You’re Not Edgy, You’re Just Lazy

You’re Not Edgy, You’re Just Lazy

I don’t pay taxes because I’m a REVOLUTIONARY and will TEAR THIS SYSTEM DOWN! Not because I’m, like, some lazy guy or somethin’.


See more
LIKE us on:
FOLLOW us on:
FOLLOW us on:

SIGN UP for our emails:

Rekha Shankar
Anna Rajo

Jessie Hixenbaugh
Adam Henry
Jordan Rockower
Erika Wilhelm
Christina Hourihan

Director – Michael Schaubach
Writer – Rekha Shankar
Producer – Jessie Hixenbaugh
Production Coordinator – Olivia Aguilar
Editor – Sam Geer

You may also like...

99 Responses

  1. The Noisy Egg says:

    I think college humor should slow down on these ‘relatable’ kinda videos and move back to the weird and wacky

    • The Zen One says:

      Can I sue these unfunny dumb broads.

    • F. Grillo says:

      Agreed, older CH was just more random. Nowadays it’s taking relatable events to the extreme most of the time.

    • Pro Meliora says:

      Richard Harper, I work 60 hours a week and own my home. I agree with The Noisy Egg. CH has become less socially conscious and more the old people who don’t get it. It’s cringey.

    • Aether Initiate says:

      This is the dumbest statement i have read in a while

      This makes no sense

      So olld people dont get it because they are not edgy enough

      LMAO no older people dont get it because is complete LIES>

      Anarchy is opposite to communism

      They exist on opposite sides of the scale.

      LOL this video is insanity

    • Pro Meliora says:

      Aether Initiate It has nothing to do with being edgy. This video depicts exactly the caricature older people use to mock young adults in the years when they struggle. Most people are not simply handed a success on a platter. They have to suffer for it, and suffering breeds salt. So they vent their frustrations.

      This is no different from “Millennials” being blamed for everything older people don’t like. Their favorite restaurant closed, so it must have happened because “Millennials” didn’t go spend money there. The diamond industry is struggling. It must be because “Millennials” don’t buy them. The FBI is investigating Trump. It must be because “Millennials” cried too much.

      It would be one thing if “Millennials” were only a political scapegoat, such as through the way older people blame them for the existence of transgender people. It would be one thing if it were only the typical generational friction that has helped motivate young adults in the past. But it goes beyond both of those.

      This has become older people’s way of expressing their entitlement. They believe they’re entitled to control everything. Others’ sexuality, what others eat, the music others listen to, politics, how and where others work, and so on. And this goes on with every single new thing to come into the world, at a pitch and tenor that no grumpy old people have ever matched in the past.

      It’s normal to lose touch with culture and technology with age. We get busy. Our responsibilities multiply. Our neuroplasticity dwindles. But today’s older generation seems to feel that they’re both immune to aging and entitled to immortality. They take the traditional poking fun of younger people too far, and into the realm of overt hatred.

      It isn’t funny. It’s divisive, sad, and sometimes disgusting. It’s meant to serve a demographic who can form no ideas of merit on their own, so they revert to a middle school “make fun of everything” mentality. They then must always have some group of people to target, no different from the way a preteen bully needs a victim to focus on.

      And then CH takes this caricature, fashioned as a way to stereotype everyone who sees room for improvement in today’s economy, and tries to pass it off as “comedy”. Nevermind that those who saw room for improvement in past economies were ultimately the ones who reinvigorated them. Nevermind that the angst and frustration becomes motivation that produces the best workers, entrepreneurs, and leaders, because angst and frustration only happen in people with passion who seek purpose.

      Let’s not provide constructive guidance. Let’s not address any problems in today’s society. Let’s spend our waning years leaching off the younger generation, while mocking them for it. Sure. That’s funny. That’s “comedy”. I guess. Maybe in some fat sadist’s world as they begin their elderly neurodegeneracy.

  2. Matthew Coon says:

    As an anarchist this makes me cringe

    • MC_Master says:

      As an anarchist I want to murder you in a stateless society where there are no legal repercussions for doing so, and maybe cringe afterwards

    • Matthew Coon says:

      MC_Master online hypothetical pointless murder is a very edgy and convincing way to destroy the validity of anarchism, glad you sorted me straight

    • MC_Master says:

      Matthew Coon
      So everyone in an anarchist society is a model citizen with no chance of committing a homicide? Glad your response *totally* addressed my point.

    • Ike U says:

      Matthew Coon it is though

  3. George Dennis says:

    Rekah’s shirt translates: Hot Topic
    You’re welcome.

  4. Comic Books Plus says:

    TEAR THIS SYSTEM DOWN! but like later I’m real biz right meow k

  5. Halo CE Magnum says:

    Anarcho-Communism is actually a thing.
    Just saying.

    • LWL Tom says:

      Isn’t it just being lazy?

    • Hans Kristian Frågodt says:

      Communism is anarchism, but socialism is not.

    • Ricardo Petinga says:

      Ryan Holmes Communism is as much against classism and hierarchy as anarchism is, and the end goal is a classless and non-hierarchical self-governed society. The difference is usually mostly in the means of getting there, whereas communists tend to believe a communist party in government is necessary to make that transition, anarchists claim that putting people in positions of power is always a bad idea because power corrupts and ultimately the state will fail to dismantle itself, preferring grass-roots movements and pro-revolutionary education and action. Statist communism is basically socialism, its end goal stops short from that of real communism and for socialism that government doesn’t need to be transitory, it is what they see as the fairest and most viable solution for a just society, still relying on a monetary system to some extent. To understand anarcho-communism better I recommend reading Piotr Kropotkin. And for all of you claiming all of this is a stupid idea without bothering to make your case as to why, you probably have no idea what you’re talking about and are just regurgitating the same capitalist propaganda you’ve been fed with your whole lives, or you’re disillusioned with “communism” because you live or lived in a country where there was a pseudo-communist authoritarian state/dictatorship, which is not what the ideology of communism is about. I also recommend reading some essays on the abolition of work, like the one by Bob Black, for example, and the book Work by CrimethInc. is also very good.

    • David Chaladze says:

      All I have to say, if you want to understand anarcho-communism then you’ll have to read “Bread and will” by Peter Kropotkin

    • Miguel Martínez says:

      Ryan Holmes, the abolition of the state is a prerequirement for communism, up till that point it can only be socialism, so… what are you even talking about.

  6. How the **** says:

    Yea just portray every anarchist as that😑

  7. Brandon King says:

    Anarchism IS Socialism. Its Stateless Socialism.

  8. Whitebread raps says:

    This person doesn’t exist and Political anarchism is historically socialist, I love you CH but you dropped the ball on this one .

    • Wyleberg Simpson says:

      Okay dork

    • Hans Kristian Frågodt says:

      No, communism is anarchist. Socialism is not.

    • BoRed 08 says:

      Wyleberg Simpson eww he just burn you with facts and youre response is dork. lol

    • Whitebread raps says:

      Hans Kristian Frågodt Anarcho communism is a theory yes but so is Mutualism which is Socialst by nature

    • 1217 BC says:

      I literally know this person. This bit is a freakily accurate representation of someone I know. And they absolutely conflate various, often contradictory, philosophical ideologies to support/justify whatever bs they are currently spouting. I know it’s hard to understand without witnessing it, but these people do exist.

  9. Fernweh says:

    This is so stupid. Socialism and anarchist aren’t opposed. I know this is a joke but like if you’re going to do serious political stuff maybe actually do some research first?

  10. Allie Doak says:

    Anarchism and socialism aren’t insanely different tho…

    • Allie Doak says:

      Marxian Egoist socialism doesn’t necessitate a state te majority of socialist tendencies have the goal of abolishing the state but some think a worker’s state is needed in order to transition but anarchists don’t think that.

    • fanOmry says:

      Allie Doak


      In socialism the individual is entitled to the resources of the group.
      At most extreme- communism.

      Where the group ows all, is nominally obligated to the individual.. But to do so takes control over their lives.

      anarchism- no regulation. The state is effectively irrelevant.

    • Allie Doak says:

      fanOmry in both systems collective ownership is only proposed in so much as the product of collective labour is mutually owned, collective labour is largely more efficient so it’s reasonable that if you joined and laboured together that you would get more from it. Most communists believe that in order to achieve the mutual ownership of production there is need for a transitional state, or at least hierarchy, where as anarchists believe that a revolution can transition to mutual ownership and decision making instantly. It’s like if you and your friends grew an Apple tree together, would you all be entitled to share in the apples? Would one of you own the Apple tree and give the others a couple of apples for their work? And if it’s the former could you work out a fair way of distributing the apples yourself, and for that matter would you be able to work together as equals? Or would you be best to delegate the functions of management and distribution to an authority until you could work it out amongst yourselves after you’ve spent some time growing Apple trees together? Also would you be able to effectively coordinate a defence of the Apple tree together without delegating control of the defence to an authority? And finally if you did delegate all these functions to an authority would you be able to withdraw that delegation from them peacefully once you were ready to work things out amongst yourselves and the tree was safe from thieves?

    • fanOmry says:

      Allie Doak

      You misrepresented Anarchism(at the very least anarcho-capitalism. That many consider redundant)

      My stuff is mine. My labor is mine.

      You want either, give me of yours in return.

      *If Both Of Us Consider The Trade Fair..*

      We do it.

    • Aether Initiate says:

      LOL not at all

      Means no regulations and no govt control over resources etc>

      It is the avocation of private hands ruling over the world compleltely and every man for himself.

      The problem is there is no restrictions on groups rising up to take control and insert their own dictatorship.

      That is why anarchy will never work

      This video makes no sense

      Socialism is opposite to that, it wants a strong central govt taht controls all industry and takes care of you

      LOL anarchists dont want govt to take care of them

      LMAO wow

  11. Dr. Riq says:

    I like the new girl, but this skit was too forced; a little preachy

  12. Yang Xiao Long says:

    Nobody is gonna care but…

    Anarchism and socialism are not insanely different. Anarchism is a type of socialism. The main difference between more classical socialists and Anarchists is how we achieve the goal of communism, not the goal itself. More classical marxists believe that a society will have to be taken through stages to get to communism, while anarchists typically believe we can skip straight to the end goal of communism without intermediary stages, and especially without a state to facilitate those changes (though not having a state doesn’t mean not having a government.)

    If you’re thinking anarchism is like capitlaism but with like no regulations, that’s something along the lines of America’s libertarianism. If you’re thinking it’s just like no government and nothing else changes, then that’s probably Ancaps (who aren’t real anarchists anyway, since anarchism as a school is historically socialist.)

    • Grenn Durango says:

      Yang Xiao Long Socialism and capitalism are forms of economics and social “standard” whilst anarchism is a form of government (or lack thereof). That’s why there can theoretically be an An cap (anarcho capitalist) “country” (society, state, whatever), an anarcho socialist “country” (society, state, whatever), a capitalist republic like the U.S., or Socialist Republic like China. Its apples and oranges.

    • Yang Xiao Long says:

      Anarchism’s main tenet isn’t a lack of government ( as I mentioned in my original comment) but an elimination of unjust hierarchies. This includes the state, and, for most of anarchism’s history, the basic building blocks of capitalism, such as Private Property. While it is true that there are some people that call themselves anarchist and are capitalists, they really have nothing to do with Anarchism. Unlike what you’re saying here, Anarchism has pretty much _always_ been tied to socialism. 300 years, dozens of philosophers and thinkers, and at this point around 10 or more different tendencies that are all anarchist, and all “socialist” at least for some value of the word. Anarchocapitalists on the other hand, do not share the same history, the same thinkers, the same philosophical base, we share nearly none of our political basics with them.

      That’s why I commented. Because while it’s technically true that one _can_ be anarchist and capitalist, if someone says they’re an anarchist, they almost certainly mean they’re one of the many socialist varieties. It’s like if someone said “I don’t understand, you’re saying christian AND European things. Are you a christian, or a European?”. That’s a silly thing to say, because the question asker assumes that being european and anarchist (A normal socialist anarchist) are mutually exclusive, and while it’s true that one can be christian and American, (Anarchocapitalist) for most of history, christian has meant European. It’s the birthplace of Christianity, both the head of the orthodox church and the pope are there, and Christianity is born in the roman empire, so if anything, if one hears someone is christian, they ought to assume they _Are_ European, not assume that they aren’t. (obviously this analogy breaks down a little because at the current moment, America seems much more christian than Europe. I hope that you can look past that flaw and see what I’m trying to illustrate. No analogy is perfect.)

    • Grenn Durango says:

      Yang Xiao Long Yang Xiao Long Yang Xiao Long While I agree that anarcho socialism seems to be the most symbiotic of the “couplings” of government and social structure, I see many comments on this video claiming that anarchism and socialism are synonymous (some even claimed that anarchy is communism, that socialism is communism, etc.), so i posted initial post. I never said anarchism hasn’t been tied to socialism, I wanted to make it clear that not every anarchist is a socialist, and not every socialist is an anarchist; that one relates to government and the other relates to economics and the social standard that accompanies the economic system. I know anarchy doesn’t equate to zero government; I want to clarify that my use of “government (or lack thereof)” meant more so to the removal and prevention of unjust, unnecessary, bureaucratic, etc. in an anarchist state. Also my posts are not addressed to you specifically, more so to the readersfollowers of the video. Also yes I think I understand your analogy; you mean that a modern day anarchist is almost certainly also a socialist; the same way a European would almost certainly be Christian.

    • Miles Beyond says:

      Have we met?

    • Aether Initiate says:

      NOPE –

      completely WRONG

      Anarchy is FAR right which is no govrt,.

      FAR left is more govt.

      Communism does not abolish state, it abolishes the current state and replaces it with a more authoritarian one
      They are not the same thing

      you people are insane

  13. Robert Cook says:

    Jet??? Is that you??? Helga has been looking for you…

  14. Crazelord91 says:

    Super accurate, except the politics part should have extremely left views about economic reform

    • Fredrich Engels says:

      Anarchism can be right or left, it just means opposition to government. Anarchist socialists make up a large segment of Democratic Socialists of America which is the largest org in the Bernie Sander’s coalition.

    • ethan lei says:

      Fredrich Engels again, not anti state, just anti unjustified involuntary hierarchy

    • ethan lei says:

      chickenonastick capitalism isn’t a justified hierarchy, because of its inherent exploitation, and involuntary and totalitarian hierarchy

    • ethan lei says:

      chickenonastick also yes, ancaps have the absolute stupidest ideology, besides nazbols

    • G0rilla2829 says:

      Why are people trying to put anarchy in the left or the right ?
      Anarchy isn’t just one political view, anarchy is a groupe of anti-establishement movements build around the destruction of the societal hierarchy (some dream of breaking every hierarchy in existence, but I doubt nature would let us do that).
      There are some anarchists that belive in a worldwide society without power (marxism for example), some are more about communities (these communities act like smaller societies but are not rule by common laws) and some more about individualistic need (basically everybody for themselves). There’s even anarcho-capitalism (I don’t really get that one, it just looks like ultra-liberalism).
      Anarchy is out of the left or right spectrum and it’s out of politics.

  15. Dakota Skouby says:

    “You can’t be Anarchist and Socialist” Its like they forgot about 25% of the political spectrum lol

    • MC_Master says:

      25% of the political spectrum is nonexistent? I never realized how edgy the political spectrum is

    • Dakota Skouby says:

      MC_Master authoritarian right, authoritarian left, libertarian left, libertarian right

    • MC_Master says:

      Dakota Skouby
      libertarian left? if there is no government, who’s going to enforce equality? one would think the political spectrum didn’t have the logical deduction skills of an infant.

    • Tom Ost says:

      Depends if you understand Socialism as a economic sytem in which the there is no privite ownership, then Anarcho Socialism can work, but for that we usualy use the therm Communism. If you unterstand Socialism as a system where an organisation, like a state, redistributes wealth then they can work together, as Anarchism is opposed to any such an organisation. Anarcho-Communism could, at least in theory, work. Lands and Goods could be owned by no one, all, small communes or unions.
      There are however democratic socialist, who beliefe the state sould redistirbute wealth, but still respect there citizen individuality. (Like the Nordic Contries, France, to some extend Germany and the Lowland Contries) This makes up most of the Left-Anti Authoritarian sector of the political sepectrum. While this fits the secound definition of Socialism, this is far from being Anarchist.

  16. Maverick Baking says:

    “Lazy boy pretending to be an intellectual” – everyone I met at university.

  17. Enthused Norseman says:

    I honestly thought it was Reika being a butch lesbian there.

    • Enthused Norseman says:

      I’m not saying it’s impossible she is playing a lesbian here, but
      – her character’s name is Finn (a boy’s name)
      – she’s called a “lazy boy” by the date.
      So that’s why I assumed the character is intended to be a male. Just to be clear, I AM NOT going to enter any kind of insane debate on this. If you prefer to see it as a butch lesbian, or a transperson or whatever, that’s fine, I was just making a minor personal observation.

    • Fuckn patriarchy, says:

      urgh sexsist much?

    • Amateur Menace says:

      Enthused Norseman A butch lesbian with facial hair?

    • Summer Wilkins says:

      Enthused Norseman I think you’re right personally.

    • Summer Wilkins says:

      Fuckn patriarchy, How is it sexist?

  18. Saudi gucci says:

    That is more like a feminist than edgy

  19. ElyssaAnderson says:

    “Head and Shoulders”… More like “Brain and Shackles” am I right comrades?!! Hahaha, f the police.

    *scratch scratch scratch scratch*

  20. B_D_W_S'_Animation_ says:

    “Retroactively coming up with philosophies to justification for being a real adult ”
    Pshhh sounds like the man the man just trying to keep us rebels down , know what saying?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *