Why Are You So Angry? Part 2: Angry Jack
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- patreon: / innuendostudios
tumblr: / innuendostudios
twitter: / innuendostudios
transcript: innuendostudios...
audio: / why-are-you-so-angry-2
part 1: • Why Are You So Angry? ...
part 3: • Why Are You So Angry? ...
part 4: • Why Are You So Angry? ...
part 5: • Why Are You So Angry? ...
part 6: • Why Are You So Angry? ...
Bibliography:
The response described here is similar to "do-gooder derogation": spp.sagepub.com...
More info on No Impact Man (the movie's not perfect, but worth seeing): noimpactproject...
This is the most concise explanation of "why progress is hard" that I've ever seen and it's tucked away in a multi part series about gamergate. This is why I keep going through your videos lol
Because progress isn't always actually progress
@@AverageAlien thats a pretty vague statement. Care to elaborate?
@@angusmarch1066 it's actually crystal clear
@@AverageAlien if its so crystal clear, then you wont have a problem explaining it.
@@angusmarch1066 basically progress isn't always progress
"if they're right, what does that say about me?"
No one will admit it, but people DO get defensive or feel like they're under attack from stuff other people do that doesn't directly affect them. That above quote explains so much of Internet culture it's actually quite sad.
I was going to make a point about morals and perception, but that would be me "being defensive about something that doesn't directly affect me" so i guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no way around it and that it's better to accept it at face value.
I remember a video I watched many years ago where a woman's pet cow died and she was mourning the loss of this animal whom she considered as part of her family. It wasn't hard to find people passive aggressively gloating about eating beef in the comments. It wasn't even like she was preaching about veganism anywhere in the video, she was just grieving over her dead pet.
It's even worse if the person saying 'no thanks, I'm -insert qualifier-' is a minority or a woman. As a cis, straight, white male, I can disagree with someone who looks like me, PROBABLY without them taking it as a personal insult. If I'm careful. And lucky.
If I'm female, or not white, my disagreement is usually seen as me being 'hysterical' or 'agressive' or 'argumentative for no reason'.
@@gabrielmichelson9830 first of all, I disagree with you without thinking you're aggressive or hysterical. But as a cis white male I've had plenty of arguments with any kind of person, and every kind of person will feel (personally) insulted if you rub them the wrong way. That doesn't (always) have to do with their gender or orientation. Opposed to that it is indeed hard to (personally?) Insult me for being a cis white male, if only for me not expecting it to be an insult, for it is who I am. So in that same regard. If you feel (personally) insulted for being called out on your gender or orientation. Then the problem might be within yourself for assuming it is an insult, while that someone is just stating the obvious.
That doesn't say it isn't justified to be offended when someone makes assumptions out of prejudice, it just states that taking it easy works a lot better.
I hate to be my own example, but technically you just made an assumption about me out of prejudice. And living by my own philosophy I didn't take it as an insult, but rather as a misconception.
This concept has been around probably forever, the internet simply intensified it, because the data in it's raw state, is constantly accessible, and can be revisited multiple times. So if you as a person on the internet, can never get over it... then if at any time... even inadvertently, revisit such things, usually the intensity remains constant, instead of it being lost to time.
What used to counter this phenomena, was the axiom: "forgive and forget"
But when you're on the internet, the one place where you can express the freedom of responsibility at any given time; there is no need to forgive, and it's impossible to forget
I think the best quote to sum up the entire thing is from the late, great, Terry Pratchett
"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.”
I think of myself as one of them. That's probably why I've never had these problems. I'm capable of sympathizing with an Iranian citizen.
@@tomhill3248 sounds like a pretty Ussy thing to me
@@deithwen6597 You uh...there's a typo in there buddy. I can't tell what you're saying
I've always loved Terry Pratchett's writing. Captures so many different facets of human perception perspective. And I've had more time to read since we've been in lockdown since March 10. 😬
@@tomhill3248 I think he's trying to say "us"-y. I think his point is, by saying "they see themselves as an 'us', but I can see myself as a 'they' ", you are still setting yourself up as an 'us' and blaming the world's problems on 'them' -- namely, those who can't see themselves as part of 'them'
This is why homer hates Ned Flanders even though Ned is polite and helpful
Haha, yep
Everybody in the USA hates their stupid neighbor he’s Flanders and he’s really really lame
@@edienandy And isn't that a nightmare?
It's *because* he's polite and helpful
And the neighbors from Fairly Odd Parents
"The smell of your moral judgement is ruining my meal" is ingenius
I've gotten quite a few looks from people when I tell them I don't drink alcohol, I guess because they think I'm judging them for doing so. Never mind the fact that I've often gone out with friends who were drinking because I wanted to hang out with them and have repeatedly offered to give rides home when they're a bit too drunk to drive safely. Nope, I'm just a judgmental prude who doesn't know how to "have a good time."
***** When someone offers you a drink, they're not asking you whether or not you ever dink alcohol--they're asking you if you'd like a drink right now. When you say "No, thanks, I don't drink", you've tacked on three unnecessary words that can serve no other purpose BUT to be judgmental in a passive-aggressive way. Would you walk up to a stranger who was having a glass of wine at a party and say, "I don't drink"? No, of course not. It's only a bit less socially retarded when you say it to them immediately after declining their offer of a drink. (Of course, this only applies to people you don't know very well and/or may never see again, because it would get annoying to have to decline offers of alcoholic beverages over and over.)
Alternamaton That parenthesized part is essentially the whole point. I've never been offered a drink by someone I didn't know. I've only mentioned it to friends so I don't have to repeatedly decline. Most never have a problem with it; in fact, sometimes it's even brought up as a joke. Were I ever in a situation where someone I didn't know well offered, I'd just politely decline. That better?
***** Of course, but if what you say is true and is common practice among nondrinkers/vegans/etc, from whence the meme that people flip out when you tell them you're a nondrinker/vegan/etc? Are these people's friends who are flipping out?
Anyway, telling your friend that you don't partake in something they've offered you makes total sense; telling a stranger that you don't partake in something they've offered is social retardation at best and passive-aggressive snarkiness at worst.
Alternamaton So it's wrong to judge people, but it's okay to make negative assumptions about the motives of someone who says that they don't partake in X?
...Okay....
Alternamaton you know why I say it? LIke Wize says, to anticipate iterations. A night can go two ways:
"would you like a drink?"
-no thanks
"would you like a drink?"
-no thanks
"would you like a drink?"
-no thanks
"you don't like beer?"
-nope.
"what drinks you like?"
-i don't like alcohol in general really"
"whaaaat balblablablabla" / "oh, cool cool"
OR
"would you like a drink?"
-no thanks, I don't like alcohol
"whaaaat balblablablabla" / "oh, cool cool"
This video touches on a much, much broader subject than just the Sarkeesian/Gamergate clusterfuck. It's kind of a shame it's relegated to being part 2 in a series like this. It asks enough worthwhile questions to be its own series. Either way, excellent work. Emphatic subscribe.
It's all about people not reflecting philosophically on themselves and their thought patterns tbh. We all know about the importance of self-reflection but rarely do we practice it. It's easier to just go with the gut-reaction, which is often anger
@Diogenes TheDog I had no idea scholar.google.com even existed until I read your comment.
It's also really important that he included "My original opinion is still okay, as long as I add these nuances", because it's how I treat Tolkien. Is he the progenitor of a lot of the fantasy genre's race issues? Yes. But there was also a lot of nuance, which made it very much fair for his day, and it wasn't really until later creators removed the nuance that it became a real issue. As a really interesting example of this, the nature of orcs. JRR Tolkien actually struggled with the theological implications of the orcs being inclined to evil, never settled on an origin story, and was working on version 3 at the time of his death. The version we know, Morgoth corrupting elves, is just his son Christopher settling on the most recent *completed* version, and before then, back when evil could still create in his setting, they were direct creations of Morgoth. It wasn't until later settings like Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms that we saw writers just having them outright be servants of an evil god, with half-orcs at least feeling a *pull* from Gruumsh toward evil because of their orcish blood.
It *is* its own series...
This isn't just about GamerGate, it's exactly what you are saying, it's its own series and GamerGate thing is a vessel to tell the phenomenon.
I can confirm from experience that telling somebody "I don't eat meat" alienates you often times, because this dissonance in perception over the core meaning of your statement is suddenly in the room.
You just informed others about you not eating meat. But they feel judged by you and start defending themselves even if you are not in the slightest bit interested in their defense. You just don't want that fucking burger.
And then the next hour everyone talks about this topic with lots of people getting really angry at the implication that there's suddenly, how you put it, a fork in their road when they actually just want to sit tight.
You really brought that one home. And the amount of downvotes on this video (and the first one) completely prove how full of over-sensitive people the internet is. The mention of they keyword "Anita Sarkeesian", no matter the content of the video, leading to instant downvotes and hatred.
RagnarRox "You just don't want that fucking burger."
If that were true, you'd just have said, "No, thanks." Clearly you also want them to know that you don't eat meat. Why do you want them to know that when they haven't asked you?
Alternamaton Oh, you're of course right. Usually it's the answer to a follow-up-question like "why not?" or "don't you like burgers?" or something.
It's just about the fact that in that moment I just provide the information, without any intent of judging anyone. *shrug* Who am I to judge?
RagnarRox and here lies the problem with your statement "I can confirm from experience..."
Some of this is because sadly a lot of vegans ARE very openly judgemental. So if that's someone's only experience with vegans, then...
@@atinyleaf5014 this makes me think you didn't watch the video at all. 'A lot of feminists ARE very openly judgemental...', 'A lot of sober and straight edge people ARE openly judgemental...' etc. etc. when, really, what's actually happening is less 'a lot' and more 'from what I've seen in the media'. Confirmation bias means that you remember that one provocateur vegan who was featured in the media and think that all vegans are the same, whilst conveniently forgetting the several vegans in the workplace who just go about living their lives.
"I'm normal. This is a normal thing to do."
That kind of hits home for me. My brothers, sister and I didn't have a very good upbringing for numerous and various reasons. All of us have some sort of problems except my one brother who is emphatically normal. That is, he kind of insists on his own normalcy, if that's a word, even in the face of contrary evidence. I think there's a whole thing in that idea of being normal when you're not and when the very concept of normality is questionable.
Failure to mimic my lifestyle is a direct attack upon ME!
I'm a socialist. Which is why I believe that you should be able to do whatever as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights and morals.
it's just... right in my eyes.
@@hifiteen49 "and morals" doing a lot of legwork there, comrade
@@hifiteen49 conservatives also say that, but also mean that you doing something differently DOES impact their morals. Because they're "letting" you "be wrong"
I hate that Jordan Peterson gets to call himself a “modern philosopher” when this guy doesn’t get a title of his own.
Nothing is stopping our beloved Innuendo Studios from wearing that mantle himself. But I think his performance of philosophy means volumes more than Peterson's aping of the same.
Oh wow I hadn't realised he called himself that, I just thought he was a psychologist.
That term is usually attached to him and he just takes it, which is fair enough
@@brrbrr1390 JP also identifies as a conservative, while many extremely progressive socialists don't identify as such. Everyone has a stance even if they don't realise it. Bret Weinstein draws a valuable line between progressive socialism and far left authoritarian extremism.
He was dubbed one of the most influential minds in western philosophy, even though he's kinda just a sexist old man who hyper rationalizes everything he thinks to death, and that seems to resonate with middle class white dudes in america who do the same thing and are the same way, all while feeling completely based and uncucked regardless of how delusional they sound to anyone else
"Some people select 'no' because they're derisive towards the part of themselves that wants to say yes."
That really, really hit me.
Okay... “I’m an atheist” is a wild reason to skip an X-mass party tho
It really is lmao, even tho I'm an atheist I'd still go purely for the food
I'm the staunch atheist in a group of agnostic and spiritual friends and I host the xmas party lol.
I'm an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. Sign me up for the party!
think about the after-party midnight mass
I'm Muslim and I'll leave that party too
The Amazing Atheist gives other atheists a bad name.
Celine Hosea I've started having to explicitly tell people "I'm an atheist, but not one of THOSE atheists"
How egocentric do you have to be to call yourself "The Amazing Atheist"? Sleazy bumpkin prick.
"I'm atheist, I don't celebrate christmas" said no atheist ever
Except maybe Ex-Muslims and potentially others
Said a few, let's not erase folks
I say that.
Because I don't like Christmas. The hideous trees, annoying songs and the obligatory dinner with family that always ends in a fight.
Nah, I'd rather spend my time differently.
And I'm atheist
@@NiekNooijens Fair.
However...
OBJECTION
You're an atheist and you don't celebrate Christmas. But those things are not related. You have another reason to celebrate Christmas than not being Christian. Therefore you wouldn't say "I'm an atheist, I don't celebrate Christmas", the 2 statements being in the same sentence, because it would imply that your atheism is the reason.
What does this have to do with anything?
Reiterating my praise: This is incredible. Can't wait for the next parts.
when people see someone else doing something good, PROVING that we all can too, people try to drag them down to their level
Well said.
We see it in every aspect of life. Some fat friends don't want a buddy to lose weight, some families give a child grief for not being just like them etc.
People are scared of being left behind or feeling bad about themselves, so they lash out. We all have to be aware of how easy it is to fo this and question our actions. :)
"when people see someone else doing something good, PROVING that we all can too, people try to drag them down to their level"
Too true!!
Yeah, for me, it sometimes touches on a deeper fear of me being inferior to those around me/not being socially accepted for not being good enough
This video explains why people at the office holiday party shove cookies, cakes, candy and hot cocoa at me. I often say "no thank you" to sugary sweets because I suffered a really painful dental abscess and loss of a tooth. It was a really horrible experience and I'd prefer to not repeat it. I don't go into details, but apparently saying "no thank you" to Christmas cookies makes you the literal embodiment of the Grinch or Ebenezer Scrooge.
Especially when you said "I'M NORMAL. THIS IS A NORMAL THING TO DO." I mean, maybe going wild at the dessert table at a Christmas party is normal, idk. You do you. But I've had enough dental stuff done that I really *really* don't want more. I want to comfortably fit into my jeans on January 2nd too. But I guess saying "no" to the cookies makes other people at the party feel bad about not doing the same.
Yeah. As what the video suggests, disagreeing with someone makes you feel like you're judging them, even if it's not an intention to do so.
Being someone who used to be fervently opposed to Sarkeesian for the dogma that you outlined, I found this video very eye opening. Good work! I've been here since 'blood is compulsory', looking forward to more
I'm glad I found this channel with the Phil Fish video, I really admire how well written and clever these videos are.
I guess I'm a little less dumber now, so thank you for that.
I love the analogies you drew here.
For me, it became a lot easier to rationalize being a feminist and liking problematic media when you simply take a step back and realize that no one is judging as long as you acknowledge that the stuff you like has problems. I play GTA V constantly. Does it gross me out? Yeah, all the time, but it's also pretty fucking fun.
I hope the work of people like Sarkeesian, which, like you said, is just Feminism 101, encourages developers to better choices. If not, unless they do something that really offends me, I'll just keep buying their games and doing my best to call out what I think they could be doing better.
Yeah! Discussing the problematic aspects of things we otherwise enjoy is important and crucial in encouraging the world to be better. We can't just divest fully of EVERYTHING problematic because we'd have nothing left. Still, that's not an excuse to then say "well if every damn thing is a problem, fuck being discerning." Some people use that rhetoric and forget "HELLO matter of scale!"
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful
Checking back on part 1 of Tropes vs Women in Video Games, I definitely see the point you're making, but you kinda have to consider the fact that she's trying to make an argument. I will admit, though that perhaps it's not best to label her stuff "Feminism 101" since that's not really the intent.
I wanna clarify that I actually disagree with a lot of what Sarkeesian says, mainly because she takes an authoritative stance without giving opportunity for open discourse. But, at the same time, I can't really blame her? People are more willing to hop on the hate train and label her arguments as lies or "cherry picking" when she's just doing her best to make a compelling and informative video essay. Every essay comes from a specific angle; every essay "cherry picks" because you have to make your stance seem compelling. Could some of her examples be better? Oh yeah, definitely. But many people who reacted to her work in games refused to engage with her as a critic, as a scholar, or even as a human.
***** But it doesn't actually address the problem. You know, on this side of the Iron Curtain books (and everything else) had to follow the "party line". Your book is about poor bulgarian workers from the beginning of the century? Add this couple communists that are perfect in every way so that you have role models in your book! All this political correctness in the end achieves nothing more than what the commies did several decades ago. Orpheus? He needs to be black! Because that's the party li.. I mean, because you need to be politically correct! Games? They need more female protagonists! Because that's the pa... that'd be feminist!
The problem is much easier: having too big of a focus on males is just plain bad writing. It's not about feminism or egalitarianism, it's about bad writing and how the industry encourages bad writing as long as the marketing dept knows it will sell.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful I just wanted to add a little something: That the game have prostitute is absolutely not sexism. Fun fact that many anti-feminists don't seem to know is that many feminists are FOR the legalization of prostitution. The reasoning? If prostitution is legalized then prostitutes have a better legal stance against pimps or abusive clients. Basically, they want prostitutes to, well, not be treated the way you can in GTA! :p lol
But, yeah, I wanted to clarify that one. I'm not saying ALL feminists are for it, either. Truthfully, the place of the sex industry is already a huge debate AMONG feminists. So branding prostitution as ''that's sexist'' would be wrong. It would depend on HOW prostitution is presented, mostly, if the woman, as a character, has value beyond sex. Which, in GTA, isn't really the case, so, FOR THIS GAME, yeah, GTA could be considered sexist for it.
But, hey, what I'm saying is the trope in the game is sexist! Which doesn't mean you are for enjoying the game! Falcen is a perfect exemple of that! 'just saying, don't be an Angry Jack about this! lol :p
sonicsnake44
Again, even as a feminist myself, I don't like Sarkeesian all that much. And next time, I encourage you to look at my other posts in the thread before posting a 2000 word copy-pasta and calling me out for something ("this isn't feminism 101") that I took back.
My whole point here was to encourage thoughtful discussion. I'm not saying Sarkeesian has the best examples. And I'm sure as hell not putting myself in a place to defend a piece that I'm not even passionate about.
Tropes vs. Women isn't the best series, but it's important because of how vitriolic the reaction has been from the much of the gaming community. You know, when I disagree with something, I usually think "huh, I disagree with that" and move on with my life. Like this series pointed out, Sarkeesian wouldn't have even become such a prominent figure if rational people went "huh, these arguments are...kinda weak" and moved on with their lives.
Excuse me while I do the same with your post. I have no intention of engaging with someone who basically concludes a piece with "THESE POINTS I DISAGREE WITH ARE LIES!" Learn from the title of the last article you posted.
Amazing seeing the dropoff in the dislike ratio on the parts of this series other than the first (where angry anti-Sarkeesian/GamerGate/etc. people would've been called to action) and the fourth (where the title alone would be enough to call those same people back.)
It's like blood in the water. And once you attract the thundery feet of the amazingly Sargonic variety, the lampreys swarm along with the sharks.
I would criticise the "No Impact Man" guy, on the basis that he is promoting the idea that climate change can be combatted with individual action, when it absolutely requires systemic change
I don't really think that was the point of it though, honestly even the opposite. He was just demonstrating what it takes to truly have no individual impact, not claiming that he was making a massive difference by doing so
The Amazing Atheist is about as likable as ebola.
Westernden ebola-chan is cute yo! unlike that banana fucker!
Can'tplayvidgames All he does is a specific brand of comedy. He purposefully acts like an asshole, but in actuality, he's pretty cool. Also, people tend to attack him for being bisexual just because he put a banana in his butt in pics that someone put out without permission.
Ni C He apologized to her in private and even made a video about it. He said he felt under pressure at the time but he still thought it was uncalled for even if she was being rude to him.
Electrolysis I'm sorry but a half-assed apology doesn't excuse doing something so awful.
Electrolysis That's some pretty fucking disgusting behavior you can't just shove under the carpet. That fact that he thought that was an okay thing to say and do to another person speaks volumes about his character.
A superb articulation of complex and uncomfortable social circumstances from a self-aware, humble and compassionate perspective. This is a great series.
Honestly, I think there's no weaker person than anyone who feels their life choices are being judged simply by virtue of someone else doing the opposite.
I get this a lot whenever I've mentioned to someone that I don't want children. Some parents take this as an attack on them. It's really bizarre.
this is pretty cathartic, i never really think about why i get angry. Seeing it put into words is nice, i feel like i understand myself a little better. I mean personally i don't agree with Anitas videos but i also don't get angry at them either. If i were to meet her in person i'd probably just tell her i'm not particularly a fan, or not mention it at all.
HippoCrit I agree, her videos are not what frustrate me the most, they are just misinformed or poorly argued but the video game industry has dealt with that since day one. It’s how she tries to create a echo chamber for herself instead of engaging with rational critics that bothers me more. It’s one thing to misrepresent something in a video, it’s another to label all critics as sexist harassers so her word can just be believed by more people. But nothing she has ever done justifies the shit she has had to put up with.
clay jack If you can find a rational critic of Anita, feel free to cite them, I'd love to hear what they have to say.
RABID RABIDS Chris Ray Gun, Review Tech USA, Mundane Matt just to name a few and even if you disagree with what these people have to say they don’t want to see her get harassed online for any reason and have reminded their fans often to not go harass Anita on their behalf so you can’t make the argument that these creators are purposefully creating more problems for Anita, just arguing against her points.
Yeah I'm far from a fan.
But people's reaction to her is absurd. It's so over the top and seemingly has nothing to do with anything she actually said or did.
clay jack: i went down the rabbit hold with satgon of akkad’s takeaway from sarkesians videos. I watched a good couple hours of them and dont recall him asking to not harass her. Js
As that guy at parties who says he doesnt drink: tust me, it's for ALL of our safety. I didn't reject the booze; the booze rejects me... and my sanity.
For several months, I binge-watched UA-cam videos on science. I found some great ones that challenged "miracle devices", such as a solar-powered water purifier that could save whole villages by drawing water vapor from the sky. Or the Hyperloop. I really liked the way the arguments were presented, and I liked to learn neat things from actual scientists, or at least the science adjacent, and this guy seemed to know his science! But then, I noticed that he made a great many "social commentary" videos, mostly about how Feminism was "bullshit".
His UA-cam handle is thunderf00t. He really hates Anita Sarkeesian. Like, a lot.
This really bummed me out, because I had to stop watching his science videos. Yes, I know, just because someone has bad ideas doesn't mean they can't also have good ideas. And I can separate the science from the misogyny.
Unfortunately, I can't separate the monetization of videos. See, I can't give clicks to thunderf00t the debunker of crap science, without also financing thunderf00t the tormentor of women. This really sucks, because I tend to think of scientists as heroes, to an extent. Yes, I know we were taken to the moon by Nazi scientists, and I know that anyone CAN suck. It's just difficult to wrap my head around the idea of someone so intelligent not having even a moment of introspection! I'm not a genius. But I'm capable of asking, "Wait, am I doing something awful?" If you're making a video to harass and degrade a woman (or, really, ANYONE) for daring to express an idea, even one with which you disagree, then yeah, you are. And people should want to NOT be awful! Anyone who understands concepts like evolution and anthropology should get that humans only got to where we are at because, when confronted with the opportunity to either work together or kill each other for food, the humans who worked together were successful, and passed down their genes. Cooperation and not being shitty to one another is literally human nature. Thanks to Free Will, we can choose to NOT be decent to one another, but that IS a choice, and it will not make you more desirable to other people. And I can't imagine that NONE of this occurred to Mr. f00t at any time during his relatively long career of being a jerk to Ms. Sarkeesian. Sad.
all he did was call her out on here bullshit
@@trip9845 Huuuuh... He litterally splices her video to take her out of context. Shaun has a video on it.
Thunderfoot hates so much he lies about her.
@@Lrripper good joke
@@Lrripper Have you tried calmly and rationally explaining to him that he's wrong? You'd be surprised how often that works. It's possible he just never realized that co-operation between people is generally a good idea. Geniuses are well known for lacking common sense you know. Their ability to crunch numbers come at a cost.
Oh my god, that’s exactly what happened to me! I spent my highschool senior year summer studying sustainable living and doing humanitarian work in Peru. Part of my studies involved reading articles about miracle poverty solving inventions like the Soccket, LifeStraw, and the Roundabout PlayPump. Thunderf00t deeply appealed to me because of how he thoroughly explained why they were bullshit. Plus it was interesting to see an actual scientist debunk those Kickstarter inventions. Then a UA-camr I’m also subscribed to called BigJoel did a video on why Anita Sarkeesian is so hated and he mentioned Thunderf00t. I was so shocked and disappointed that as soon as the video was over, I immediately unsubscribed to Thunderf00t. It’s too bad because his invention debunking content is really good. He could be one of the best UA-camrs if he quit the anti-sjw rants and stuck with science.
"but whose presence, in his mind, suggests that, if he thought more critically about the media he consumes, he wouldn’t be playing his favorite games. And that if he continues playing, having heard from her, it means he’s a terrible person."
This one line really struck out to me. Because in the end this is the distilled issue with a good chunk of the oppoisition and hate Antia gets.
I discuss games (and by extension media) a lot. I discuss character designs (why I love the portrayal of women in Path of Exile for example), I discuss the progress of a character in a story and the ifs and hows of their relevance to it (the female role in the first two Nolan-Batman movies could've been replaced by a bloody chandelier and nothing of value would've been lost), I discuss how the presentation and the following twists can alienate certain audiences (the introduction of Demona in Gargoyles and then the twist that the only female Garoyle shown was EVUL!).
I do all that. And I can go back to 'enjoying' the Nolan-Batman movies (not a fan but for entirely different reasons), I love the Gargoyles series to death. That both have... issues rooted in sexism doesn't either diminish my enjoyment or implies that I, knowing about this, am a bad person.
Frankly, through those discussion I derive even more enjoyment of the media I love. Either by getting others to enjoy it or sharing interesting moments with people who do not. Allowing this perspective did not take anything away from me and gave me so. Much. More.
Of course it implies you are a bad person. You've identified things that are causing real, tangible harm to real, flesh and blood human beings, and you decided that your enjoyment of those things is more important to you. And worse, you try to get other people to enjoy such problematic content and thus continue to perpetuate the harmful ideas that these pieces of media are causing.
Yooooo, this did not disappoint! I think you hit the nail on the head regarding this unspoken attitude and reaction that's surprisingly prevalent online.
Contrapoints noticed you!! Woooot!! Everyone watch thisss
I was just gonna say the same thing!
I always find it weird when Americans talk about atheism as weird... in the UK the polar opposite is true and saying 'I'm Christian' gets much the same 'am I a bad person' response.
SheezyBites I think it has something to do with the fact that the EU lacked the cold war era propaganda about "family values", that pushed christianity big times (even adding "under god" to their pledge). People growing out of religion is natural, so when you don't have your own government demonising unbelievers it is less shocking to say "I'm an atheist".
SheezyBites It's not quite the same thing because no one is likely to say "I'm Christian" in response to being offered something and turning it down. Plus we have good reason to suspect Christians of being judgy -- they did spend quite a few centuries as self-appointed arbiters of morality, after all.
Jon Stone Pre-Marital Sex ring a bell, or eating meat on Fridays, or any of the many many other things people do they may consider sinful. Especially Catholics, Bonfire Night is basically the exact same situation; do not invite a catholic to burn an effigy of Catholicism!
But you are right in your second point.
Jon Stone As did virtually every religious group at one point. Not that that makes it better.
+SheezyBites
Isn't the Church of England the official church of the state? Also, according to wikipedia 60% of the UK identifies as Christian. Are 60% of the population the UK considered bad people?
And this is why conversations about sexist stuff some men do so often devolve into bending over backwards to say “not all men”. By pointing out that men do sexist thing X, Gary thinks that he, specifically, is being accused of doing X, maybe because he is subconsciously questioning whether or not he actually has done X at some point. And then Gary turns the conversation to proving that personally he has never done X, and into saying that you think all men are evil.
that reminds me of a clip from some guy, i guess being called sexist or something along those lines, angrily yelling that it can't be true because he has never raped anyone. Immediately thinking about the worst manifestation and assuming that is what he was being accused of.
Right. I think some men feel like whenever there's a phrase like "Men do this" or "Men do that", they take it as an insult to imply that they think every man on the planet does whatever it is they are saying men do and they go into fight or flight mode with the "Not all men" rebuttal even though the phrase is not meant to generalize every single man on the planet.
Gary is specifically being accused of doing X. You said X is a thing men do. Gary is a man.
Or maybe you don't think Gary counts as a man because he doesn't do X. That sort of thinking is obviously not harmful to anyone at all ever.
I never interpreted "i dont drink" as a judgement, as someone who has had a lot of alcoholics in my family I know for some people it is realistically just a practical consideration
This reminds me of a quote from the Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Just because someone looks different than you or thinks differently than you doesnt mean you should be afraid of them. It means - you should be angry at them. HOW DARE THEY BE DIFFERENT?!? What? My way of life ain't good enough for them?"
Good advice. It's the only way to protect yourself against hostile outsiders seeking to do you harm.
as a vegan: i am judging you
I dunno, it sounds really self absorbed for someone's first reaction when they face someone with alternative lifestyle decision to react with this anger. None of that decision has anything to do with you. It's their personal choice, not something they decided to do to spite you. Like when someone says, "No thanks on the sandwich, I don't eat meat," how the heck does that trigger some kind of existential questioning of yourself to the point you forgot to say, "Oh, my bad, they got veggie burgers too if you want."
3kbote it doesn't, unless it makes you question your own views and choices or just makes stuff not as easy for you, but there are people who have a self focused reactions. I've had friends when I ask them "ok but why do you have issues with X being a real thing" who's responses boil down to "well that makes it more complicated for me."
Which is a.. kinda assholeish response, but all humans can be kinda selfish at times.
Well in the case of veganism specificly a vegan isn't making a person choice they're recognizing someone else's right to have a choice, some goes for enviromentalism. In the case of the alcohol... Alcohol. Thus explaining why the atheist thing doesn't make people as angry as with the other three.
Alternative lifestyle is alright, but there are clearly wrong and harmful views. Does denying climate change (with actual policy implications), religious extremism, support for pedophilia etc constitute just "alternative views"? Too much relativism equals hypocrisy in allowing others to do what you condemn.
Most human beings are a waste of oxygen. You have people who willingly sacrifice personal comfort in the service of a moral ideal or long term goal, and scum's first reaction is "HUH,YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME?!?!?!?!". To anyone who thinks or has thought this way and is reading this,get your fucking head checked.
@@chinesesparrows All valid points, but I very much doubt people would put those as alternate lifestyles, which usually implies a big change to life inspired by progressivism, an ideology the examples you mentioned could hardly be inspired by. Like I said, you're still technically right if we pull back the implied context.
What athiest doesent celebrate christmas? Maybe like some hardcore athiest pluser but i shure as hell do its just culture and tradition the same way we celebrate valentines day or april fools
An Abra If I ever met someone who told me they celebrated Christmas for religious reasons, I would be very surprised.
An Abra Some Christian purists don't celebrate Christmas.
+An Abra Christmas has pagan origins anyways. There is no real reason for Atheists to not "celebrate" just another consumer holiday
I'm an atheist, and just think of it as a nice time when I get together with my family. It's cozy and comforting. I'm fine with having a comforting tradition without religion.
+An Abra Some people don't have any drive to celebrate it. I only do it because my family wants it.
Really excellent breakdown of people's weird knee-jerk reactions against anything that "could be right" and is different from what they currently do/believe. And...
"That if he thought more critically about the media he consumes, he may not be playing his favorite games"... wow, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Because I know several self-professed video game geeks who consider video games their life and main identity, and I can see how the idea of having to open up and share their games with others (especially "mainstream people/casual gamers" and women, who seem to be two groups they have turned to the video game subculture to try to avoid) must be a scary prospect for them. I can understand that, though the way they've escalated their knee-jerk "I don't want to hear a different opinion" reaction to rape threats and this huge, antagonistic campaign is terrifying and totally unwarranted.
But before all this happened, what confuses me is why the people of that GamerGate mentality chose to include antagonistic/insulting representations of women and all that embarrassing pornographic stuff (like those panty shots sampled at 6:28) in their beloved video games in the first place. If the point is to avoid women (and mainstream ppl), why are they including portrayals of them that are sure to piss off women and all the non-misogynistic segments of mainstream (and geek) men, which would in turn MAKE them pay attention to and criticize/invade the world of video games?
So you don't understand why people who want to avoid interacting with a certain demographic in their hobby would want to include things that make their hobby less appealing to the demographic they are trying to avoid? Is that really that difficult a set of dots to connect?
One quirk to this that’s potentially worth bringing up is the discussion about attachment styles, where people are retreating to their safe place and instead finding challenges and threats.
“Just wanted to go to a party” is a good example.
Not sure how to address this, but it seems like Angry Jack may in part be angry because this is akin to an abusive relationship - instead of being comforted by the thing he trusted, it’s making him uncomfortable.
DiAngelo’s concept of White Fragility is something that very much resonates here - a threatened dominant culture fights back. This is especially true for subcultures of otherwise marginalized groups (gamers, especially historically, failed to meet cultural expectations for “manliness” - not exactly Jim Crow, but still marginalized).
The question that comes next for me is when gaming or nerddom is no longer safe, whether that misogyny becomes the safe space where he will be supported and not challenged.
I don't think what you are describing applies to why most people dislike Anita Sarkeesian. It's also simply not true that her opinion doesn't affect anybody. Her goal is to cause enough pressure on developers so that they have to change the way they make games. Plus she also heavily affected the media.
I think people are mostly angry because she is making an unsubstantiated claim with manipulative rhetoric and the media is unanimously eating it up.
BuFufilms "Her goal is to cause enough pressure on developers so that they have to change the way they make games."
When did she say that this was her goal? It certainly wasn't the stated goal of Tropes vs. Women in video games.
BuFufilms I have an aunt who saw that ABC news gamergate thing on tv, every interaction I had with her for roughly 2 weeks was about how horrible video games were and how I should stop buying them
BuFufilms The media that is "eating it up" agrees with her. Stop being mad at people for not agreeing with you. Prove them wrong or stop complaining.
How any of this is going to "FORCE DEVELOPERS" to make their games differently is still beyond me. I don't know how anyone with a brain thinks this is going to happen. What are they going to make a new rating board that all distributers of games agree to sign that you game must not have any violence towards women in it or we come and burn down your office?
I just... I don't know what fantasy land you guys live in where a youtube series is going to FORCE anyone to do anything.
This isn't force, she's trying to persuade people to think about what they are doing. IF THEY AGREE WITH HER, then they might change what that are doing. THAT IS NOT FORCE! If I tell you "Hey, I had the steak here at this restaurant and it sucked." and then you choose to not get the steak, I didn't FORCE YOU to not order the steak. I thought you would be better off not getting it, and I told you that and provided evidence and you believed me so then you decided to not get it.
THAT'S ALL THAT IS HAPPENING WITH FEM FREQ
BuFufilms ". Her goal is to cause enough pressure on developers so that they have to change the way they make games. "
How? How would she EVER do this? What power could she possibly have to _force_ developers to "change the way they make games"?
Sure, maybe some developers might AGREE with her, and "change the way they make games" accordingly. But if the devs do that out of their own free volition... shouldn't they be free to do so? Or are you somehow advocating for *censorship*?
CyNiSt3r
I don't think she put it as "This is my goal" but she advocated people to do it during some convention. If I can be arsed I'll try and find the clip. It was shown in one of Thunderf00t's videos.
This video is excellent. Thank you so much for taking the time to create it.
I'm an atheist and I get super scared that people will think I'm an asshole for it. I call myself a "progressive humanist" because it sounds more positive.
I'm also thinking of becoming a vegetarian for a while, but again there's so much derision towards my "slippery slope" to leftism.
Can't we all just get along? It's none of your business what I eat or believe. It's none of your business that I don't drive. It's none of your business that I'm a feminist. It's none of your business that I'm a homosexual. None of it.
***** I've considered it a few times. Never made the switch though. :/
This was... great. Amazing. It explains so well why people hold their entranched beliefs.
Oh, fantastic work. I need to read the fuck out of that bibliography. This video went way further than the fucknut crew of hate, and the places it went are _very_ interesting indeed.
And you're doing 4 more videos on this topic? Sweeeeeet.
iDragonarion and he is going to finish his video series on time unlike Anita and in a more than reasonable time frame.
edit
And he is going to finish it in more of a reasonable time frame than Anita sarkeesian.
Necro Panda What exactly is "on time"? That would entail she in some way had some kind of pre-existing schedule she was committed to. Do you have any proof that she agreed to put those videos out at a certain pace or are you repeating what you've heard others say?
Nothing to See Here on time is keeping to the schedule. Her project did not do that.
www.gameranx.com/updates/id/9168/article/what-s-going-on-with-feminist-frequency-s-tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/
Erm, mate, that article actually says that there was never a schedule to be followed and the person who accused Sarkeesian of being late was an idiot.
iDragonarion could you tell the same thing to plus.google.com/100812352752591601634 Nasst because I do not think this user knows that I was wrong on this point.
And thus we get to the heart of it. What does Anita Sarkeesian's videos change? Nothing really. She might make you think, but in the end video game companies have not change who they portray women just because of Anita Sarkeesian's videos. VIdeo game are still racking up a collective billions. Oh wait, it did change something. Men who had cute comedy channels have stopped being funny because they focus most of their channel on Anita Sarkeesian. Certain atheists (who are, in fact, assholes) stop talking about their main subjects to focus on Anita Sarkeesian. They've turn what amounts to "morning zoo" videos into stalkers and hate mongers based solely on hatred of Anita Sarkeesian. So yes, she made a change without meaning to. She's made a whole lot of very stupid men give up on what they love to focus on her. Because if they didn't, who would really know Anita's name, or about her videos? A niche audience who think she has a point, and that's it. And because they get so insane about this, they don't even see that they are the ones who made the woman famous. She just did videos with an opinion that would have been lost in the crowd of opinions if they had left it alone. That is the very definition of insane.
Umar Soaries So completely true, they are absolutely obsessed with her. I think they all fell in love at the same time and she rejected them in one mass text reply back in 2009 or so and that was it.
+Umar Soaries Not quite. When you bring in the ability to spread misinformation about a subject, the stakes of the game change. What these atheist and comedy people and "morning zoo" people have done in directing their attention at Anita is to attempt to spread information about a subject (Anita) before that subject can spread it's own information that could be contradictory to the information the first party is trying to spread. Whether or not the information is true doesn't matter so much as if the information is believable AND has a strong ability to propagate.
*****
They failed because Anita's information is not only out there but it's stronger because Anita doesn't make death or rape or bomb threats, and Anita owns what she says. gamergate, MRA's and others like them who complain about Anita never own their own shit. They try to deny all the hate and sexism and racism they spew and this is one of the things that makes them insane. They keep doing it in public and going "prove we did it." Oddly enough most of them will badger you to prove they did it then move on to doing it again.
Umar Soaries
That's not what I've seen. I've seen people who belong to the gamergate group being vilified over unproven accusations, I've seen social justice warriors accidentally outing themselves for sending themselves harassing tweets/comments/death threats, and I've seen sensationalist media blowing things much, much out of proportion.
I've also seen rabid social justice warriors viciously attacking anyone who doesn't tow the line. Really, a cannibalistic lot they are.
Anita is good at manipulating public opinion and her social image, but she's not careful enough. She's going ot slip up and the tide is going to turn against her.
You have nailed it.
This is an amazing cultural/social analysis. It never occurred to me exactly why this reaction happens when people meet others they disagree with. The whole ignoring the internal debate thing really makes sense. In our capitalist world devoid of meaning and self worth, we don't want moral predicaments to think about too. Almost as if society is designed to keep us complacent. Hm..
I watch this video at least every few months and I have done for a year now, just to remind myself of how Jack works. I anticipate doing so again for the foreseeable future. Thank you for crystallizing this incredibly important thought process.
Every time I see some reactionary commentor on this video complaining about Anita, completely missing the point, I become just a little happier.
Good for you. After all, it isn't about making anything better. It's about trolling and pwning the other side. So more people being pissed off isn't a sad tick box of another person revealed to be against you, but a triumphant demonstration that you got under someone's skin and made them react.
As we all know, it's so much better to be hated than ignored.
One time an entire grown man threw a tantrum because I told him that Amazing Atheist videos are bad.
Yeah, being an asshole to people will make them upset. I think you'll find this has far more general applications than just insulting people for their taste in internet personalities.
I used to be very uncomfortable about the impact eating meat has on the environment and the animals suffering in captivity. To the point were I hated vegans, I remember watching a video about what if we stopped eating meat and my blood went cold. You are right, we feel judged by advice.
Man, this video takes a whole different context in the light of the anti-vaxxers.
GREAT OBSERVATION, I hadn’t made that connection until reading that comment!
Anita: be critical of the media you love.
Her critics: I'm going to ********************, you ********.
@Apollo Foxmask Well, if she has to send screenshots to the FBI, the threat is real enough, that's for sure. So clearly, there's a category of people that is angry enough at her to threaten her safety on a daily basis. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her opinion, the fact that a significant subset of her haters is willing to stoop so low is, in itself, telling.
I'm also somewhat confused about your statement about the gaming industry "becoming something it was never meant to be". If video games are an art form - which, I think, isn't something that anyone can argue about anymore - then isn't all art "meant to be" so long as it doesn't hurt others in the process? If I apply your logic of "doing as I please as long as others aren't harmed", then the fact that others submit their demands about an art form isn't reprehensible, nor is it damaging.
The reason why you see leftist as "envious" and "wanting to take what I would make in terms of material and profit for themselves" is because you can't fathom any other reality. You are applying the way that you personally think - self-centered (which I don't necessarily mean in a bad way, I literally mean that you're centered on yourself) - to everyone else. A significant portion of the world genuinely acts for the greater good. Of course, there's an idea of personal gain too. I'm Canadian, so let's take the notion of universal healthcare as an example. Most people around me agree: universal healthcare is a right and is necessary. We are perfectly fine with paying for that right for most of our lives because it helps others who are simply unlucky - cancer, paralysis, you name it. But it's also an insurance policy: I know that if I ever get sick, society will also have my back. To me, paying for others is a very small price if it means that my own safety is also guaranteed.
It's not about stealing from anyone. It's about collectively agreeing that the protection of the many also doubles as personal protection. It's also about recognizing that my reality is only one of many, and just because something doesn't pertain to my reality doesn't mean that it doesn't exist at all. Just because I'm not having a hard time doesn't mean that no one is having a hard time. Etc.
To me, such a way of thinking is absolutely necessary to live in society. By simply stepping out of your house, every day, you are implicitely placing an enormous amount of trust on the people that you run into. You trust them not to try to kill you. You trust them not to try to steal from you. You trust them not to get in your way. But I think that we can both agree that it's unrealistic to trust everyone. You don't need a thousand bad people. You just need someone to make a wrong decision one day - they might not even be bad people, they might just be very confused - and that's the end of your life.
And I feel like this is where our thoughts depart: your line of thought would be "if I can't trust everyone, give me the tools to defend myself". My line is "if I can't trust everyone, let's make it harder for others to have the tools to kill me". Frankly, I feel like my line of thought is a lot more logical: if everyone has the tools to "defend themselves", then everyone has the tools to kill. If less people do, then the chances of someone actually managing to kill me are significantly lowered. That applies to everything else. Rape. Stealing. Etc.
Now, if we go back to games. To make art is to accept that it will be criticized. To create games that are sexist, for example, exposes them to the criticism of women, who, I might add, make up for about 50% of gamers. Do I agree with witch hunts? No, never. But do I agree with protest? For sure. Anita did what everyone else does: she criticized art. What warrants the level of hatred that she received? Nothing. Nothing at all.
I love how you logically analyze the opposing arguments, and get down to the root of why people think this way to start with. Why people act the way they do. Instead of just saying “they’re wrong and here’s why,” you take it a step further and diagnose how they got there in the first place. I consider myself pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, but I think also as a straight cis white middle-class male, I can become prone to the temptation to be “angry jack” at times. It’s easy to be defensive, or to feel attacked, and you don’t want to be the bad guy. And the next step for our emotional monkey brain is to lash out, and play offense.
I'm actually allergic to alcohol so I can't drink even though I sometimes want to. So I get this a lot, people actually get upset when I decline to partake. I think they think I'm making an excuse when I explain it's a medical issue, and get even more angry.
"It's OK when I say it" effin' killed me!
I mean I think the people who are the loudest become the stereotype of a group. Like take atheists for example. Yeah they say some pretty fucked up shit sometimes (stuff that doesn't even correlate with "hey I don't believe that"), but I'm an atheist, and though I am a group of 1 I don't really think I'm an asshole. If people say "have a blessed day," I don't narrow my eyes and spout off my own beliefs or lack there of. Just sucks that the generalizations stand out.
There are assholes of every group, for sure. It pains me, because while I let most religious stuff go, I don't believe it, and I've been told I'm unwelcome when it comes out that I'm not a believer. In fact, I've had more anti-religious discrimination against me than anti-queer discrimination.
hearing your voice in these videos is very soothing. It feels like home. I miss you very much and I hope you are enjoying the new england summer :) One of these days I'll have the perfect combination of money and time to make a visit.
The initial reaction of "ehm, he kind of made me feel guilty and it's traumatizing to give up stuff" was probably one of the most childish reactions I have ever heard from and adult person. smh
Man, dude. You smart. A+
This was a great video. Until the last minute or so when you try and tie it back to Anita.
For fucks sake, stop making these sweeping generalizations about the motives behind people who oppose Anita. I actually supported her, for crying out loud. I WANTED a real deconstruction of possible sexism in the game industry. I wanted that discussion.
Instead, I got lies, broken promises, baseless assertions, and the blatant and unapologetic manipulation of facts in order to suit her personal narrative.
Fuck, man. You are taking everything Anita has said about the people who oppose her and parroting it back, whilst minimizing the voices of anyone who dissents. You are perpetuating the false narrative that I am an abuser, simply because I have been lied to. Anita is not a minority in this issue, her opinion is the vast majority.
I like you. I like your channel, and I will stay subscribed. But seriously, seeing you completely ignore mine, and anyone else's anger or criticism as simply being hateful rejection of ideas we don't agree with is a shameless strawman.
Michael Little If you're not one of the people sending death/rape threats and spending all your time spewing vitriol at Anita, *then you are not who the video is about.* This series is quite plainly not about people with legit issues with her, but the people who've spent nearly 3 years furiously obsessing over her.
mrbobo978 actually, no. He paints everyone who criticizes her as people who are trying to reject the possibility of sexism in gaming. He actually does this in the last minute. And in the last episode, he does no better with his chosen language. He is painting with a broad brush.
Michael Little
He declared in his first video that their is no legitimate criticism of Anita's work. That let me knew right their he was full of sh#t.
Michael Little Hi, Angry Jack! Nice to meet you.
Nothing to See Here I get that "angry jack" is a great label to help you make me into an "other", rather than addressing what I have to say, but I like to think people are better than being so dehumanizing.
no one is born believing in god. it is learned in formative years.
6:15 'How dare you make me judge myself by my own standards! I don't like what I see!'
You know.. I come back to these videos from time to time and they become more profound as I get older and understand the world better.
They have definitely aged well my friend.
I think this episode really gets into an unacknowledged part of human psychology.
I'm convinced this is why the whole "vegans never shut up about being vegan" stereotype exists despite being so inaccurate. Vegans don't judge other people, but their existence alone makes insecure people feel judged.
Mean there certainly exists now a subculture of vegans doing exactly that lol
@@zawrator4457 Does there really? Or is the stereotype so widely spread that we just assume so? It's anecdotal, but I certainly have never in person met a vegan who mentioned their diet before being offered food unsuitable for it.
@@aro2866 Just going off online footprint here, plenty of forums now with extremely radicalized vegans. How much that translates into irl is another matter of course.
@@zawrator4457 Well, I'm going to assume that those radicalized groups exist on forums dedicated to dieting or veganism. It would be weird to shut up about veganism in a discussion thread about veganism. That would just be off-topic.
@@aro2866 Meant the “judgement” part about these people being extremely judgmental about other people. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
"People get angry when you suggest they will have to do without something" very very true
Indeed. It's a pretty universal response. Hard wired evolutionary since anyone who didn't get angry about being told to do without, went without.
Damn it! You're making me reconsider my opinions on anita sarkeesian AND I JUST WANTED TO WATCH A FUN AND INFORMATIONAL VIDEO *REEEEEEE*
Wow, this was a really, really good video. Very few people capture so perfectly the feeling you were describing. Not only was it well written, but extremely relatable (at least to me). Then, when you shifted the conversation to the larger picture it worked extremely well.
Damn, in one video you just made this one of my favorite channels....
Keep up the good work!
(Claps) You know, I don't give a fuck at the issue at hand. Be it Sarkwhateversheiscalled or I dunno, pancakes. This man right here? He rationalizated the whole hate and ignorance culture that we know exists and never wonder why it exists, and decide that lets all shut up about it or bash on whoever rises the question. That deserves praise. And praise I will give.
This is a little off topic, but as someone who doesn’t drink that metaphor is so spot on dear lord
No. Sarkeesian is the woman at the party screaming that anyone who drinks beer will become a rapist. Then she will produce high school level research studies and attempt strong arm beer brewers to start making only non-alcoholic beer.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. - MT
She never says that games should be censored. She even says in of her videos "It is possible and even necessary to be able to live a pice a media while acknowledging it's more problematic or pernicious aspects." She asks game developers to do better but she doesn't advocate for the censorship of games. She's just pointing out uncomfortable things.
Define problematic. Define pernicious aspects. According to who? Point to any research in the history of video games that correlates consumption with deviance. Game developers need to do better? Better what? What is she exactly pointing out that is uncomfortable....that unreal characters are unrealistically animated? If that's that case, every romance novel ever written is "problematic".
+Spunky Brewster problematic is used as a term to denote ideas that perpetuate existing harmful stereotypes (at least in the context of Anita's videos),If you actually watch her series, you'll see that she does offer suggestions for game companies to use. (She even has a hypothetical game concept) I disagree with her on some points, but her work is important. Give them a watch.
+Spunky Brewster also, she's not implying that video games imply deviance. Neither am I. But video games have aspects (like plot points, and story concepts, not just animation) that came from less than savory places. This needs to be recognized and rectified in order to create a better environment for gamers of all types.
(Also, love the Cap icon! I'm a huge fan, and have been ever since I was a little nerdling :)
Oh, I've watched her videos, and they are cherry picked non-sense. Again I refer you to the Twain quote. Everything you said is a value judgement. And that is dangerous to commercial art. Changing the nature of a game/entertainment to appeal to a demographic that will not consume the product to begin with is insane. Not to mention alienating the games fan base. I completely agree that gaming titles can be expanded to cast a more inclusive net. But not at the expense of censoring existing titles.
I would love to have Sarkeesian head up and produce a video game to her moral standards. See how well it sells. If it succeeds, we'll have a different genre of titles. If it flops, she'll no doubt scream patriarchy hegemony. Because of course, "EVERYTHING is sexist, EVERYTHING is racist".
This is 100% why I don’t actually like telling people that I’m a vegetarian or that I’m an atheist unless they ask directly or put me in a position where an explanation for why I’m not engaging in something is necessary. Oddly enough, the vegetarian thing is more triggering. I have to assure people that I feel no sense of moral superiority I simply prefer not to eat meat. They can eat meat and it’s fine. I’m not judging them for eating meat. Some people get really belligerent about the meat eating and it’s weird.
I give everyone the impression that I am religious so nobody actually asks me. Which is nice. I’m not looking for converts to atheism and the smug atheists bother me too.
Love it. Very well said. (I am vegan and atheist)
Same here. I loved the cartoons about how people object to my diet.
How dare you judge everyone by simply announcing what are fairly benign and mostly insignificant details about you!
Wow, I agreed 100% until the Sarkeesian part..
Why ruin such a great concept by working toward such an unfitting (the Sarkeesian thing is really not at all like all the other examples you point out) and frankly irrelevant climax?
yeah, it didn't have a good fit.
God, I struggled greatly with accepting that I needed to go vegan. I kept being confronted with the concept through friends and my then girlfriend. Not directly, or even actively. They never tried to push me into it. They were all trying their best to be good people, and that became harder and harder to ignore.
At first, I shrugged it off. This one is very familiar: "I just like meat too much." Because I've said it myself. Many times. But then, eventually, that became the *only* reason I continued eating meat. I guess I couldn't accept that kind of weak footing, so the stubborn part of me that refused to believe that I could be in any way unethical, or immoral, finally gave up.
Also, turns out, vegan food is fucking delicious.
This is relevant to this video, because I can understand and empathize with these people who are so, so angry (to an extent. I never railed against vegan people online because I ate animal products and they didn't. That would be silly). It takes an incredible force to make a person *change*, and it almost always starts with having your beliefs and opinions firmly challenged.
That just ain't easy.
My roommate is vegitarian. I didn't particularly care either way, so when she moved in, I stopped buying meat since our shared meals would be vegitarian, and only ate meat when I went out, purely due to the logistical convenience of not needing to make two separate meals.
Then I nearly died from an iron deficiency. Not because a vegitarian diet was inherently unhealthy or anything like that. But because I turned out to have an undiagnosed allergy to the binding agent used in most of the meat substitutes. We joke about her trying to kill me on occasion.
I still find it incredibly annoying when people keep questioning her on her vegitarianism as if they think there's some sort of judgement coming from her.
I Just wanted to thank you for posting this thoughtful video. I saw it through PBS IDEA Channel. It was one of the better videos I have watched on youtube. I hope it spreads far and wide.
1:41 ngl I've been on the rejecting end of that before and I hate, hate, hate when people get pushy or mad that I wont drink. Like sorry that my medication interacts badly with alcohol I guess I'll just die next time
Let us hold onto one another like wreckage in the storm.
Sorry that I'm a raging alcoholic just waiting to take his first drink.
"She never SAYS this. She doesn't BELIEVE this. But she makes him FEAR that it's true".
This part is so crucial. So many people psyche themselves out into thinking the next person thinks the worst of them, regardless of whether the other person would realistically have any motivation to even CARE much less waste mental energy on judgment. The worst of the former types go on to lash out at others for effectively what THEY feel about their own damn selves.
"I hate myself and I hate you for reminding me -however indirectly- of how much I hate myself. You must be punished!"
This is so true. As a vegan, the political right is no problem. They just kind of ignore me or when they get in a debate with me, are often even pretty open. The left are reaaaaally difficult. They can get extremely angry, and extremely illogical as well. It's a very weird experience as someone who is center-left such as myself.
I generally didn't feel this sort of thing when it came to meat eating, or not, but when it came to content creators or games that had been labelled as problematic in some sort of way.
If more of humanity was like you, I believe the world would be a better place.
There's nothing wrong with believing something, but there is a problem if you believe it unquestionably.
Fantastic episode, well done. Just thought I'd get this out here before the Anti-Feminists show up.
>zero impact on the environment
>breathing CO2 into the air
How exactly can you fix that without killing yourself? And, just because we can't fix all problems, should we just say fuck it and keep having as much impact on the environment as possible?
Scia Dredan
Become robots?
robots probably have a higher impact in the enviroment than humans, you know, starting by the process and materials from they are made
Jose Lyn
>made from recycled corpses, and electronics
>no more need for graveyard
>reduction of landfill use
>magic will be used as process
>any magical by-products will be dumped in the sun of a nearby uninhabitable galaxy
I resent the characterization that the environmentalist at the start's actions only affected him and his family; we have analog conversations even now, in 2019. Making a big deal about encouraging individuals to be accountable for environmental impact in how they live their daily lives while the overwhelming majority of the actual environmental impact is caused by a handful of enormous corporations, completely outside of any direct influence of the individual is not helpful to "the cause", whatever you may think "the cause" is. It places focus and energy on entirely the wrong topics for entirely the wrong reasons and simply makes it even *more* difficult to achieve the things that need to be done to *actually* impact these institutions.
I forget where but I’ve seen a similar explanation of why we get angry like this before. It’s always appreciated when someone helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I have to come to terms with myself and my feelings, even the negative ones, like Carl jungs concept of the shadow, to fully understand myself.
two episodes in one week? *gasp*
Keep it up!
Joshua Martinez They're coming out every day until Saturday!
He's releasing one video a day until the series is done on Saturday :)
I have some points you need to consider (I might be wrong, but these are infos I learned working with environmental NGOs and Institutes for the past 3 years in South America):
-Personal control over consumption doesn't make a dent on the system that still pounds down the whole world's environment.
-Most of water and energy waste are from factories and farms.
-We produce 6x the amount of food to feed everyone, and still we have hunger.
-We produce more than 10x the amount of people on mobile cellphones and computers.
-We produce double the amount of cars we use.
-Law and law enforcing is what make overproducing factories and farms to stop. When you don't do that, you might as well eat bacon and sleep with the shower on that your impact will be next to nothing.
I do know that society itself need to change habits, but some changes are unilateral and baseless (or based on exaggeration), such as "controlling water waste", since 90% of it is bovine farm based waste (that same farm produces 12 times more meat than needed). The environmental cause is not something you can dial down with your personal life changes, we need laws and enforcement of it. Today a meat factory can be fined for invading and setting indigenous land on fire, excessive waste and health concerns on the meat quality and don't even feel it on their pockets. Breaking the law is profitable for them.
That said, you derived your "judgement guilt" from an specific case of someone not helping the environment that much. I mean, a video on how to eat less meat and consume less electricity would go WAY BETTER than isolating yourself and your family. People feeling guilty about it is pretty ironic since he's not helping that much more than anyone else, he's just lowering his own guilt.
I also get all my clothes from donations, I buy mostly locally from no-land farm NGOs, I do watch my water and electricity waste and I try not to eat bovine meat at all, except from special occasions. That's a pretty collection of ideas that do help me feel better, but I know that's just MY political needs. I never had vitriol or hate directed towards me because of any of that, maybe only jokes about some of my clothes, but that's harmless fun. I didn't make a whole documentary about it.
But this guy did, he wanted the world to see his life as a zero impact guy. That's a factor you might want to weight in next time you want to talk about this.
This hit me hard, because my „I don’t drink“ is „I don’t want ice cream“ or „I work out“.
„Are they judgeing me for not being as fit as them?“ Is what made my life hell for a long time, especially when you grow up as a kid as chubby as santa in a chibi version
This is a similar reaction to what happened with Marie Kondo. It wasn't enough to just dislike what she had to say people HATED her.
well this video just got me into an existencial crisis
Still a fantastic series that everyone should be made to watch. Clarifies so many issues with social media’s influence on political issues.
I have a completely different view on this. It's not that we're angry that people refuse our sandwich or decline to go to our xmas party, it's just that you, at that point want to roll your eyes, and say come the fuck on, live a little, give a little, stop living by these self imposed rules 100 % of the time and just give a little back to society by including yourself in the "mainstream" once in a while. I do that for my religious mother, I do it for my matrimonial friends, although I don't believe in marriage, I play and cuddle with their kids even though I find them annoying and think women are ruining their lives by having kids. THAT's why we're so pissed off at these hard lined, self assured people with their 101 rules by which they live their lives and which cannot possibly be altered for ...let's say...one night...one dinner...once in a while. Not because they could be right, and we don't want to consider that, it's because I see them as selfish people who think their values are so important and so written in stone that it's annoying to be around them. I, being a fairly fluid person, taper my values on a daily basis, depending on what I'm doing, who I'm doing it with, and why I'm doing it and it pisses me the FUCK off that those people cannot do the same for the sake of social harmony once in a while.
Yvonne K And you are waaaay off mark about why Angry Jack hates Anita. It's not that there are angry Jacks all over the internet hating people left and right because they're just that fucking angry, it's that there is something inherently unlikable about Anita. Everything from the way she talks, to the shitty examples she uses, to the 3 videos she completed our the 11 promised and ultimately the stolen money she conned out of us. It's the fact that she said she's not a gamer and doesn't play them, and then a couple years later calls herself a gamer in her Kickstarter video in order to get the MONEY. It's the fact that she blocks anyone who criticizes her and removes the ability to comment on any social media she is a part of. This is why those that hate her are NOT angry Jacks, but normal everyday people like me. I am not afraid nor ever was that watching her critiques will make me challenge my own beliefs of who I am, and my values if I like running people over in GTA5 and buying prostitutes in Metro 2033. I've watched every single one of her videos and found nothing in them that made me want to change my gaming habits, or even question them. (Might I also add that I am an Anthropology major with a concentration in Women's Studies?) And from my user pic, you can see, I am a woman...a fairly attractive woman...who is a gamer and who has NEVER experienced ANY sexism from the gaming community. I've found them accepting, inviting, a bit taken aback maybe, but they've been mostly cool about it. And as a woman, I don't mind rescuing the princess, or having sex with women in Witcher, because 1. They're games and I don't expect nor do I experience the same thing in real life and 2. Women and men are different, and men enjoy having sex with women, and seeing naked bodies, whilst women enjoy things that are a bit different, for different reasons (for the most part) and THAT'S OKAY. Women and men are not the same. They don't behave the same way and they don't function psychologically and physiologically the same way, so I find it ludicrous that women like Anita refuse to recognize that, AND that they blow it way out of proportion.
Yvonne K It seems your value to conform to "mainstream" to please others is the value that you think is so important and written in stone. You want others to sacrifice their value system, but what you're not considering is the vegan and the non drinker are not asking you to sacrifice yours. They're not asking you to not drink or not enjoy meat, they're not asking you to not conform if that's what you feel is best. So who is the one being self righteous and who is being selfish? It isn't the vegan or non drinker. There's lots of ways to give back to society without sacrificing your values and refusing meat or alcohol will not affect social harmony. The vegan can bring and bbq a vegan burger so he/she is still eating with everyone else. And the non drinker may not be as into the party but hey, at least you have a DD.
As far as anita, yeah, I don't like her or hate her. I have no problems with running over people in GTA regardless of the gender of the character. I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and Anita's whole thing about the more you think it doesn't affect you the more it does thing, well, I'd feel bad about running over a squirrel if I thought I could have safely avoided it, so if it's desensitizing me, it's sure taking it's sweet time.
I am so happy I am an old man.
I have figured out that it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about me and what I do or why I do it.
Get over your selfimportance and live your life.
Babies aren't born atheist? I strongly disagree.
I mean babies aren't really born anything.. Except as babies. What matters is what information they are fed as they develop. If they are born into a christian family in America, they will most likely be christian. If they are born into a Hindu family in India, they will most likely be Hindu. If their parents are atheists, they will most likely be atheists. Hopefully any of these babies will recognize this and make a decision they believe to be rational.
You somehow made my point, and missed my point all at once.
The default position regarding belief of anything is to disbelieve, or have no position at all. Like you said, babies are blank slates and are convinced by ideas from people they trust in their early years.
Before babies are taught anything, they have a lack of belief.
MetalAsFork "You somehow made my point, and missed my point all at once."
Todarac Cheers m8 ;)
"One last thing (I don't want to seem like i'm extending the argument, there is no argument here), but I don't think "disbelief" and "no position" are the same thing."
I agree and that's an important distinction to make.
+MetalAsFork
Although I can appreciate your position, it still ignores the fact that atheism is a conscious rejection of the myriad of claims made by various theists. A newborn is ignorant of such claims and the concept of logic, so therefore cannot make such a determination.
At best, a baby is merely an empty vessel waiting to be filled; it is not born
rejecting the concept of a God.
Really good clear and concise vid.
I vaguely remember being angry at Anita back in college for making these videos. It wasn't because she was pointing out something that made me feel bad, it was because she was commenting on what I felt was my culture as what I felt was an outsider. No different than I would feel if I was Jewish listening to a catholic pointing out problematic aspects of my religion. Even if they're right, it feels like an attack
Thanks for uploading this video. A few years ago I published an article about what it's like being biracial (i.e., the challenges we face). And man! The backlash I got was ridiculous. While all the other biracial people agreed with me, I got so many dumb comments like, "Things like that never would happen!!!! Even though I'm not biracial so I have zero say!!!!" Ugh. And you see this with the black rights movement. "Racial profiling never happens!!! If you obey the cops you don't get shot!!!!!" This video explains it so much. And the no impact man critics are dumb. A family decided to do an experiment and people got so mad because they are insecure? Jesus.
"Environmentalists like you give us a bad name''
Doesn't that remind you of something ?
That's exactly what's happening with veganism too, people pretending that some vegans give veganism a bad name. This is the same effect.
As an animal rights activist I can relate so much. We're trying to speak up for the victims but because some people get triggered at the idea that being non-apologetic towards their non-vegan surroundings could be a valid and effective activism, they get very offensive at vegans who are simply here for the same reasons.
And again, that seems to be just because they don't like the idea that being direct about it could be an effective solution, not because they have arguments or proofs to support that this method isn't as effective.
came here from extra credits, and these first 2 videos i've watched are incredible. I'm excited to finish this series today!