naraku360

Also, I feel like we played Smash a bit on 3DS...? I need more people to play Smash with.

Watch the Xenosaga cutscenes. It's basically an anime. The games are tricky to get ahold of, being obscure PS2 titles that are also expensive. 3 games. Fiirst and third are some of the best scifi you can ask for. The second game is kinda like when Star Trek has a bad episode, but it's like half the length of the other two. The Xenoblades can be watched the same way, but are a lot more accessible to play since they're all available on Switch (absolutely worth watching if you 1. Don't have the system and/or 2. Don't have time for multiple 80+ hour JRPGs). First and third are my jam but 2 has a strong following and a lot to like, just seems aimed at a different demographic and the story probably could've used another draft or two. The Blades are more fantasy-esque; however, they're still very scifi under the hood, and excellent fantasy regardless. Considering how big of a Star Trek fan you are, I think Xenosaga especially would be your kind of thing. And if you end up liking those, check out the Blades.... and Xenogears.

Not a second season of Liar Game.

What kind of thing are you looking for?

I'm going to assume your employer is UEMB and that "sciencey stuff" is an innuendo I'm okay not knowing the meaning of.

Well, aside from the GOP wanting to genocide anyone not straight or white enough and putting pro-slavery PragerU videos in elementary schools. Pretty sure those are mostly GOP things.

Isolation is textbook abuse. Red flags, my dude. If a partner wants to control who her friends are, he's probably not going to respect what she wants elsewhere.

Yo mothas big butt

This one time I pointed out that Monster was a really weird pick for the lineup and OA rode my ass for a week about how it's Syfy now and doesn't need to be sci-fi any more, and they air fantasy and horror so it fits. I was like I never said it needed to be sci-fi. I just thought it was a weird pick because of how grounded the show is compared to the lineup. Then I had the bulk of the folder demanding I define 'sci-fi' because Monster has medicine, therefore it has science and is fiction, therefore.... sci-fi. Then all of the Other Anime folder proceeded to attempt convincing me that Monster fit with the block because it actually is sci-fi.

Ginguy right now:

I'd have to know and be able to look at what the abuse/predatory behavior was. I did look up Keffals' Twitter, and she does not have a blue check and I don't know what you mean about the racism next to the name thing. I would need to see evidence of platforming being proven to be bad from an empirical standpoint, like data rather than anecdote. I've seen very little good from political Twitter, regardless of political affiliation. The Twitter left is no exception, and is unfortunately full of abusers and frauds, so I tend to be very skeptical toward Twitter engagement in general. Considering the bulk of harassment I've seen toward Vaush was on Twitter, what would that say about the fans of people who dislike him? See, it's not that simple, is it? I don't think all criticism of him comes from bad places, but a lot does come from people that got their beliefs on him from people I know to be abusers. Who would you recommend as an alternative? I don't think these are very good examples of people being platformed into the spotlight. Ben Shapiro started at Breitbart, which is a massive tabloid, and comes from a family of Hollywood execs. Alex Jones was a radio host and was a big name well before Twitter was a thing. Joe Rogan was a celebrity by the end of the '90s, he hosted a mainstream game show. None of their claims to fame come from actual debates. Ben Shapiro """"""""""debates"""""""""" amount to him on a stage gishgalloping against unprepared students he has full control to cut off at any point as they confront him while surrounded by his fans. That's not a debate; it's a deliberately constructed rhetorical trap. I think there's a huge difference between having a debate and actively putting one side at a clear disadvantage for the sole purpose of clipping inexperienced students to look bad. Of course none of those people deserve charitability. I think it is important to hold views against scrutiny and that does involve looking at other perspectives. I don't know what the plan to push back against the spread of nazism is if the plan involves simply blocking and ignoring anyone that says or does anything offensive, nor assuming ill-will.

shut up scoob

It's cool, I think there was some of that going on over here too, since he is definitely divisive. Sometimes more understandably than others, and I do agree he can cross the line.

I'm sorry if I upset you. I was responding to what was said and didn't know it would be a problem. I'm pretty sure I have some mild autism and have always had a tendency to go on long tangents. It's pretty unfair to assume I can't accept criticism and want you to just shut up. I wasn't even wanting to have a debate. I thought it was a conversation.

I explicitly said I wasn't trying to make you like anyone. Several times. But yes, you clearly don't want to care, which is why you started this conversation on your own accord. Unprovoked.

I'm not trying to make you like him. I'm engaging with the criticisms being presented. And again, you're basing this off Twitter users. Literally one of the worst places to get an opinion of any fanbase ever. Sure, berating conservatives isn't charitable. Charitability isn't unconditional acceptance. There are people who don't, and likely never will, deserve charitability, like throw a dart at a board full of Republican pundits and you're like guaranteed to land on someone who doesn't. That aside, yes, the brain damage comments do take it too far. Do you believe rehibilitation for criminals is bad? Like, someone did a bad thing once and now they can never be forgiven? Where do you draw the line? How bad does the crime have to be? Right now, you're using a sweeping generalization to describe a rather wide range of people and calling them irredeemable. You've identified bigotry against conservatives as bad, so why would what you're doing with vague buzzwords like "debate bros" be different? "I hate the fans," but, like, have I been overly unreasonable to you? I didn't start this particular conversation. Despite personally believing TYT has shown itself to be transphobic, I'm not going to force it down Pooh or Disco's throat. I gave a heads up on some behavior recently that's repelled me from them, Pooh asked what it was about, I supplied a few resources and tried to give a little highlight of what may be of interest in each video. I have lost respect for both Cenk and Ana; however it's not my duty to monitor what Pooh or Disco watch nor control their views. I didn't come in and say, "I despise TYT but also have limited knowledge of them, also fans of them suck monkey butt," then complain about the debate bro fanboy defending a person they evidently like. It's up to them if they want to change their mind on TYT and ranting at them instead of presenting what I know, giving the most detailed coverage I can since I'm not confident I'd to be able to fully express my angle very well. I expected Pooh and/or Disco would likely respond, I tried to give a thorough response, and am more than willing to engage with whatever they have to say about it. I don't drop in to declare I hate the thing you like without a firm reason to do so, and being aggressive toward them ober it would only cause them to be defensive. Who does that help? I think TYT is making dangerous content, so I let my peeps know about the concern. I don't assume if someone replies to me in such a way that the expectation is to be ignored or told how cool they are for dumping on my post. I don't think I've attacked you, and if it came off that way it wasn't intentional. These walls of text aren't "debate bro culture," by the way. I've been building them walls with reckless abandon since 2003.

Damnit...

I don't think this is a particularly compelling case for even disliking a person. I like a lot of things with terrible fanbases. Most people, in general, are pretty stupid and when you have hundreds of thousands of viewers, especially in political fields, you'll always have dumbasses in the audience. I've never seen him encourage harassment after several years of viewership, and has been consistent on opposing harassment as far as I've seen. I've posted some pretty shitty stuff on these boards and he's been a major factor in moving me away from bigotry in general. Everyone has biases and I probably would still have more of the systemic bigotry without his content and his contemporaries. I haven't seen him be particularly sexist/racist/ableist in any serious capacity. As in, like making a comment that's clearly a joke, but then following up with a thorough explanation of what was wrong with the belief expressed within the joke isn't something I'mespecially concerned with. So instead of, say, a Steven Crowder type who simply hides behind "just joking lol" as cover for views he plainly holds abd defends, Vaush is typically quite good at making it clear when he's serious or not, and the tend to have very different values than the jokes themselves. I believe he's also disavowed most of his past use of slurs, though he does still use the r-slur if that's a concern. That's an incredibly uncharitable characterization of debates. The point of having those debates isn't to platform them, nor convince the opposing person within the debate of ideals; it's to move the audience away from fascism. You can say, "I don't want nazis on the left!" But, hypothetically, if Person A watches fascist comtent and sees the left exclusively through the fascist's lens and becomes more extreme in their fascistic views, is that better than Person B who sees someone from the left make a strong case against fascism directly to the person pushing fascism and then grows to disavow fascism? I believe people are able to change and people aren't born nazis. People are conditioned into nazism and turning a blind eye to it, rather than confronting and pulling people away from it, seems like a good way for nazism to spread. There isn't a binary between nazi and not-nazi. It's a process to radicalize people, and it's a process to deradicalize them. Those people tend to be isolated to their little angry bubbles where the only alternative perspective is controlled by bad faith actors, like Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder. He has been wrong on it before, for instance with Shoe, but is it better to leave someone who expresses a desire to become a better person out to dry over mistakes in they want to amend simply out of fear that you'll be burned? The fact he's still charitable to people after Shoe showed her ass may seem dumb or naive, but what I've learned in no small part because of the content is that sometimes all someone needs to be pulled out of the alt-right is a little bit of charitability and kindness. The majority of bigots aren't evil genocidal maniacs; they're being misinformed and reacting to the only things they know. It's something that helped me pull several of my closest friends away from the alt-right. I don't know much about Keffals other than her being doxxed for being trans. I also don't know how that would be hypocritical? Like, this comes off as a tepid endorsement of harassing someone in retaliation. When I talk about smear campaigns, I mean stuff like clipping him out of context to frame him as a pedo or shit like that - a thing that both the right and left take turns doing. When I look up Keffals, all that comes up in regards to harassment is like her being swatted or ratioing Destiny for violating some hatespeech rules, but I don't know the legitimacy of that. I can't attest to the reason for it, though it wouldn't shock me if Destiny was actually being a piece of shit. It really seems like you've put a complex person into a very narrow framework. I don't say this as in "Vaush in particular is a deep, complex person" and more as a broader statement. Neither you nor I personally know the guy, we can only extrapolate intent off what's publicly known. He is pretty good about addressing past mistakes and the content itself is quite different from 2 or 3 years ago.

Vaush gets way more flack than deserved. He's a bit crass, but is generally more nuanced than most and has had numerous really fucked smear campaigns against him. Plus, he's mellowed out over the years so the content tends to be less offputting these days.

I do agree that they've done more good than bad. The birthing person thing is just a legal and medical term to encompass the broadest number of people possible. For instance, a cis-woman would not be referred to as a birthing person if they are post-menopause and can no longer have babies, while a trans-man may be referred to as a birthing person if they are still able to become pregnant. It's less a matter of replacing the word "woman" with "birthing person" as it is a means to clearly describe a spectrum of people who can or cannot become pregnant regardless of the individual circumstances within very specific settings. I've never heard it used in a casual way, outside of discussions about the phrase itself. The disappointment is mostly that I would've expected more from them and there have been a lot of cases where this path leads to the "why I left the left" (the Vaush thumbnail is just a meme, Ana didn't actually do any PragerU videos) political shift. I can't say I'm incredibly knowledgeable of TYT abd mostly have liked Ana, but I wanted to give a heads up on some of the recent red flags.

I'm not going to be the best at explaining, so pick your poison: Shark goes over civil rights movements and historical context for the rhetoric. Mike goes over why he left TYT and the other recent LGBT departures. Vaush's coverage is pretty thorough for fully contextualizing the conversation. Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland talk about it around halfway in and go into probably the most depth for the reasons they believe TYT has been acting in bad faith on the subject within the shortest amount of time, but I felt the segment needed a bit more context. I know Mike from the Humanist Report, Emma from Majority Report, and (to a lesser extent) Vaush are speaking from perspectives of (former?) friends of Ana and Cenk, and it doesn't seem to be coming from a point of contempt or insincerity. I don't know if Shark has any relationship with TYT, but I thought his section about civil rights movements was great and he came off as the least hostile perspective from the outsider view. Sorry for the flood of long-ass videos. It's a lot and I don't think I'd be very good at conveying the points personally.