I don't want to be too much of a dick here, but that guy is a film school major who just took twenty fucking minutes to cover what he should have said in three. The other 16-17 minutes added very little and pretty much did nothing to substantiate his unsubstantiatable claim that we hate Phil Fish because he's famous OR that we only hate him because we're exposed to him because he's famous. Sure, whatever, I actaually don't know which point he was trying to make because he spent most of the time trying to explain to me simple concepts of social interaction and interpretation (that I don't think he really gets). In either case, those two things aren't really the same at all.
Here's a really easy way to tell if the average person forms an opinion of someone based on whether or not the subject of the opinion is famous: Does the judgement maker hate everyone famous, or just dislike some famous people? Oh, really? Only some famous people? I wonder if that's because, like most people, there are famous people who have likeable personalities and then famous people who have unlikeable personalities? Nah, that'd be waaaay too simple.
Look, you can't argue that Phil Fish has an unlikeable personality. He's quick to fire from the hip, can't take it in return, and is a whiner. These are traits that we, as an entire society tend to either frown upon, especially when coupled with a level of cockiness such as that featured in Phil Fish, or pity to a certain degree. Combined with what we percieve as arrogance it rubs people the wrong way and it makes them want to nudge the guy next to us and whisper "Hey, fuck this guy. Amiright?" and then make fun of him the next day. Fame doesn't really come into it, except in the case of Phil Fish, he's making his jackass comments in front of millions of people instead of a handful.
The guy making the video seems to forget halfway through that Phil Fish isn't even really famous for Fez - he's famous for being a vitriolic jackass who just happened to have an audience because he made Fez. Sure, to a certain extent the guy pretends like that's the point of the video, but then goes on to say at a later point that we only really dislike Phil's personality because he's famous and we want to make a subtle and symbolical comment on the state of WHATEVER THE FUCK through our dislike of him. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's not the case because A.) Only art school and lit majors think that this is ever a thing. The average person doesn't think this way, and B.) He never really addresses what we apparently want to symbolically lash out against.
I think at some point he was trying to say that Phil Fish didn't want this kind of exposure and maybe we'd be just as bad if we were put under the microscope, but lets not kid ourselves, that's really not true - hence why people like to lash out against Phil Fish: His personality is grating, he has what we perceive as too high of an opinion of himself, and he doesn't have a diplomatic or charismatic bone in his body. Sure, there are other people just as bad and worse out there, but that's besides the point - no one on the face of the earth is saying that Phil Fish is the BIGGEST asshole, we're just saying he's an asshole.
Near the end of the video the guy makes a point where the whole process is self-defeating, we hold people on a pedestal and then hate them for being there. Besides it being a really weak argument, it's also dumb as shit and easily disprovable. Sure, SOME very famous people are held in disdain for their fame, but the majority are not. I don't know why this guy thinks it's a universal formula because of Fish and Nickelback or why he thinks anyone gave a shit about Fish before they knew he was an asshole, but his whole theory just doesn't work.
Here's the thing, although media outlets might be cherry-picking Fish's comments for stories (which is completely understandable), his image wasn't actually created by this cherry picking but by the opposite - his access to the public directly. No one was following the guy around editing his days and showing us the result, we were just seeing what he deemed an appropriate thing to say and we judged him on that - the stream of consciousness that he put out there of his own accord. And that's where the ball started rolling. Sure, we judge him based on a few select instances, but that's the exact same metric we judge literally everyone else out there - famous or not. And Phil still comes out looking like more of an asshole than the majority. SOME of the time he is reasonable, not a complete jackass, and not controversial - great man, why to be not abrasive some of the time. Guess what, you still get judged based on all the times you are abrasive.
I don't know what the overall motivation for this was (actually, I think I do, but whatever). End of the day, Phil Fish's problems are all a direct result of Phil Fish's actions - he's not getting a bum rap here. Oh, he was all of a sudden put in the "subcultures" spotlight? So are thousands of others, many more so than Fish, and they all seem to deal with it swimmingly or at least unremarkably. Oh, we judge him based on a few instances? Yeah, that's entirely how we judge people.
Phil Fish could have just kept his mouth shut and done his thing. Phil Fish could have just censored himself. Phil Fish could have seen the backlash, realized where the problem was and adjusted. Phil Fish could have done a dozen things, instead he played the part of the kid who runs his mouth all day and is surprised when someone says something back and everyone else backs them. Phil Fish then picked the ball up and went home.
No one likes the guy who picks the ball up and goes home. Not necessarily because of the action of picking the ball up and going home, but because they're the type of guy who would fucking do that, and they were always that type of guy. And that's why so many people disliked Phil Fish from the start.
But don't get me wrong - I did like watching that, I just don't agree with it at all.
