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?"

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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'm so sick of people idolizing the 50s ugh

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.

Huh, sargon of akkad seems to have missed this one, and the downvotes reduced by 75%-ish. Weird how brigading works, huh?

Man, this particular episode hit a few personal notes that kinda hurts... I like it. ANOTHER! *throws coffee mug into the ground*

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

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.

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

I'll bet Anita's most vocal critics have never actually watched her videos.

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!

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

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.

"Morality is bigger than him" You should get that on a t-shirt.

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

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 _______."

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 KZfaq 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...

I love the professionalism your carry with this series. Another job well done!

"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

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.

You're telling me... She says that in every episode... And they still... And they still... Sigh

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.

OMG, this one got me. Damn. I need to rethink a few things.

That shoe analogy was spot-on. And it made me feel really guilty (_are you judging me!?_).

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.

"That gross, powerless, sinking feeling in your stomach? Yeah, that's adulthood." :v

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.

Angry Jack fails to realize that his methods for fighting for his soul usually means destroying everyone else's.

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"

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

"...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.

Go on any one of Thunderf00ts videos about Anita, look at the comments full of angry gamers. You will shit blood.

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.

Psst, you need to make these into a playlist for easier sharing! :)

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.

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

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.

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.

"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."

I simply adore this video series. It's my swirling mix of thoughts caught, pinned down, and labelled elegantly.

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.

This series is pure distilled platinum mate, I can't wait for the next part!

I prefer knowledge over innocence. I'm glad my bubble was burst so early.

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 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.

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.

"... to treat morality as being about saving yourself."

Being wrong and making mistakes is great, if you learn from them.

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'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.

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).

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.

Years ago this video was the start of my journey away from denying sexism. Thank you.

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?

These are phenomenal. Thank you so much for making them.

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.

Some one needs to remind Jack that Forgiveness is a thing

This is just wringing the maximum possible amount of insight from an issue that is pretty narrow and specific. So good.

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

This is probably the best video in this series, really well done. Thanks for all of these!

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.

"It's a battle for his soul..." *Undertaker's GONG hits*

A video that is demonstrably supporting Anita (Indirectly maybe) that isn't downvoted heavily? It's a fucking miracle.

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!

These videos are incredible. You're doing such a great job. Thank you so much for all the hard work you're putting into this.

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 really love how this series of videos can also be used to explain how white people prefer to believe that racism is over.

I absolutely love this series of videos. (Late to the party, I know.) But the way you explain things is so clear, it's really helpful, thank you!

I keep coming back to Ian's videos, they've influenced me so much.

I love how u define it as a part of adult hood

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.

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 love these videos so much. You are articulating what I have not been able to put into words. Things that were just vague feelings that I couldn't grasp!

This one explained both sides a lot better :)

These just get better and better

I've really enjoyed this series of videos, and I think you're bringing a valuable perspective to this issue.

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.

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.

I agree with this entire video, and although I still don't like how you're treating this like an almost wholly CIS white male thing you seem to have a really good grasp on what "the thing" is in a general sense. You've earned a subscriber out of me, maybe two or ten if you can convince me you're a self-aware individual. A glowing endorsement from Dan of Extra Credits isn't something to take lightly, after all.

This video really makes me reflect on my decisions and reactions to encounters small or large. Thank you for creating this. It is sobering to think that the world isn't just about and not everything happened is a judgement, rather its call to dig deeper.

Dude. Dude. These keep getting better every time. Thank you. THANK YOU.

I think Rohrer's game got a bad rap, generally. I mean, yeah, in general his whole oeuvre is pretty pretentious, and I don't know if the game was actually at all enjoyable to play, but it seems to me that it was pretty explicitly a cruel, vicious, and morally repulsive game, and that this was all intentional. Other media are allowed to have irony, so why is total literalness demanded of games? Edit: and having now seen the video in its entirety, I suppose I'm trivially shifting the question from "is Rohrer a good person?" to "is Castle Doctrine a morally acceptable game?" Your criticism focuses on the *effect* the game might have, and I think that, because of the way it, and most smaller indie games are framed, most players actually *would* be aware of its intent. The strongest critique of the game I can remember was Carolyn Petit's review, which was itself centered around authorial intent. Given this critical climate, it makes perfect sense for Rohrer to want to control how the game is perceived after the fact, perhaps realizing that his artistic hand wasn't as deft as he though.

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.

Thank you. This has spelled out my view of morality better than I've ever been able to

Thank you very much for these videos.

One issue that keeps bubbling up is this: How do we know what to take as given? Let's say that The Castle Doctrine is, in fact, a game that masterfully portrays a socially valuable feminist message about violence against women. Someone comes along, sees that it features a game mechanic that involves shooting women, jerks their knee and writes how sexist and anti-feminist the game is. Would it then be reasonable for the game creator to defend his game? Would explaining how they were missing the (really obvious and well presented) point still be as problematic as you're saying it is? Because the thing is, that COULD be the case. You can only frame it as desperate or ignorant or irrational or whatever if you have already swallowed the idea that there is no counterpoint to be made. OF COURSE he's going to explain and explain and explain if he thinks some people are misinterpreting his work. Certainly I see your point that we sometimes defend ideas because we tie our ego (or our view of ourselves as 'good people') to those ideas, but that doesn't mean that it's the only reason we defend our ideas. Sometimes the people attacking are wrong. Sometimes the people attacking are pretending, or themselves have a victim complex. What is more, I don't think the idea of bad people doing bad things can be entirely blamed on the poor logic of Angry Jack. There is frequently an attitude of insularity in the Feminist movement, that viciously attacks the character of anyone who does not tow the party line (even other feminists). Sometimes the attack IS on the goodness of the person. As a side note, I think there's often a perception that the only feminist media is that which has Strong Female Characters, who Take Charge In Their Lives, but really you could have a powerful feminist film that is all about a Man who captures and beats a helpless Woman until she dies. For example, if it made the audience question how they treated women, or how women are depicted in the media, or made them understand what victims of abuse go through. I say this because for me, The Castle Doctrine made me examine my in-game behaviour towards the wife character more than any other game, precisely because it incentivised morally bad behaviour, but nevertheless gave the player a choice.

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

these videos are amazing. thank you for making them

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.