the Hannibal Burress episode.

    Pete, you seem like a really lovely guy, but I’ve stopped listening mid-podcast several times because it’s been ridiculously sexist and gross.

    I’m not easily offended, but there’s only so much I can handle…it’s not enjoyable to want to yell and interject to ones ipod, especially when in public.

    All that said, this is still one of my favorite podcasts. I appreciate the interesting conversations and topics.

  • @PeteHolmes: I love this podcast series. Always hilarious. The drawn icon of “You Made It Weird” is just awesome. I do have to chastise Nate Craig for using “Faggoty” – it’s just not cool. On the other hand I kind of prefer to know those guys who’s egos are so fragile that they need to use “faggoty” in conversation. It basically tells you all you need to know about that “person”.

  • Thank you to those who have contributed your thoughts to this conversation! I am glad I am not alone. I would like to underline my gratitude to Pete and Nate for their rapid and admirable responses to these concerns. Not at all typical of the usual reaction to these concerns in the comedy world. Makes me hopeful that this is the kind of issue that can be rectified via thoughtful dialogue.

  • Damnit. I wish I had listened to this one right when it came out so I could be a part of the conversation.

    First of all, let me say this, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    I’m not usually the guy who says that, but it does basically sum up what I’m about to say, and gives any reply-er a reason to tell me I’m wrong (I like to help out).

    Would you call Showtime and ask them if they could clean up their act?

    This is Pete Holmes’ fucking podcast. I think it’s funny, and so do many other people. He isn’t obligated to censor himself in any way to meet the needs of a few potential listeners. That’s the point of the podcast! It’s him having a conversation with his buddy! He’s recording how he would talk to his friends as if they were hanging out in private – this is a good thing.

    Clearly – Pete is a good guy who has a lot of respect for women, and apparently a feminist shouldn’t be listening in on a conversation between two hamncheese fellas.

    Instead of taking the time to defend every single thing, I’ll just cut to the point.

    Change the channel.

  • Dear Trenton: Thank you for verifying that I was not wrong to couch my original comment in semi-paranoid language. This was the response I was expecting.

  • @Trenton

    “He isn’t obligated to censor himself in any way to meet the needs of a few potential listeners.”

    Yeah he isn’t obligated and he still isn’t. Some people left comments telling him what they think on the place where he accepts comments.

    Why don’t you FUCK OFF!
    (and in case you don’t get it that’s in response to your “STFU”).

  • I’m not trying to be a villian, I just needed to try and put in a counter-point to what I think is wrong. I see people guilting Pete into changing the podcast.

    @Josephus
    I get that you were offended, and that it actually took some balls (please find the humor) to say what you said, but complaining in order to try and change the product is 1.) selfish, 2.)unreasonable, 3.) unfair ro everyone else. Also, I don’t know what you were trying to say in that last comment. I guess “I was afraid someone was going to say I was wrong. I’m on the defensive now.” …idk

    @Scott
    So… you’re saying anyone can comment, fuck me for saying fuck you. Got it.

  • Trenton: I respect your passion and I think I can see where you are coming from. We probably don’t have enough common ground to productively argue about this, so we should probably agree to disagree and leave it at that. I share Scott’s take on the whole thing, and if his post didn’t prompt a change in our position, I can’t imagine I would be able to add anything that would.

    For the sake of clarification, I should say that my last comment, which you summarized as: I guess “I was afraid someone was going to say I was wrong. I’m on the defensive now” was less about content than form. I wasn’t too worried that I had mis-heard the things that bothered me, or mis-interpreted them. In any case, I don’t mind being proven wrong when I am (which is all the time). I was preparing myself, instead, for the forms in which negative comments might come packaged: hostile tirades and personal attacks. I find that sort of thing upsetting. So, that’s that.

  • Alright I’m done.

    One last thing:

    Yes, you’re allowed to comment. But c’mon. You know what you’re doing. You’re saying “I’m offended” to someone who will read it, and who is already hyper-sensitive about pleasing his fans and people in general. You’re trying to affect the content to better suite you. Suggesting it or complaining about it is no different. Why did you post here instead of simply not listening anymore? You want to listen, but you don’t want the bad parts in the mix. This is impossible (that is if you care about the integrity of the show).

    P.S. “Chucklefuckers”, “…randoms” are used because referring to someone as that is ridiculous, therefore it’s kinda making fun of itself, not actual people.

    P.P.S. The use of Faggoty is funny… similarly… because it’s not something that would or should be said. Sure, even though it’s completely non-mean-spirited, it’s a loaded word. But! …this is an awful arguement… lot’s or regular guys use that joke in the exact same way in conversations. This is raw Pete. It’s not a scripted comedy hour.

    P.P.J.C.P.S It’s unfair how Pete and Nate are not allowed to defend themselves (it would only make things worse). Don’t argue this. They would be eaten alive if they tried to defend themsekves on this topic. This will make me sound like a complete tool, but I’m just trying to give a voice to those who can’t speak. It’s hard to argue Sympathy with Culture.

  • Love the show pete! Also I would comment on this whole thing but I have a paper to write for college so just keep it up! Come to Columbus sometime and I promise I won’t ask you to hangout out afterwards.

  • Josephus’s last comment was saying s/he had been afraid of someone responding aggressively like a douche, not that s/he was afraid of someone simply disagreeing.

    It is always selfish to complain about sexism/homophobia, it is never selfish to want things to stay sexist like you like it. I also have racist cartoons that are brimming with integrity, so yes I like integrity.

    Look YMIW is much less sexist than many of the podcasts I listen to, however I commend Pete for being a thoughtful guy who is willing to reconsider things.

    I partly agree with some of your pts comedically (what is the actual point of the joke) but that is a very different argument than ‘feminists GTFO’/stop listening.

    And again Pete has the right to say whatever. And they absolutely can defend themselves, don’t know what comedy you’re listening to where nobody is defending shit comedians say. Huge comedians defended Tracey Morgan for joking about wanting to stab his faggoty son.

  • K, this is definitely the last one.

    I agree with the selfish part. It’s important to stand up against things like that; to insist your way is right. But I start to disagree when the thing you’re trying to change is completely avoidable. You can complain about it if the people at the table next to you are being offensive, but when it comes to choosing media… it’s not “Feminists GTFO”, it’s “if you don’t like it, GTFO.”

    Oh, and I’m not like a sexist homophobic asshole. I wouldn’t miss the missing content. But self-censorship is the death of art. Yes, YMIW is art.

    I’m not too familiar with the Tracy Morgan thing, but um… I bet if Tracy said he did nothing wrong, he was hated more than if he was apologetic. I personally think the morals of that one are a bit over the line even for comedy, but apparently several huge comedians think it was okay. My point is: the other comedians were defending him because it would be a losing battle if he tried to defend himself. When a public figure gets in trouble, they nearly HAVE to apologize even if they don’t think they were wrong. Savin’ face. Isn’t that the exact same situation as this whole thing?

  • I just want to say that “sticking it in randoms” was funny to me. I get everyone’s sensitivity to comments like this, but whenever I listen to a program by people I respect, it’s a given that one is not an obnoxious misogynist pig. We’re all adults here.

  • I am going to second Alicia.
    Basically :
    Someone you know not to be racist makes racist joke = funny
    Someone with a swastika tattooed on their head makes the same joke = fucked up

    It’s all about the person saying the words and the intent behind them. To me at least. I can understand to an extent where Josephus is coming from though.

  • We are all adults here, adults who don’t care about certain groups of adults (women, homosexuals). I am just joking!

    I do think Pete cares about being sensitive. I think he is not a misogynist. But I think even good people can have certain areas that they can choose to improve on.

    Abbey, about your knowing if the joke maker is racist (or sexist) I think Bill Burr might have misogynistic feelings. In several times I’ve heard him speak it feels like he has a particular anger towards women. Yes I can’t know what he really feels inside but I don’t know if I could use your system with him because he is in a bit of a gray area for me.

  • Love the people that say athiests are full of shit. YOU BELIEVERS MADE UP AND SCULPTED THE QUESTION! Maybe your question is complete nonsense. Maybe there is no answer because your question is absolutely completely irrelevant. You people can be so self assured of your bullshit that it is mind boggling. These are your questions, not always pertinent to other people. Learn to deal with that fact. (And I don’t mean you Pete, I think you are a complete sweethear. Some of your commenters need to gain perspective though.) It isn’t that serious. Not everyone is dealing with your made up conundrum. R kelly real talk!

  • I have no idea what Jon is saying but his comment reminded me about the religion part of the podcast.

    Can you name any famous atheists that have said they know 100% or for a fact there is no god? You even quoted Bill Maher as saying, “you don’t know because I don’t know”. And Dawkins says he is “almost certain”.

    “Atheism is just another religion” is becoming a common but flawed talking point.

  • @trenton — you need to relax. Nothing that has been said on this podcast has been close to a Tracy Morgan style rant.

    And no one has requested that anyone censor themselves…just only that they should be aware of what they’re saying. If you don’t realize the difference, well, that’s a bummer for you.

    These comments got weird.

    This is officially a good podcast.

  • This is a comedy podcast. They’re joking. All this “misogyny” you people are claiming is bullshit. They don’t hate women. They’re just jokingly saying these things. I feel like you would get mad at a comedy set. IT’S A FUCKING COMEDY SHOW! If you don’t like it don’t listen. Women will always feel objectified no matter what because that’s how retarded our society/media is when they portray everything. Also, Bill Burr’s rant was spot fucking on.

  • I didn’t say Burr was wrong (I think there are problems with divorce law). But I think he is oversimplifying the issue a lot.

    Obviously I don’t know his friend but he said his friend started his business by going out at nights. Let’s take a hypothetical of a single dad who works during the day but can’t afford a full time nanny so he takes care of his young kids in the evenings/nights/takes them to school mornings. He doesn’t have time,savings,energy to start that business. Now “just a baby-sitter” as Burr called it is the difference between starting his successful business or waiting for the opportunity (while life gets in the way). Burr’s friend’s wife might have put very real sweat equity in towards that business.

    I’m not saying every marriage is an equal partnership and you will make the predictable joke “now let’s say he’s a unicorn”. But there are issues about marriage that are less simple than Burr makes them.

  • I wanted to add that (what I see as) his oversimplifying and anger seems directed against women in my opinion. He has every right to have any opinions he wants I am just commenting on how it seems to me.

  • It’s an interesting debate. I think Pete is just about the last guy who will ever say ignorant things with malice. I don’t think there is any harmful intent behind anything he says. If a listener takes offense, that is on the listener. He’s not attempting to offend or insult.

    Calling women “randoms” or “chucklefuckers” is satirical. He’s talking about the prevailing attitude amongst stereotypical guys who have the sort of sexual relationships that he is incapable of having. That is a reality, but he’s not condoning it.

    I’m female. I have a post-graduate education and I am not a doormat by any means. I don’t have a problem with Pete as that goes. I’m not even freaked out by Bill Burr, despite how much he wants people to be angry about what he says. If you don’t like Burr’s stance on women, don’t fuck, date, or marry him. He has no power over us.

    If we force Pete to edit himself as he speaks, he’s going to lose some of the immediacy of his wit. Leave it alone, let him be funny. This is comedy, not public policy. Pete is not a role model on a children’s show. It’s an adult comedy podcast.

    I love you, Petey. Keep at it.