WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.620 I want you to think about the last time you were 00:00:02.620 --> 00:00:05.440 texting someone. and words just completely failed 00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:08.099 you. Oh, yeah. Happens all the time. Right. Maybe 00:00:08.099 --> 00:00:10.640 a friend sent you a screenshot of some ridiculous 00:00:10.640 --> 00:00:13.279 text they got, or, you know, someone dropped 00:00:13.279 --> 00:00:16.920 a piece of gossip so completely absurd that typing 00:00:16.920 --> 00:00:20.019 out a basic, wow, that's crazy, just didn't cut 00:00:20.019 --> 00:00:22.219 it. Yeah, you need something stronger. Exactly. 00:00:22.600 --> 00:00:25.679 What did you do? You probably opened your keyboard's 00:00:25.679 --> 00:00:29.100 image search, typed in a specific feeling, and 00:00:29.100 --> 00:00:32.500 hit send on a looping two -second video clip. 00:00:32.789 --> 00:00:36.049 reaction gift. The universal language. It really 00:00:36.049 --> 00:00:38.829 is. And today we're doing a deep dive into one 00:00:38.829 --> 00:00:41.310 of the most defining pieces of visual shorthand 00:00:41.310 --> 00:00:44.329 in internet history. We are tracing the lineage 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:47.390 of four very simple words delivered with a polite 00:00:47.390 --> 00:00:50.130 smile and a tiny head shake. I don't know her. 00:00:50.280 --> 00:00:53.140 It is an absolute master class in narrative control. 00:00:53.320 --> 00:00:55.140 I'm so glad we're getting into this today. Me 00:00:55.140 --> 00:00:57.140 too. Because if you could see my space right 00:00:57.140 --> 00:00:59.340 now, I've actually adjusted my backdrop just 00:00:59.340 --> 00:01:01.479 for this conversation. I want you to imagine 00:01:01.479 --> 00:01:04.140 this massive, sprawling digital art gallery. 00:01:04.560 --> 00:01:07.680 But instead of Rembrandt's or Monet, you have 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:10.620 classic internet reaction GIFs hanging in these 00:01:10.620 --> 00:01:13.659 ornate gilded frames. I love that visual. And 00:01:13.659 --> 00:01:15.659 right there in the center, illuminated by this 00:01:15.659 --> 00:01:19.019 traumatic spotlight, is that iconic 2003 clip 00:01:19.019 --> 00:01:22.450 of Mariah Carey. Our goal for this deep dive 00:01:22.450 --> 00:01:25.450 is to take a stack of sources, including this 00:01:25.450 --> 00:01:27.890 incredibly comprehensive Wikipedia breakdown 00:01:27.890 --> 00:01:30.209 of the entire phenomenon, and really look under 00:01:30.209 --> 00:01:32.530 the hood. Yeah, we're getting way past the surface 00:01:32.530 --> 00:01:35.310 level celebrity gossip here. Exactly. We want 00:01:35.310 --> 00:01:37.870 to analyze the evolution of meme culture, the 00:01:37.870 --> 00:01:40.290 complex linguistics of what we call celebrity 00:01:40.290 --> 00:01:43.730 shade, and And this is the crazy part, how a 00:01:43.730 --> 00:01:46.829 pop star's offhand remark became a recognized, 00:01:47.230 --> 00:01:49.230 heavily utilized political defense strategy. 00:01:49.390 --> 00:01:51.689 Which is just wild to think about, because it's 00:01:51.689 --> 00:01:53.849 so easy to look at a meme and think, oh, that's 00:01:53.849 --> 00:01:55.629 just a funny little pop culture history moment. 00:01:56.010 --> 00:01:58.209 But when you actually unpack it, it's a brilliant 00:01:58.209 --> 00:02:00.170 case study in public relations. Truly brilliant. 00:02:00.349 --> 00:02:02.890 But to really get a grip on why those forwards 00:02:02.890 --> 00:02:05.370 landed with such tectonic impact, we need to 00:02:05.370 --> 00:02:07.670 set the stage first. We're going back to the 00:02:07.670 --> 00:02:10.469 late 1990s and the early 2000s. The golden age 00:02:10.469 --> 00:02:12.770 of the tabloids. Oh, absolutely. And for you 00:02:12.770 --> 00:02:14.490 listening, you probably already know the vibe 00:02:14.490 --> 00:02:17.789 of this era. The tabloids held a total monopoly 00:02:17.789 --> 00:02:20.550 on the cultural narrative. If a magazine or a 00:02:20.550 --> 00:02:22.969 music channel decided two successful women were 00:02:22.969 --> 00:02:25.990 enemies, well, that was reality. It was treated 00:02:25.990 --> 00:02:28.240 as gospel. Right. They spent the better part 00:02:28.240 --> 00:02:30.659 of the 90s pushing this narrative of a bitter 00:02:30.659 --> 00:02:33.020 rivalry between Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston, 00:02:33.219 --> 00:02:36.259 which, as we know, culminated in them brilliantly 00:02:36.259 --> 00:02:38.680 mocking the rumors by wearing the exact same 00:02:38.680 --> 00:02:41.960 dress to the MTV Video Music Awards in 1998. 00:02:42.099 --> 00:02:45.039 Such a great moment. Iconic. But the media machine, 00:02:45.039 --> 00:02:47.039 you know, it always needs a new conflict. When 00:02:47.039 --> 00:02:49.319 the Houston narrative fizzled out, the crosshair 00:02:49.319 --> 00:02:52.080 shifted. The press began brewing a brand new 00:02:52.080 --> 00:02:54.560 rivalry between Carey and Jennifer Lopez. And 00:02:54.560 --> 00:02:56.520 that's where the context becomes so crucial. 00:02:56.590 --> 00:02:59.590 because the media didn't just pull this specific 00:02:59.590 --> 00:03:02.669 pairing out of thin air. There was a very real, 00:03:03.090 --> 00:03:05.569 highly combustible corporate dynamic at play 00:03:05.569 --> 00:03:08.430 behind the scenes. The Tommy Metolla factor. 00:03:08.669 --> 00:03:10.930 Yes, the Tommy Metolla factor looming over all 00:03:10.930 --> 00:03:14.909 of this. In 1998, Lopez began a working relationship 00:03:14.909 --> 00:03:16.789 with Metolla, who was steering Sony Music at 00:03:16.789 --> 00:03:19.409 the time. Carrie, having recently emancipated 00:03:19.409 --> 00:03:21.250 herself both personally and professionally from 00:03:21.250 --> 00:03:24.310 Metolla, was navigating her exit from that exact 00:03:24.310 --> 00:03:26.830 same label infrastructure. Which is incredibly 00:03:26.830 --> 00:03:29.349 messy. Extremely. You really don't need a degree 00:03:29.349 --> 00:03:31.449 in psychology to see the tension there. You have 00:03:31.449 --> 00:03:33.629 an established megastar who just fought a highly 00:03:33.629 --> 00:03:35.849 publicized battle to control her own career, 00:03:36.449 --> 00:03:39.789 watching her immensely powerful ex -husband heavily 00:03:39.789 --> 00:03:42.349 invest the resources of her former label into 00:03:42.349 --> 00:03:45.659 a rising star. Yeah. It is a textbook recipe 00:03:45.659 --> 00:03:48.680 for intense behind the scenes friction. It's 00:03:48.680 --> 00:03:50.699 the kind of industry friction that usually stays 00:03:50.699 --> 00:03:53.259 hidden, right? Like in boardroom whispers or 00:03:53.259 --> 00:03:55.400 vague unnamed sources in Billboard magazine. 00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:58.360 But it didn't stay behind the scenes. It exploded 00:03:58.360 --> 00:04:02.180 into full public view in 2001. The sampling controversy. 00:04:02.580 --> 00:04:05.939 Yes, the legendary lover boy versus I'm real 00:04:05.939 --> 00:04:08.599 drama. This is the match that lit the powder 00:04:08.599 --> 00:04:12.020 keg. Let's unpack this. Carrie was deep into 00:04:12.020 --> 00:04:14.159 producing the soundtrack for her film Glitter, 00:04:14.520 --> 00:04:17.180 and she had built the lead single Lover Boy around 00:04:17.180 --> 00:04:19.920 a very specific, recognizable sample. It was 00:04:19.920 --> 00:04:22.879 the melody from a 1978 track called Firecracker 00:04:22.879 --> 00:04:25.980 by the Japanese electronic music pioneer's Yellow 00:04:25.980 --> 00:04:28.740 Magic Orchestra. Which was a deep cut. It was, 00:04:28.939 --> 00:04:31.480 and finding and clearing a sample like that is 00:04:31.480 --> 00:04:33.800 a massive part of the creative process. It takes 00:04:33.800 --> 00:04:36.720 time. But according to Carrie's camp, word of 00:04:36.720 --> 00:04:38.759 the specific Firecracker sample made its way 00:04:38.759 --> 00:04:40.819 through the industry grapevine to the executors 00:04:40.819 --> 00:04:43.939 at Sony Music. And suddenly, almost miraculously, 00:04:44.439 --> 00:04:46.720 that exact same Yellow Magic Orchestra sample 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:49.459 ends up forming the backbone of Jennifer Lopez's 00:04:49.459 --> 00:04:52.939 track, I'm Real. Which is an incredibly specific 00:04:52.939 --> 00:04:54.759 sonic overlap. I mean, in the music industry, 00:04:54.899 --> 00:04:57.000 especially during the heavy sample -driven eras 00:04:57.000 --> 00:04:59.500 of hip -hop and R &B in the late 90s and early 00:04:59.500 --> 00:05:02.360 2000s, who gets to the pressing plant first is 00:05:02.360 --> 00:05:04.699 absolutely everything. Oh, 100%. Because Sony 00:05:04.699 --> 00:05:07.779 pushed I'm Real out to radio and retail before 00:05:07.779 --> 00:05:10.379 the Glitter soundtrack was released, Carrie was 00:05:10.379 --> 00:05:12.980 completely boxed out. The general public would 00:05:12.980 --> 00:05:15.899 hear her song and just assume she copied Lopez, 00:05:16.240 --> 00:05:18.360 not the other way around. It's devastating for 00:05:18.360 --> 00:05:21.740 a producer. It is. Carrie was forced to completely 00:05:21.740 --> 00:05:24.079 re -engineer the sonic foundation of Lover Boy 00:05:24.079 --> 00:05:26.639 at the eleventh hour. She eventually swapped 00:05:26.639 --> 00:05:29.279 out the Yellow Magic Orchestra track for a sample 00:05:29.279 --> 00:05:33.040 of the 1986 song Candy by Cameo. Which is still 00:05:33.040 --> 00:05:34.879 a great song, but it wasn't her original vision. 00:05:35.160 --> 00:05:37.600 Exactly. Sony, of course, officially denied that 00:05:37.600 --> 00:05:39.860 there was any corporate espionage or stolen sample 00:05:39.860 --> 00:05:42.560 ideas. But think about the position that puts 00:05:42.560 --> 00:05:45.639 Carrie in. She really prides herself on being 00:05:45.639 --> 00:05:48.259 an auteur. She's a writer and producer deeply 00:05:48.259 --> 00:05:50.160 involved in the architecture of her music. Yeah, 00:05:50.220 --> 00:05:52.819 she's not just a voice. Right. To feel that your 00:05:52.819 --> 00:05:55.100 creative blueprint was intercepted by your former 00:05:55.100 --> 00:05:57.500 label and handed directly to the artist they 00:05:57.500 --> 00:05:59.439 are actively positioning as your replacement? 00:05:59.959 --> 00:06:01.720 I mean, the frustration must have been utterly 00:06:01.720 --> 00:06:04.740 toxic. Oh, absolutely toxic. But let me ask you 00:06:04.740 --> 00:06:06.839 this, because looking back, it feels like Carrie 00:06:06.839 --> 00:06:09.060 didn't just immediately go for the silent treatment, 00:06:09.199 --> 00:06:12.040 right? Like, there were some pretty sharp verbal 00:06:12.040 --> 00:06:14.959 jabs happening in the press before 2003. She 00:06:14.959 --> 00:06:17.680 definitely didn't start with silence. And the 00:06:17.680 --> 00:06:19.939 evolution of her response is actually what makes 00:06:19.939 --> 00:06:23.300 the final means so fascinating. Let's look at 00:06:23.300 --> 00:06:25.699 2001. There was an interview with journalist 00:06:25.699 --> 00:06:28.620 Vanessa Gregoriadis. Right. The conversation 00:06:28.620 --> 00:06:31.240 turned to Lopez, and Gregoriadis mentioned that 00:06:31.240 --> 00:06:33.259 Lopez had recently claimed she was able to get 00:06:33.259 --> 00:06:36.459 a solid eight hours of sleep every night. Carrie 00:06:36.459 --> 00:06:39.000 didn't miss a single beat. Her response was, 00:06:39.500 --> 00:06:41.339 if I had the luxury of not actually having to 00:06:41.339 --> 00:06:44.500 sing my own songs, I'd do that too. Oh man, that 00:06:44.500 --> 00:06:46.920 is just scorching. Completely lethal. She isn't 00:06:46.920 --> 00:06:49.819 just calling her a rival. She is directly attacking 00:06:49.819 --> 00:06:52.259 the foundation of Lopez's artistic legitimacy. 00:06:52.540 --> 00:06:54.319 If I had the luxury of not actually having to 00:06:54.319 --> 00:06:57.180 sing my own songs, it's such a targeted strike 00:06:57.180 --> 00:06:59.319 at the rumors surrounding Lopez's vocal tracks 00:06:59.319 --> 00:07:00.879 at the time. Yeah, she knew exactly what she 00:07:00.879 --> 00:07:04.139 was saying. And Carrie kept hammering that specific 00:07:04.139 --> 00:07:06.920 wedge, the idea of artistic legitimacy, into 00:07:06.920 --> 00:07:10.399 the public discourse. In 2002, she went on Larry 00:07:10.399 --> 00:07:14.399 King Live. And Larry King, he was a master at 00:07:14.399 --> 00:07:16.959 politely prodding until a celebrity gave him 00:07:16.959 --> 00:07:19.279 a headline. He really was. He pressed her on 00:07:19.279 --> 00:07:22.040 the rumors of a rivalry. And Carrie gave this 00:07:22.040 --> 00:07:24.319 incredibly revealing answer. She said, there 00:07:24.319 --> 00:07:26.019 are rivalries, but I don't think she has anything 00:07:26.019 --> 00:07:28.959 to do with me. I mean, my whole thing is singing, 00:07:29.279 --> 00:07:31.420 writing songs. It's a go - God -given talent 00:07:31.420 --> 00:07:33.860 I'm grateful for. Her thing is something different. 00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:36.959 It's a brilliant pivot. She is actively constructing 00:07:36.959 --> 00:07:39.399 a walled garden around her own identity. Right. 00:07:39.620 --> 00:07:42.000 By emphasizing the writing and the vocal talent, 00:07:42.360 --> 00:07:45.459 she is framing herself as a musician in the classical 00:07:45.459 --> 00:07:48.839 sense. And by saying her thing is something different, 00:07:49.139 --> 00:07:51.600 she isn't explicitly calling Lopez untalented. 00:07:51.680 --> 00:07:54.139 That would be too easily criticized as just being 00:07:54.139 --> 00:07:56.379 catty. She's just categorizing her differently. 00:07:56.860 --> 00:07:59.220 Categorically separating them. She's essentially 00:07:59.220 --> 00:08:01.560 saying you can't compare a novelist to an actor. 00:08:01.920 --> 00:08:05.300 She is setting the stage to make Lopez professionally 00:08:05.300 --> 00:08:08.819 irrelevant to her own artistic existence. It's 00:08:08.819 --> 00:08:10.420 the intellectual groundwork for what happens 00:08:10.420 --> 00:08:12.980 a year later. Which brings us to the inciting 00:08:12.980 --> 00:08:15.980 incident, the actual genesis of the meme itself. 00:08:16.139 --> 00:08:20.129 Here we go. We are in 2003. Carrie is overseas 00:08:20.129 --> 00:08:23.230 on an international press junket promoting her 00:08:23.230 --> 00:08:26.470 tarm bracelet album. She sits down for an interview 00:08:26.470 --> 00:08:28.829 on a German television lifestyle program called 00:08:28.829 --> 00:08:31.990 TAF. It's a very standard, brightly lit, promotional 00:08:31.990 --> 00:08:34.830 interview. Very typical press junket stuff. Exactly. 00:08:35.350 --> 00:08:37.090 The interviewer is running through a list of 00:08:37.090 --> 00:08:38.950 contemporary female artists looking for quick 00:08:38.950 --> 00:08:41.250 sound bites. First the interviewer brings up 00:08:41.250 --> 00:08:44.379 Beyonce. And Carrie is effusive. She lights up, 00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:46.299 her body language opens up, and she talks about 00:08:46.299 --> 00:08:48.039 how much she loves her, how great of a writer 00:08:48.039 --> 00:08:50.340 she is, how she respects her as an artist. It's 00:08:50.340 --> 00:08:52.399 the gold standard of industry professionalism. 00:08:52.779 --> 00:08:55.820 Perfect PR answer. But then the interviewer pivots 00:08:55.820 --> 00:08:58.539 and asks her opinion on Jennifer Lopez. And the 00:08:58.539 --> 00:09:01.440 shift is just, it really belongs in the museum. 00:09:01.500 --> 00:09:03.639 It really does. She doesn't roll her eyes. She 00:09:03.639 --> 00:09:06.539 doesn't scoff. She just maintains this incredibly 00:09:06.539 --> 00:09:10.299 polite, almost frozen smile. She gives the tiniest 00:09:10.299 --> 00:09:13.570 shick of her head and delivers the line, I don't 00:09:13.570 --> 00:09:17.090 know her, and then silence. She just lets the 00:09:17.090 --> 00:09:19.470 silence hang there. The micro -expressions in 00:09:19.470 --> 00:09:22.809 that specific clip are what elevate it from a 00:09:22.809 --> 00:09:25.730 standard celebrity sound bite to a piece of cultural 00:09:25.730 --> 00:09:28.529 shorthand. But you know what I find truly incredible? 00:09:28.769 --> 00:09:31.990 What's that? The timeline of its virality. If 00:09:31.990 --> 00:09:33.970 a pop star did that today, the clip would be 00:09:33.970 --> 00:09:36.549 on Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram within 30 seconds. 00:09:36.590 --> 00:09:38.909 There would be three -hour video essays analyzing 00:09:38.909 --> 00:09:42.129 it by dinnertime. Oh, 100%. But in 2003, the 00:09:42.129 --> 00:09:44.149 infrastructure for virality just didn't exist. 00:09:44.470 --> 00:09:46.509 There was no social media ecosystem to catch 00:09:46.509 --> 00:09:49.129 that moment and amplify it. That German television 00:09:49.129 --> 00:09:51.610 interview essentially aired, faded into the ether, 00:09:51.929 --> 00:09:54.470 and sat undisturbed and evolved for half a decade. 00:09:54.610 --> 00:09:57.049 It's almost incomprehensible today. An 11 -year 00:09:57.049 --> 00:09:59.370 incubation period. I want you to really think 00:09:59.370 --> 00:10:01.429 about how rare that is. From the moment the words 00:10:01.429 --> 00:10:03.690 left her mouth in 2003 to the moment it became 00:10:03.690 --> 00:10:06.909 the apex internet reaction gif around 2014, an 00:10:06.909 --> 00:10:09.190 entire generation grew up. It's like a vintage 00:10:09.190 --> 00:10:11.850 wine of the internet. Exactly. It had to age 00:10:11.850 --> 00:10:13.990 in the digital cellar until the technology and 00:10:13.990 --> 00:10:16.570 the culture caught up to the shade. The sources 00:10:16.570 --> 00:10:18.529 show that the clip was finally unearthed and 00:10:18.529 --> 00:10:21.750 uploaded to YouTube in 2008. But even then, it 00:10:21.750 --> 00:10:24.029 wasn't an overnight global sensation. Right, 00:10:24.090 --> 00:10:26.730 because in 2008, YouTube was still a relatively 00:10:26.730 --> 00:10:29.990 young platform. It was the era of grainy uploads 00:10:29.990 --> 00:10:33.870 and 240p resolution. The clip began its second 00:10:33.870 --> 00:10:37.389 life not on mainstream platforms, but deep within 00:10:37.389 --> 00:10:39.950 niche pop culture and music forums. Places like 00:10:39.950 --> 00:10:43.360 ATRL. Exactly. places like ATRL or, oh, no, they 00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:46.299 didn't on LiveJournal. These communities develop 00:10:46.299 --> 00:10:49.639 their own internal dialects. And this specific, 00:10:49.840 --> 00:10:52.100 highly compressed gif of Carrie shaking your 00:10:52.100 --> 00:10:54.860 head became a local currency for expressing mild 00:10:54.860 --> 00:10:57.279 dismissal. Yeah. If someone posted a controversial 00:10:57.279 --> 00:10:59.139 opinion or brought up a topic that the community 00:10:59.139 --> 00:11:01.019 deemed irrelevant, you didn't argue with them. 00:11:01.059 --> 00:11:03.080 You just dropped the I don't know or Jeff. And 00:11:03.080 --> 00:11:06.259 as the internet evolved, the meme migrated. By 00:11:06.259 --> 00:11:08.600 the early 2010s, it moved from the message boards 00:11:08.600 --> 00:11:11.879 over to Tumblr, which was a highly visual, GIF 00:11:11.879 --> 00:11:14.899 -heavy ecosystem. From Tumblr, it bled over to 00:11:14.899 --> 00:11:18.379 Twitter. And by 2014, it hit critical mass. It 00:11:18.379 --> 00:11:21.600 was everywhere. Everywhere. And it had completely 00:11:21.600 --> 00:11:24.779 shed its original context. Millions of people 00:11:24.779 --> 00:11:27.539 were using the GIF, who had absolutely no idea 00:11:27.539 --> 00:11:29.940 it was originally about Jennifer Lopez, Tommy 00:11:29.940 --> 00:11:32.580 Mottola, or a Yellow Magic Orchestra sample. 00:11:32.840 --> 00:11:36.100 It just became the universal digital shorthand 00:11:36.100 --> 00:11:39.759 for unbothered dismissal. By 2018, it was officially 00:11:39.759 --> 00:11:42.000 recognized by Internet historians as one of the 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:44.759 most popular viral memes of all time. And the 00:11:44.759 --> 00:11:47.360 reason it transcended its origins is due to the 00:11:47.360 --> 00:11:50.519 brilliant ambiguity of the phrase itself. I don't 00:11:50.519 --> 00:11:53.419 know her, functions as a blank slate. In the 00:11:53.419 --> 00:11:55.700 context of the hyper -connected, often exhausting 00:11:55.700 --> 00:11:59.000 environment of Web 2 .0, people desperately needed 00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:00.899 a tool to set boundaries. That makes a lot of 00:12:00.899 --> 00:12:03.220 sense. The phrase evolved from meaning, I have 00:12:03.220 --> 00:12:05.639 literally never met this individual, to meaning, 00:12:05.820 --> 00:12:08.600 this person, this concept, or this drama is so 00:12:08.600 --> 00:12:10.620 completely beneath my notice that I actively 00:12:10.620 --> 00:12:12.940 refuse to acknowledge its existence in my reality. 00:12:13.059 --> 00:12:15.360 It is the ultimate digital stiff arm. Precisely. 00:12:15.419 --> 00:12:17.559 You don't have to debate the troll in your mentions. 00:12:17.620 --> 00:12:20.419 You just deploy the GIF. it shuts down the interaction 00:12:20.419 --> 00:12:22.399 without requiring any emotional investment on 00:12:22.399 --> 00:12:24.320 your part. But wait, this is where I have to 00:12:24.320 --> 00:12:27.539 ask a question. Because usually, when a celebrity 00:12:27.539 --> 00:12:29.960 says something that gets turned into a massive 00:12:29.960 --> 00:12:32.440 meme, especially something that could be construed 00:12:32.440 --> 00:12:36.220 as petty or mean, their publicists go into absolute 00:12:36.220 --> 00:12:38.679 crisis mode. Oh yeah, the notes app apology. 00:12:38.740 --> 00:12:41.159 Yes. They issue the notes app apology, they claim 00:12:41.159 --> 00:12:42.860 they were taken out of context, and they try 00:12:42.860 --> 00:12:45.980 to bury the moment. But Carrie did the exact 00:12:45.980 --> 00:12:48.559 opposite. Here's where it gets really interesting. 00:12:48.879 --> 00:12:52.740 She institutionalized it. She made a two -decade 00:12:52.740 --> 00:12:55.340 commitment to the bit. But didn't she run the 00:12:55.340 --> 00:12:57.399 risk of just looking incredibly petty, like she 00:12:57.399 --> 00:13:00.039 was playing a 20 -year game of I'm ignoring you? 00:13:00.460 --> 00:13:03.080 How does she avoid falling into that trap? It's 00:13:03.080 --> 00:13:05.139 a fantastic question, and it definitely skirts 00:13:05.139 --> 00:13:08.120 the edge of petty. But here is why it crosses 00:13:08.120 --> 00:13:11.419 over into PR Genius. It's about consistency and 00:13:11.419 --> 00:13:13.850 tone. She never raised her voice. She never seemed 00:13:13.850 --> 00:13:16.129 angry when she repeated it. She treated it as 00:13:16.129 --> 00:13:19.250 an absolute boring matter of fact. And our sources 00:13:19.250 --> 00:13:22.309 track a timeline of her doubling down that is 00:13:22.309 --> 00:13:25.210 frankly staggering in its discipline. Let's look 00:13:25.210 --> 00:13:28.809 at the record. In 2005 during an MTV interview, 00:13:29.049 --> 00:13:31.570 the subject was broached again. Carrie calmly 00:13:31.570 --> 00:13:33.730 stated, I don't even know her. We kind of just 00:13:33.730 --> 00:13:35.929 said hello once or twice. OK, so she gives a 00:13:35.929 --> 00:13:39.129 tiny inch. Just a sliver of context. Yeah. She 00:13:39.129 --> 00:13:41.529 acknowledges a passing greeting, but she maintains 00:13:41.529 --> 00:13:45.029 the core thesis. We are not peers. We are not 00:13:45.029 --> 00:13:47.090 friends. I do not know her. And she just kept 00:13:47.090 --> 00:13:50.049 it rolling. In 2009, during a radio interview, 00:13:50.129 --> 00:13:52.690 she referred to Lopez simply by saying, I don't 00:13:52.690 --> 00:13:56.230 know the woman. In 2016, TMZ ambushed her on 00:13:56.230 --> 00:13:58.809 the street. And TMZ thrives on trying to catch 00:13:58.809 --> 00:14:00.909 celebrities off guard and get them to snap. That's 00:14:00.909 --> 00:14:02.769 their whole business model. Right. They bring 00:14:02.769 --> 00:14:05.190 up the quote. Instead of getting flustered, she 00:14:05.190 --> 00:14:07.629 smiled her megawatt smile and said, I still don't 00:14:07.629 --> 00:14:09.909 know her. It's like she's in on the joke, but 00:14:09.909 --> 00:14:13.190 she utterly refuses to break character. And then 00:14:13.190 --> 00:14:15.429 in 2018, she was on Watch What Happens Live with 00:14:15.429 --> 00:14:18.149 Andy Cohen. Cohen is actively trying to stir 00:14:18.149 --> 00:14:20.509 the pot, asking her to explain the meme, and 00:14:20.509 --> 00:14:23.470 she just looks at him, totally deadpan, and says, 00:14:24.009 --> 00:14:25.909 I don't know her, what am I supposed to say? 00:14:32.890 --> 00:14:36.289 If she apologized or backtracked, she would be 00:14:36.289 --> 00:14:38.690 admitting fault and letting the joke be on her. 00:14:39.289 --> 00:14:42.110 By owning the phrase, she becomes the architect 00:14:42.110 --> 00:14:44.649 of the joke. She takes the power back. Exactly. 00:14:44.990 --> 00:14:47.230 She integrated into the very fabric of her public 00:14:47.230 --> 00:14:49.830 persona. When she released her critically acclaimed 00:14:49.830 --> 00:14:52.929 memoir in 2020, The Meaning of Mariah Carey, 00:14:53.190 --> 00:14:55.309 she dedicates significant space to detailing 00:14:55.309 --> 00:14:58.289 the glitter sampling controversy. It's a meticulous, 00:14:58.570 --> 00:15:01.110 legally vetted recounting of her career. And 00:15:01.110 --> 00:15:04.049 in this entire book, she refuses to print Lopez's 00:15:04.049 --> 00:15:06.409 name. I love that detail. He refers to her strictly 00:15:06.409 --> 00:15:08.889 as a female entertainer on Sony, whom I don't 00:15:08.889 --> 00:15:12.110 know. The parenthetical shade. It is Pulitzer 00:15:12.110 --> 00:15:15.210 -worthy pettiness. It's a brilliant piece of 00:15:15.210 --> 00:15:17.730 authorial control. And what's fascinating is 00:15:17.730 --> 00:15:19.850 that the phrase is no longer strictly reserved 00:15:19.850 --> 00:15:23.169 for Lopez. It has become her universal, multipurpose, 00:15:23.370 --> 00:15:25.889 dismissive wand. Oh, she uses it on everyone. 00:15:26.230 --> 00:15:29.720 Just recently, in 2025, Carrie released a music 00:15:29.720 --> 00:15:32.620 video for her track, Type Dangerous. The video 00:15:32.620 --> 00:15:35.480 features a cameo by MrBeast, arguably the biggest 00:15:35.480 --> 00:15:38.320 YouTuber on the planet. And how does she interact 00:15:38.320 --> 00:15:40.740 with him? She dismisses him with a casual, I 00:15:40.740 --> 00:15:43.879 don't know him, and literally uses a superpower 00:15:43.879 --> 00:15:46.580 to turn him into a stack of banknotes. It's fully 00:15:46.580 --> 00:15:48.879 integrated into her iconography now. She even 00:15:48.879 --> 00:15:51.159 used it on Demi Lovato. Back when Lovato made 00:15:51.159 --> 00:15:53.220 some social media comments suggesting Kerry was 00:15:53.220 --> 00:15:55.940 rude to Lopez, Kerry was asked about Lovato in 00:15:55.940 --> 00:15:57.519 an interview. Her response, I don't know her 00:15:57.519 --> 00:15:59.889 either. It's like a reflex at this point. But 00:15:59.889 --> 00:16:02.509 to truly understand the gravity of this, we do 00:16:02.509 --> 00:16:04.629 need to look at it from the other side, because 00:16:04.629 --> 00:16:06.590 while it's highly entertaining for the internet, 00:16:07.129 --> 00:16:09.570 what is the psychological reality of being on 00:16:09.570 --> 00:16:12.309 the receiving end of a 20 -year campaign of weaponized 00:16:12.309 --> 00:16:15.149 unrecognition? That's a heavy thought. It is. 00:16:15.570 --> 00:16:17.549 Lopez has been forced to navigate this dynamic 00:16:17.549 --> 00:16:20.350 for decades, and her responses over the years 00:16:20.350 --> 00:16:23.580 reveal the shifting weight of that erasure. Back 00:16:23.580 --> 00:16:26.799 in 2014, Lopez took a very diplomatic route. 00:16:27.240 --> 00:16:30.320 She tried to accept the literal interpretation 00:16:30.320 --> 00:16:33.019 of the phrase to defuse the tension. Right. She 00:16:33.019 --> 00:16:35.299 stated in an interview that she didn't have a 00:16:35.299 --> 00:16:37.759 feud with Carrie, acknowledged that she had read 00:16:37.759 --> 00:16:39.840 things Carrie had said that were not the greatest, 00:16:40.480 --> 00:16:42.940 but concluded, we have never met. that we don't 00:16:42.940 --> 00:16:45.120 know each other? She tried to validate the statement, 00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:46.879 to drain the power from it, like, you're right, 00:16:46.919 --> 00:16:48.659 we don't know each other, moving on. Exactly. 00:16:48.879 --> 00:16:51.360 But that diplomatic stance didn't hold, because 00:16:51.360 --> 00:16:54.899 just two years later, in a 2016 interview, Lopez's 00:16:54.899 --> 00:16:57.639 narrative changed. She explicitly claimed that 00:16:57.639 --> 00:17:00.179 Kerry had simply forgotten that they had met 00:17:00.179 --> 00:17:03.460 on many occasions. And you can sense the deep 00:17:03.460 --> 00:17:05.680 frustration there. You really can. For you listening, 00:17:05.859 --> 00:17:08.180 imagine that dynamic. It is one thing to have 00:17:08.180 --> 00:17:10.599 a public sharding match with a colleague. But 00:17:10.599 --> 00:17:13.299 it is an entirely different, incredibly jarring 00:17:13.299 --> 00:17:15.720 psychological experience to have someone look 00:17:15.720 --> 00:17:17.980 right through you and publicly pretend that you 00:17:17.980 --> 00:17:21.160 do not occupy the same plane of existence. Especially 00:17:21.160 --> 00:17:24.039 when you are both global megastars operating 00:17:24.039 --> 00:17:27.079 in the exact same industry circles. They had 00:17:27.079 --> 00:17:29.839 absolutely been at the same award shows, the 00:17:29.839 --> 00:17:32.720 same industry parties. Exactly. And this tension 00:17:32.720 --> 00:17:35.859 brings us to a profound academic question that 00:17:35.859 --> 00:17:38.440 scholars and cultural critics have heavily debated. 00:17:39.400 --> 00:17:42.359 Is Perry telling the literal semantic truth that 00:17:42.359 --> 00:17:44.440 she doesn't intimately know her as a friend? 00:17:44.960 --> 00:17:48.680 Or is she executing a highly calculated performative 00:17:48.680 --> 00:17:51.339 burn? This is where the linguistics of shade 00:17:51.339 --> 00:17:54.059 comes in. Yes. Let's look at the scholarly analysis. 00:17:54.240 --> 00:17:56.599 If we dig into linguistic analysis, the academic 00:17:56.599 --> 00:17:59.480 sources provide some brilliant frameworks. Scholars 00:17:59.480 --> 00:18:02.640 Mireille Aussette and Tamara A. Small analyzed 00:18:02.640 --> 00:18:05.240 the specific mechanics of this phrase in contemporary 00:18:05.240 --> 00:18:08.220 culture. They suggest that I don't know her. 00:18:08.299 --> 00:18:10.740 in this context, is deployed specifically when 00:18:10.740 --> 00:18:13.619 a person is so irrelevant, you pretend to not 00:18:13.619 --> 00:18:16.180 know them when you clearly do. There's an active 00:18:16.180 --> 00:18:18.339 performance of ignorance. A performance of ignorance 00:18:18.339 --> 00:18:20.400 that that perfectly encapsulates it. Michelle 00:18:20.400 --> 00:18:22.740 Ruiz over at Vogue did a deep dive on this exact 00:18:22.740 --> 00:18:25.259 dynamic, and she called it the most savage burn 00:18:25.259 --> 00:18:27.500 in Hollywood. It really is. She pointed out that 00:18:27.500 --> 00:18:30.400 there is no sharper way to declare yourself utterly 00:18:30.400 --> 00:18:33.079 above it all. Because if you attack someone's 00:18:33.079 --> 00:18:35.299 outfit or their talent, you are acknowledging 00:18:35.299 --> 00:18:37.819 that you perceive them. You are validating their 00:18:37.819 --> 00:18:40.339 presence in your universe. By saying, I don't 00:18:40.339 --> 00:18:43.099 know her, you are publicly exiling them from 00:18:43.099 --> 00:18:46.180 your reality. Both The Guardian and Nylon published 00:18:46.180 --> 00:18:48.920 extensive pieces labeling this as the ultimate 00:18:48.920 --> 00:18:51.799 passive aggressive implicit insult. It is an 00:18:51.799 --> 00:18:54.559 act of omission rather than an act of aggression. 00:18:54.880 --> 00:18:57.940 And that is the true defining power dynamic of 00:18:57.940 --> 00:19:01.019 shade. We often confuse shade with just being 00:19:01.019 --> 00:19:04.059 mean or insulting. But authentic shade is about 00:19:04.059 --> 00:19:07.119 subtlety and plausible deniability. Carrie's 00:19:07.119 --> 00:19:09.019 primary defense has always been a reliance on 00:19:09.019 --> 00:19:11.380 the strict dictionary definition of the word 00:19:11.380 --> 00:19:13.500 no. Right. She's playing the semantics game. 00:19:13.660 --> 00:19:15.880 Exactly. She can always retreat to the defense 00:19:15.880 --> 00:19:17.299 of, well, I haven't spent time at her house, 00:19:17.299 --> 00:19:20.160 so I don't know her. She's using semantics as 00:19:20.160 --> 00:19:22.640 a shield against the accusation of malice. It 00:19:22.640 --> 00:19:24.960 is quite literally the weaponization of apathy. 00:19:25.539 --> 00:19:27.819 By claiming not to know someone, you deny them 00:19:27.819 --> 00:19:30.220 the status of being your enemy. You deny them 00:19:30.220 --> 00:19:32.960 the prestige of a feud. You communicate to the 00:19:32.960 --> 00:19:35.339 world. You are not important enough for me to 00:19:35.339 --> 00:19:37.599 even form an opinion about. Denying them the 00:19:37.599 --> 00:19:40.180 prestige of a feud, I love that phrasing, because 00:19:40.180 --> 00:19:44.380 a feud requires two equals. By refusing to engage, 00:19:44.599 --> 00:19:46.740 Carrie positioned herself alone at the top, and 00:19:46.740 --> 00:19:49.799 that tactic was so effective, so seemingly effortless, 00:19:50.099 --> 00:19:52.220 that it created a master template for modern 00:19:52.220 --> 00:19:54.440 pop culture. It sparked a whole movement. It 00:19:54.440 --> 00:19:58.150 did. By mid -2016, the trend of celebrities feigning 00:19:58.150 --> 00:20:01.089 ignorance to sidestep drama or dismiss rivals 00:20:01.089 --> 00:20:04.609 reached such a fever pitch that Vanity Fair published 00:20:04.609 --> 00:20:07.210 a piece officially dubbing it The Summer of Not 00:20:07.210 --> 00:20:09.829 Knowing. Kerry had inadvertently handed out a 00:20:09.829 --> 00:20:12.910 master key to every publicist in Hollywood. Why 00:20:12.910 --> 00:20:15.609 risk a PR disaster by arguing in the mud when 00:20:15.609 --> 00:20:17.849 you can just gracefully float away on a cloud 00:20:17.849 --> 00:20:20.589 of amnesia? The examples from that era are a 00:20:20.589 --> 00:20:23.029 fascinating who's who of pop culture royalty 00:20:23.029 --> 00:20:26.250 utilizing this exact strategy, and they all follow 00:20:26.250 --> 00:20:28.029 the same linguistic blueprint. Let's add some 00:20:28.029 --> 00:20:30.569 of these back and forth. Sure. Consider Aretha 00:20:30.569 --> 00:20:33.980 Franklin. When she was asked in an interview 00:20:33.980 --> 00:20:36.440 about her thoughts on Taylor Swift, she didn't 00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:39.000 critique Swift's vocal range or her songwriting. 00:20:39.400 --> 00:20:41.980 She just offered a polite smile and said, great 00:20:41.980 --> 00:20:46.400 gowns, beautiful gowns. That is lethal. The mechanism 00:20:46.400 --> 00:20:49.759 is identical. It is a polite refusal to engage 00:20:49.759 --> 00:20:52.700 with the person as a musical peer. By opting 00:20:52.700 --> 00:20:55.240 to compliment the clothing rather than the artistry, 00:20:55.480 --> 00:20:58.200 she delivers a devastating implicit dismissal 00:20:58.200 --> 00:21:01.539 of a multi -platinum songwriter. All while maintaining 00:21:01.539 --> 00:21:04.059 perfect etiquette. Beautiful gowns is an all 00:21:04.059 --> 00:21:06.359 -time classic. It's the exact same energy. And 00:21:06.359 --> 00:21:08.460 then you have the incredible Kiek Palmer on that 00:21:08.460 --> 00:21:11.180 Vanity Fair lie detector test. Oh, yes. They 00:21:11.180 --> 00:21:13.619 slide a picture of former Vice President Dick 00:21:13.619 --> 00:21:16.119 Cheney across the table to her. She looks at 00:21:16.119 --> 00:21:18.380 it with complete unbothered blankness and says, 00:21:18.579 --> 00:21:20.180 I hate to say it. I hope I don't sound ridiculous. 00:21:20.259 --> 00:21:21.519 I don't know who this man is. I mean, he could 00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:23.220 be walking down the street and I wouldn't know 00:21:23.220 --> 00:21:25.279 a thing. Sorry to this man. Sorry to this man. 00:21:25.440 --> 00:21:29.200 That clip exploded into a massive meme for the 00:21:29.200 --> 00:21:32.029 exact same reasons the Carrie clip did. Now, 00:21:32.069 --> 00:21:34.390 whether Palmer genuinely didn't know who he was 00:21:34.390 --> 00:21:37.049 or not is almost beside the point. The effect 00:21:37.049 --> 00:21:39.930 on the internet was a hilarious total dismissal 00:21:39.930 --> 00:21:43.349 of a powerful polarizing figure. It was the I 00:21:43.349 --> 00:21:45.829 don't know her template applied to history. We 00:21:45.829 --> 00:21:47.769 saw it repeatedly in the hip hop community as 00:21:47.769 --> 00:21:50.630 well. When Lil Kim was asked about Nicki Minaj 00:21:50.630 --> 00:21:52.769 during a period of highly publicized tension 00:21:52.769 --> 00:21:55.630 between their fan bases, Lil Kim responded, I 00:21:55.630 --> 00:21:57.630 don't know the other one, but Cardi is my girl. 00:21:57.750 --> 00:22:00.769 Oh, wow. By reducing Minaj to the other one, 00:22:00.779 --> 00:22:03.140 She strips away her identity and her accolades 00:22:03.140 --> 00:22:06.109 in one breath. We saw Kelly Clarkson say we don't 00:22:06.109 --> 00:22:07.789 know each other. We're getting Terry Underwood 00:22:07.789 --> 00:22:10.690 to expertly shut down tabloid rumors of an American 00:22:10.690 --> 00:22:13.710 Idol rivalry Andy Cohen did it too. He famously 00:22:13.710 --> 00:22:16.569 deployed a literal I don't know her when asked 00:22:16.569 --> 00:22:19.049 by paparazzi about Kathy Griffin after they're 00:22:19.049 --> 00:22:21.829 very public falling out actor Gerard Butler when 00:22:21.829 --> 00:22:23.650 asked about a Ryan Reynolds film just casually 00:22:23.650 --> 00:22:25.349 remarked I actually don't know what free guy 00:22:25.349 --> 00:22:28.710 is it even crossed over into sports LeBron James 00:22:28.710 --> 00:22:31.759 was at a press conference and was famously unable 00:22:31.759 --> 00:22:34.380 or perhaps unwilling to name the Vegas Golden 00:22:34.380 --> 00:22:37.440 Knights. The strategy was everywhere. So for 00:22:37.440 --> 00:22:39.400 you listening, I want you to remember this lineage. 00:22:39.690 --> 00:22:42.769 Whenever you see a celebrity today feigning ignorance, 00:22:43.210 --> 00:22:45.490 looking blankly at a camera and politely claiming 00:22:45.490 --> 00:22:48.710 they have absolutely no idea who or what an interviewer 00:22:48.710 --> 00:22:51.490 is talking about, you are watching a direct, 00:22:51.910 --> 00:22:55.349 undeniable offspring of Mariah Carey's 2003 TAF 00:22:55.349 --> 00:22:57.990 interview. She authored the modern playbook on 00:22:57.990 --> 00:23:00.329 how to execute a rival without leaving a single 00:23:00.329 --> 00:23:02.410 identifiable fingerprint. And this is where the 00:23:02.410 --> 00:23:04.470 narrative takes a genuinely fascinating high 00:23:04.470 --> 00:23:07.190 stakes turn. Because a communication strategy 00:23:07.190 --> 00:23:09.549 this effective, this bulletproof against criticism, 00:23:09.970 --> 00:23:11.769 never stays confined to the entertainment and 00:23:11.769 --> 00:23:14.009 gossip sections. Eventually, the mechanics of 00:23:14.009 --> 00:23:16.329 it bleed out into the real world. Right. In this 00:23:16.329 --> 00:23:18.269 case, it bled directly into the world of high 00:23:18.269 --> 00:23:21.049 -stakes global politics. Okay, and just as a 00:23:21.049 --> 00:23:23.890 quick sidebar for you listening. As we move into 00:23:23.890 --> 00:23:26.369 how this pop culture moment crossed over into 00:23:26.369 --> 00:23:29.289 political commentary involving figures from both 00:23:29.289 --> 00:23:32.329 the left and right, we want to make it absolutely 00:23:32.329 --> 00:23:35.049 clear to you that we are not endorsing the viewpoints 00:23:35.049 --> 00:23:37.930 of these sources. We are simply conveying the 00:23:37.930 --> 00:23:40.190 ideas and analyses contained in the original 00:23:40.190 --> 00:23:42.430 source material we are reviewing. It's an important 00:23:42.430 --> 00:23:45.250 distinction to make, because the parallels drawn 00:23:45.250 --> 00:23:47.650 by political commentators are really striking. 00:23:48.269 --> 00:23:51.059 If we connect this to the bigger picture, The 00:23:51.059 --> 00:23:53.019 media noticed that when politicians are caught 00:23:53.019 --> 00:23:56.380 in scandals involving former associates, their 00:23:56.380 --> 00:23:59.380 instinct is, naturally, to distance themselves. 00:23:59.460 --> 00:24:02.059 Standard political playbook. But analysts started 00:24:02.059 --> 00:24:04.819 tracking a specific type of denial that felt 00:24:04.819 --> 00:24:08.240 eerily familiar. It wasn't a nuanced explanation 00:24:08.240 --> 00:24:10.539 of their professional ties. It was a total performance 00:24:10.539 --> 00:24:13.579 of ignorance. Right. The most prominent comparisons 00:24:13.579 --> 00:24:15.720 in our sources revolve around the rhetoric of 00:24:15.720 --> 00:24:18.880 former U .S. President Donald Trump. Huffpost's 00:24:18.880 --> 00:24:21.980 Marina Fang wrote a detailed piece likening Trump's 00:24:21.980 --> 00:24:24.000 public statements regarding his former lawyers, 00:24:24.400 --> 00:24:26.779 Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, directly to 00:24:26.779 --> 00:24:29.319 Kerry's tactic. Well, when those men found themselves 00:24:29.319 --> 00:24:31.799 in legal jeopardy, Trump often minimized his 00:24:31.799 --> 00:24:33.819 knowledge of them entirely, claiming they played 00:24:33.819 --> 00:24:36.180 very minor roles and he barely knew them. And 00:24:36.180 --> 00:24:38.019 one instance regarding conservative pundit Ann 00:24:38.019 --> 00:24:40.559 Coulter, he didn't even paraphrase. He used the 00:24:40.559 --> 00:24:44.359 exact literal four words, I don't know her. Wow. 00:24:44.650 --> 00:24:47.450 But how does a pop culture tactic actually function 00:24:47.450 --> 00:24:50.450 as a viable political defense? I mean, in politics 00:24:50.450 --> 00:24:53.069 there are paper trails, photographs, visitor 00:24:53.069 --> 00:24:55.690 logs. How do you successfully claim you don't 00:24:55.690 --> 00:24:57.910 know someone when there is objective proof that 00:24:57.910 --> 00:25:00.250 you do? That is exactly what makes it so insidious 00:25:00.250 --> 00:25:02.730 and effective. Yeah. Political commentator Simone 00:25:02.730 --> 00:25:05.609 Sanders analyzed this dynamic when Trump denied 00:25:05.609 --> 00:25:08.109 knowing a controversial figure named Felix Sater. 00:25:08.820 --> 00:25:11.619 Sanders went on national television and explicitly 00:25:11.619 --> 00:25:14.460 called Trump the Mariah Carey of politics. That's 00:25:14.460 --> 00:25:17.019 a huge quote. She pointed out that he is exceptionally 00:25:17.019 --> 00:25:19.240 skilled at pretending he doesn't know someone 00:25:19.240 --> 00:25:22.500 when it suits him. And MSNBC host Ari Melber 00:25:22.500 --> 00:25:24.900 actually coined the phrase the Mariah Carey defense 00:25:24.900 --> 00:25:28.299 during a broadcast. He used it to describe Trump's 00:25:28.299 --> 00:25:30.299 repeated assertions that he did not know his 00:25:30.299 --> 00:25:33.319 own U .S. ambassador Gordon Sondland during a 00:25:33.319 --> 00:25:36.119 highly publicized congressional inquiry. What 00:25:36.119 --> 00:25:38.519 Melbourne Sanders were highlighting is how this 00:25:38.519 --> 00:25:41.339 tactic completely shifts the burden of proof. 00:25:41.519 --> 00:25:43.559 Okay break that down for me How does it shift 00:25:43.559 --> 00:25:45.759 the burden of proof think about it this way if 00:25:45.759 --> 00:25:48.599 a politician says I did not sign that document 00:25:48.599 --> 00:25:52.299 The media can produce the document with the signature 00:25:52.299 --> 00:25:55.839 boom perjury or a lie is exposed easy to prove 00:25:55.839 --> 00:25:58.240 But if a politician says I barely know that person 00:25:58.240 --> 00:26:00.839 they are moving the goalpost into a realm of 00:26:00.839 --> 00:26:03.839 subjective emotional intimacy What does it actually 00:26:03.839 --> 00:26:06.960 mean to know someone? You can produce a photograph 00:26:06.960 --> 00:26:09.559 of the politician and the associate shaking hands, 00:26:09.839 --> 00:26:12.720 and the politician can simply reply, I take thousands 00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:15.059 of photos a day. I don't know him. Ah, I see. 00:26:15.180 --> 00:26:17.920 It short circuits traditional journalistic accountability 00:26:17.920 --> 00:26:21.299 because you cannot empirically quantify the depth 00:26:21.299 --> 00:26:24.900 of a human relationship. Simultaneously, just 00:26:24.900 --> 00:26:27.799 like in the pop culture examples, it diminishes 00:26:27.799 --> 00:26:30.500 the standing of the accuser. It signals to the 00:26:30.500 --> 00:26:33.400 politician's base that this associate or this 00:26:33.400 --> 00:26:36.680 accuser is so incredibly insignificant that they 00:26:36.680 --> 00:26:38.599 haven't even registered on the leader's radar. 00:26:39.140 --> 00:26:41.799 It's weaponized apathy deployed at the highest 00:26:41.799 --> 00:26:45.000 levels of power. That is wild. It's using the 00:26:45.000 --> 00:26:47.400 impossibility of proving a negative to completely 00:26:47.400 --> 00:26:50.160 derail an investigation's narrative. And it's 00:26:50.160 --> 00:26:52.640 not just an American phenomenon either. The sources 00:26:52.640 --> 00:26:54.960 point out that this linguistic tactic is recognized 00:26:54.960 --> 00:26:57.460 globally. Oh, definitely. In Australia, the political 00:26:57.460 --> 00:27:00.640 sphere had its own viral iteration. Green Senator 00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:03.299 Lydia Thorpe was confronting a speech by prominent 00:27:03.299 --> 00:27:06.579 controversial opponent Pauline Hanson. And Thorpe's 00:27:06.579 --> 00:27:09.980 on -record response was to casually, almost lazily, 00:27:10.240 --> 00:27:13.069 ask, Oh, sorry, what's your name? It's the exact 00:27:13.069 --> 00:27:15.529 same energy. It was a deliberate, highly publicized 00:27:15.529 --> 00:27:17.809 tactic to diminish her opponent standing right 00:27:17.809 --> 00:27:19.930 there on the floor of the Senate. It proves that 00:27:19.930 --> 00:27:22.650 the linguistic mechanics of shade, the performance 00:27:22.650 --> 00:27:25.690 of ignorance to establish dominance, are universal. 00:27:26.730 --> 00:27:28.789 But circling back to the architect of this specific 00:27:28.789 --> 00:27:30.910 phrasing, what does this all mean for Kerry's 00:27:30.910 --> 00:27:33.789 legacy? We started with a dispute over a yellow 00:27:33.789 --> 00:27:36.730 magic orchestra sample and ended up deconstructing 00:27:36.730 --> 00:27:39.940 a global political defense strategy. So... What 00:27:39.940 --> 00:27:42.380 does this all mean? The writers and our sources 00:27:42.380 --> 00:27:45.319 suggest that this meme acted as a vital, career 00:27:45.319 --> 00:27:48.240 -sustaining bridge. The independent writer Louis 00:27:48.240 --> 00:27:50.740 Staples pointed out that Carrie's natural aptitude 00:27:50.740 --> 00:27:53.440 for these highly visual, GIF -friendly moments 00:27:53.440 --> 00:27:56.380 helped her make a crucial, historically difficult 00:27:56.380 --> 00:27:58.779 transition. From the 90s to the internet era. 00:27:59.059 --> 00:28:01.900 Exactly. She went from being an untouchable platinum 00:28:01.900 --> 00:28:04.660 -selling star in the era of physical CDs directly 00:28:04.660 --> 00:28:07.779 into the fast -paced, snarky, highly visual landscape 00:28:07.779 --> 00:28:11.220 of Web 2 .0. While many of her 90s peers struggled 00:28:11.220 --> 00:28:13.579 to adapt to the language of social media, Carrie 00:28:13.579 --> 00:28:16.079 became completely fluent in it. The internet 00:28:16.079 --> 00:28:18.599 crowned her the Queen of Shade. But the sources 00:28:18.599 --> 00:28:20.960 also suggest that wearing that crown isn't entirely 00:28:20.960 --> 00:28:23.019 empowering, right? There's a lot of academic 00:28:23.019 --> 00:28:24.980 theory about the concept of the Diva and how 00:28:24.980 --> 00:28:27.319 the public weaponizes that label. Absolutely. 00:28:27.660 --> 00:28:30.779 The title of Queen of Shade, or Diva, is a massive 00:28:30.779 --> 00:28:34.539 double -edged sword. Musicologist Lily E. Hirsch 00:28:34.539 --> 00:28:37.559 and cultural writer Emily Lordy have done extensive 00:28:37.559 --> 00:28:40.619 sociological work on this exact dynamic. Hirsch 00:28:40.619 --> 00:28:42.579 argues that the public's ravenous consumption 00:28:42.579 --> 00:28:45.500 of the I don't know her meme imbues the diva 00:28:45.500 --> 00:28:47.799 archetype with incredibly heavy layers of sexism 00:28:47.799 --> 00:28:49.920 and racism. We have to ask ourselves why we enjoy 00:28:49.920 --> 00:28:52.720 it so much. Exactly. When we laugh at that gif, 00:28:53.000 --> 00:28:55.539 what are we actually consuming? Are we cheering 00:28:55.539 --> 00:28:58.220 for a fiercely independent woman who is successfully 00:28:58.220 --> 00:29:00.420 protecting her boundaries and refusing to play 00:29:00.420 --> 00:29:03.079 into a toxic, media -manufactured cat fight? 00:29:03.539 --> 00:29:05.960 Or is the public laughing at a caricature? Are 00:29:05.960 --> 00:29:08.000 they projecting an image of an overly demanding, 00:29:08.220 --> 00:29:10.880 detached, irrational female celebrity? That is 00:29:10.880 --> 00:29:13.019 a fascinating tension because you have journalists 00:29:13.019 --> 00:29:15.180 like Natalie Riley arguing that this kind of 00:29:15.180 --> 00:29:17.880 dismissive shade is just a core necessary component 00:29:17.880 --> 00:29:20.819 of the diva mystique. She argues that the public 00:29:20.819 --> 00:29:23.279 wants their pop stars to be unreachable, glamorous 00:29:23.279 --> 00:29:25.400 and completely unbothered by the trivial concerns 00:29:25.400 --> 00:29:28.000 of mortals. Right. But Emily Lordy challenges 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:31.119 that by suggesting that the use of this phrase 00:29:31.119 --> 00:29:33.519 reveals that the diva is not a straightforward 00:29:33.519 --> 00:29:36.420 pro -feminist figure of liberation. The diva 00:29:36.420 --> 00:29:39.759 archetype operates heavily on exclusivity, elitism, 00:29:39.759 --> 00:29:42.380 and dismissal. Yeah. When Carrie says, I don't 00:29:42.380 --> 00:29:45.380 know her, she is asserting dominance by enforcing 00:29:45.380 --> 00:29:47.740 a social hierarchy. She is placing herself at 00:29:47.740 --> 00:29:49.900 the top and the other woman at the bottom. So 00:29:49.900 --> 00:29:52.299 while it's an incredibly effective tool for self 00:29:52.299 --> 00:29:55.160 -preservation, Lordy points out that it can sometimes 00:29:55.160 --> 00:29:58.019 reinforce those patriarchal, hierarchical power 00:29:58.019 --> 00:30:00.619 structures rather than dismantling them. It's 00:30:00.619 --> 00:30:03.079 a complex, contradictory performance of power. 00:30:03.210 --> 00:30:06.089 I love how deep that analysis goes. But alongside 00:30:06.089 --> 00:30:08.390 that tension, the sources also heavily highlight 00:30:08.390 --> 00:30:10.369 how specific communities have taken this phrase 00:30:10.369 --> 00:30:12.789 and fundamentally altered its power dynamic, 00:30:13.089 --> 00:30:15.150 specifically within the queer community. Yes. 00:30:15.230 --> 00:30:17.230 For many marginalized groups, this isn't just 00:30:17.230 --> 00:30:19.910 a funny Internet reaction. It has become a genuine 00:30:19.910 --> 00:30:22.950 cultural touchstone. There are entire I don't 00:30:22.950 --> 00:30:25.910 know her themed club nights. Independent artists 00:30:25.910 --> 00:30:28.509 sell clothing and gallery prints dedicated to 00:30:28.509 --> 00:30:31.109 the line. It's woven into the vernacular. And 00:30:31.109 --> 00:30:34.089 that adoption by the queer community is arguably 00:30:34.089 --> 00:30:37.009 the most fascinating sociological aspect of this 00:30:37.009 --> 00:30:40.529 entire deep dive. Historically, marginalized 00:30:40.529 --> 00:30:43.049 groups are forced to navigate a society that 00:30:43.049 --> 00:30:45.250 constantly demands their explanation. They have 00:30:45.250 --> 00:30:47.450 to justify themselves constantly. They are required 00:30:47.450 --> 00:30:50.009 to justify their existence, their rights, and 00:30:50.009 --> 00:30:53.029 their spaces to people who are often openly hostile 00:30:53.029 --> 00:30:56.190 to them. It is an exhausting defensive posture. 00:30:56.440 --> 00:30:59.279 So when a larger -than -life figure like Carrie 00:30:59.279 --> 00:31:02.880 unapologetically dismisses an expectation, arrival, 00:31:03.140 --> 00:31:06.420 or toxic narrative with absolute impenetrable 00:31:06.420 --> 00:31:09.319 apathy, it provides an incredible sense of cathartic 00:31:09.319 --> 00:31:11.339 release. I can see that. The queer community 00:31:11.339 --> 00:31:14.000 has a long, rich history of utilizing camp and 00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:16.579 shade, as famously outlined by scholars like 00:31:16.579 --> 00:31:19.480 Susan Sontag as tools of survival. Reclaiming 00:31:19.480 --> 00:31:21.559 expressions of unapologetic dismissal is deeply 00:31:21.559 --> 00:31:24.299 empowering. In that context, I Don't Know Her 00:31:24.299 --> 00:31:26.680 stops being about Jennifer Lopez entirely. It 00:31:26.680 --> 00:31:28.680 becomes a shield. A way to protect your peace. 00:31:29.039 --> 00:31:31.640 It becomes a shorthand way to say, I completely 00:31:31.640 --> 00:31:34.759 refuse to engage with the negativity, the ignorance, 00:31:34.940 --> 00:31:37.339 or the demands you are trying to bring into my 00:31:37.339 --> 00:31:41.009 reality. It elevates what was once a petty industry 00:31:41.009 --> 00:31:44.190 squabble into an intenetrable armor of fabulous 00:31:44.190 --> 00:31:46.470 indifference. An armor of fabulous indifference. 00:31:46.490 --> 00:31:48.809 That is the perfect way to encapsulate it. And 00:31:48.809 --> 00:31:51.029 as we start to pull back and wrap up this deep 00:31:51.029 --> 00:31:53.869 dive, I want you listening to really consider 00:31:53.869 --> 00:31:56.809 the incredible, unpredictable journey we've just 00:31:56.809 --> 00:31:58.750 taken today. It's been quite a ride. It really 00:31:58.750 --> 00:32:02.190 has. What started in 2001 as a deeply frustrating 00:32:02.190 --> 00:32:04.569 industry dispute over a cleared music sample 00:32:04.569 --> 00:32:07.910 morphed into a polite smile in Germany, marinated 00:32:07.910 --> 00:32:10.529 in in the digital underground for a decade and 00:32:10.529 --> 00:32:13.130 erupted to become a foundational text of modern 00:32:13.130 --> 00:32:15.490 internet culture. It's pop culture history. We've 00:32:15.490 --> 00:32:17.950 explored how it functioned as a masterclass in 00:32:17.950 --> 00:32:21.150 PR boundary setting, rewriting the rules of celebrity 00:32:21.150 --> 00:32:24.170 engagement. We watched it spawn an entire summer 00:32:24.170 --> 00:32:27.970 of A -list copycats, and we analyzed the fascinating, 00:32:28.609 --> 00:32:31.269 slightly terrifying way it crossed over into 00:32:31.269 --> 00:32:34.049 the geopolitical sphere as a recognized tactic 00:32:34.049 --> 00:32:36.769 to short circuit political accountability. It 00:32:36.769 --> 00:32:39.829 is proof that four simple words, delivered with 00:32:39.829 --> 00:32:42.750 exactly the right inflection, can literally change 00:32:42.750 --> 00:32:45.680 the way millions of people communicate. It really 00:32:45.680 --> 00:32:48.059 is a testament to the power of language. But 00:32:48.059 --> 00:32:49.400 this raises an important question, something 00:32:49.400 --> 00:32:51.460 I want you to mull over after we finish today. 00:32:51.640 --> 00:32:54.400 What's that? We have spent an hour dissecting 00:32:54.400 --> 00:32:57.259 the immense cultural and political power of pretending 00:32:57.259 --> 00:33:00.380 not to know someone or something in a hyper -connected, 00:33:00.519 --> 00:33:03.140 fully documented world. It has been a brilliant 00:33:03.140 --> 00:33:06.380 tool of shade, of PR spin, and of political deflection. 00:33:07.099 --> 00:33:09.039 But we are currently standing on the precipice 00:33:09.039 --> 00:33:12.140 of a completely new technological era. As we 00:33:12.140 --> 00:33:15.140 move deeper into an Internet ecosystem that is 00:33:15.140 --> 00:33:17.880 increasingly dominated by AI -generated content, 00:33:18.579 --> 00:33:21.039 sophisticated deepfakes, and synthetic media, 00:33:21.559 --> 00:33:24.720 the concept of I don't know her is poised to 00:33:24.720 --> 00:33:27.579 undergo another massive fundamental evolution. 00:33:27.700 --> 00:33:30.039 Oh, wow. Where are you going with this? Think 00:33:30.039 --> 00:33:32.759 about the epistemology of the modern Internet. 00:33:32.910 --> 00:33:35.089 Right now, pretending not to know someone is 00:33:35.089 --> 00:33:37.690 a flex. It is a flex of power because we all 00:33:37.690 --> 00:33:40.329 share a baseline objective reality. We know Carrie 00:33:40.329 --> 00:33:43.230 knows who Lopez is. But what happens in a few 00:33:43.230 --> 00:33:46.329 years, when our digital reality becomes so blurred, 00:33:46.809 --> 00:33:49.029 so heavily saturated with artificially created 00:33:49.029 --> 00:33:51.869 personas, manufactured events, and deepfake scandals, 00:33:52.210 --> 00:33:54.910 that literally not knowing who or what is real 00:33:54.910 --> 00:33:58.029 isn't a joke or a meme anymore. Oh, man. What 00:33:58.029 --> 00:34:00.150 if I don't know her, or I don't know if that 00:34:00.150 --> 00:34:02.990 is a real human being, becomes the default anxious 00:34:02.990 --> 00:34:05.009 state of the internet? For the last 20 years, 00:34:05.109 --> 00:34:06.910 the power to dismiss someone because you choose 00:34:06.910 --> 00:34:08.889 to ignore them has been a luxury of the elite. 00:34:09.280 --> 00:34:12.000 But moving forward, the genuine inability to 00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:14.119 know if someone even exists might become a global 00:34:14.119 --> 00:34:17.250 crisis of information. That is a wildly provocative 00:34:17.250 --> 00:34:20.409 thought, and it casts a very different, slightly 00:34:20.409 --> 00:34:23.389 dystopian shadow over the whole concept. The 00:34:23.389 --> 00:34:25.889 idea that weaponized apathy might just become 00:34:25.889 --> 00:34:28.949 genuine, terrified confusion. That is a perfect 00:34:28.949 --> 00:34:31.610 place to leave it. The next time you are scrolling 00:34:31.610 --> 00:34:34.110 through your phone looking for the perfect reaction 00:34:34.110 --> 00:34:36.570 gif to fire off to your group chat, and you come 00:34:36.570 --> 00:34:39.530 across that looping, grainy clip of the 2003 00:34:39.530 --> 00:34:42.230 TAF interview, take that thought with you. It's 00:34:42.230 --> 00:34:44.760 more than just a gif. Think about the industry 00:34:44.760 --> 00:34:47.139 history, the academic linguistics of the shade, 00:34:47.340 --> 00:34:49.739 the political implications, and the very nature 00:34:49.739 --> 00:34:52.380 of truth hidden inside that tiny little digital 00:34:52.380 --> 00:34:55.019 box. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. 00:34:55.300 --> 00:34:57.219 Keep asking questions, keep looking beneath the 00:34:57.219 --> 00:34:58.719 surface, and we'll catch you next time.