Reminds me of that old fable/joke of a missionary converting an inuit person after making first contact, who asks him "if I didnt know about sin, would god condemn me to hell?" To which the missionary responds "no, of course not" and the inuit says "then why did you tell me?"
This concept is one I thought of before serving a Mormon mission, turned my beliefs into feeling like I was damning anyone who would have otherwise been fine, and caused me to turn around on my faith
Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” So the missionary must not have remembered that part of the Bible, ignored it, or interpreted it in a strange way.
As someone who had a frankly embarrassing anti-SJW phase in my early teens, this video series actually had a huge part in making me take a step back and analyze my knee jerk reactions, reevaluate some of my opinions, and eventually to decide to stop behaving like a colossal douche. Complete rejection of that former mentality didn't happen instantly, but it did start the path to self awareness. Thank you for these videos. They can have a huge impact.
I just posted this a few comments up, but, I was a part of a big internet meme community right in the thick of gamergate and I ended up joining the wrong side. All my friends from the community were antifeminist, and so I bought into a LOT of the bunk about how feminists were out to ruin video games. When gamergate became Trumperism, though, I began to see what it really was, and I'm still sorry for all the horrible shit I said as a former pro-gater. I really should have known better then-- it's not like, as a woman, I was unaware of sexism in video games and didn't want a change; I just thought that "feminism" of those times meant "being a liar that doesn't play video games that sleeps her way to the top to force Nintendo to get rid of Link as a protagonist forever because he's a white dude and stealing money from the people that support her" and... I cringe at my views back then. I also ended up deleting and blocking 70% of the friends I made back then. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one that turned realized what was ACTUALLY going on during Trump's election campaign and made a hard turn into "hardcore leftie feminist" and I have friends from those days that we can sit and laugh about how stupid we were.
One of the main aspects of being a mature person is to not link your self-esteem to the idea of being morally perfect or free of flaws. Once you develop healthy self-esteem and accept flaws as a universal human feature, you'll have less problems to acknowledge when somebody else makes a good point that you didn't realize before.
Demian Haki The older one gets the less their ego is attached to concepts of perfection, morally or otherwise, because life has a way of showing you your flaws. I’m generally speaking, and I’m this is just my opinion.
@IconicBarb's Aids Because they grow enough of a spine and get enough self-esteem to shrug off wokescolds trying to guilt-trip them with accusations of racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry. Especially if they hold a modicum of social power and a social safety net of like-minded peers as a result of their actions in life.
This episode especially resonated with me. Very often people I discuss social issues with - even in real life - try to catch me off guard, try to get a 'gotcha' moment for them where I say something "bad". Sometimes it works because yes, I was raised in this society too and yes, I'm not perfect. It always baffles me when they get excited, positiviely giggling and saying "see, see, that was racist!" And I go: "Oh, okay, I will change that." But they aren't even listening, just overjoyed and continuing to point out my mistake as if that invalidates everything I just told them. Because clearly due to this thing I must be just as bad as they are - "ha!"? Like you said: Its not about being a bad person because you said or did something racist/sexist/whatnot. Its about how you deal with it and the impact even words can have on people around you.
I like to think of morality (or any other pursuit of truth) less of being right and more of becoming right. Leaves me more open to change on the (rare?) occasions where I am wrong.
Right on, dude. I've never even heard of the GamerGate movement until today. But I had watched the Unquartering guy and while I started to detest him and his attitude towards everything, I still carried with me this "Anita Sarkeesian is a horrible slut". I didn't even know why. I had heard mostly from unquartering idiot that she runs into all events everywhere and ruins everyone's good times. I realized later I had never heard her speak at all or bothered to look up her side.
If you replace the theme of "sexism in video games" with "system racism in policing" this is a one to one transfer with the difficulties of the discourse today. This series is a gift, thanks for putting in the work to make this.
"People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict."
I Control My Fate Maybe I haven’t seen enough of him, I can understand why someone would argue he’s “terrible” (he is on the lower rungs of complex thought) but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of him being a fascist.
me: watches ONE video that MENTIONS game critique (done by THIS GUY) youtube: so you’re saying that you want 1,000 videos about people claiming that sjws are what is wrong with video games? me: jesus christ- no- what the- NO
Surprisingly I don't have that big of an issue with algorithm... it still recommends those anti-sjw bros but also recommends leftists alongside. Maybe its because I disabled watch history or smth idk
Reutzer Yeah no kidding. It was a really well made video. I still have a few disagreements but he nailed down some personal attitudes of mine on the whole "am I a good guy or bad guy?" thing which does hurt.
+Reutzer that's good, dude! it's kinda hard looking inwards and realising that some of the stuff that you never thought about can hurt other people or contribute to shitty things that already happens to them. finding those things and going "okay, this doesn't make me a bad person, nobody is trying to shame me, but i''m going to do something about it" is an awesome response to it :)
Wow, my husband pretty much said the same thing you guys are saying. If nothing else, this video was like that cool coffee table book that started a whole interesting conversation. It was sort of Jordan Peterson-esque in his analysis. Generally I find the misogyny shpiel (even the term, shudder) irritating as well as perpetual victimhood. Yet we kept watching this, even when we suspected that he slipped soy in our coffee. BTW, is it wrong to still really like Sargon? (D'oh! I just showed my need for "I'm a good person" validation! 😣)
I call this the "battered husband" syndrome. It doesn't matter that if the "wife" is cheating; just for the sake of argument let's say she is. Let's say she is every bad thing the "husband" thinks she is. At a certain point, the reality doesn't matter and the husband is using the wife's behavior as a cover for every bad action he does. Her behavior is his excuse for a lack of personal growth. I'm sure there are ethics problems in games journalism (the relentless and shallow positivity for an industry entirely devised to sell games a a a product that should be structured for mass consumption that GG ended up defending, rather than an art form that can represent the viewpoint as an artist) but that is totally lost because all anyone hears about is an extreme and reactionary version of the ideology being criticized. They are saying "I'm not wrong, you are wrong. You are so wrong that you are evil" It's the same "backed in a corner" feeling you describe when you talk about judging the non-drinker. One tends to react with a super extreme version of the behavior being criticized as a way to show how right they are
David Stinnett I think this describes the political reality in the US right now. There are a lot of people who would otherwise be somewhere in the middle that are totally convinced that their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum are far more “evil” or extreme than they really are. It doesn’t make sense for such a high percentage of Americans to believe that “the other” is evil-statistically there aren’t that many “evil” people anyway. It’s like we’re stuck believing in morality through the lens of a Ponzi scheme.
@bo rick you have managed to miss the point in the absolute funniest way. It’s beyond satire
6 років тому+54
I like to think that I am an ally/woke/etc. but watching your videos I get that feeling of defensiveness and I realize there is still some Angry Jack inside of me. Thank you for helping me realize it!
He's basically saying that "this needs to change" without giving any explanation as to why. Seems natural to get defensive when someone is trying to impose their moral dogma. And I say this as an anti-authoritarian radical leftist. I just don't see how having an over abundance of fictional material in which young males can safely explore and enjoy their violent instincts is bad. It would be so much more productive to spend these resources making these videos on, say, analyzing the ways in which MSM pushes and legitimizes wars to the public. All these issues like GamerGate and SJWs are just a distraction, and people on the left and right who fall for it are gullible fools.
Have you ever considered the threat of normalization? Or thought about where those violent instincts come from? Whethere they're related to the wars you seem to suggest are separate and distinct from the same undergirding violence normalized in our culture? Why the false dichotomy?@@seeibe
Your points are so fucking insightful, and phrasing so fucking surgical... Holy shit. I don't even know what to say. This is a life changing video series.
This dude is speaking to me 4 years later and I’m having what sounds like the same experience to yours. Maybe you should think about giving this series a rewatch now? In fact, I’m just gonna go set an alarm to myself four years from now.
I never even heard of anita sarkeesian until everybody started ranting about how her videos were going to _destroy the world_ ngl, I kinda wanna watch em now. my expectations might be too high tho lol
Go ahead and watch them. They're pathetically basic 101 level feminism with nothing new to say that hasn't been said better by a thousand other feminists. She only got big because she also triggered people who recognized her paroting Jack Thompson's debunked arguments about the evils of video games and people who didn't understand she was doing that rushed to her defense.
this whole idea that the Jack's are thinking in binary terms of good and evil would also explain a lot about the Star Wars Fandom. A story about Good vs Evil
Westernden They haven't, they watch quote mined heavily edited versions from Sargon, Thunderf00t etc etc. which takes her points completely out of context and strawmans her to death. FemFreq isn't actually a very good series for many reasons and Anita's points are often full of complete holes and fallacies in themselves, but the vast majority of criticism against her has essentially jack shit to do with her original point and largely focuses on nitpicking things that don't actually debunk anything.
Westernden Donated, watched, disliked, asked for a refound, didnt got it, gave up and just moved on, a sucidal comunity got bullied by her followers and now im one of the vocal critics of the effect she makes on people. And its not anita's videos, josh writes everything and she just reads so im not an "anita's critic", my criticism is only to Josh Mcintosh, whoever that anita is im not interested nor i interact with her in any way.
Westernden I think that's true. What they do watch are heavily edited hate videos made by Thunderfoot and others where they remove all context and nuance and drastically misrepresent everything she says. Try watching Thunderfoot. It's PAINFUL when you've watched the actual femfreq videos. "But... but that's actually the complete OPPOSITE of what she said... you.. what? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE STATEMENTS BECAUSE ANITA NEVER SAID THEM."
I wonder what Sargon and MundaneMatt are going to comment on this video. Accusations of bias? SJW name-calling? Insults of Innuendo Studios' intelligence? We should make a bingo card.
Jeff Thomas I don't think you need to go that far with these kinds of people. All you have to do is incidentally offend their delicate sensibilities (which is amusing in itself, considering how easily they'll call others out on that very point).
BisonAffinity Ah yes, retweets are clear-cut indicators of someone's intelligence. Which says nothing of how completely inane it is to insult someone for a thing as subjective and variable as intelligence. It's astounding to me that people can think this in any way makes them look good. It never has, and only endears you to other assholes. Which would probably be your goal, granted. Of course, insults in general are the perfect mark of someone with nothing intelligent to say, but I suppose that's besides the point.
This is gaining more traction and hate, unfortunately and fortunately. This is probably my favorite segment, as the discussion of morality is a very difficult subject for some people. The specific part about how we try to be moral to save ourselves was pretty relatable. Thank you for making these.
This is also why it's so important to avoid labeling people when you are arguing. If you call someone a "misogynist" or a "racist", etc. it just makes them defensive, and rightly so. It's important to explain that their actions or words are perceived as offensive or problematic without saying "and that makes YOU a _______."
McClain's Random Crap Absolutely true. The problem, however, (and especially in this example with Anita and feminism in video games) is that the listener will often infer the accusation merely by having their actions examined. "Are you sure you should be doing that thing?" translates to "You are a terrible person for doing that thing" in the listener's mind almost automatically if the listener is not rational to a more-than-average degree.
McClain's Random Crap I think there's a time and place for calling people what they are. In the example used about The Castle Doctrine, you only had to say exactly what was problematic with the game and its other possible meanings. When you remind people that intent vs. impact is a thing (doesn't matter what your intent is, it matters what the impact is), they still shut down and still claim you've called them a misogynist or an abuser even when you haven't. You say "This material could be seen as abusive," and they're hearing "You're an abuser for creating this." Instead of trying to see how that material could be seen as abusive, they try to argue against "being an abuser." I've had multiple discussions like this with people regarding feminism/racism/homophobia where, even though I never once called them by the label, they've said it *for* me. "You just think I'm misogynist because ________!" Whether or not I do is something they're not privvy to because I've not directly said it to them (though, to be honest, at that point, I may as well agree with their assessment because the discussion is already going badly wrong). And often, they're already labeling themselves: "Not to be homophobic, but..." "Not to be racist, but..." And it works much better to point out that the line of thinking they're using is homophobic/racist/etc. if they're already starting from that point. (This also applies to "Not all ________" when people retort to metonymy used by a marginalised group.) So a lot of time, they're already defensive. I agree that you should avoid it initially, but it's perfectly acceptable to leave an argument calling them as they are (or as they've already pre-labeled themselves) if it's already gotten to that point.
Love the series, and you nail the conclusion at the very end. "Until he can accept the idea that Morality is Bigger than Him, he is incapable of listening." I don't mean to be the guy quoting Bible Verses in UA-cam comments, least of all being an atheist myself, but a friend once explained that this is the real meaning behind the bit in Matthew 19:21, where, to summarize, a man asks Jesus, directly, "How do I get into Heaven," to which he replies "Sell all your stuff and give the proceeds to charity." That often gets interpreted as some kind of "buying your way in clause" but my friend explained it being about what you're talking about here. The man in the parable can't think of morality in bigger terms than himself, as having to do X to receive Y, literally the entry-conditions for heaven, and is expecting some kind of checklist. Jesus is trying to communicate to him that if he's contextualizing "being a good person" purely in selfish terms, then he never truly will, and the only thing he can suggest to get him to stop thinking like that is to abandon all the things that he considers "his." He's not saying "You must become Poor," he's saying "Stop making Morality about You." Much knowledge was dropped that day, I can tell you. That realization is very likely one of a handful of things that grew my ass up and kept me from becoming... well, you know...
Honestly, even for atheists there are a lot of excellent lessons to be had in the Gospel. You could certainly take or leave anything in the Old Testament (although some of the stories in there would still be worth reading for sheer entertainment values as stories alone), but Jesus said some pretty rad stuff. There's some weird stuff, too, but that's to be expected for such an old series of texts. Also, teaching yourself what's in the Bible can help in conversations with christians who you may find yourself in political or moral debate. Of course, a lot of people are stubborn and will just ignore it, but it can be a strong point to bring up. Yes I know this is a 3-year-old comment. But I still felt like saying something.
Okay literally 4 years later but how does one not make morality about themselves. They only have control over their own actions and I get not viewing things in "I want to be a good person, how do I do that?" and more "Being a good person is good for multiple people" but I feel like I'm missing something. Maybe its because I still view things the previous manner of "If thing is bad I cannot in good conscious do thing even if my action is irrelevant".
@@FusionFullForce I think what OP was trying to say is doing good things for personal benefit. Like, only working at a homeless shelter because you think it'll impress your crush and not because you genuinely want to help these people. kindness with an ulterior motive, if you will
This reminds me of my younger years. When I was 12 (or maybe 10), my Christian parents once told me that I shouldn't be on a certain website. I learned to hide my web activity from my parents, not so much because I was viewing forbidden content but because of the fear that they would ban me from viewing it. One of the facets of being a good Christian is honoring your father and mother. If they never saw what I was doing, they would never have an opportunity to say that I couldn't be there. After all, it's only disobedience if they say you can't do something and you do it anyway.
So you are the target audience who is impressed by boilerplate and thinks it negates everything else she says. Might I inquire on your opinion on the phrase "I'm not racist but..."
@@YouthRightsRadical You have a very disingenuous way of talking. I've been observing you in all the threads I've been checking. And I would give you an example concerning this, if you don't mind. So that you'd see how you're getting this very wrong.
I had to go and see for myself. They don't watch her videos. None of them do, and they don't care. If they do, they just go there to pick strawmanns and debunk the terrible strawmanns they made. I sat down to read endless threads of arguments in the comment section to see whether I'd get legitimate criticism from the videos I've watched about Feminist Frequency, especially this Tropes Vs. Women in Gaming, and I haven't seen any good argument that doesn't try to slander her personal reputation, take her out of context, or make the same bad edgelord arguments that are easy to pick apart. It's that obnoxious.
Anyone watching this, PLEASE also check out Contrapoints! She's a /brilliant/ video-essayist that lead me to these video because she used Innuendo Studios as a source
And now, from the future, I've gotta give the warning to be very wary about Contrapoints. She has a lot of harmful unconscious biases that leak through her work and, if not directly harming people, grants credence to rhetoric that harms people. Micro-aggressions against non-binary people, putting a huge focus on "passing" in order to be accepted by society (which harms all trans people), and her tendency to agree and mingle with a lot of transmedicalists. And that's also not going into how her "courting with the far-right" in an attempt to deradicalize them means that she decided to unironically use anti-semitic imagery like the Lizard People running society, use a popular slur (tr*p) uncensored in her title, and a bunch of other little bigoted things, and leave them completely unchallenged in her work. She was popular as Baby's First Trans and covered a lot of leftist things, but at this point, actual harm-reducing discourse around trans issues have completely left her behind. She's not *the* representative for all things trans as people like to believe, and through giving her that power and platform, she's harmed a ton of people who were already in harm's way.
Was Poppin ok if you wanna play the willful ignorance card in regards to that famously antisemitic conspiracy theory how about this instead. she owns nazi memoribilia and features it in her vids🙄 how bout we dont support a so called leftist who rubs elbows w racists and self aligns with the "gender critical" crowd lmfao
"and yeaaahhh, that gives me this gross, sick, powerless feeling in my stomach, but... that's adulthood." i would laugh if i didnt already feel this same way currently
See, and this is why I never gave a shit when Anita said something about a game that I didn't agree with or thought was wrong. It doesn't matter, and devoting 1000000 hours of vlog and hangout sperging to how horrible her opinion on video games makes me feeeeeeeeel is pointless. A big part of Gamergate is people who feel (ironically) triggered by the presence of people saying things about games that they don't like or agree with, and they want to maintain their plausible deniability that nothing in gaming could ever be sexist by removing those people from their "gaming culture"... Even though gamers were talking among themselves, often jokingly, about sexism in games long before Anita showed up.
@@deliciousdishes4531 No he doesn't "get it". Maybe for a portion of commentors. But not all. Sorry Angry Jack isn't the only answer for who are the people/why are the people with opposing views to someone like Anita. YES, the Angry Jack is a valid trope, but to think "all critics" think this way is arrogance on your (and Innuendo Studios) part.
Great stuff. I particularly like the fact that in none of these videos you come off as condescending or sarcastic. That (combined with the fact you're a man) makes me believe this series can really gain some traction, even among the people who don't really want to hear this stuff...
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful It's pretty self-explanatory. Innuendo will be taken more seriously, and receive less harassment, by gators because of his gender.
Torment87 Speaking as a white male journalist who writes a lot of feminist articles, I can definitely say I am more likely to be listened to than a woman saying the exact same thing
Interesting thought, that was new to me - these "I'm one of the good guys"-doushes are a product of this specific anglo-american prostantism where you can only exist in one of the binomic states "saved" or "not saved"
This has become extremely relevant again now that the hp game game out. People who have bought the game, while insisting they are still allies, and completely ignore that they are still giving money to someone who sees it at support to their bigoted ideas.
Exceptionally late comment but the paranoia about being labelled as being good or bad dichotomy I think is in part formed from stereotypes about feminists. The strident man hating bra burner stereotype is almost comforting. It is the same way that when as children if you screwed up you sometimes you wanted your parents angry at you because that gave you something to react to and you could be the victim if they were disappointed then you just felt like the a-hole in the situation.
@@grahamkristensen9301 Also because "if you're not a feminist, you're a sexist" does rather require a response from people who aren't comfortable with the moralizing asshole who says things like that.
This was my favorite of all the videos in this serious so far, you hit the nail on the head with the puritanical good person bad person dichotomy and how it relates to Jack’s reactions
This may be a bit meta, but this is one of the first videos that I've seen that _actually_ has good, intuitive, grammatically correct & insightful comments.
I love how your tone is also diplomatic while at the same time seeming sympathetic to the plight of not any of the mentioned parties, BUT THE VIEWER because you know you might be scaring/blowing their minds and you're trying to be gentle about it, despite who the viewer might be.
"...this gross, sick, powerless, sinking feeling in mystomach. That's adulthood" -Innuendo Studios, out of context. This actually captures the feeling I am building as I'm becoming an adult. Feels worse than angry jack, but also feels more honest.
8:58 I had never thought of the implications of framing morality in this way. Gosh there are so many ways this assumption can affect other discussions - it's like my third eye has opened. Thanks for that.
I feel like I'm seeing this in people's reactions to being criticized for playing the Harry Potter game. They think of themselves as good people, but don't want to engage with the fact that supporting the game (whether or not JKR gets money from it) feeds into the cycle of investment and product development which in turn further enriches JKR, allowing her to put more money into her transphobic crusade.
TL;DR: there is no good or evil, only the best solutions are inconvenient, and the worst are the convenient; and we're living in a society of convenience.
Goatmon It's more of "Anita Sarkeesian is not the subject of these videos" than supporting her really I think. You can pretty much apply what he demonstrated in the video about internet fame and Phil Fish to Sarkeesian here. Her being "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant, it's about these people who refuses to admit they COULD be wrong and unleash shitstorm on whoever they see as "the bad person telling them what to think".
Goatmon Because FemFreq and the clique is sharing them, so most viewers are ones who already agree. I love the video enforcing the us vs them mentality, people who are outside the clique are bad!
I find that’s also an issue when telling people they have racist attitudes, people don’t want to listen to what your saying because they think admitting they have prejudices means that they are automatically a bad person. I think it’s important when calling out problematic behaviour to also explain to the person that it’s natural to have these biases and things out of your control in their lives created them, what makes you a good person isn’t never having prejudices but having the courage and integrity to question your beliefs.
I also want to add that it shouldn’t be the responsibility of minorities to patiently explain to people why their prejudices are wrong. If they want to do that they can obviously. But if you see discrimination towards a group your not part of, standing up and saying something can make it so a member of that minority group doesn’t need to stand up for themselves, which to them would be more emotionally taxing.
It's especially ironic, since most gamers were the "underdogs" in their childhoods, got bullied were fat, ugly, short, etc., they never had girlfriends and so forth. They (we) should exactly be the people that are tolerant, that support feminism, hate racism etc. Because those are "jock" things to do. But somehow they (we) fucked that up. Hard. Somehow they (we) thought the right course of action is to push back and do exactly these things but even worse.
Maybe being an underdog has thought these people what being an underdog really means. And they just can't picture women or people of color as underdogs for this very reason. You see, being a white underdog in a white community has thought these people race doesn't impact they way they are treated, other properties such as looks, humor or intelligence are far more important. So someone as the man behind Innuendo Studios is sitting in his ivory tower looking down and all he sees is people of color or women seemingly occupying less seats of power. But a white man in the middle of this unwashed mass of people is instead realizing race or gender doesn't really matter, behavior does.
@@SweBeach2023 Meaning if women or POC are so unrepresented in positions of power, it's because all of them have poor "looks, humour or intelligence" ? Yeah... They certainly deserve it... That being said, I agree with you on one point : in our society, there is a factor that affects your chances of success in life a lot more than your skin colour, gender or sexual orientation : it's money. It just so happens that, due to historical reasons, money is on average concentrated in the hands of white men. All white guys certainly don't have it easy and gender and skin colour aren't the only things that define you, but pretending they don't matter is obviously a lie and solely serves those in priviledged positions.
Thank you so much for making this series. The widespread behaviors and ideology which drive them is so hard to pin down and build discussion around. Really glad someone figured it out and even more happy this is has been made available to develop further in a public setting. Good work!
I like stuff I watched a Thunderf00t video once. Never again. The guy is excellent at rebutting arguments... but only arguments that nobody is making. In the video I saw, he argued that men are just as objectified as women in video games because... male video game characters are often portrayed as super-powerful and attractive. Either the huge chasm of difference between objectification and idealization is beyond the man's understanding, or he willfully decides to ignore it. Possibly both. Wherever the most easily available pile of straw is, he'll grab it.
Jack Christmas I use to watch his videos about a year ago. I also use to be pro-gamergate and the other stuff he was for and against. But I soon took a look from other people's perspective and then decided to avoid his channel all together. I will say his videos are technically good, well edited, somewhat researched and sometimes interesting with his space stuff I guess but he's just a preachy critic.
I like stuff "I use to watch his videos about a year ago. I also use to be pro-gamergate and the other stuff he was for and against. But I soon took a look from other people's perspective and then decided to avoid his channel all together." *heart glows* ^_^
Jack Christmas He thought Halo was a playstation game and disregarded the excellent Beyond Good & Evil just because it carries a 7+ rating (by that logic the G rated 2001: A Space Odyssey must be a kids film). The man is a pillock.
This series is incredible, and I bet that it will stay in my head for a long time. In this 5th part, however, lies a subject which would really benefit more discussion (maybe a spin-off series?). And that would be the issue of the effects of media on users. In the Rohrer situation, we looked at his intentions, that don't really matter that much. But the critiques to his game, I'd argue, also don't >really< make a difference. What we >really< should be analysing are the effects of his game on the behaviors of the players. My main issue with Sarkeesian's reasoning, is when she says the following: "Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the “third person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages. In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected." She believes that any representation of opression against women in media, the one in Rohrer's game for instance, is necessarily bad. But whhat if player interpretations are more complex than the mere "naturalization" of those behaviors? Maybe, depending on the context in which an oppression event is framed, the interpretation of the player can lead to a more human behavior towards women? That leads to whole other set of problems and issues, that we should think carefully before dismissing experiences like The Castle Doctrine. In my opinion, that premise weakens the concept of "trope" in Anita's videos, which imply that the trope itself is harmful, denying the possibility of framing it in a satyrical or critical context, for example. The overarching structure of the media piece intereferes in the effects of the trope, even if it depicts an oppresion event. And even then, maybe we can't account for the multiple interpretations that players will generatefrom a particular media piece. I understand her intentions, but I fear she constructs a overly simplified model of the way people interpret media.
I read what she's saying as "the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to consume uncritically." That uncritical consumption is what increases a person's chance of being affected. If you don't pay attention to what you're putting into your head, then you may not realize your views being changed and infected with these negative prejudices, biases, etc. As for your second point, I agree that tropes can be used in subversive ways, to highlight and critique the social norms and expectations they're representing. Maybe Anita could broach that side of things in her videos more, but I've always seen them as "into to feminism" videos. Short, to the point, and thought provoking.
rbgg2010 I understand your interpreation. But I simply can't agree with this way of understanding our relationship with media - be it games, literature, TV, journalism, or any kind of organized discourse. From my experience and from what I could read about the subject, there is also a lot of ground for thinking that people create their interpretation in an active, ambiguous and complex way. I can't compactuate with a theoretical premise that frames human relationship with meaning and emotion in such a bidimensional manner. I think Anita's videos would certainly benfit from a more sofisticated point of view. I understand the necessity of making understandable arguments. But that can't come in the expense of our losing sight of the root of the problem.
The discussion on having a preoccupation with being "a good person", just in general, has made me legitimately, personally uncomfortable, and for that I almost feel obliged to comment on and like the video. Like, ok, yeah, you made me feel a thing and think thoughts. It was a bad feeling and unpleasant thoughts (which in itself makes your point all the more salient), but that doesn't make the discussion any less affecting, and I feel like that's worth recognizing and acknowledging via this minute gesture. In short: video good.
The deeper I get into this series, the more I like it. I'm still holding off on giving my full agreements/disagreements until it's over, though (and I'll probably re-watch the whole thing to do that).
I think it's healthy to be able to say, for example, "Veganism is an admirable practice with numerous environmental and animal rights benefits. It's also hard, and I'm not perfect. I do volunteer at the homeless shelter on Thursdays after work, that's gotta be worth something. This steak is delicious. Looks like I need another beer." This avoids Angry Jack's whole issue. It also takes a certain amount of maturity and self-confidence, I suppose.
+capnpaco This. One needs to realize that they don't have to be perfect. Just because a game has "problematic" elements doesn't mean they can't enjoy it.
I'm posting this in a 5-year-old video so I doubt anyone will read it, but I've gotta say something. Right-wing brigading makes complaining about certain legitimate things on the "SJW" side of the left *SUPER* hard to do. I'll point out, I'm a super-hardcore-dyed-in-the-wool socialist. I'm all for social equitability all the way. And I had problems with Zoe Quinn that had nothing to do with her being a woman or a feminist. I had problems with Anita Sarqeesian which had very little to do with the pro-feminism points she was making. My problem with Zoe Quinn had to do with Depression Quest. Which I've played. Thoroughly. Got every possible ending. It does not deserve very high marks as a piece of interactive fiction, and other than a few of the visual effects, I, as a semi-professional game designer with some firsthand knowledge of neurological and psychological trauma, could knock out in an afternoon. The hate she got and the doxxing by her ex-boyfriend were unfounded, yes. But the massive positive press she got for it was... annoying. My problems with Anita Sarkeesian was mostly to do with her lack of diligence. The three issues that I had with the entire tropes-verses-women series are as follows: 1: She claimed that the Hitman series encouraged you to not only kill women (which it penalized) but to play with the bodies (which it didn't encourage, it was merely a side-effect of the body-hiding mechanic and penalized you by costing you time). 2: She later came out with a pitch for a "Feminist video game" right around the time that her college dissertation got leaked... Her game design was covered in what she liked to call "Men with Boobs" trope, and she praised her own character in her pitch with the exact words her dissertation called "Non-feminine traits". Hypocrisy, rather directly, especially when she later did an episode on that very same trope. 3: She did very little output for the kind of money she had. That's it. I agree with Anita about a *LOT* of rampant sexism in video games, hell I'll even give Quinn points for talking about clinical depression. But because the right-wing hate machine got to her, I feel like I can't criticize her on the legitimate problems I had with their bodies of work. The far-right has an annoying tendency to make martyrs out of the left, and make them immune to critique.
I think the big question is, assuming everything you said is true - what does it even matter, really? The reason she got most of her positive press is BECAUSE of the gamergaters building her up. Like someone else said in another comment chain - Imagine you saw some smug guy with a "change my mind" sign and some poorly supported and flawed view. You might debate him on it, criticize him, sure! Now imagine. Now imagine he was being attacked by a mob for a hundred different reasons, many of them blatantly untrue, it's just like... holy shit, this is not a good outcome for anyone, and the things being done to him are so much worse than the the disagreements that you had with him defending him is the only really right course of action. Worse, members of the mob try to use the "I just want to calmly this!", which many people justifiably believe is worth doing, as an excuse to get close enough to hurt the person for unrelated reasons, simply as cover. Or as another example, imagine this was a wife cheating on her husband, and like, you have issues with that, understandably... but the reason you know is because her abusive husband is telling everyone as an attempt to control her and prevent her from leaving so he can keep beating her, to recruit others as allies in making her feel like she deserves the abuse she's getting. You're right that we effectively can't critique our allies when they are being attacked like this, no matter how justified it might be without the mob or abusive husband, without seeming like or actually helping the one trying to destroy them. And I think that is part of the point! The right wing *knows* that and actively plays into it. They benefit from making good natured, well intended critique impossible. They are knowingly and intentionally creating the sort of environment they can thrive in, the same way they benefit from undermining factual and meaningful discussions everywhere. Because ultimately they want to make it about feeling. They don't *want* sincere criticism and ANYONE, especially their enemies. And what can we do about it? Even mild mannered critiques of these people the right wing attacks empowers them. They've put us in a terrible situation and they know it and they love it. I don't have solutions except "we just have to ignore it and focus on the bigger problem that makes addressing the smaller things impossible". It just fucking sucks.
Anita has responded to those who have critiqued her Hitman synapsis, and I think her point is fairly accurate. In short, the game doesn't REALLY punish you for killing women. Your "score" is downgraded for having done so, but that can be completely ignored. Generally speaking, the punishment is overriden by continuing to play the game, in much the way that you can overcome the "punishment" of killing strippers in GTA by simply outrunning cops, and having no real loss of progress in your game either way. Maybe it's just me and having grown up in the era of Ghouls N Ghosts quarter-munching arcade games, replaying 5-6 levels because you failed to reach the next save point before running out of lives, losing XP on character death in games like Everquest, the idea that losing a star for killing strippers is "punishment" is downright laughable. Sarkeesian also makes a slightly different argument; if you're not supposed to kill them, than why are they there? Of all the settings the level could have been in and all the possibilities for NPC's, they chose strippers, instead of perse bankers, lawyers, postal workers, an Amazon warehouse, etc.
OMG THIS IS SUCH A GOOD SERIES IM SO GLAD I DECODED TO LOOK ANITA UP AND FIND YOYR VIDEOS SIMPLY CAUSE I HATED HER WHEN I WAS YOUNGER BUT NOW REALIZE I HAD NO BASIS FOR MY HATE
I absolutely love your videos. I've learnt a lot from watching them and often I hear you expressing points that I already had as abstract ideas and feelings but couldn't find words to express them. You've clearly put a lot of work into these.
I still remember thinking to myself back in the day, "Yeah, maybe she's a bit over the top on some of her points, but she's mostly correct, why are people so mad at her?" Certain pockets of men and boys (and even a couple of women) felt guilty, and thus, attacked, over enjoyment of things she criticized. Rather than accept we are all flawed, and as Lindsay Ellis once said, "we all have the stink on us," they attack Sarkeesian.
They recognized an attack when they saw one and didn't believe her when she claimed that wasn't what she was doing. Comes from the experience of having Jack Thompson saying the exact same things about them not too long ago. Easier to recognize that an argument can be wrong when you've heard it come out of a man's mouth already.
it makes me quite a bit sad that, less than 10 years ago, an active discussion on labor exploitation and sweatshops was mainstream, how we were starting to slowly but surely pick apart the darkest parts of a world built on maximizing finance and ruled by megaglobal entities with the keys to open every door. now, we are lucky if the transphobia and racism calms down enough for regular ol feminism to be brought up again. i miss when it was a lot more hopeful.
This series is incredibly good. It's deftly utilized a relatively petty social movement to logically extrapolate many of the same big picture points that I myself have come to acknowledge and live by about what it means to be a good person, how to reflect on your own motivations, and how to conduct yourself as a human while considering the effect your actions have on those around you. Just really important fundamental philosophical stuff is unassumingly present here, and I'm impressed how natural and concisely these videos have managed to get to and make such points.
The really scary thing about the Right is that it seems to be structured around never admitting weakness or fault. And without that, how /can/ there be forgiveness? I guess the answer beneath it all, is that whether a victim forgives a transgression is only, ever, up to that victim. Nobody else. It's not something a person is owed... and forgiveness can be an extremely healthy thing for a person who's been wronged. So even when an arsonist gleefully continues burning down buildings, we should forgive him in our hearts... and take the matches away, and make sure the police can find him. But none of that requires hating him as a person. To avoid letting these modern political theaters just drain you and make you an angry, hateful person right back at all the angry, hateful people out there.
Fusilier Excellent comment. That’s a really wise way of looking at things. Forgiveness *feels* better when someone admits they are wrong, or asks for forgiveness, but the act of forgiveness is ultimately something that probably has to occur separate from the perpetrator’s subsequent behavior (which can make things tricky and hard).
couldn't help but think this while watching the entire series thus far. If you don't like the games... Just don't play them. If you don't like the reviews, don't read them. I've personally never sent a tweet to Anita or Quinn and I don't recognize any of the other lefties (because that's what this really is, left vs right). Never read an article written by them. I've been subbed to the Gate channels and I guess participated as a passive, sympathetic observer. The thing is, I do like scantily clad women in my games, just like I like them irl. I don't like walking simulators about feelings. I like games about shooting stuff and blowing shit up and saving the world. If gaming is "by men for boys" I don't understand why there needs to be a change in the games popular with males. Why not just make different games that women like? Why does every game need to include everyone? Like, I don't play rainbow six siege because it's too difficult to learn the maps and meta. It's too hardcore of a game for me to get into. Should I be petitioning Ubi to make smaller, simpler maps or dumb down the mechanics? I mean I guess I understand the argument that it contributes to how men view women... But, does it tho? Isn't this the "video games make boys violent" argument?
What i love about your videos is how you are able to dissect the culture itself that seems to promote itself as "the good ones" in your case the Angry Jack so to say, That these Angry Jacks in relation to Gamergate from my findings tend to be overtly aggressive like the big bad ANITA is coming to get them, They feel like their sense of entitlement has actually been breached and they would formulate almost anything to clog that hole. After visiting Gamergate forums and analyzing and investigating myself even going as far as to see what these followers of Gamergate and what their other interests are, They tend to be MRA's White Supremacists, Dylan Roof supporters, Racists, Misogynists and almost every other sort of trash under the rug, The then have their leaders like Sargon of Akkad, Mundane Matt and so many other feed them trifle that look guys we are the "rational ones" and if you don't support us you are the "other". They are a beacon for hate disguised as intellectuals, and their sheep feed into that nonsense day in day out always trying and needing someone to tell them hey look "your the good guy" "you aren't wrong she is". And guess what they aren't and lets not hide it GAMERGATE IS NOT ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM IT IS ABOUT HATE, HATING FEMINISTS IN GAMES AS EXAMPLE ANITA SARKESSIAN AND HATE OF MINORITIES LIKE TARIQ MOOSA. GAMERGATE IS HATE SIMPLE AND PLAIN AND IF YOUR PART OF GAMERGATE AND PART IT'S CULTURE YOU ARE A PROPONENT OF HATE.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful Typical Gamergate supporter just because he sees my profile picture i made ages ago he has made the best assumptions of me. and yet has the guts to preach judgement in my face, you know its true an GAMERGATE IS HATE, face facts dude most of Gamergate is fuckin Hate and don't give me that bullshit that you are part of the one percent who are about fucking ethics in gaming journalism bullcrap. if you were so smart you would have quit gamergate ages ago because most of it is hate, if i was in a group that started out as a rally to justice and then turned into hate of various people and that went against what i actually stood for why will I still be part of that group.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful What are you cornered? then tell me why you are in the Gamergate movement, is it about those damn ethics you are talking about. i have gone on many gamergate forums i have never once heard you lot talk about ethics all you do is sit down and talk and bash women, feminists, minorites and this is a fucking fact when was the last time you we heard a story about something that has to do with ethics in gaming journalism when huh. GTFO man. GAMERGATE IS HATE AND YOU NOW THAT TO BE TRUE YOURSELF.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful Frustrated Child LOL!!! that's cool especially coming from someone who is part of the Gamergate movement for example you haven't answered why you are part of the Gamergate movement. Oh i see you are still trying to dodge that question. Don't bother Angry Jack i already know why, I don't need screenshots of you to tell me why you are part of the Gamergate Movement!!! the same way i don't need screenshots of someone who is part of a Neo nazi Movement. Sayonara dumbass.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful WELL HERE ARE THE CAPS IF YOU WANTED THEM SO BAD. AS PART 3 OF THIS VIDEO SHOWED US THAT THOSE OF YOU IN GAMERGATE USE THE GUISE OF ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM TO HIDE YOUR DUMBASS AGENDA AND MOVE FROM HERE TO THERE TRYING TO PROVE TO US IT'S TRULY ABOUT ETHICS, WELL GUESS WHAT BUDDY ITS FUCKING NOT. I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH AGES AND EVEN DISGUISED MYSELF AS ONE OF YOU LOT. AND GUESS WHAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH HUGE HATE FOR FEMINISM BEFORE IN MY LIFE EVEN WHEN I TALKED TO SOMEONE WHO KEPT ON BLABBERING HOW IT WAS ABOUT ETHICS IN A MEETUP. HE BASICALLY SAID THAT THAT TIME IS OVER AND IT'S TIME TO BRING FEMINISM DOWN, HE ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE A WHOLE DISDAIN FOR MINORITIES AS LEADS IN GAMES, EXPLAINING TO ME HIS HATRED FOR THE HALO TV SHOW WITH THE BLACK GUY AS THE LEAD. CITING THAT BLACKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LEADS IN MANY FORMS OF MEDIA, AND EVERY FUCKING PERSON AGREED WITH HIM. SO I HOPE YOU LIKE THE FUCKING CAPS BECAUSE I FUCKING ENJOYED WRITING IN IT.
Boom. You hit it out of the park with this one. So many little fragments of points I had floating around in my head coalesced into a cogent, and very well constructed, argument. Well put.
Ian makes the argument that Western ethics defaults to Puritanism---making moral judgments. I think an *additional* reward for trolls on the internet is that, in a tiny sense, they get to cast moral judgments on people---they get to, for one line of text, *PLAY GOD* ---and not suffer any consequences.
If someone misunderstands Mark Twain's portrayal of race in Huckleberry Finn, it doesn't make the book racist. Just because a piece of art makes you uncomfortable (as many intentionally do), that doesn't mean the art is "problematic". It means the art is doing its job.
I remember some moments where I realised my thinking and acting were wrong, by assuming things about the world based on bias that was given to me by society I was making the world worse, even by tiny bits. The moments when some of those bubbles popped. And yeah, it did fell shitty for a while, I looked at things from my past and felt bad about who I was, it's not a fun experience. But, I hope, that made me a better person, and so it was worth it.
Interesting points, as always. I would disagree on your rationale of ethics, though. I don't think arguing that someone needs to consider the needs of others before themselves works in a practical way but it also doesn't seem that that is what you are really arguing for. Your main thrust so far seems to be that the reasons Angry Jacks use to justify their actions don't line up with the actions they are taking. But the reasons themselves are actually harmful to the Jacks, themselves. That what they believe, though not as important as what they do, does lead them to act in ways that are wrong.
You are a very intelligent man. Unfortunately, some will choose to not see it this way, and will give the videos hate, but I think most would agree that this series is excellent and eye opening.
I think no game or work of art should have to answer to a certain set of morals at all, so I don't see why the creator would even argue against his critics. I don't even think playing a sexist video games reflects on the consumer of that video game, so I don't see why Jack would be afraid of admitting that. On the flipside, I don't think criticizing games is damaging in any way - and is totally your right. If you convince someone, more power to you.
That's way it's important to tell your kids, that's ok to fail. That it's ok to not be perfect. If every imperfection is meat with draconian judgment, imperfection must be hidden. Very good video
This might be my favorite so far. It's 2018, I'm late to the table (with four legs) here, but I kind of reached the last three minutes of this video intuitively a couple of years ago, and at that point I've started pretty much all my debates from that place. It's been surprisingly effective. "You aren't a bad person, this is a bad thing."
That simplistic view of "good person vs bad person" is something I'm trying to rid myself of. Mostly because it's been causing me cognitive dissonance: How can that sweet old neighbor who I considered akin to a grandmother be a hardcore MAGA fan? How can someone who is so kind in her day-to-day life support a fascist movement that is actively attempting to erraticate my friends and I? I'm trying to internalize that people have different faces- different contexts. To their in-group, they can be kind and gentle. To their out-group, they can be genocidal assholes. Not everyone gets to see the switch from in-group treatment to out-group treatment. I do. How do I get rid of the notion of "good" people vs "bad" people? I have no idea. But I'd like to get there one day.
This is one of the best videos I've ever seen, and at a very appropriate time in our lives for issues way beyond gamergate. Thank you so much for doing this in such an eloquent and informative way.
Blastaar7 It also explains how racism will never end, no matte progress is made. There’s a danger to a problem feeling completely unfixable or un-winnable.
Just curious. Who else is here after The Last of Us 2 hysteria? I honestly think this is going to be a lifechanging event for me. I mean all this time I brushed this off as something not that significant. But when one of the most prominent, most ARTISTICALLY INTEGRANT and let's just say it, objectively most amazing and culturally valuable game developers gets INSTANTLY villified... It just made me truly realize what's culturally at stake here.
I'm sorry, but I can't respect a view of morality whose foremost goal is "making the world a better place." If an individual is trapped in a cave their entire life, they can still be a morally good person, despite not being able to change the world at all outside his cave. We don't live in caves, but my point stands. You can't start with the assumption you do. My philosophy of morality is exactly opposed to that assumption-laden goal with its complete disregard of the individual's choice. And I really don't appreciate your talking down, as though if you aren't a utilitarian progressive, you aren't an adult yet. You jump back and forth between social issues, prevalence, and acceptability and philosophic moralizing, as though each moral choice an individual makes needs to be solely based on the most statistical data possible. Individuals aren't statistics, and it's individuals who make moral decisions. Should individuals then do the things you're talking about (i.e. not being willfully ignorant, being aware of the needs of others, etc.)? In many cases, sure! But your version was "Good isn't about your choice. For reasons I won't explain, good is about institutional problems over which you have no power. But if you disagree, you're not even an adult." I appreciate your psychological analysis and social critique. But don't pretend to be a philosopher. Worse yet, don't do a barely half-assed job and then insult me if I don't agree with you. Right and wrong are not fundamentally in the flux of social structures, though these are extremely important. Right and wrong are instead fundamentally in the heart and soul of every person in every moment.
My sister's a vegetarian and I used to hate to go out and eat with her because I always felt bad when I ordered something non-vegetarian in her presence, I also felt like she was secretly judging me even though she never explicitly said anything about it and thanks to you I now kinda know why
There was a time when I was angry Jack! You can fool yourself about some things sometimes, but you can't fool yourself about all the things all the time! Sooner or later you'll see through the cracks in your own wall.
I'm liking where this series has been going... cant wait to watch part 6 so that I can process everything and formulate my own point of view on these matters. Great quality vids as always, keep up the good work!
I'm amazed, rewatching this series of videos, I realize that it's talking about cancel culture several years before it became A THING. We see more and more of a divide between liberals who look into individuals and judge their character and if they're problematic or not, implying that bigotry is over and it's just a case of some individual, easily isolated bad apples that we have to tirelessly cancel and root out, and leftists who aknowledge that in the grand scheme of things, analyzing systems and wide cultural and social trends is more informative and useful than "canceling" everyone who strays "out of line" even a little bit. The liberal way of looking at those things has that safe comfort net that implies that once you find the "bad guys", the fight is over, and we can continue living in the best of all possible worlds.
Reminds me of that old fable/joke of a missionary converting an inuit person after making first contact, who asks him "if I didnt know about sin, would god condemn me to hell?" To which the missionary responds "no, of course not" and the inuit says "then why did you tell me?"
Lol. That's great :)
This concept is one I thought of before serving a Mormon mission, turned my beliefs into feeling like I was damning anyone who would have otherwise been fine, and caused me to turn around on my faith
Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
So the missionary must not have remembered that part of the Bible, ignored it, or interpreted it in a strange way.
@@heydanbud This is so gross. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the crap you spread.
@@heydanbud That's... somehow way worse.
As someone who had a frankly embarrassing anti-SJW phase in my early teens, this video series actually had a huge part in making me take a step back and analyze my knee jerk reactions, reevaluate some of my opinions, and eventually to decide to stop behaving like a colossal douche. Complete rejection of that former mentality didn't happen instantly, but it did start the path to self awareness. Thank you for these videos. They can have a huge impact.
I changed my mind too. I was once an anti-feminist and then I realized that I was full of it.
Brethren
I just posted this a few comments up, but, I was a part of a big internet meme community right in the thick of gamergate and I ended up joining the wrong side. All my friends from the community were antifeminist, and so I bought into a LOT of the bunk about how feminists were out to ruin video games. When gamergate became Trumperism, though, I began to see what it really was, and I'm still sorry for all the horrible shit I said as a former pro-gater. I really should have known better then-- it's not like, as a woman, I was unaware of sexism in video games and didn't want a change; I just thought that "feminism" of those times meant "being a liar that doesn't play video games that sleeps her way to the top to force Nintendo to get rid of Link as a protagonist forever because he's a white dude and stealing money from the people that support her" and... I cringe at my views back then. I also ended up deleting and blocking 70% of the friends I made back then. Thankfully, I wasn't the only one that turned realized what was ACTUALLY going on during Trump's election campaign and made a hard turn into "hardcore leftie feminist" and I have friends from those days that we can sit and laugh about how stupid we were.
@@noahkidd3359 I'm still anti-feminist, just more Enlighted about it.
@@Blackberryfae "I'm still sorry for all the horrible shit I said as a former pro-gater." Fucking kek. Some of the saddest shit i've read today.
One of the main aspects of being a mature person is to not link your self-esteem to the idea of being morally perfect or free of flaws. Once you develop healthy self-esteem and accept flaws as a universal human feature, you'll have less problems to acknowledge when somebody else makes a good point that you didn't realize before.
+Demian Haki Exactly. Just because a game is "problematic" doesn't mean it shouldn't be enjoyed.
Demian Haki The older one gets the less their ego is attached to concepts of perfection, morally or otherwise, because life has a way of showing you your flaws. I’m generally speaking, and I’m this is just my opinion.
@IconicBarb's Aids
Because they grow enough of a spine and get enough self-esteem to shrug off wokescolds trying to guilt-trip them with accusations of racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry. Especially if they hold a modicum of social power and a social safety net of like-minded peers as a result of their actions in life.
That's actually true, well said.
“wokescold” Okay, that’s a new one. Though not the way if you want to be taken seriously.
This episode especially resonated with me.
Very often people I discuss social issues with - even in real life - try to catch me off guard, try to get a 'gotcha' moment for them where I say something "bad". Sometimes it works because yes, I was raised in this society too and yes, I'm not perfect. It always baffles me when they get excited, positiviely giggling and saying "see, see, that was racist!"
And I go: "Oh, okay, I will change that." But they aren't even listening, just overjoyed and continuing to point out my mistake as if that invalidates everything I just told them. Because clearly due to this thing I must be just as bad as they are - "ha!"?
Like you said: Its not about being a bad person because you said or did something racist/sexist/whatnot. Its about how you deal with it and the impact even words can have on people around you.
I like to think of morality (or any other pursuit of truth) less of being right and more of becoming right. Leaves me more open to change on the (rare?) occasions where I am wrong.
It's all just a game for some people.
Jeff Thomas I like to think of life and growing up as a great unstupiding that never really ends.
***** That was awesome. Can I quote you on that?
Very true!!!! I love your comment.
After coming back three years later I'd just like to say you were right and I was wrong and that's fine by me.
BadPojo good for you, admitting that your wrong takes a lot. I’m proud of you
@Aru Gula I am sorry you never lost yours.
Welcome to the cause, friend
Admitting when you're wrong is all anyone can ask.
Right on, dude. I've never even heard of the GamerGate movement until today. But I had watched the Unquartering guy and while I started to detest him and his attitude towards everything, I still carried with me this "Anita Sarkeesian is a horrible slut". I didn't even know why. I had heard mostly from unquartering idiot that she runs into all events everywhere and ruins everyone's good times. I realized later I had never heard her speak at all or bothered to look up her side.
If you replace the theme of "sexism in video games" with "system racism in policing" this is a one to one transfer with the difficulties of the discourse today. This series is a gift, thanks for putting in the work to make this.
"People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict."
Bitch, did you just quote yourself? For that??
Huh, sargon of akkad seems to have missed this one, and the downvotes reduced by 75%-ish. Weird how brigading works, huh?
who's he?
Min Andy Choi He’s not terrible just logical inconsistencies, if you enjoy this you probably wouldn’t enjoy him.
I Control My Fate Maybe I haven’t seen enough of him, I can understand why someone would argue he’s “terrible” (he is on the lower rungs of complex thought) but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence of him being a fascist.
@@minandychoi8597 Edgy Anti feminist shithead who cant read. thats who
speaking of sargon ua-cam.com/video/ocxuKL_S9uo/v-deo.html
I'm so sick of people idolizing the 50s ugh
Yeah idols should be in their 20s
lel
Surely idols ought to be pre-bible?
Cause you're black.
+Adam Frisk yeah black people or just minorites in general living in the 50s didn't the best time in america
Tbh same. Atleast they had hope of the future, unlike the backwards losers who idolize the past.
me: watches ONE video that MENTIONS game critique (done by THIS GUY)
youtube: so you’re saying that you want 1,000 videos about people claiming that sjws are what is wrong with video games?
me: jesus christ- no- what the- NO
The alt-right pipeline is real, and UA-cam's shite algorithm promotes it.
Surprisingly I don't have that big of an issue with algorithm... it still recommends those anti-sjw bros but also recommends leftists alongside.
Maybe its because I disabled watch history or smth idk
Man, this particular episode hit a few personal notes that kinda hurts...
I like it. ANOTHER! *throws coffee mug into the ground*
A THOUSAND POINTS FOR THIS THOR REFERENCE
Reutzer Yeah no kidding. It was a really well made video. I still have a few disagreements but he nailed down some personal attitudes of mine on the whole "am I a good guy or bad guy?" thing which does hurt.
*quietly hangs Mjoilnir on a voat hanger*
*nothing*
+Reutzer that's good, dude! it's kinda hard looking inwards and realising that some of the stuff that you never thought about can hurt other people or contribute to shitty things that already happens to them. finding those things and going "okay, this doesn't make me a bad person, nobody is trying to shame me, but i''m going to do something about it" is an awesome response to it :)
Wow, my husband pretty much said the same thing you guys are saying. If nothing else, this video was like that cool coffee table book that started a whole interesting conversation. It was sort of Jordan Peterson-esque in his analysis. Generally I find the misogyny shpiel (even the term, shudder) irritating as well as perpetual victimhood. Yet we kept watching this, even when we suspected that he slipped soy in our coffee.
BTW, is it wrong to still really like Sargon? (D'oh! I just showed my need for "I'm a good person" validation! 😣)
I call this the "battered husband" syndrome.
It doesn't matter that if the "wife" is cheating; just for the sake of argument let's say she is. Let's say she is every bad thing the "husband" thinks she is.
At a certain point, the reality doesn't matter and the husband is using the wife's behavior as a cover for every bad action he does. Her behavior is his excuse for a lack of personal growth.
I'm sure there are ethics problems in games journalism (the relentless and shallow positivity for an industry entirely devised to sell games a a a product that should be structured for mass consumption that GG ended up defending, rather than an art form that can represent the viewpoint as an artist) but that is totally lost because all anyone hears about is an extreme and reactionary version of the ideology being criticized. They are saying "I'm not wrong, you are wrong. You are so wrong that you are evil"
It's the same "backed in a corner" feeling you describe when you talk about judging the non-drinker. One tends to react with a super extreme version of the behavior being criticized as a way to show how right they are
David Stinnett I think this describes the political reality in the US right now. There are a lot of people who would otherwise be somewhere in the middle that are totally convinced that their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum are far more “evil” or extreme than they really are. It doesn’t make sense for such a high percentage of Americans to believe that “the other” is evil-statistically there aren’t that many “evil” people anyway. It’s like we’re stuck believing in morality through the lens of a Ponzi scheme.
@bo rick you have managed to miss the point in the absolute funniest way. It’s beyond satire
I like to think that I am an ally/woke/etc. but watching your videos I get that feeling of defensiveness and I realize there is still some Angry Jack inside of me. Thank you for helping me realize it!
Embrace it... anger can be a great force for good too!
He's basically saying that "this needs to change" without giving any explanation as to why. Seems natural to get defensive when someone is trying to impose their moral dogma. And I say this as an anti-authoritarian radical leftist. I just don't see how having an over abundance of fictional material in which young males can safely explore and enjoy their violent instincts is bad. It would be so much more productive to spend these resources making these videos on, say, analyzing the ways in which MSM pushes and legitimizes wars to the public. All these issues like GamerGate and SJWs are just a distraction, and people on the left and right who fall for it are gullible fools.
Thank you for putting much of how I feel into a coherent text. Well said @@seeibe
P.S. Double Emphasis on the distraction angle!
Have you ever considered the threat of normalization? Or thought about where those violent instincts come from? Whethere they're related to the wars you seem to suggest are separate and distinct from the same undergirding violence normalized in our culture? Why the false dichotomy?@@seeibe
Your points are so fucking insightful, and phrasing so fucking surgical... Holy shit. I don't even know what to say.
This is a life changing video series.
Honestly this guys entire channel is just so good at meticulously and comprehensively explaining complicated topics in new ways
This dude is speaking to me 4 years later and I’m having what sounds like the same experience to yours. Maybe you should think about giving this series a rewatch now? In fact, I’m just gonna go set an alarm to myself four years from now.
I love the professionalism your carry with this series. Another job well done!
I never even heard of anita sarkeesian until everybody started ranting about how her videos were going to _destroy the world_
ngl, I kinda wanna watch em now. my expectations might be too high tho lol
Go ahead and watch them. They're pathetically basic 101 level feminism with nothing new to say that hasn't been said better by a thousand other feminists.
She only got big because she also triggered people who recognized her paroting Jack Thompson's debunked arguments about the evils of video games and people who didn't understand she was doing that rushed to her defense.
this whole idea that the Jack's are thinking in binary terms of good and evil would also explain a lot about the Star Wars Fandom.
A story about Good vs Evil
In other words, they took Palpatine's advice of "Let the hate flow through you".
yep
Most fans of anything are normal
I'll bet Anita's most vocal critics have never actually watched her videos.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful Shit, good catch. Thanks
Westernden They haven't, they watch quote mined heavily edited versions from Sargon, Thunderf00t etc etc. which takes her points completely out of context and strawmans her to death. FemFreq isn't actually a very good series for many reasons and Anita's points are often full of complete holes and fallacies in themselves, but the vast majority of criticism against her has essentially jack shit to do with her original point and largely focuses on nitpicking things that don't actually debunk anything.
Westernden I'll bet a lot of her most strident defenders haven't either.
Westernden Donated, watched, disliked, asked for a refound, didnt got it, gave up and just moved on, a sucidal comunity got bullied by her followers and now im one of the vocal critics of the effect she makes on people.
And its not anita's videos, josh writes everything and she just reads so im not an "anita's critic", my criticism is only to Josh Mcintosh, whoever that anita is im not interested nor i interact with her in any way.
Westernden I think that's true. What they do watch are heavily edited hate videos made by Thunderfoot and others where they remove all context and nuance and drastically misrepresent everything she says.
Try watching Thunderfoot. It's PAINFUL when you've watched the actual femfreq videos. "But... but that's actually the complete OPPOSITE of what she said... you.. what? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE STATEMENTS BECAUSE ANITA NEVER SAID THEM."
I wonder what Sargon and MundaneMatt are going to comment on this video.
Accusations of bias? SJW name-calling? Insults of Innuendo Studios' intelligence?
We should make a bingo card.
Like dark forces of old, if you speak their names you may well summon them.
Jeff Thomas I don't think you need to go that far with these kinds of people. All you have to do is incidentally offend their delicate sensibilities (which is amusing in itself, considering how easily they'll call others out on that very point).
BisonAffinity Just so you know, the fact your hugbox has dismissed these people doesn't mean everyone else has.
BisonAffinity Ah yes, retweets are clear-cut indicators of someone's intelligence.
Which says nothing of how completely inane it is to insult someone for a thing as subjective and variable as intelligence.
It's astounding to me that people can think this in any way makes them look good. It never has, and only endears you to other assholes. Which would probably be your goal, granted.
Of course, insults in general are the perfect mark of someone with nothing intelligent to say, but I suppose that's besides the point.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful You don't have to be insulting someone to swear.
I fucking love swearing.
This is gaining more traction and hate, unfortunately and fortunately. This is probably my favorite segment, as the discussion of morality is a very difficult subject for some people. The specific part about how we try to be moral to save ourselves was pretty relatable.
Thank you for making these.
This is also why it's so important to avoid labeling people when you are arguing. If you call someone a "misogynist" or a "racist", etc. it just makes them defensive, and rightly so. It's important to explain that their actions or words are perceived as offensive or problematic without saying "and that makes YOU a _______."
McClain's Random Crap Absolutely true. The problem, however, (and especially in this example with Anita and feminism in video games) is that the listener will often infer the accusation merely by having their actions examined. "Are you sure you should be doing that thing?" translates to "You are a terrible person for doing that thing" in the listener's mind almost automatically if the listener is not rational to a more-than-average degree.
Richard Hollis Except that the "you" in that case is usually the industry.
McClain's Random Crap So much this. Don't insult your opponent or you'll most likely lose the stable argument you wanted.
Richard Hollis It really is difficult in debates to not have your ego hurt.
McClain's Random Crap I think there's a time and place for calling people what they are. In the example used about The Castle Doctrine, you only had to say exactly what was problematic with the game and its other possible meanings. When you remind people that intent vs. impact is a thing (doesn't matter what your intent is, it matters what the impact is), they still shut down and still claim you've called them a misogynist or an abuser even when you haven't. You say "This material could be seen as abusive," and they're hearing "You're an abuser for creating this." Instead of trying to see how that material could be seen as abusive, they try to argue against "being an abuser."
I've had multiple discussions like this with people regarding feminism/racism/homophobia where, even though I never once called them by the label, they've said it *for* me. "You just think I'm misogynist because ________!" Whether or not I do is something they're not privvy to because I've not directly said it to them (though, to be honest, at that point, I may as well agree with their assessment because the discussion is already going badly wrong). And often, they're already labeling themselves: "Not to be homophobic, but..." "Not to be racist, but..." And it works much better to point out that the line of thinking they're using is homophobic/racist/etc. if they're already starting from that point. (This also applies to "Not all ________" when people retort to metonymy used by a marginalised group.)
So a lot of time, they're already defensive. I agree that you should avoid it initially, but it's perfectly acceptable to leave an argument calling them as they are (or as they've already pre-labeled themselves) if it's already gotten to that point.
"Morality is bigger than him"
You should get that on a t-shirt.
That shoe analogy was spot-on.
And it made me feel really guilty (_are you judging me!?_).
Love the series, and you nail the conclusion at the very end. "Until he can accept the idea that Morality is Bigger than Him, he is incapable of listening."
I don't mean to be the guy quoting Bible Verses in UA-cam comments, least of all being an atheist myself, but a friend once explained that this is the real meaning behind the bit in Matthew 19:21, where, to summarize, a man asks Jesus, directly, "How do I get into Heaven," to which he replies "Sell all your stuff and give the proceeds to charity."
That often gets interpreted as some kind of "buying your way in clause" but my friend explained it being about what you're talking about here. The man in the parable can't think of morality in bigger terms than himself, as having to do X to receive Y, literally the entry-conditions for heaven, and is expecting some kind of checklist.
Jesus is trying to communicate to him that if he's contextualizing "being a good person" purely in selfish terms, then he never truly will, and the only thing he can suggest to get him to stop thinking like that is to abandon all the things that he considers "his." He's not saying "You must become Poor," he's saying "Stop making Morality about You."
Much knowledge was dropped that day, I can tell you. That realization is very likely one of a handful of things that grew my ass up and kept me from becoming... well, you know...
Honestly, even for atheists there are a lot of excellent lessons to be had in the Gospel. You could certainly take or leave anything in the Old Testament (although some of the stories in there would still be worth reading for sheer entertainment values as stories alone), but Jesus said some pretty rad stuff. There's some weird stuff, too, but that's to be expected for such an old series of texts. Also, teaching yourself what's in the Bible can help in conversations with christians who you may find yourself in political or moral debate. Of course, a lot of people are stubborn and will just ignore it, but it can be a strong point to bring up.
Yes I know this is a 3-year-old comment. But I still felt like saying something.
Thank you for sharing that interpretation! I had never encountered it before and it's really interesting.
Okay literally 4 years later but how does one not make morality about themselves. They only have control over their own actions and I get not viewing things in "I want to be a good person, how do I do that?" and more "Being a good person is good for multiple people" but I feel like I'm missing something. Maybe its because I still view things the previous manner of "If thing is bad I cannot in good conscious do thing even if my action is irrelevant".
@@FusionFullForce I think what OP was trying to say is doing good things for personal benefit. Like, only working at a homeless shelter because you think it'll impress your crush and not because you genuinely want to help these people.
kindness with an ulterior motive, if you will
This reminds me of my younger years. When I was 12 (or maybe 10), my Christian parents once told me that I shouldn't be on a certain website. I learned to hide my web activity from my parents, not so much because I was viewing forbidden content but because of the fear that they would ban me from viewing it. One of the facets of being a good Christian is honoring your father and mother. If they never saw what I was doing, they would never have an opportunity to say that I couldn't be there. After all, it's only disobedience if they say you can't do something and you do it anyway.
OMG, this one got me. Damn. I need to rethink a few things.
Hey, did you change your mind ?
I love that you were open to reconsideration, even not knowing the outcome of it
You're telling me... She says that in every episode... And they still... And they still... Sigh
Well... "They" tend to not really watch her videos, so it's pretty logical.
I'm glad you're watching every episode of feminine frequency. I hope you're learning lots!
So you are the target audience who is impressed by boilerplate and thinks it negates everything else she says.
Might I inquire on your opinion on the phrase "I'm not racist but..."
@@YouthRightsRadical You have a very disingenuous way of talking. I've been observing you in all the threads I've been checking.
And I would give you an example concerning this, if you don't mind. So that you'd see how you're getting this very wrong.
I had to go and see for myself. They don't watch her videos. None of them do, and they don't care. If they do, they just go there to pick strawmanns and debunk the terrible strawmanns they made.
I sat down to read endless threads of arguments in the comment section to see whether I'd get legitimate criticism from the videos I've watched about Feminist Frequency, especially this Tropes Vs. Women in Gaming, and I haven't seen any good argument that doesn't try to slander her personal reputation, take her out of context, or make the same bad edgelord arguments that are easy to pick apart. It's that obnoxious.
Anyone watching this, PLEASE also check out Contrapoints! She's a /brilliant/ video-essayist that lead me to these video because she used Innuendo Studios as a source
And now, from the future, I've gotta give the warning to be very wary about Contrapoints. She has a lot of harmful unconscious biases that leak through her work and, if not directly harming people, grants credence to rhetoric that harms people. Micro-aggressions against non-binary people, putting a huge focus on "passing" in order to be accepted by society (which harms all trans people), and her tendency to agree and mingle with a lot of transmedicalists.
And that's also not going into how her "courting with the far-right" in an attempt to deradicalize them means that she decided to unironically use anti-semitic imagery like the Lizard People running society, use a popular slur (tr*p) uncensored in her title, and a bunch of other little bigoted things, and leave them completely unchallenged in her work.
She was popular as Baby's First Trans and covered a lot of leftist things, but at this point, actual harm-reducing discourse around trans issues have completely left her behind. She's not *the* representative for all things trans as people like to believe, and through giving her that power and platform, she's harmed a ton of people who were already in harm's way.
Danielle Was Delayed “use anti-semitic imagery like lizard-people”
Imagine thinking “lizard people” is anti-semitic
lmao
Was Poppin ok if you wanna play the willful ignorance card in regards to that famously antisemitic conspiracy theory how about this instead. she owns nazi memoribilia and features it in her vids🙄 how bout we dont support a so called leftist who rubs elbows w racists and self aligns with the "gender critical" crowd lmfao
insect lesbian oh my god, you are crazy
Was Poppin LOL sure pal✌️
"and yeaaahhh, that gives me this gross, sick, powerless feeling in my stomach, but... that's adulthood." i would laugh if i didnt already feel this same way currently
See, and this is why I never gave a shit when Anita said something about a game that I didn't agree with or thought was wrong. It doesn't matter, and devoting 1000000 hours of vlog and hangout sperging to how horrible her opinion on video games makes me feeeeeeeeel is pointless.
A big part of Gamergate is people who feel (ironically) triggered by the presence of people saying things about games that they don't like or agree with, and they want to maintain their plausible deniability that nothing in gaming could ever be sexist by removing those people from their "gaming culture"... Even though gamers were talking among themselves, often jokingly, about sexism in games long before Anita showed up.
***** You do know her harassment was before gamergate right?
Also she just being critize back but she calls it harassment.
+TheSamuraiGoomba this guy get's it.
Gamergate is about exposing corruption.
@@deliciousdishes4531 No he doesn't "get it". Maybe for a portion of commentors. But not all. Sorry Angry Jack isn't the only answer for who are the people/why are the people with opposing views to someone like Anita. YES, the Angry Jack is a valid trope, but to think "all critics" think this way is arrogance on your (and Innuendo Studios) part.
@@YankeeDoodleDandy That's fucking adorable.
Great stuff. I particularly like the fact that in none of these videos you come off as condescending or sarcastic. That (combined with the fact you're a man) makes me believe this series can really gain some traction, even among the people who don't really want to hear this stuff...
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful Yes
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful It's pretty self-explanatory. Innuendo will be taken more seriously, and receive less harassment, by gators because of his gender.
Tyler Basile Poor Jack Thompson :(...
Torment87 Speaking as a white male journalist who writes a lot of feminist articles, I can definitely say I am more likely to be listened to than a woman saying the exact same thing
Torment87 Anita and Jack make the same arguments the same debunked inaccurate arguments and she gets away with it
Interesting thought, that was new to me - these "I'm one of the good guys"-doushes are a product of this specific anglo-american prostantism where you can only exist in one of the binomic states "saved" or "not saved"
Was totally thinking this too when he touched on the 'puritanical' description. I think you're correct.
This has become extremely relevant again now that the hp game game out. People who have bought the game, while insisting they are still allies, and completely ignore that they are still giving money to someone who sees it at support to their bigoted ideas.
And thus we now know that you buy the right kind of shoes and anyone who doesn't is a bad person.
Exceptionally late comment but the paranoia about being labelled as being good or bad dichotomy I think is in part formed from stereotypes about feminists. The strident man hating bra burner stereotype is almost comforting. It is the same way that when as children if you screwed up you sometimes you wanted your parents angry at you because that gave you something to react to and you could be the victim if they were disappointed then you just felt like the a-hole in the situation.
that's a perfect comparison
I think it's also why they name-check radicals like Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas in an attempt to dismiss or discredit feminism as a whole.
@@grahamkristensen9301 Also because "if you're not a feminist, you're a sexist" does rather require a response from people who aren't comfortable with the moralizing asshole who says things like that.
This was my favorite of all the videos in this serious so far, you hit the nail on the head with the puritanical good person bad person dichotomy and how it relates to Jack’s reactions
This may be a bit meta, but this is one of the first videos that I've seen that _actually_ has good, intuitive, grammatically correct & insightful comments.
Angry Jack fails to realize that his methods for fighting for his soul usually means destroying everyone else's.
I love how your tone is also diplomatic while at the same time seeming sympathetic to the plight of not any of the mentioned parties, BUT THE VIEWER because you know you might be scaring/blowing their minds and you're trying to be gentle about it, despite who the viewer might be.
Bear in mind that this is not addressed to Angry Jack but rather fellow leftists seeking to learn more about the mindset of the Gamergator.
"...this gross, sick, powerless, sinking feeling in mystomach. That's adulthood"
-Innuendo Studios, out of context.
This actually captures the feeling I am building as I'm becoming an adult. Feels worse than angry jack, but also feels more honest.
Psst, you need to make these into a playlist for easier sharing! :)
He just did about an hour ago FYI :)
Why are there weird Hindu/Indian/I-have-no-idea-what characters in the description of it when you share it on Facebook, though?
Henrik Munk Madsen UA-cam is werid?
8:58 I had never thought of the implications of framing morality in this way. Gosh there are so many ways this assumption can affect other discussions - it's like my third eye has opened. Thanks for that.
I feel like I'm seeing this in people's reactions to being criticized for playing the Harry Potter game. They think of themselves as good people, but don't want to engage with the fact that supporting the game (whether or not JKR gets money from it) feeds into the cycle of investment and product development which in turn further enriches JKR, allowing her to put more money into her transphobic crusade.
Russel brand fans right now. The allegations against him have a lot of people feeling like they are accused of being creeps and pervs by extension.
Yep. I think we can all agree that you're buying the right shoes.
No it doesn't. Its literally just a game and all your moral panic over it only serves to drive people to play it
@@kieranhurst8543 Then it should be free with no additional charges at least. See you in pirate bay
TL;DR: there is no good or evil, only the best solutions are inconvenient, and the worst are the convenient; and we're living in a society of convenience.
This series is pure distilled platinum mate, I can't wait for the next part!
A video that is demonstrably supporting Anita (Indirectly maybe) that isn't downvoted heavily?
It's a fucking miracle.
Goatmon It's more of "Anita Sarkeesian is not the subject of these videos" than supporting her really I think. You can pretty much apply what he demonstrated in the video about internet fame and Phil Fish to Sarkeesian here. Her being "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant, it's about these people who refuses to admit they COULD be wrong and unleash shitstorm on whoever they see as "the bad person telling them what to think".
Goatmon Because FemFreq and the clique is sharing them, so most viewers are ones who already agree.
I love the video enforcing the us vs them mentality, people who are outside the clique are bad!
I find that’s also an issue when telling people they have racist attitudes, people don’t want to listen to what your saying because they think admitting they have prejudices means that they are automatically a bad person. I think it’s important when calling out problematic behaviour to also explain to the person that it’s natural to have these biases and things out of your control in their lives created them, what makes you a good person isn’t never having prejudices but having the courage and integrity to question your beliefs.
I also want to add that it shouldn’t be the responsibility of minorities to patiently explain to people why their prejudices are wrong. If they want to do that they can obviously. But if you see discrimination towards a group your not part of, standing up and saying something can make it so a member of that minority group doesn’t need to stand up for themselves, which to them would be more emotionally taxing.
It's especially ironic, since most gamers were the "underdogs" in their childhoods, got bullied were fat, ugly, short, etc., they never had girlfriends and so forth. They (we) should exactly be the people that are tolerant, that support feminism, hate racism etc. Because those are "jock" things to do. But somehow they (we) fucked that up. Hard. Somehow they (we) thought the right course of action is to push back and do exactly these things but even worse.
we do heat racist and sexist that is why we dont like feminism
Maybe being an underdog has thought these people what being an underdog really means. And they just can't picture women or people of color as underdogs for this very reason. You see, being a white underdog in a white community has thought these people race doesn't impact they way they are treated, other properties such as looks, humor or intelligence are far more important. So someone as the man behind Innuendo Studios is sitting in his ivory tower looking down and all he sees is people of color or women seemingly occupying less seats of power. But a white man in the middle of this unwashed mass of people is instead realizing race or gender doesn't really matter, behavior does.
@@SweBeach2023 Meaning if women or POC are so unrepresented in positions of power, it's because all of them have poor "looks, humour or intelligence" ? Yeah... They certainly deserve it...
That being said, I agree with you on one point : in our society, there is a factor that affects your chances of success in life a lot more than your skin colour, gender or sexual orientation : it's money. It just so happens that, due to historical reasons, money is on average concentrated in the hands of white men.
All white guys certainly don't have it easy and gender and skin colour aren't the only things that define you, but pretending they don't matter is obviously a lie and solely serves those in priviledged positions.
Thank you so much for making this series. The widespread behaviors and ideology which drive them is so hard to pin down and build discussion around. Really glad someone figured it out and even more happy this is has been made available to develop further in a public setting. Good work!
ua-cam.com/video/hGHpne4kTbc/v-deo.html this is the video you need
I prefer knowledge over innocence. I'm glad my bubble was burst so early.
I simply adore this video series. It's my swirling mix of thoughts caught, pinned down, and labelled elegantly.
He is so amazing. I cannot believe I am just discovering this.
Go on any one of Thunderf00ts videos about Anita, look at the comments full of angry gamers. You will shit blood.
I like stuff I watched a Thunderf00t video once. Never again. The guy is excellent at rebutting arguments... but only arguments that nobody is making. In the video I saw, he argued that men are just as objectified as women in video games because... male video game characters are often portrayed as super-powerful and attractive.
Either the huge chasm of difference between objectification and idealization is beyond the man's understanding, or he willfully decides to ignore it. Possibly both. Wherever the most easily available pile of straw is, he'll grab it.
Jack Christmas I use to watch his videos about a year ago. I also use to be pro-gamergate and the other stuff he was for and against. But I soon took a look from other people's perspective and then decided to avoid his channel all together. I will say his videos are technically good, well edited, somewhat researched and sometimes interesting with his space stuff I guess but he's just a preachy critic.
I like stuff "I use to watch his videos about a year ago. I also use to be pro-gamergate and the other stuff he was for and against. But I soon took a look from other people's perspective and then decided to avoid his channel all together." *heart glows* ^_^
Jack Christmas He thought Halo was a playstation game and disregarded the excellent Beyond Good & Evil just because it carries a 7+ rating (by that logic the G rated 2001: A Space Odyssey must be a kids film). The man is a pillock.
I like stuff ...and therefore that invalidates what he's saying?
This series is incredible, and I bet that it will stay in my head for a long time.
In this 5th part, however, lies a subject which would really benefit more discussion (maybe a spin-off series?). And that would be the issue of the effects of media on users.
In the Rohrer situation, we looked at his intentions, that don't really matter that much. But the critiques to his game, I'd argue, also don't >really< make a difference. What we >really< should be analysing are the effects of his game on the behaviors of the players.
My main issue with Sarkeesian's reasoning, is when she says the following:
"Compounding the problem is the widespread belief that, despite all the evidence, exposure to media has no real world impact. While it may be comforting to think we all have a personal force field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as the “third person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects even if others may be influenced or manipulated. Paradoxically and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.
In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected."
She believes that any representation of opression against women in media, the one in Rohrer's game for instance, is necessarily bad. But whhat if player interpretations are more complex than the mere "naturalization" of those behaviors? Maybe, depending on the context in which an oppression event is framed, the interpretation of the player can lead to a more human behavior towards women? That leads to whole other set of problems and issues, that we should think carefully before dismissing experiences like The Castle Doctrine.
In my opinion, that premise weakens the concept of "trope" in Anita's videos, which imply that the trope itself is harmful, denying the possibility of framing it in a satyrical or critical context, for example. The overarching structure of the media piece intereferes in the effects of the trope, even if it depicts an oppresion event. And even then, maybe we can't account for the multiple interpretations that players will generatefrom a particular media piece. I understand her intentions, but I fear she constructs a overly simplified model of the way people interpret media.
I read what she's saying as "the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to consume uncritically." That uncritical consumption is what increases a person's chance of being affected. If you don't pay attention to what you're putting into your head, then you may not realize your views being changed and infected with these negative prejudices, biases, etc.
As for your second point, I agree that tropes can be used in subversive ways, to highlight and critique the social norms and expectations they're representing. Maybe Anita could broach that side of things in her videos more, but I've always seen them as "into to feminism" videos. Short, to the point, and thought provoking.
rbgg2010 I understand your interpreation. But I simply can't agree with this way of understanding our relationship with media - be it games, literature, TV, journalism, or any kind of organized discourse. From my experience and from what I could read about the subject, there is also a lot of ground for thinking that people create their interpretation in an active, ambiguous and complex way.
I can't compactuate with a theoretical premise that frames human relationship with meaning and emotion in such a bidimensional manner. I think Anita's videos would certainly benfit from a more sofisticated point of view. I understand the necessity of making understandable arguments. But that can't come in the expense of our losing sight of the root of the problem.
The discussion on having a preoccupation with being "a good person", just in general, has made me legitimately, personally uncomfortable, and for that I almost feel obliged to comment on and like the video.
Like, ok, yeah, you made me feel a thing and think thoughts. It was a bad feeling and unpleasant thoughts (which in itself makes your point all the more salient), but that doesn't make the discussion any less affecting, and I feel like that's worth recognizing and acknowledging via this minute gesture.
In short: video good.
The deeper I get into this series, the more I like it. I'm still holding off on giving my full agreements/disagreements until it's over, though (and I'll probably re-watch the whole thing to do that).
"Why are you carrying a torch and a bucket of water?"
"I am going to burn down the gates of heaven and quench the fires of hell."
Being wrong and making mistakes is great, if you learn from them.
I think it's healthy to be able to say, for example, "Veganism is an admirable practice with numerous environmental and animal rights benefits. It's also hard, and I'm not perfect. I do volunteer at the homeless shelter on Thursdays after work, that's gotta be worth something. This steak is delicious. Looks like I need another beer."
This avoids Angry Jack's whole issue. It also takes a certain amount of maturity and self-confidence, I suppose.
+capnpaco This. One needs to realize that they don't have to be perfect. Just because a game has "problematic" elements doesn't mean they can't enjoy it.
I'm posting this in a 5-year-old video so I doubt anyone will read it, but I've gotta say something. Right-wing brigading makes complaining about certain legitimate things on the "SJW" side of the left *SUPER* hard to do.
I'll point out, I'm a super-hardcore-dyed-in-the-wool socialist. I'm all for social equitability all the way. And I had problems with Zoe Quinn that had nothing to do with her being a woman or a feminist. I had problems with Anita Sarqeesian which had very little to do with the pro-feminism points she was making.
My problem with Zoe Quinn had to do with Depression Quest. Which I've played. Thoroughly. Got every possible ending. It does not deserve very high marks as a piece of interactive fiction, and other than a few of the visual effects, I, as a semi-professional game designer with some firsthand knowledge of neurological and psychological trauma, could knock out in an afternoon. The hate she got and the doxxing by her ex-boyfriend were unfounded, yes. But the massive positive press she got for it was... annoying.
My problems with Anita Sarkeesian was mostly to do with her lack of diligence. The three issues that I had with the entire tropes-verses-women series are as follows:
1: She claimed that the Hitman series encouraged you to not only kill women (which it penalized) but to play with the bodies (which it didn't encourage, it was merely a side-effect of the body-hiding mechanic and penalized you by costing you time).
2: She later came out with a pitch for a "Feminist video game" right around the time that her college dissertation got leaked... Her game design was covered in what she liked to call "Men with Boobs" trope, and she praised her own character in her pitch with the exact words her dissertation called "Non-feminine traits". Hypocrisy, rather directly, especially when she later did an episode on that very same trope.
3: She did very little output for the kind of money she had.
That's it. I agree with Anita about a *LOT* of rampant sexism in video games, hell I'll even give Quinn points for talking about clinical depression. But because the right-wing hate machine got to her, I feel like I can't criticize her on the legitimate problems I had with their bodies of work.
The far-right has an annoying tendency to make martyrs out of the left, and make them immune to critique.
I think the big question is, assuming everything you said is true - what does it even matter, really? The reason she got most of her positive press is BECAUSE of the gamergaters building her up. Like someone else said in another comment chain - Imagine you saw some smug guy with a "change my mind" sign and some poorly supported and flawed view. You might debate him on it, criticize him, sure! Now imagine. Now imagine he was being attacked by a mob for a hundred different reasons, many of them blatantly untrue, it's just like... holy shit, this is not a good outcome for anyone, and the things being done to him are so much worse than the the disagreements that you had with him defending him is the only really right course of action.
Worse, members of the mob try to use the "I just want to calmly this!", which many people justifiably believe is worth doing, as an excuse to get close enough to hurt the person for unrelated reasons, simply as cover.
Or as another example, imagine this was a wife cheating on her husband, and like, you have issues with that, understandably... but the reason you know is because her abusive husband is telling everyone as an attempt to control her and prevent her from leaving so he can keep beating her, to recruit others as allies in making her feel like she deserves the abuse she's getting.
You're right that we effectively can't critique our allies when they are being attacked like this, no matter how justified it might be without the mob or abusive husband, without seeming like or actually helping the one trying to destroy them.
And I think that is part of the point! The right wing *knows* that and actively plays into it. They benefit from making good natured, well intended critique impossible. They are knowingly and intentionally creating the sort of environment they can thrive in, the same way they benefit from undermining factual and meaningful discussions everywhere. Because ultimately they want to make it about feeling. They don't *want* sincere criticism and ANYONE, especially their enemies.
And what can we do about it? Even mild mannered critiques of these people the right wing attacks empowers them. They've put us in a terrible situation and they know it and they love it.
I don't have solutions except "we just have to ignore it and focus on the bigger problem that makes addressing the smaller things impossible". It just fucking sucks.
Anita has responded to those who have critiqued her Hitman synapsis, and I think her point is fairly accurate.
In short, the game doesn't REALLY punish you for killing women. Your "score" is downgraded for having done so, but that can be completely ignored. Generally speaking, the punishment is overriden by continuing to play the game, in much the way that you can overcome the "punishment" of killing strippers in GTA by simply outrunning cops, and having no real loss of progress in your game either way.
Maybe it's just me and having grown up in the era of Ghouls N Ghosts quarter-munching arcade games, replaying 5-6 levels because you failed to reach the next save point before running out of lives, losing XP on character death in games like Everquest, the idea that losing a star for killing strippers is "punishment" is downright laughable.
Sarkeesian also makes a slightly different argument; if you're not supposed to kill them, than why are they there? Of all the settings the level could have been in and all the possibilities for NPC's, they chose strippers, instead of perse bankers, lawyers, postal workers, an Amazon warehouse, etc.
@@c0nd0rd4myt what is the problem with choosing strippers someone had to die then there always will be objections . This is just a video game
Years ago this video was the start of my journey away from denying sexism. Thank you.
OMG THIS IS SUCH A GOOD SERIES IM SO GLAD I DECODED TO LOOK ANITA UP AND FIND YOYR VIDEOS SIMPLY CAUSE I HATED HER WHEN I WAS YOUNGER BUT NOW REALIZE I HAD NO BASIS FOR MY HATE
"... to treat morality as being about saving yourself."
This is just wringing the maximum possible amount of insight from an issue that is pretty narrow and specific. So good.
I absolutely love your videos. I've learnt a lot from watching them and often I hear you expressing points that I already had as abstract ideas and feelings but couldn't find words to express them. You've clearly put a lot of work into these.
I still remember thinking to myself back in the day, "Yeah, maybe she's a bit over the top on some of her points, but she's mostly correct, why are people so mad at her?" Certain pockets of men and boys (and even a couple of women) felt guilty, and thus, attacked, over enjoyment of things she criticized. Rather than accept we are all flawed, and as Lindsay Ellis once said, "we all have the stink on us," they attack Sarkeesian.
They recognized an attack when they saw one and didn't believe her when she claimed that wasn't what she was doing. Comes from the experience of having Jack Thompson saying the exact same things about them not too long ago.
Easier to recognize that an argument can be wrong when you've heard it come out of a man's mouth already.
Thank you. This has spelled out my view of morality better than I've ever been able to
it makes me quite a bit sad that, less than 10 years ago, an active discussion on labor exploitation and sweatshops was mainstream, how we were starting to slowly but surely pick apart the darkest parts of a world built on maximizing finance and ruled by megaglobal entities with the keys to open every door. now, we are lucky if the transphobia and racism calms down enough for regular ol feminism to be brought up again. i miss when it was a lot more hopeful.
This series is incredibly good. It's deftly utilized a relatively petty social movement to logically extrapolate many of the same big picture points that I myself have come to acknowledge and live by about what it means to be a good person, how to reflect on your own motivations, and how to conduct yourself as a human while considering the effect your actions have on those around you. Just really important fundamental philosophical stuff is unassumingly present here, and I'm impressed how natural and concisely these videos have managed to get to and make such points.
These are phenomenal. Thank you so much for making them.
"It's a battle for his soul..."
*Undertaker's GONG hits*
Some one needs to remind Jack that Forgiveness is a thing
forgiveness isnt always possible people dont always forgive, if he doesnt admit he's wrong then the people who say he's wrong are wrong
The really scary thing about the Right is that it seems to be structured around never admitting weakness or fault. And without that, how /can/ there be forgiveness? I guess the answer beneath it all, is that whether a victim forgives a transgression is only, ever, up to that victim. Nobody else. It's not something a person is owed... and forgiveness can be an extremely healthy thing for a person who's been wronged.
So even when an arsonist gleefully continues burning down buildings, we should forgive him in our hearts... and take the matches away, and make sure the police can find him. But none of that requires hating him as a person. To avoid letting these modern political theaters just drain you and make you an angry, hateful person right back at all the angry, hateful people out there.
Fusilier Excellent comment. That’s a really wise way of looking at things. Forgiveness *feels* better when someone admits they are wrong, or asks for forgiveness, but the act of forgiveness is ultimately something that probably has to occur separate from the perpetrator’s subsequent behavior (which can make things tricky and hard).
Thanks for this series - very well put!
couldn't help but think this while watching the entire series thus far. If you don't like the games... Just don't play them. If you don't like the reviews, don't read them. I've personally never sent a tweet to Anita or Quinn and I don't recognize any of the other lefties (because that's what this really is, left vs right). Never read an article written by them. I've been subbed to the Gate channels and I guess participated as a passive, sympathetic observer. The thing is, I do like scantily clad women in my games, just like I like them irl. I don't like walking simulators about feelings. I like games about shooting stuff and blowing shit up and saving the world. If gaming is "by men for boys" I don't understand why there needs to be a change in the games popular with males. Why not just make different games that women like? Why does every game need to include everyone? Like, I don't play rainbow six siege because it's too difficult to learn the maps and meta. It's too hardcore of a game for me to get into. Should I be petitioning Ubi to make smaller, simpler maps or dumb down the mechanics? I mean I guess I understand the argument that it contributes to how men view women... But, does it tho? Isn't this the "video games make boys violent" argument?
This is exactly the "video games make boys violent" argument.
This is probably the best video in this series, really well done. Thanks for all of these!
What i love about your videos is how you are able to dissect the culture itself that seems to promote itself as "the good ones" in your case the Angry Jack so to say, That these Angry Jacks in relation to Gamergate from my findings tend to be overtly aggressive like the big bad ANITA is coming to get them, They feel like their sense of entitlement has actually been breached and they would formulate almost anything to clog that hole. After visiting Gamergate forums and analyzing and investigating myself even going as far as to see what these followers of Gamergate and what their other interests are, They tend to be MRA's White Supremacists, Dylan Roof supporters, Racists, Misogynists and almost every other sort of trash under the rug, The then have their leaders like Sargon of Akkad, Mundane Matt and so many other feed them trifle that look guys we are the "rational ones" and if you don't support us you are the "other". They are a beacon for hate disguised as intellectuals, and their sheep feed into that nonsense day in day out always trying and needing someone to tell them hey look "your the good guy" "you aren't wrong she is". And guess what they aren't and lets not hide it GAMERGATE IS NOT ABOUT ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM IT IS ABOUT HATE, HATING FEMINISTS IN GAMES AS EXAMPLE ANITA SARKESSIAN AND HATE OF MINORITIES LIKE TARIQ MOOSA. GAMERGATE IS HATE SIMPLE AND PLAIN AND IF YOUR PART OF GAMERGATE AND PART IT'S CULTURE YOU ARE A PROPONENT OF HATE.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful Typical Gamergate supporter just because he sees my profile picture i made ages ago he has made the best assumptions of me. and yet has the guts to preach judgement in my face, you know its true an GAMERGATE IS HATE, face facts dude most of Gamergate is fuckin Hate and don't give me that bullshit that you are part of the one percent who are about fucking ethics in gaming journalism bullcrap. if you were so smart you would have quit gamergate ages ago because most of it is hate, if i was in a group that started out as a rally to justice and then turned into hate of various people and that went against what i actually stood for why will I still be part of that group.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful
What are you cornered? then tell me why you are in the Gamergate movement, is it about those damn ethics you are talking about. i have gone on many gamergate forums i have never once heard you lot talk about ethics all you do is sit down and talk and bash women, feminists, minorites and this is a fucking fact when was the last time you we heard a story about something that has to do with ethics in gaming journalism when huh. GTFO man. GAMERGATE IS HATE AND YOU NOW THAT TO BE TRUE YOURSELF.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful
Frustrated Child LOL!!! that's cool especially coming from someone who is part of the Gamergate movement for example you haven't answered why you are part of the Gamergate movement. Oh i see you are still trying to dodge that question. Don't bother Angry Jack i already know why, I don't need screenshots of you to tell me why you are part of the Gamergate Movement!!! the same way i don't need screenshots of someone who is part of a Neo nazi Movement. Sayonara dumbass.
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful good job trying to equate an ideology with ethnicity/nationality
LolsTheGreatAndPowerful
WELL HERE ARE THE CAPS IF YOU WANTED THEM SO BAD. AS PART 3 OF THIS VIDEO SHOWED US THAT THOSE OF YOU IN GAMERGATE USE THE GUISE OF ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM TO HIDE YOUR DUMBASS AGENDA AND MOVE FROM HERE TO THERE TRYING TO PROVE TO US IT'S TRULY ABOUT ETHICS, WELL GUESS WHAT BUDDY ITS FUCKING NOT. I HAVE DONE MY RESEARCH AGES AND EVEN DISGUISED MYSELF AS ONE OF YOU LOT. AND GUESS WHAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH HUGE HATE FOR FEMINISM BEFORE IN MY LIFE EVEN WHEN I TALKED TO SOMEONE WHO KEPT ON BLABBERING HOW IT WAS ABOUT ETHICS IN A MEETUP. HE BASICALLY SAID THAT THAT TIME IS OVER AND IT'S TIME TO BRING FEMINISM DOWN, HE ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE A WHOLE DISDAIN FOR MINORITIES AS LEADS IN GAMES, EXPLAINING TO ME HIS HATRED FOR THE HALO TV SHOW WITH THE BLACK GUY AS THE LEAD. CITING THAT BLACKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LEADS IN MANY FORMS OF MEDIA, AND EVERY FUCKING PERSON AGREED WITH HIM. SO I HOPE YOU LIKE THE FUCKING CAPS BECAUSE I FUCKING ENJOYED WRITING IN IT.
Boom. You hit it out of the park with this one. So many little fragments of points I had floating around in my head coalesced into a cogent, and very well constructed, argument. Well put.
Ian makes the argument that Western ethics defaults to Puritanism---making moral judgments. I think an *additional* reward for trolls on the internet is that, in a tiny sense, they get to cast moral judgments on people---they get to, for one line of text, *PLAY GOD* ---and not suffer any consequences.
Thank you. As one of the Jacks, I needed to hear this.
If someone misunderstands Mark Twain's portrayal of race in Huckleberry Finn, it doesn't make the book racist. Just because a piece of art makes you uncomfortable (as many intentionally do), that doesn't mean the art is "problematic". It means the art is doing its job.
I remember some moments where I realised my thinking and acting were wrong, by assuming things about the world based on bias that was given to me by society I was making the world worse, even by tiny bits. The moments when some of those bubbles popped. And yeah, it did fell shitty for a while, I looked at things from my past and felt bad about who I was, it's not a fun experience. But, I hope, that made me a better person, and so it was worth it.
This one explained both sides a lot better :)
I want you to know your videos have helped me confront a lot of things about Gaming I did not want to know. Thank you.
I love how u define it as a part of adult hood
Stop making myself feel bad about my shoes!!!! Gonna watch all your vids in the coming weeks/months. Keep it up!
Interesting points, as always. I would disagree on your rationale of ethics, though. I don't think arguing that someone needs to consider the needs of others before themselves works in a practical way but it also doesn't seem that that is what you are really arguing for. Your main thrust so far seems to be that the reasons Angry Jacks use to justify their actions don't line up with the actions they are taking. But the reasons themselves are actually harmful to the Jacks, themselves. That what they believe, though not as important as what they do, does lead them to act in ways that are wrong.
You are a very intelligent man. Unfortunately, some will choose to not see it this way, and will give the videos hate, but I think most would agree that this series is excellent and eye opening.
I think no game or work of art should have to answer to a certain set of morals at all, so I don't see why the creator would even argue against his critics. I don't even think playing a sexist video games reflects on the consumer of that video game, so I don't see why Jack would be afraid of admitting that. On the flipside, I don't think criticizing games is damaging in any way - and is totally your right. If you convince someone, more power to you.
That's way it's important to tell your kids, that's ok to fail. That it's ok to not be perfect.
If every imperfection is meat with draconian judgment, imperfection must be hidden.
Very good video
As CS Lewis put it, God doesn't love us because we are good, but he will make us good because he loves us.
These just get better and better
This might be my favorite so far. It's 2018, I'm late to the table (with four legs) here, but I kind of reached the last three minutes of this video intuitively a couple of years ago, and at that point I've started pretty much all my debates from that place. It's been surprisingly effective. "You aren't a bad person, this is a bad thing."
That simplistic view of "good person vs bad person" is something I'm trying to rid myself of. Mostly because it's been causing me cognitive dissonance:
How can that sweet old neighbor who I considered akin to a grandmother be a hardcore MAGA fan? How can someone who is so kind in her day-to-day life support a fascist movement that is actively attempting to erraticate my friends and I? I'm trying to internalize that people have different faces- different contexts. To their in-group, they can be kind and gentle. To their out-group, they can be genocidal assholes. Not everyone gets to see the switch from in-group treatment to out-group treatment. I do.
How do I get rid of the notion of "good" people vs "bad" people? I have no idea. But I'd like to get there one day.
This is one of the best videos I've ever seen, and at a very appropriate time in our lives for issues way beyond gamergate. Thank you so much for doing this in such an eloquent and informative way.
I really love how this series of videos can also be used to explain how white people prefer to believe that racism is over.
I just came from a video (posted in the future of this comment) that touches on media consumption effecting world views.
Blastaar7 It also explains how racism will never end, no matte progress is made. There’s a danger to a problem feeling completely unfixable or un-winnable.
Just curious. Who else is here after The Last of Us 2 hysteria? I honestly think this is going to be a lifechanging event for me. I mean all this time I brushed this off as something not that significant. But when one of the most prominent, most ARTISTICALLY INTEGRANT and let's just say it, objectively most amazing and culturally valuable game developers gets INSTANTLY villified... It just made me truly realize what's culturally at stake here.
I'm sorry, but I can't respect a view of morality whose foremost goal is "making the world a better place." If an individual is trapped in a cave their entire life, they can still be a morally good person, despite not being able to change the world at all outside his cave. We don't live in caves, but my point stands. You can't start with the assumption you do. My philosophy of morality is exactly opposed to that assumption-laden goal with its complete disregard of the individual's choice. And I really don't appreciate your talking down, as though if you aren't a utilitarian progressive, you aren't an adult yet. You jump back and forth between social issues, prevalence, and acceptability and philosophic moralizing, as though each moral choice an individual makes needs to be solely based on the most statistical data possible. Individuals aren't statistics, and it's individuals who make moral decisions. Should individuals then do the things you're talking about (i.e. not being willfully ignorant, being aware of the needs of others, etc.)? In many cases, sure! But your version was "Good isn't about your choice. For reasons I won't explain, good is about institutional problems over which you have no power. But if you disagree, you're not even an adult." I appreciate your psychological analysis and social critique. But don't pretend to be a philosopher. Worse yet, don't do a barely half-assed job and then insult me if I don't agree with you. Right and wrong are not fundamentally in the flux of social structures, though these are extremely important. Right and wrong are instead fundamentally in the heart and soul of every person in every moment.
Dude. Dude. These keep getting better every time.
Thank you. THANK YOU.
My sister's a vegetarian and I used to hate to go out and eat with her because I always felt bad when I ordered something non-vegetarian in her presence, I also felt like she was secretly judging me even though she never explicitly said anything about it and thanks to you I now kinda know why
truly the single most important video I ever saw
There was a time when I was angry Jack!
You can fool yourself about some things sometimes,
but you can't fool yourself about all the things all the time!
Sooner or later you'll see through the cracks in your own wall.
I'm liking where this series has been going... cant wait to watch part 6 so that I can process everything and formulate my own point of view on these matters. Great quality vids as always, keep up the good work!
I'm amazed, rewatching this series of videos, I realize that it's talking about cancel culture several years before it became A THING.
We see more and more of a divide between liberals who look into individuals and judge their character and if they're problematic or not, implying that bigotry is over and it's just a case of some individual, easily isolated bad apples that we have to tirelessly cancel and root out, and leftists who aknowledge that in the grand scheme of things, analyzing systems and wide cultural and social trends is more informative and useful than "canceling" everyone who strays "out of line" even a little bit. The liberal way of looking at those things has that safe comfort net that implies that once you find the "bad guys", the fight is over, and we can continue living in the best of all possible worlds.