naraku360

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.

I'd be cautious with TYT. They've recently been pandering to anti-LGBT, especially trans, crowds and signaling a right-wing shift may be on its way. They aren't all the way gone yet, but historically liberal starts going after LGBT or a racial minority, then a couple years down the line they're a full on MAGA. Not saying to not watch them. Just that I'm getting them bad vibes recently.

I assumed this was a PG movie, but apparently it's PG-13 so I guess the ass slap isn't as inappropriate as I'd thought. I wouldn't call the scene good (it was quite bad), but it's at least less gross than having it in a PG movie.

He picked X as a recommendation for what you should click instead of staying on his site.

I've seen one scene from the movie and that was more than enough. She comes to the real world and everyone is staring at her, so she announces that neither she nor Ken have genitals (in those words). Then a random guy walks up and slaps Barbie's ass. And Barbie gets arrested for punching him. Wtf why is Barbie being sexually assaulted? 100% guarantee Shapiro blew his third load on that one.

Yeah. He's lying when he takes credit for making anything ever, but he sure tries to make those things worse in any conceivable way with as little actual work as possible.

Waiting for the next product he had nothing to do with making so he can take credit for creating it. Oh, and making the working conditions as bad as possible. That's about all.

On one hand, this looks quite a bit better than expected. On the other, out of Uzumaki's 20 chapters, there were like 4 that did not make me feel dumber for having read it.

Wow. That looks awful.

God of War? More like...

I don’t think AI is the problem. It's just a new art form in its infancy. Once it's more advanced and people are able to use it to make actually good art, Hollywood in and of itself will effectively become obsolete since people will be able to produce films without relying on ccorporations to fund it. The problem is with corporations whose only goal is to make money. It's been a problem from the onset and now we're at the point where Hollywood is soulless with or without AI. Of course they're going to shaft writers and actors as much as humanly possible but after a certain point those very people will be able to do a lot more independently.

The censored version is funnier to me. Just like

What kind of monsters make you use video on your work calls?