Plot escalation

Coming back two years later to tell you that Tucker Carlson embraced the idea that in the next 5-10 years the Republican Party would be ""forced"" into electing a literal fascist leader

Damn, that's what I was thinking as I watched. They didn't go away, they doubled down...

And after that, it’s going to be in online fitness.

@@11111110 i don't think that was their implication

Didn't take long for people to start believing that “feminazis” are worse than actual nazis

@@fengardice They still rely on that narrative. Their main argument is that they pretend nazis aren't actually real, but the "evil SJW feminazis DEFINITELY are".

“Terf” replaced feminazi

@@ryukisgod2834 - Actually. No. It didn't - well. The term may have been slightly hijacked. Ok, well, the Radical Feminist part of the phrase is slightly problematic. However. There certainly are Trans Exclusionary Feminists out there, who absolutely do deserve critique. And I think those people can be called "Radical Feminists" and questioned about their motives without using it as an excuse to throw out the really good thing that is feminism, or conversely, attempting to use feminism as a vehicle to throw out fight for Trans and other LGBTQ+ rights.

@@petlahk4119 The only thing wrong with TERF as a term, in my opinion, is that it implies if you're feminist and you're transphobic, than you're radical. There are plenty of non-radical transphobic feminists. It's also been used against non-feminist transphobes. It's losing it's effectiveness as a term due to over-use. Though I am willing throw most transphobes into the same bigot bucket, so it doesn't matter as much in my opinion.

Engelbrekt Haakansson good job man

It takes a big person to face the worst parts of themselves. Thank you

please go vegan now that your brain is functionning

@@Keukeu45 Dude. Not cool. And not helpful.

@@Keukeu45 Lol I guess vegans really can't shut up about their fucking diet.

I was about to comment something similar, but i see you got here first. Evergreen State, Grievance Studies, TMT, etc. The ideas put forth in the series has materialized as the outrage culture we live in today in (mostly) the exact opposite fashion - it is now those pushing "reform" relying on angry jack type mobs (sans Trump as POTUS - that's pretty much in line with this series).

You're totally right. When he wanders what the next gamer gate would be, at that time I doubt he or many other people could have imagined the shear magnitude of it.

@erogames is absolutely the new angry jack.

From my point of view I hate living in a world where liking films like Joker, Alita: Battle Angel and hating Capitan Marvel makes a alt right Dude I live in Europe in Poland I hate your stupid culture war. I just want to watch good movies and play good games

@@PanNiebieski Nobody likes giving up their privilege.

Bearprom Guy was stuck in traffic on a hill (not a fun place to stop a car) after school, in what was assumed to be his mother's old VW bug, baby blue, which he felt insecure enough about to fit the thing with that device that makes revving louder. All this while watching his classmates merrily walk down the hill much faster than he'd get there by car, a reversal of the usual situation between a motorist and a pedestrian. Put simply, he was self-conscious about his car's masculinity, or lack thereof, and thought that the "natural order of things" (so to speak) was being defied, in that pedestrians were suddenly moving faster than cars, instead of the other way around. I'd say most anyone would be at least a little irritated in that situation, and teenagers, boys especially, are typically much angrier than your average adult. Hence the withering glare.

Bearprom Well he's a cishet white male of course from what I gather about this constructed caricature, so any kind of discontent is just "anger at the loss of privilege" or some such sophistry. It can't possibly be that those who disagree with the author of this video and his ilk don't want other people to dictate what subject matter is "problematic" and thus must be stamped out of existence and replaced by feelings-consensus approved material. No, no, they're just misogynerds who are scared of losing their 'privs, and we must press on--all art of course must serve The Party.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, Mr. Passive-Aggressive Misogynerd (totally stealing that word, thanks), you guys are all just butthurt 'cause you're having your privilege checked for the first time in your lives. Lemme let you in on a little secret: Nobody is trying to stamp anything out of existence. Criticism does not exist to call for things to be destroyed, criticism exists to call for things to be improved. But, because you misogynerds can't tell the difference between "this isn't good, maybe do better in the future" and "this isn't good, maybe NEVER MAKE ANYTHING AGAIN", it's a bit tough to really talk to you guys. Maybe when you realize that women (and lots of other people that aren't like you) enjoy video games and would like to be properly represented as frequently as straight white men are, you'll start to come around. But probably not. Also the original Jack was just grumpy about being stuck in his uncool car.

notreallythere477 Hate to break it to you but most "gamer nerds" are anything but "privileged" and have been shit on their entire lives, especially if they're above the age of 20. I know you'd like to think you're "punching up" here but you're not. Cool it, McIntosh. There's plenty of "representation" of just about anything including nonhumans in video games. No one but identity politicians really need to "identify" with the character they play anyway. There also seems to be this double-bind going on that Sarkeesian types have going where example it's bad to have these "damsel in distress" female characters but if you have these characters that are doing everything a male character is then it's also "problematic" that they may be subject to violence at some point in the fictional works in question. It's like there's no way you can actually portray a female character unless it's in the context of some non-game or "art" game that's mostly about pushing the creator's political opinions than any kind of actual gameplay. Subject matter is separate from this entirely but you also see calls to do away with for example, games like GTA5 because it "offends" some professional victim type people. The funny thing to me really is that none of you will actually debate anyone on this because you know what happens when you do: ex. Mercdes Carrera destroyed Chris Kluwe in a debate on Pakman's show because he was doing the same smug act you are here in this comment section rather than actually talking about the real issues and making evidence-based arguments.

Bearprom I think it's about perception personally. I don't think Jack was ever angry, but the people walking down the hill saw him sitting in the car with a neutral look on his face and ASSUMED he was angry. I certainly don't smile when I'm stuck in traffic, but it doesn't mean I'm angry. I may have no feelings at all and/or be thinking about some other problem, event or task I have to do while I'm sitting there. I believe the issue is the people walking by Jack were the ones who were angry / bitter (maybe too strong of words) and they projected their own feelings on to Jack sitting in his car. It's actually a pretty interesting phenomenon with the Mona Lisa, people often argue about weather she's smiling or not, but it's actually their own subjective feelings the viewer projects onto the painting. And it's a lot like a ducks beak, once you see the dog mask, you can never unsee it (ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/8/24/10/all-ducks-wear-dog-masks-21525-1282659886-6.jpg). TL;DR - They see what they want to see.

YUP. Also hello fellow social worker :)

moccamonster Yeah ... you see a lot of issues & anger in debate stem from people's inability to do that.

fivvyfavvy brother of a social worker. IMO they should be payed as much as doctors. They do important work, but it's a thankless job.

moccamonster I suppose the problem could be attributed to one's ability to compartmentalize those two traits. Particularly in how society has put so much of the value of an individual on how said individual measures up to its (society's) moral standard. In short, ones worth is tied up in their opinions/thoughts, and therefore compartmentalizing their opinions/thoughts requires--in a sense--to distance their self from their worth. No simple task.

Chris McCartney That's an interesting proposition. Often I find that these problems lie in the lack of context and individuality in large, social issues. Things that post-modern art taught(considering context, questioning information etc) us seem to have been forgotten, in favour of a more classically modern approach(group thinking and leadership). This is understandable because the former requires an unimaginable frame of mind to consider every person in society as an individual and disregards their role in a group. The latter goes to the end of the spectrum, sadly. Personally I hate it, I find it such a waste of human potential. Thanks for the reply. Cheers!

Until you go and look it up yourself, as a "not very political white guy", the image you have of feminist and antiracist movements is one of horrible people closed inside their ideologies who virtue signal all the time and think you're a horrible person, you individually, for even existing... That's honestly how anti-SJW people on YT managed to paint radical movements for the average Joe. It so much shatters in your face when you actually research those groups that it kinda hurts...

@@Kyrielsh1 It doesn't help that the loudest representatives are both usually the first seen, and the most heavily promoted. The worst people are all too happy to promote Andrea Dworkin as "the average feminist" and let's be blunt-- there are people like her who are just happy to be getting platformed. Those goals both directly conflict with empathy because they're both "conquering" mentalities. It's brutal, but sometimes that's how it is.

well, the world did go to shit, but not because you started listening to women.

@@chavesa5 have you considered looking into the movements from a formal academic perspective? Whatever you see depicted in pop culture is an intentional choice from what other people think will get the most clicks. When you learn about it’s history and all it’s nuance and complexity, things become much more clear in the modern lens.

@@Sarah-re7cg God you tell on yourself so bad.

And any movie lately with a female lead.

@@stoontechguy , Or mention of anything relating with women doing things that are "traditionally male". . . I came back to this series as source for an argument, hopefully a civil discussion, about "Diversity Wars"... I respect the person who made the video, I understand what he was trying to say ("we all want the same thing, so stop fighting about Diversity in Star Wars"), but he came off as a calm and collected "Angry Jack" when he parroted Alt-Right/GamerGate talking points and dog whistles. :/

​@@aralornwolf3140 Hmm. I haven't seen that video, but it sounds a bit like how some people talk about how "racism isn't a thing anymore" - a sort of 'reasonable-sounding' dismissiveness of a valid concern or discussion topic because *reasons*. You know, in the sense that it seems to say "let's not talk about it". But take that with a grain of salt, of course. There is a possibility it's the other way around, though, and that is when a thing is used as a smokescreen to refrain from having to talk about a different issue. "Let's talk about the threat of immigrants.. but not about how immigrants are treated at the southern US border." Different ways to get to the same goal, I suppose. Watching the video, some notes: The 'checking boxes' part. That ignores the value of diversity in real life - that because of inequality in our societies it's good to give some people explicitly more exposure not because of who they are but because of what including them means to our societies. Like having a confident, powerful female rolemodel for women and girls in Wonder Woman. It helps normalise the diversity of our world and the existence of the diversity among us. It can help inspire children. And sure one can ask "is that the responsibility of filmmakers?" Not necessarily, but it can't hurt. And it needn't detract from the overall product. And the more normalised diversity is and the more the various groups are actually represented in various industries and professions (like authors, actors, directors) the less diversity should need to be specifically sought after (ideally it solves itself at some point, but I'm not 100% sure about that, what I am a bit more certain of is that we're not at that point yet). The 'director must be a woman' part. It kind of feels like he's arguing with himself. Or maybe employing a debate trick. Mostly because he seems to posit 'people who just want to see the best possible movie made' against 'forced diversity is everything!'. It's not a fair comparison IMHO, one side is (deliberately or not) posited as being more reasonable than the other side, which is portrayed as more extreme. And it goes back to what I wrote under 'checking boxes' - we live in a world with a lot of inequality. And if no active steps are taken, that _will_ show in what products we consume. Which, in turn, influences us. And yeah that's not to say that a film featuring only white people (for example) is bad. But like what Ian (and Sarkeesian) said about video game tropes - if they are widespread enough that they are more rule than exception.. that's probably not a good thing. Also note that he focuses on personal fairness/unfairness rather than societal fairness/unfairness. Which is very convenient if you don't want to seriously talk about societal injustice. Also note that he calls it 'forced diversity' plus he calls it a 'problem'. Rather than a choice. This seems to suggest he leans towards what I imagine he might call 'natural diversity' - or let's not do anything to encourage or stimulate diversity because we're if not there almost there anyway. And he implies as such, too as (although he doesn't say so directly it's implied because of what he says at 7:26 ). Also while there are people who will discriminate, there's again the societal inequality he ignores a bit before that (6:46), possibly/charitably because he (appears to) believe it's a mostly solved issue. And to emphasise that bit of the 'solved issue' - that definitely reminds me of what I wrote prior to watching the video in this comment (the "racism isn't a thing anymore" bit). He appears to argue that encouraging diversity is more of a problem than a (part of a) solution. This is also very convenient and very much in line with people who are comfortable where they are. Like the people who got upset at MeToo because they might have to think and be concerned with something they didn't have to think and be concerned about prior (although I think we all or most of us knew it was a problem long before that). That's not to say I have a ready answer of an easily quantifiable end goal of encouraged diversity (I only have a broad view of what it would probably mean) - but I imagine research might be able to help us out on that front. Like testing what rolemodels children have from media children consume, for example. "How does doing the same thing in reverse get us out of it" seems very much disingenuous. He seems like a smart enough bloke although perhaps I am mistaken. At any rate the answer seems fairly obvious, It gets different groups opportunities in places where they didn't before. Technically it could go too far but, again, we could try and check to see how things are going. It's a bit like saying "You can't give benefits to people who also pay taxes because how is the reverse going to help?!" Oh and another thing he uses 'deserves' in a few points. What or who decides who deserves something? What are the societal structures which made it easier for some to follow a certain education or to have more resources to go live somewhere with certain job opportunities or who are the people who own the companies and what do they like to see? Who are the writers? What are the audiences they write for and what do the marketing folks think they want to see? Again, that's not to say that employers don't look for good employees. That the employees they choose are undeserving. But what's to say that others are not deserving? Again, societal inequality which he doesn't discuss because he 'assumes' it is basically solved. Ohh and now he seems to go into a reductio ad absurdum ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ) argument. Basically "diversity advocates will NEVER stop!" And, you know, it sounds reasonable enough but on the other hand I'm very much glad that many societies have grown increasily accepting of people who used to be outcasts and some who are still mostly outcasts. This 'diversity gone mad' argument doesn't really fly for me when considering the racism and discrimination and the like we see this day and age. Maybe a concern at some point? Probably not even then. You don't have to have every shade personality of human in every position ever. It could simply mean that if thinking in more granular and specific groups you also have more granular and specific support which would not need to be as broad (just speculating here). 10:05 - 10:13 And here comes the 'systemic inequality doesn't exist' again. Very easy not to do anything (except for not being overtly discriminatory) when you don't consider that past inequality has led to inequality now that can't easily be wished away even if no additional inequality were to happen to those people (alas it does but that's beside the point). Easy to say people have to play the cards they've been dealt when you ignore that the cards people were given are affected by inequal events of the past. Sorry if it's a bit rambly. And I'm certainly not an expert on the topic. Just felt like seeing what I could get out of this.

​@@LyricalDJ , For a while I was looking at Innuendo Studios' own video trying to find what you were talking about. And yes, you did ramble for a bit. I wrote an e-mail to Thor Skywalker about all the problem you mentioned... and no, his argument ad absurdum wasn't reasonable. He was talking about a minority directing a Star War movie... there are a finite number of those (opportunities to Direct Star Wars Movies)... so saying that a visible minority who is also trans should direct a Star Wars movie is plainly ludicrous. He has no problem with diversity within Star Wars... but the people who make it, he detests it, because that's taking away opportunity for white men who are qualified... A simple search for a list of all directors, and you'll be hard pressed to find more than a handful of women... I know I looked. Out of a list of several hundred, a handful were women. So, why are so few women directors? Because they weren't given an equal opportunity to be directors... having a women direct a Star Wars movie doesn't mean she's less capable than the men... so making the comparison that way, shows what he subconsciously thinks/believes. He conflated a marketing strategy with a social-political ideology. I understand why Kathleen Kennedy wanted to market Star Wars to girls by giving them another role model to look up on. What fucked the Sequel Trilogy, and the marketing campaign, over was the terrible scripts. Compounded by giving Episode VIII to an asshole who preferred to destroy everything that came before as some sort of "moral/ethical" quandary that should be thought about. So, the thinking is this "the feminists (like Kathleen Kennedy) ruined Star Wars..." which is something he has put so much of his time and emotions into. Instead of asking his viewers to educate him, he should have actually educated _himself_ on the topic before hand... but he's male, in his forties, and doesn't understand that systemic racism, as well as other forms of bigotry, still exist. He has spent his entire life without it affecting him... which is why he compared individuals instead of systems. He doesn't want to be replaced at his job because of "affirmative action". (at the time he made that video, his views might have changed since then). If we were able to find more information on these topics, then he should have been able to learn on his own, and then made the video outlining how diversity _is_ a good thing both in the media and in the studios where the media is produced. I don't even know if he wanted an honest discussion with his viewers... he never left a pinned message nor did he respond to anyone in the comments... let alone liking any of the comments (to the best of my recollection). I sent him an e-mail, and I'm not even sure if he received it. What's the point of making a controversial video, asking for feedback, and not engaging with the audience? Have a good day, and May the Force be With You.

Necrobump The creator of the video addresses this I a previous video in the series with the table analogy.

There's also the more covert passive-aggressive type of Angry Jack who'll claim there is no such thing as "truth", as an other way of saying: "Your oppression is not real."

@Glühfunke Was willst du mir sagen? Sorry, falls ich dich falsch verstanden habe, aber ich habe nur drei Stunden geschlafen und bin heute nicht zum Philosophieren aufgelegt. ;)

There's also no such thing as an unbiased source. So it's a good move if you can convince yourself you're being reasonable.

How does that work? The denial of objective evidence is a sign of mental illness, is it not?

Hey, we all mess up. The way forward is being a big boy and learning from it.

Jef Withonef Like the narrator, I so totally could have been a GGer when I was 15-17. Thankfully, I'm too old for this shit. Unfortunately, since my teenage years, internet groups have cropped up that have the tendency to stagnate what ought to normally be a transitory phase of a privileged young man's development.

I used to be one of those guys who thought a teenage girl who got drunk and raped because she snuck out to a high school party deserved some of the blame. I wish I could drop kick 18yo Jef :(

Jef Withonef well we have all thought bad stuff. I used to have a weird fear of transgender people.

Jef Withonef When I went to Christian school I once said Freddie Mercury got AIDS because he was gay, because I thought that straight people could not get AIDS, and the Christian teacher, of all people, corrected me. #lowmoments

+Mo Senpai My friend, having the self awareness to be this honest with yourself, I think you may never become an Angry Jack again. Namaste.

I think just by your level of self awareness, you won't become Angry Jack, it seems that Angry Jacks are formed by people not relising their flaws. Of course I am not the smartest when it comes to human emotions, so maybe I'm full of it.

This genuinely made me smile, kudos to you my friend

How have the last six years been Mo Senpai

@@deletedTestimony Pandemic aside, great. Every time there's online outrage about something, I can take a look and see it's either about something juvenile or something perceived as something it's not. Although it's disappointing to see people still fall down that path, I have a much healthier mindset now and I'm able to think for myself and scrutinise whatever narrative is being told in the name of outrage.

Same except I started out as a progressive albeit a 1990s progressive who was pro-2nd Amendment and anti-censorship which led me oftentimes to give right-wingers the benefit of the doubt more often than they deserved.I also was into a lot of edgy comedy and loved Nu-Metal and emo in the 2000s which alienated me from many of my fellow leftists and feminists who saw it as "corporate fake metal"(Despite many Nu-Metal artists speaking openly about problems in the music industry and corporate culture in general as well as Ska and Conscious Hip Hop which both had some overlap with the Punk movement being influences on Nu-Metal and many Nu-Metal artists speaking out against both governmental and corporate corruption) and "toxic fragile masculinity"(Even though some artists in Nu-Metal were also women.)Like many, by the time I got into GamerGate I ironically had long since stopped being an active gamer so the entire gaming journalism aspect I didn`t really care about.Honestly, I was dumped by a girl in Elementary School and harrassed by her friends as an insecure newly-diagnosed Aspie kid and I still had baggage from that. As a result, I got into the more toxic aspects of New Atheist, Skeptic TM,MRA,Freedomain Radio and eventually InfoWarrior and MGTOW culture. I`m proud to say that I was never a rape apologist like many in those groups which ,of course combined with my disability, leftist views,apathy towards meme culture and willingness to be charitable towards feminists sometimes got me labeled as "a beta","white knight","mangina" and "bluepill."(I can imagine what they might have said if they knew I was of Jewish descent and have a brown-skinned dad.)Even when I first became an anarchist, it took me a long time to shake off that anti-SJW indoctrination entirely.

What got me out of the anti-SJW mindset was: 1. Unlike many others in these groups, I knew what actual feminism was and what actual progressivism was as I had feminist teachers and was raised progressive so I recognized the inaccurate tropes. 2. I recognized the hypocrisy and bullying in these groups that weaponized "free speech" as a rhetorical device against feminists and progressives and complained about "safe spaces","trigger warnings" and "speech codes" yet censored leftist and feminist critics in the guise of "ethics". 3. I was bullied as an Aspie man trying to express himself honestly despite these groups claiming to defend men`s rights and individualism. 4. Despite these groups` claims of skepticism and freethought, they increasingly promoted conspiracy theories and groupthink, the very things they accused "SJWs" of.

I really think this is part of adolescence to a more or lesser degree. But it indeed is a slippery slope where if you don't maneuver on the right moment you might get dragged in the wave of manipulation in the next couple of days, weeks or months. I made a Tumblr post more than 12 years ago with the specific phrasing "I am gay but I don't like fashion, or pop idols or being effeminate; I'm just a man who likes manly men" or at least it's all I remember from the quote I made. Years after actually coming out and reevaluating how internally homophobic I was being because of how I was raised (an Angry Jack) I stumbled upon a rehashed version of my image. Back in those days before that tumblr got deactivated (effin tumblr), I remember the post gained traction. Lots of traction. But stumbling upon it several years later in a different picture but with the exact same phrasing and feeling was like the worst punch to my stomach ever: I fed the internet homophobia something it still regurgitates and even tho that was a way past version of me I still feel the burden of such an idiotic comment gaining traction.

Pro_Ice Replying to this because YT's algorithm pushes comments to the top with more replies. +1

***** Same

BlancheNeigefan And again, same.

Pro_Ice Commenting for both the reasons of Krishna Hammond and BlancheNeigefan as well as to say one thing: while I have never been part of #GG, I have been Angry Jack. I know many people who have been Angry Jack (a few have even been a part of the whole GamerGate movement,) but that's the point. The point is, I don't want to be Angry Jack. How do I stop?

***** saaaaame

+Mat Jivas Hey there buddy, how're you doing? It looks like you've been posting a bunch of harsh comments here. Anything you'd like to talk about?

David triphon you are awesome

David, whenever you decide to start that club/support group/whatever.. may I join? We're both on the same place.

You’re taking a good first step for admitting this. And a great second for putting it on the internet. Thank you, and keep going. There’s a lot to learn.

David Triphon I guess a solid place to go next is to watch and read more stuff by the other side of the arguments, the feminists and liberals and so on. Dan Olson also did a great vid about GG a few years ago. Him, Hbomberguy and Contrapoints are producing some of the smartest (and often funniest) analysis from a left or liberal POV. Also ‘Some More News’ is amazing. You won’t get on with all of these creators/personalities and you won’t agree with everything they say of course but the more one tries different ideas and opinions on for size, the more you’re able to find your own way forward and out of those traps like GG.

Thanks for writing that. It's nice to see such a positive anecdote.

minihali I was looking for this comment, I wish to understand why I was upset about that fact, but I think that practicing being a person driven by reason more than anger or any initial reaction is the true way of really being humans. Or social for that matter.

goodninja3 do you know why you felt the need to post this? i don't think you've really made anyone happier or improved the world in any meaningful way, and i think those are both things that are worth valuing when you're thinking about whether or not to post a comment like this. you don't really gain anything by going out of your way to attempt to make other people unhappy, and i don't think you're really improving your own happiness in any meaningful way either.

Sam Gladwin, calm down. He is trolling.

i understand that, but what i'm trying to glean is why and ideally i'd like for him to consider that as well.

So... wait, you took an honest look at yourself and admitted you were wrong? I've heard tell of this, but only in fairy tails... I never once thought it could actually exist!

Way to go, i'm proud of you

the current you tube algorithm favors responses over likes, so I'm responding to keep this comment afloat in the top comments

That's a story that really warms my heart. As a gay guy who occasionally dabbles in gaming, I say, welcome to our world, we're glad to have you, and I hope that you'll do great things with us. :)

*"The arguments being made on the opposing side simply made too much sense, and gamergate made too little. "* So what arguments from the anti GG side made sense to you.

The nazis are all dead. Trump supporters are a barbaric horde, but they aren't nazis, because they can't be. They're not from Nazi Germany. And calling them that trivializes the millions who were killed by the actual nazis. I'm not saying your a bad person for that, you probably just didn't think this comment all the way through at the time. It's OK. I understand you were trying to say they care way to much about what Mexicans are up to and need to chill, and maybe focus more on the anti war stuff. I get that. But please, do be a little more careful.

Tom Hill I'm of the opposite opinion. A Nazist isn't a species, it's a person indoctrinated into a particular branch of fascism. And there are Nazi's among Trump supporters -- look at Charlottesville. Not calling them Nazis is doing a disservice not only to Holocaust victims, but to human dignity itself. Calling them what they are is key.

@@tomhill3248 A Nazi is not specifically someone in Nazi Germany. A Nazi is a worldview, and, as Human Effigy said above me, a particular branch of fascism. Saying that Nazis and Neonazis (literally just new nazis) don't exist anymore is just denying the truth. Just because you ignore them does not mean they stop existing. Calling a Nazi a Nazi is not "trivializing" anything. Especially when there are real Nazis, saying they don't exist is trivializing the fight against fascism. I just want to clarify that I am not saying that all Trump supporters are Nazis. Only some of them are, and some Nazis are so crazy they don't support Trump. However, it's hard to tell who's who. At the time, some people said Hitler and the Nazis in Germany wouldn't be that bad. For instance, the Association of German National Jews were Jews who supported Hitler (it's real, look it up). It was hard to tell how bad the Nazis would really be until they fully came to power. P.S.: Notice that the original comment said "Nazis and the POTUS," Not "Nazis are the POTUS."

Tom Hill Nazism didn’t die in 1945, we’re supposed to think it did. Neo-Nazis and other like minded fascists have and always will be around. A reluctance to call them what they are isn’t disrespecting the victims of Nazis, its making sure we’re aware of what we’re dealing with before it gets to that point. Hitler’s Nazis didn’t start out with genocide, they worked up to it over the course of a decade and a half, so comparing early stage Trumpism to Late Stage Nazism isn’t a good comparison.

@@NZsaltz you mean neo nazi?

bit late, but same for me. If you see scary video's of the five times a college exploded (metaphorically ;) ) because of a SJW thing like someone being offended by someone else, it can seem scary. Especially if the people you follow ignore or try to justify the much more frequent actually shootings of colleges by some angry white, usually religious kid. Also, I was very sceptical about the whole 'save spaces' thing, until I realized that had actually always been there through clubs colleges would create. Weird how the use of different words can change meanings of everyday things.

It takes big person to face the worst parts of themselves. Thank you both for your courage

What do you think of "SJW's" now?

Right?

This was the video.........this was the video.... that made turn against the SJW bullshit and vote Donald Trump. Thanks for everything you femi-nazi SJW safe-space propaganda spewing fuck face! :D Sincerely: Angry Jack P.S: Next time learn how to not be a condescending arse and manipulate vulnerable young men like me into thinking that we were wrong for speaking out against a crook, such as Anita Sarkeesian and Hillary Clinton. Debate me if you think you can convince me otherwise

This is a joke right? You apparently watched enough to understand the subject matter enough to directly contradict it and insert ad-hominem in the exact way he just spent six videos explaining was childish... You appear to be either joking about being toxic in a manner that reinforces it or you're being toxic and will likely claim it was a joke due to how sarcastically on the nose your statement was. Either way it just kind of makes me sad honestly... and no I will not make this a debate because arguing with someone whom i believe is a troll is like picking a fight with a chimney sweep: no one gets out clean. I said my two bits have a nice rest of your life.

Necrosvorg Well I'm not a troll and you don't want a debate because you know you're going to lose in the battle of facts and evidence. This series is about promoting PC (Political Correct) culture without question or asking for evidence. Here's a sample of what's wrong. The maker of this video believes that all who were against Anita was...an "Angry Jack" despite women AND men speaking out against her. They pointed out her cherry-picked evidence, her Kick-Starter mis-use of money and the lack of debate they had with the opposition Once again, debate me if you think I'm wrong

This video will always be topical, because it tackles a very common mindset that a lot of people can easily adopt (including me), not just because of feminism and videogames, but all kinds of discussions and controversies out there.

Yeah, the series was a combination of philosophy, psychology and politics. I loved it!

BIG SAME!!

Same here :D

Thank you for acknowledging that *every* side needs to check their thinking in a lot of ways.

I like you. You seem cool. You want some game recommendations based on your favorite genre? I might know of some you would like.

Winter came, and it's been long

this is my comfort series in 2023...

If you can't tell whether or not Jack is a troll, then neither will a lot of more impressionable people, so it's still important to debunk what Jack is saying. But if you're going to talk to Jack, do please read the post I linked to in the show notes where I add a lot of nuance to how we go about that, as some folks pointed out some flaws in my argument.

Innuendo Studios Excellent point. And will do. Thank you for responding!

From living on the internet for a long time, the best way to deal with both groups is simple. Both the Troll and Jack respond (oddly) to honesty, and eloquence when speaking. As long as you are honest, and rather vulnerable in your responses, and give fully detailed responses why you believe your opinion (not fact) is right. Neither is able to sustain themselves. If it's a troll they will try and steer the conversation into some strange territory and just say random things to hurt and end the conversation. Again, answer these things with honesty and vulnerability. It diffuses the trolls a lot more quickly than most realize. One example I can say is whenever a troll is trying to mess with me on a Facebook page and they end with a suggestion to kill myself, I go into a story about how I contemplated that a long time ago and came to the personal conclusion that it's not the right thing to do and I'll never condone something like that. And I'll give a fully detailed explanation of my....

Which Digibro video was it?

@@TheLizardhead Top 10 Analysis Videos of 2015. It's what brought me here, and I can safely say I enjoyed all of those videos to some degree or another.

***** It was in the "SJW infographic" used in the video.

***** That person who illustrates all the gamergate heroes in blue and all the gamergate enemies in red (sorry, I don't know their name). They did an illustration of Jim looking very wicked in red. They gave him some ignominious title too, I forget it though.

casersatz i think it was jim fucking sterling son or was it some dev who got their feelings hurt?

***** oh yeah

Introvertist Jim Sterling, TotalBiscuit, Angry Joe, Yahtzee, etcetera, are awesome.

Rockerchavnerdemo The thing about Angry Jack is that the Angry Jacks of GamerGate see me as an infiltrator. I'm encroaching on their territory when.. I've been playing games for far longer than most of them. I just happen to have progressive views and don't subscribe to the "gamer identity". Thing is, that identity is relatively new. To us 40+ year olds who remember playing Pong in the early 80's it's insulting to be told that you're "appropriating games" by 20/30 year old "gamers". Oh, I'm also a woman, so that makes me a doubly offensive "infiltrator".

There was a diversity in gaming panel at Comicpalooza this year, and some 20yo stood up and started going off about women appropriating games. The mod asked, "would the women who have been gaming longer than this man has been alive please raise your hands?" Like a quarter of the room did so. He was honestly shocked. Bubble pop moment.

Irish Grubbs It's quite saddening when one becomes so protective of one's bubble, so insecure and afraid that it'll burst, that it becomes cause for vicious attacks on anyone in the boundaries of that bubble.

Change looks scary until you're on the other side

Irish Grubbs "To us 40+ year olds who remember playing Pong in the early 80's..." I'm a 46 yr old gamer and I have to be honest, that statement sounds suspicious to me. Next time you make that post may I suggest "To us 40+ year olds who remember playing Pong in the mid 70s" or "...remember playing Pac-Man and Donkey Kong in the early 80's" =P

You've acknowledged that you had a problem. Keep thinking, and you're likely to find the answers yourself. Nobody else can tell you. Nobody else knows your problems well enough. Good luck on your journey friend.

It's really brave and awesome that you're able to look at yourself and your actions and see that you need to change some things. Like this video says, most people double-down with excuses to protect their feelings and comfort. Now: can you be brave enough to talk to your friends about how you feel? You don't have to change their minds, you don't even need to be clear about what you're feeling- just mention that you feel weird about being angry, and bad about the harassment that happens. Just saying that much is enough to make people think, rather than following the instructions of their online communities.

He's better than a psychologist. He's a propagandist, who has identified a number of extremely common tactics used in politics and successfully made up a label for people on the other side of the issue from him who are convinced by any of those tactics, while ensuring no one on his side of the issue would ever be accused of such despite being convinced by the exact same tactics.

+kevin chen Well, better late then never. :)

agreed. so many people need this message

Your thought process being...?

Romdeau I recognized that my thought process when encountering subjects like these often put my feelings before other peoples' well being.

I get the impression that your understanding has been an effort, and I want to say it's really admirable, and while your description bears clear signs of not exactly having a deep insight familliarity with the matters in question (being trans is not feeling like you aren't what you are, it's knowing what you are in spite of other people thinking you look like something your not, and the important bit isn't our suffering, but the refusal to give us rights. It's ok that you don't know, a pro tip is to try sticking to things spoken by trans people, since your own takes might contain insight but will have blind spots. I'm saying this with love, knowing and appreacheating that you mean well) but if anything, it makes me more impressed that you are still able to see your own privelige and have such self-insight. Well done, and keep it up, ally ❤ edit: I'm aware it's over a year old, but honestly I don't think that changes anything.

Dongs Benedict Good point also you know that angry jack is beyond help if he keeps adding the person back in. Though I tend to make my first response with the tag of the harassed person as it tends to feel good not to be isolated, but especially if it is a second response you should tag the harassed person out

+Tempus Klokkenmaker I think that this is the largest amount of bullshit I have heard in quite some time. Where has the GamerGate harassment been? I really haven't seen any. Perhaps you are simply using this narrative of 'harassment' as a way of validating any petty insults you make. And to appeal to outsider emotions.

..but then they wont know how good of a person i am?

Adam Farmer "I certainly have not seen anyone be harrassed and have not heen harrassed myself, therefore no harrassment took place" Yeah that is kinda what "check your privilege" means ;)

Right, I love it!

If you haven't kept following him Innuendo Studios has continued to make excellent videos about the rhetorical tricks and tactics of the alt-right. He also did a great series of short video essays on Mad Max: Fury Road from a feminist perspective. It's worth checking out.

@@aaronwriterguy Thank you. I will check it out! :)

@@Analysis_Paralysis Cool! Best of luck.

It isn't. This video is manipulating you on the basis that Anita is right....she isn't. She's a crook who Cherry-picks facts and mis-informs good people of sexism in games. This guy is projecting PC culture and the fact that if you say something bad against feminism...you are "ANGRY JACK"....even though you have every right to do so

lol

***** It is a strange incompetence to use dismissive intra-group insults when trying to communicate outside that group. Canada's PM did it, too, bafflingly: He tried to deflect a press question by blaming "the previous Liberal government" (as he's wont) at an international summit. The press saw it as childish and irresponsible, rather than a fair plea to reserve judgment. Platform specific optimization breaks cross compatibility.

***** Social justice has noble ideals, but the term Social Justice Warrior stemmed from hardline activists calling themselves that and then co-opted as a pejorative by their opponents. SJW is a way to delineate over-zealous warriors who bring the efforts of social justice down with antithetical hatred. Extremists are the world over, and many of them use shrouds of progressivism to gain sympathetic support rather than outright fascism.

Iriseon 'SJW is a way to delineate over-zealous warriors who bring the efforts of social justice down with antithetical hatred.' except it's not. it's thrown out against anyone who acknowledges injustices in the world, and its existence only serves to discredit movements as a whole by pretending it's only about a few. i was thinking the exact same thing you said not long ago, but then i started watching how people actually used the term - and when - rather than what they told me it was for.

QuikVidGuy So...what would be a good term for when people overstep boundaries in the never-ending quest for social justice, or should we ignore that trend? What do you call it when someone threatens or commits physical harm because of an ideal rooted in social justice? It may be an overused term, but that doesn't mean every instance of it is false and therefore the term is somehow banished. Like this video recommends, call it out if someone uses the term inappropriately or excessively, but do not make the mistake of thinking this phenomenon doesn't exist. The wider struggle for hearts and minds is about changing popular opinion, right? Extremist actions & rhetoric damage the health of movements in the long-term even if they garner sugar highs of short-term gain.

Iriseon they are either extremists or often kids who don't know proper rhetoric. I never said they didn't exist, and I never said extremist action isn't a problem. You're putting out a reduction and a red herring. Again, the only thing the term SJW accomplishes is allowing people to disregard movements as a whole. They can't really call them extremists if they're not doing anything extreme, but with SJW, they can make up a person in their head who only speaks up about issues as an attempt to disrupt people's comfortable lives or on some crusade to garner some personal glory. And so they do, and it's mostly the well-informed activists who are hit with the label.

There are lots of minorities who despise Sarkeesian what are you talking about? You can find plenty of them just here on youtube. Angry Jack seems mostly just like a straw man.

no you got it all wrong. Every problem is caused by angry white (sometimes old) man. But seriouly anita had no intention to make anything else than dispalying her agenda

@@benbenson5776 Found an Angry Jack.

@@cutienerdgirl let me gues angry jack is a term you can use whenever you don't want to listen or think

I think if we want to avoid having a Gamergate 2.0 then we have to stop seeing the 'Angry Jacks' as the sole cause of this problem. We have a sector that is a perfect storm of an enthusiast, fanzine level press who aren't up to the job, cultural commentators who produce substandard polemics, outrage stoked by social media and hatred propagated by those invested in an internecine culture war. We have a multivariant problem here.

And you weren't wrong one bit, holy shit

@@SilenceOase Well yeah... it had already happened.

Same!

Same here, really glad that I watched it

Same here, really glad that I watched it

Is that not Elaine from The Secret of Monkey Island?

The fact that you're "wondering" instead of looking it up and finding out the answer suggests you aren't actually curious.

@@YouthRightsRadical - Feelings and actions are separate. I wonder,then I find out. No harm is done to you if I describe my feelings before my search.

@@BradyPostma Are you, by chance familiar with the argument concept known as "a rhetorical question", where a person asks a question they believe they already know the answer to order to get someone to admit something to them? Your original post looked a lot like one of those. Like you believed this was not a thing that existed, and your curiosity was feigned in order to imply that you thought you knew it did not in fact exist, and to emphasize it not existing in order to score a rhetorical point. It is impossible to know whether that was truly the case, as if it was, you would never admit it.

@@YouthRightsRadical - It's impossible to know. And yet you're certain in your own mind, aren't you? That is an example of a rhetorical question. I didn't know of any such game when I wrote my original comment, but comments sections are often eager to correct perceived misconceptions. As I rhetorically implied, I only searched after I commented, and any replies in the comments were part of that research effort. Is that a sin? (He asked rhetorically.)

Good for you!

I'm sorry you went through this. Listen to yourself and take the to rest when you can. You're doing great

She got you to join the Tea Party in high school? Jesus Christ. Also i don’t blame you for being exhausted. You were being blatantly gaslit by her. Being gaslit is mentally and emotionally exhausting. I hope you’re doing well to this day. Take care.

You're grotesquely right about that :(

Hanibal Channiblo I'm an Aussie, so I can't say this with full authority, but I wonder if it's because the left got complacent? Oh, he's not going to win. How could he? He looks like Cheetos dust grew limbs and hated Mexicans. But against those odds he still won. Because no-one challenged the angry jacks. No one thought it would be a problem, that trump would be floored the moment he walked into the ballot. But he did, and no one knew what to say. And I don't know. I don't agree with trumps rhetoric, at all, but you might be ok if you can wait out four years. It won't be fun, and it's going to suck for all minorities, but I think America will have to walk out the other side stronger and smarter.

Angry Jack did not make Trump president. Such a huge portion of Americans cannot simply be characterised as "Angry Jacks". Part of the reason he was elected, besides that the voters were given a lousy dilemma, is because so many of the people pushing for Hillary were yelling about how her critics were a bunch of mean bigoted "Angry Jacks" without bothering to understand their grievances with Clinton or their reasons for overlooking Trump's obvious shortcomings. A lot of calm, reasonable, frustrated people didn't care that Trump's statement about illegal immigrants sounded racist, because he didn't actually state that people of other races were inferior; he stated that some of the people illegally crossing the border were violent criminals. They heard him addressing legitimate concerns about global patterns of immigration that other candidates wouldn't talk about. They didn't care so much about his dumbed-down speech or his many faux pas, because they were more interested in what he was talking about and planning to do, compared to what Hillary was talking about and planning to do. Plenty of them responded positively to his candour, and his very apparent faults, compared to the guarded PC image of in-group political elites like Hillary. And they resented being told that you have to vote for a woman to prove you support women, or that you have to vote against someone who doesn't toe the PC line to prove that you're not a racist. Trump being president is indeed lamentable, but it was not simply clearcut that Hillary was a better option and you cannot fairly make such sweeping assumptions about the people who voted for him (many of whom were more accurately voting "against her" or weighing up what they saw as two bad options). We need to actually try to understand each other and stop coming up with strawman explanations of what the people we disagree with say and do.

There is no reason you can simply overlook racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia and islamophobia and mexicanphobia and whateverphobia unless you happen to be Angry Jack, someone who has never been on the receiving end of that bullshit and who firlmy wants to believe that it is not a real problem Its not like everyone who voted for Trump hates woman, they just don't want to accept that sexism is still a thing and if Trump promised them one thing, its no more sjws reminding them of that Theres a reason the KKK supported Trump

Hanibal Channiblo That attitude is a serious barrier to your understanding anything but your own position, and I feel sorry for you. If you can't see that making assumptions about the way half of voting Americans think and feel, about how they understand the political situation and what their values are, and therefore lumping them all in with the most bigoted extremists you know of, based solely on the fact that their reasoning led them to vote a different way than you would, is in itself a form of uninformed *prejudice*, there's probably nothing I can say to help you at this point. Hope you grow and learn, though. For the record, I don't know anyone who argued for voting Trump who refused to acknowledge that sexism still exists in the modern world; most of the people I talked to just didn't believe that Hillary with all her faults and the establishment and ideology and policy she represented offered a better alternative, based on the idea that there's more to determining a politician's character and the damage they can do than their PR. The fact you think you can can mindread so many people it's clear you haven't listened to has got to be as disrespectful and insular as whatever you think was going on in Trump voters' heads.

NoahFS No one has called for censorship or banning of games. So, if this delusion is the heart of your anger, you can calm down now.

Have you forgotten how Lionhead Studios had to remove a tweet showing a game asset with too much cleavage, Pillars of Eternity was so heavily criticized it had little choice but to remove a transsexual joke and GTA5 got removed from major stores in Australia? There are plenty more, not just in games, but in all popular visual media. As I've said, explicit calls to censorship would be blatantly wrong, but veiled ones are effective, because a developer will end up removing content "of their own volition". This way, the intention of censorship can conveniently be denied at any time. If any game content were objectively, not interpretatively, sexist, it wouldnt even come to exist under those circumstances. Are you telling me people interpret sexism and incite outrage for the sake of inciting outrage without a shred of desire to see change?

Noah, have you ever noticed that the people who call out companies for things they feel are offensive rarely look like Angry Jack? It's that bobble again, man. Your worries about censorship are an abstract worry. Continued marginalization of groups is a concrete one for those groups (the GTA ban in that store was instigated by sex workers for instance)

Angry Jack is not something someone is, it's something someone sees in someone else. I don't see any Angry Jack opposing me, because I don't even look for him. All I examine are the arguments I'm presented with. There's a striking difference between informing potential buyers of certain games in order for them to self-regulate their consumer choices and trying to restrict "harmful messages". The former is not censorship and if it were the true goal, then the ideal method to go about it were not to pressure people into seeing certain games as pernicious, toxic and harmful, but to create a compendium of all games that might not strike the fancy of those who already do and to merely promote people's awareness of that collection. If anyone could explain to me as if I were a child what "continued marginalization" has to do with playing a video game offline. Lastly, you seem to have made a minor semantic error. Normal people's complaints led to the removal over the ability to inflict violence upon female sex workers. I'm trying to make sense of your point, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. From what I understand you seem to be saying sex workers are marginalized (how come?) and therefore enacting violence upon a virtual representation of them should be prohibited. I am forced to make that jump in logic, because it has not yet been explained to me.

Crimes against sex workers often go unreported and unpunished. A contributing factor to that is public perception of these people as disposable or deserving, a perception reinforced by media. It doesn't CAUSE it, but it often measures it and allows us to dismiss it. So again, for you what is an intellectual argument about a video game is a larger real-world issue for a marginalized class (sex workers).

Yes, it's so hard for me to remain calm when dealing with Angry Jack, but he's really convincing in explaining why it's so important to remain calm. :) It's so challenging, but I'll try...

Daniel Feldspar A person doesn't have to be ugly for them to sicken you when you see them, you just have to know how ugly their beliefs are.

Statement 1: I can't stand person x. Statement 2: I am physically repulsed when I look at person x's face. Assumption: Statement 1 and statement 2 are implicitly related as no other context is offered. Admission: I'm only half serious. TF's breathy shtick got old for me too.

Daniel Feldspar It's worth keeping in mind that an Ad Hominem attack and an Argument Ad Hominem are different things. "You're wrong and you are fat". "You're wrong because you are fat." Sometimes the lines get blurred, but you see what I mean.

Yeah. If you like someone you will find them more attractive. If you don't like someone you will find them - and people like them - repulsive. But I think the more important thing here is that Thunderf00t is, fundamentally, on our side. He wants equality and truth - like many people on both the right and the left. The problem is that a large part of his - and many other "rational skeptics" ' - audiences don't.

@@ChloeAriT He was right about Sarkeesian, he was also right to distance himself from the shitshow that is the "anti-sjw" community, pretty much just rightwing culture warriors left.

and Carlos Maza is an Anita Sarkeesian. A manipulative shit-disturber that screws people over, gets dissenters silenced, plays innocent when confronted on his/her actions, and is defended by armchair philosophers from r/Breadtube

Mr. Grey why? Because Carlos had enough of getting insulted for his sexuality/race?

impresionante, curiosamente si que tiene cultura

Congratulations ✊

The trouble is that this entire series is about defending someone who did indeed take on those deceptive tactics.

The gaming community gets too much hate; it’s largely filled with normal people. While there was some Anti SJW rhetoric surrounding the game, there was plenty of legitimate criticism as well.

woolver42 privileged white woman atheist... agreed!;)

Cis straight white religiously unaffiliated male. I approve these videos

woolver42 i am an atheist white male yet not privileged (bags under my eyes no matter how much i slept + mild case of seasonal depression). Didnt really enjoy the videos but still happy alot of people did!

woolver42 why does it matter if you're white? or an atheist? you could be a carrot and still be thankful for the video uh

Sweetest of Sweethearts what does bags under eyes or depression have to do with privilege?

Some of us never grow out of being 15yo and sooooooooo right

Gregory Weidman Of course he was. He is like all those other male feminist youtubers. Feels guilty and ashamed about his MRA/PUA past and assumes all other whites are like his younger self.

Sweetest of Sweethearts Its devin farasi all over again. You go back far enough with these people they were and frankly are still misogynists. Just going from straight hatred to paternalistic concern.

Sweetest of Sweethearts I meant this in a jokingly positive way. I think these videos are dope.

wooo weee Going through a change like that is positive. Also Devin Faraci is dope.

Gregory Weidman jokingly positive means not positive right? Besides i knew u werent seriously asking because 1. he explicitly stated in this vis he was angry once. 2. this comment section is a disgusting circle jerk

It has its uses, but fire should not be the tactic for those who are not being targeted themselves

fivvyfavvy fighting fire with fire is only use when you know both fires will kill each other that's the point

This comment sends a shiver down my spine. A lot of cases I’ve studied about displaced aggression, this is exactly what happened. And innocent people got hurt or maimed.

The fact that you are using the enforcement language of toxic masculinity to criticize the messages people are taking from it is a pretty good indicator you don't actually have a positive path forward. Just more shaming.