CuriousCat Archive Page 178 of 202

  1. Do you consider labels like socialism, communism, progressivism and anti-fascism still useful in the public discourse outside of left-wing circles? Or have right-wingers bastardize the terms so much that they no longer mean anything?

    I personally feel they are extremely useful and that continuing to use them in the correct way helps wrest them from the hands of right-wingers. But, then, I'm mostly operating in left-wing circles, and might have to adjust my language if I was speaking to a moderate or conservative audience. Flexibility of method and all that.

  2. Hey, saw yer latest video and loved it. Only qualm: ye keep on referring to 'white facism', but isn't that just plain Nazism? Isn't Nazism just Facism's 'white' flavour?

    (To note: Mussolini's Facism, up and until he became Hitler's footstool, was less focused on racial purity over national identity (Tho not to wash away the racist rhetoric he very much had), which mad it distinct from whole Nazism, at least for it's formation)

    I didn't really want to get into the semantics of how much "Nazi" refers to a broad ideology vs. a specific movement focused on revitalizing German culture and demonizing Jewish people in particular. The video was long enough as it was.

    I have some discussion of what people mean when they say "Nazi" planned for a future video.

  3. Probably going to be Myst but series you know the most lore of? And how often do get deep into lore of a piece of fiction these days?

    I dunno, I guess it *is* Myst? I haven't gotten into too many lore-heavy works. I mean, even Myst, I only know lore from reading the books in middle school. I haven't even played Myst IV, V, or Uru. I've been reading Sluggy Freelance since I was 17, so I guess that's built up a lot of lore, but it's not like I had to dig up supplemental material or anything. Meh.

    The closest I've come to getting "deep into the lore" of late was digging through fan theories for Iconoclasts, because figuring out the universe of that game was interesting. I thought about doing a blog post about it, but lost interest. Guess that says something about how interesting lore is to me!

  5. Is there an online copy of The Monstrous Feminine?

    in response to After making an (excellent) video essay about female action protagonist archetypes and the ways men sympathise with them, have you ever thought about making a video about female antagonist archetypes and the way men and women feel threatened by them (and how they are different from traditional male villain archetypes?)

    I don't know? I had sections of it assigned in college, where the prof gave us PDFs.

  6. Any other female character that came out this year other than new Laurie that can at least be vaguely put under the avenging feminine archetype?

    in response to After making an (excellent) video essay about female action protagonist archetypes and the ways men sympathise with them, have you ever thought about making a video about female antagonist archetypes and the way men and women feel threatened by them (and how they are different from traditional male villain archetypes?)

    There were some elements of her in Red Sparrow, but I don't think that character avoided the "suffering as cheap pathos or easy thrills" qualifier. I haven't seen Peppermint or Mandy yet, so they might fit the bill.

  7. After making an (excellent) video essay about female action protagonist archetypes and the ways men sympathise with them, have you ever thought about making a video about female antagonist archetypes and the way men and women feel threatened by them (and how they are different from traditional male villain archetypes?)

    No particular plans, but you should read Barbara Creed's The Monstrous-Feminine if that kinda thing's your jam.

  8. Someone’s probably already mentioned this days ago but Natalie Wynn gave you a shoutout on Chapo Trap House

    She did indeed!

  9. i'm feeling a tad uncomfortable with people underlining the atrocities committed by the border patrol in the US with "they're gassing WOMEN too!!"? like when this fox reporter went rogue and said "we arrested 42 people, 8 are women!!"? I mean. I won't in a million year write under these articles "NO ONE THINKS ABOUT THE MEN!" but I can't help feel a bit yucky that, if there were just men trying to cross the border and being gassed, there would be less of an outcry? (i'm not a man nor mra, just. I wish we could have pity for everyone the same way) (pps: OF COURSE i'm not talking about the children. Which crimes against are 100% INTOLLERABLE)

    Yes, the perception that women are in some way more precious comes from the assumption that they are more fragile, which is sexism, and I'm not terribly surprised that that's the direction a Fox anchor would go.

  10. I have literally never seen a film before. What's the first movie I should see?

    Hello Dolly, cuz that's all Wall-E had and he turned out alright.

    ...I know you don't get that reference yet, but someday you will.

  11. If there is a goose in the first act of the movie it has to get loose by the third act of the movie

    Correct?

    I don't remember Chekhov's opinions on geese.

  12. I can't be the only one who gets irritated when fan entitlement is criticized in terms of intellectual property rather than artistic integrity or something else that would actually matter to human beings outside our capitalist nightmare rat race, right?

    That sounds like something I might agree with, but can you give me an example of fan entitlement criticized in terms of IP?

  13. In your "Death of a Euphemism" video you mentioned that the "State's Rights" argument has been used in opposition to same sex marriage despite Republicans previously supporting federal bans against it.

    I was wondering if you could post citations to some of the specific examples of statements and bills you were referring to. I'm writing a college essay which will include a brief segment on shifting attitudes towards homosexuality in the US and it would be incredibly helpful for that.

    Not a Republican, obviously, but the most high-profile states' rights argument actually came from Obama: http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/

  14. I noticed that on a few of your videos that Sargon of Akkad commented.
    What's your opinion of him?

    Not positive.

  15. I noticed that your research list contains mostly works by liberals and leftists. Do you think not think there is any value in reading primary sources from the right or are there other reasons?

    Reading entire books by conservatives sounds excruciating.

    I read articles by conservatives now and then when I need to see what's doing, but there are plenty of people delving headlong into what the Right is saying and reporting back comprehensively. Like, if a journalist or YouTuber is willing to read five books from former Trump staffers and report what they said, I'd much rather read that then sit through all five books.

    The point of reading it myself is to give them a chance to sway my opinion, and I know far, far too much about conservative rhetoric to think that will happen. So I mostly just need to know what they're saying and read original sources from time to time to check whether the secondary sources are portraying things accurately. I've yet to find out otherwise.

  16. Did Jack really exist?

    Do I look like a historian?

  17. CW: Q about allegations of abuse & sexual misconduct

    I believe it's important to believe survivors who come forward with their own stories, but do you think it's reasonable to be suspicious of third-party accusations? Like, if someone accuses a public figure of "being an abuser" instead of "abusing me/person I know," is it reasonable to be automatically suspicious that it's a Ship of Theseus?

    All the specific examples I can think of are obvious Ships of Theseus (tumblr calling John Green a pedo, 8chan calling Dan Olson a pedo, Theodore Beale calling John Scalzi an "admitted rapist"), but is it a decent general rule to treat an allegation as dicey if it's so focused on a public figure's moral character with no reference to specific survivors & little specificity?

    Yeah, I don't know why "believe survivors" would ever translate to "believe random third-party accusations with no details."

    But... OK, let's talk about the complexity here.

    "Believe survivors" itself isn't supposed to be unbendable. Believing in unbendable rules that work regardless of context is getting into that Values-Neutral Governance whatnot I talked about in the last video. Any reasonable set of rules is going to require flexibility in the face of context. "Believe survivors" primarily means to treat accusations from people who claim to be victimized as plausible by default.

    OBVIOUSLY, don't end the conversation as soon as an accusation is made. Doubt a victim's story if it starts to contradict itself. Believe a third party's story as likely if there's corroborating evidence. But neither of these situations should change the default assumption: Most first-party accusations prove to be true, while third-party accusations are not true often enough to trust them by default.

  18. How do you feel about the Brothers Green? When I was younger I used to think of them as sort of moral arbiters — they're so enthusiastic, really have nailed their authenticity — but these days, less so.

    Hank seems like a liberal, for sure — he seems very into capitalism in general, and seems to think it's just flawed. I don't really know what he thinks, though.

    If "liberals get the bullet too", I'll be pretty sad if those two are among them*.

    * This is a joke.

    I mean, let's be real: I adore the Vlogbrothers. I do. They have been wildly successful while cultivating one of the most wholesome communities on YouTube, two things that we generally assume cannot be done at the same time (if not for the Vlogbrothers I would assume the latter is impossible). They are positive, progressive, and actively working to improve the world, and they foster those traits in all the people who watch them. Couple of real wonderful chaps, those Green boys.

    But, yes: There are things that frustrate me about them. I've half-jokingly said on Twitter, "Which Green is the bigger centrist? Hint: It's both of them." I'm frustrated by John's compulsive need to talk about the macro ways that the world is improving - global literacy rates increasing, global malaria rates decreasing - as a lens for deflecting the ways things are getting worse in the immediate. I'm frustrated by Hank's talk about refusing to "do bad things" to "make good things happen," without much explanation for how, if the result is a good thing, the thing you did was bad (because, of course, if he used a specific example, the moralism might not hold up). I'm frustrated by the ways neither of them, despite regularly explaining complex issues from a clearly progressive position, will use their platform to directly condemn any of the horrible things happening now, back any politicians that might improve things, or state what their politics actually *are*.

    And I get the reasoning behind all of this! They have a large platform and they recognize the responsibility that confers on them. John feels the need to emphasize the way things improve because he knows humans fixate on disasters, which are immediate, and rarely celebrate victories, which are usually gradual. Hank is conflicted about the ways he sees large systems ruining the world and also recognizes that his ability to make things better somewhat depends on those systems, and also doesn't want to even allude to any kind of extremism if even a handful of his audience might go down an extreme path. And they both feel the obligation not to influence their audience's politics by stating their own, but, rather, explain complex subjects and let their audience make up its own mind. All of these are noble goals in the abstract.

    They just don't actually make things better in the ways we, as a society, desperately need to them to. Like, yes, it would be great if people with platforms abstained from pushing their audiences towards either party and let them make up their own minds, except a) it doesn't work when only one party actually adheres to that principle, and b) the other party is trending rapidly towards fascism. Like, my observation about Democrats letting the world go to hell rather than give up the high road could have been directed at Hank.

    Anyway, I love them. No, they don't "get the bullet." But... I wish they'd take more of a stand on things.

  19. I feel that the idea that there is a natural motion of history toward social justice underlines a lot centrist ideas and action. It allows them to to marginalize activists, turns the growing fascist movement into an interesting but inconsequential sideshow, absolves individuals of personal responsibility, etc... Am I on to something, or did I find a nice square peg that I'm hammering into any hole I find ?

    Oh, that's definitely a thing.

  20. Do you follow Fred Clark's Slactivist blog? I think you might appreciate his perspective on some things where it parallels your research. I began following him a decade ago because he could interpret some of the religious right mentality and strategies for those who weren't raised within that subculture, and though the focus of conservative populism has shifted from them some of the techniques developed there are still being applied and driven by them.

    This post is an illustrative example I think you might appreciate:

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/

    I will check that out.

  21. Before the Storm is out for Mac now and on sale. Deeply flawed, though.

    in response to Did you ever end up playing either the life is strange prequel or sequel? I loved the original game, so despite my apprehension at the idea of more life is strange games, I did play the prequel, and I thought it was really bad. Can't say I'm impressed with the sequel either. I thought it might be better since, unlike the prequel game, it was the original company making it, but at least the first episode was not good.

    WELL HECK!

  22. I'm a former dem and wondering why you and so many dems including yourself believe that the political rule-breaking (going low) is one sided? The dems changed the filibuster rules and now its coming back to bite them. Dems in broward county are intentionally sabotaging votes now. Obama passed executive orders despite the fact he was on constitutionally shaky ground. And I could go on and on. From the Repubs POV the dems have being going low for years (and we wont even talk about the mishaps of the DNC in 2016) . What am I missing here?

    Scale. Context. Impact.

    Basically everything that matters.

  23. If those who are dishonest know that what they're promoting is wrong, what does being successful mean to them? If they have to lie, why can't they see that they are wrong?

    in response to Why is it that people in politics can't agree on what's true?

    It's politics. Success is measured by getting re-elected, claiming coveted positions, and securing campaign donations. The system demands that you go after those things in the most direct way possible, so politicians will, on average, only be as truthful as the system demands they be.

  24. Did you ever end up playing either the life is strange prequel or sequel? I loved the original game, so despite my apprehension at the idea of more life is strange games, I did play the prequel, and I thought it was really bad. Can't say I'm impressed with the sequel either. I thought it might be better since, unlike the prequel game, it was the original company making it, but at least the first episode was not good.

    I haven't played them because they're not on Mac. Hoping to get a new PC soon.

  25. Ever read Persepolis?

    Saw the movie, haven't read the comics.

  26. Why do Anti-SJW's always use Ellen Ripley as the Prime example of "Good Diversity".

    Don't get me wrong Ripley's awesome, but it's very convenient that there example of "good diversity" is a character that was gender neutral and then made female during casting.

    That and it's not that her femaleness was completely mask in both Text, Subtext, and in symbolism cough cough ripely being pregnant with an alien cough cough.

    This is a HUGE can of worms, actually. In researching the Fury Road video, I learned just how much Discourse™ there is around Ripley. Feminists went back and forth for YEARS on whether or not Ripley was an empowered female or symbolically male. Despite the role being written gender-neutral - and perhaps an accident of casting a woman in the role - Alien is often read as a metaphorical rape revenge film, with a crewmember being forcibly impregnated and the xenomorph being a literalization of sexual trauma, which kind of demands Ripley be a woman and fill the roles of Final Girl and Rape Revenger.

    Now, I'm not aware of anti-SJW's championing Ripley, so I'm taking you at your word. But, if they are, her position as being a popular character who is nonetheless kinda divisive in feminist circles may endear her to antifeminists. It's also common for characters that are considered bold and progressive when they're new, and who saw some misogynist backlash at the time, to be eventually embraced by misogynists once cinema moves beyond them. They don't like Ripley when she's progressive, but when other characters are even *more* progressive, they hold up Ripley and say "this far, and no further."

    But, honestly, if they're championing Ripley because they think she could be just as easily played by a man, that would be in keeping with the currently fashionable brand of bigotry that likes diversity if and only if it doesn't actually engage with any of the things that make it diverse. Rantasmo discussed this phenomenon beautifully in his video on Baldur's Gate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r51IZ2qiq4

  27. Then what live-action movie, genre and sub-genre would benefit from using Fury Road's style of Screen Writing of storyboards rather then a traditional Script?

    in response to What Genre, sub genre. or movie would benefit from using Fury Road's style of Screen Writing of storyboards rather then a traditional Script?

    Oh, I dunno. Art films maybe. It's probably a good model for action scenes, but the reason it works so well in Fury Road is because there's so little dialogue. It's not a good system for doing anything dialogue-based, so it would mostly be movies like Fury Road and other stuff driven mostly by visuals. I could see David Lynch writing that way.

  28. Why is it that people in politics can't agree on what's true?

    Because selling a certain narrative, even if it doesn't conform to truth, is successful.

  29. What Genre, sub genre. or movie would benefit from using Fury Road's style of Screen Writing of storyboards rather then a traditional Script?

    That's how a lot of animated films are written, actually.

  30. favourite colour I used to be all about yellow but now I'm big into turqoise and kinda candy surf pink

    I'm partial to the blue-green range of the spectrum of visible light, but I don't really understand the need to rank such things.

  31. What do you think of Natalie "Contrapoints" Wynn labeling your "Why are you so angry" series as one of the best things essays on youtube on her latest Chapo Trap House appearance?

    It was nice!

  32. The Alt-Right Playbook: The Ship of Theseus 0:35 maybe? I don’t remember

    in response to Originally I intended to comment under your video about your careful usage of words but I had urge to speak now. I get really upset then people (and you in one of your video) say “Russia”, “russian hacking” and etc instead of Putin, Kremlin or something like that. Did you watch Peter Coffin’s video “liberal nationalist”? I know then people blame Russia it’s not an attack against population and me personally but I am still get worried(

    Going through the scripts, I have mentioned Russia twice: I talk about "campaign staff meets with Russia" in The Ship of Theseus and say "Russia's not the only ones who can make bots" in Mainstreaming.

    I suppose I felt, in the first case, that the context made it clear "meets with Russia" meant meeting with governmental officials, and, in the second case, it is not concretely known whether and how many Twitter bots are from the Russian government and how many are just bots originating in Russia.

    But, fair point. I will try to be more specific in the future.

  33. Do you think morality is objective?

    I think living in accordance with your morals means choosing to treat them as objective. You cannot live the belief that murder is wrong if you consider people who murder to be having a difference of opinion.

  34. Originally I intended to comment under your video about your careful usage of words but I had urge to speak now. I get really upset then people (and you in one of your video) say “Russia”, “russian hacking” and etc instead of Putin, Kremlin or something like that. Did you watch Peter Coffin’s video “liberal nationalist”? I know then people blame Russia it’s not an attack against population and me personally but I am still get worried(

    When did I talk about Russia?

  35. Why release the 8 part fury road/furiosa all at once and 1 at a time?

    I tried to do both but the 1-part got blocked.

  36. Do you have any favorite books that came out this yearm

    I haven't read any new releases this year. I don't read much other than research these days.

  37. A somewhat common talking point I've been seeing on the Internet is someone proclaiming they're "conservatives", but not "pro Republican". Do you think it's necessary to differentiate between the two? (I just mentally file them into the "people who would gladly vote for poor folks to die off so they can get a tax cut" group, aka "bad people")

    Conservatives can still be unhappy with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, like feeling the Party doesn't live up to their personal ideal of conservatism.

    I don't think "good people/bad people" is a useful framing, but I do think that conservatism is just, at its core, an immoral belief system. But it's one designed to convince generally ethical people that it, too, is ethical, so I hesitate to call all conservatives "bad people." I also won't exonerate them. Conservatism compels people to support things that go against their own ethics and, often enough, against their own self-interest. They are culpable for the effects that has on society, but they are also, through a mix of self-delusion and external misdirection, not fully aware of it.

  38. Do you support Pelosi to be speaker?

    Most coverage (times,WaPo,Cnn,npr) seems to frame the challenge to her as being bad optics in the #MeToo era and tries to illustrate that if she were a man this wouldn't be happening.

    Nearly all attack ads launched by GOP are sexist, she clearly gets gendered hate Schumer does not. But two things are worth noting; her approval rating amoung republicans is equal to not less than Schumer's(fivethirtyeight poll), and as far as I'm aware all people put forward to replace her are black women (Fudge for example). (I would love to see it be maxine Waters but that seems unlikely).

    GOP criticism of Pelosi is almost entirely sexism and gaslighting, but much criticism from the Left is that she's kind of a spineless centrist who keeps promising not to impeach of filibuster Republicans? There is this odd thing folks have noticed where a lot of the Democrats signing on to criticize her are actually more centrist than she is, and seem to simply be doing what you mention: Distancing themselves because of the optics. But, overall, I would like a progressive to take her role.

  39. Is it possible for people with different political opinions to be friends/in a relationship together?

    If so, why?

    Of course it's possible. Fascists depends on it.

    All you have to do is keep your political life separate from your social life. Which, obviously, is harder to do if your day-to-day life is politicized; if you're a woman or non-white or queer or trans, it's a lot harder to "be friends" with people who are voting to have your rights taken away. Doesn't mean it never happens, but it's mostly white men who are able to treat politics like an abstract concept that doesn't come to bear in their social life.

    Fascist infiltration of communities relies on people prioritizing their friendship and the cohesion of the group over their politics, and allowing the community to radicalize rather than call out their increasingly radical friends. This is one of the reasons "the personal is political" is such a meaningful idea: A willingness to treat the personal and the political as separate *will be used against us*.

  40. Why Warren and not Bernie in 2020?

    I like that Bernie's a diehard class warrior, but he's weak on social issues. I also question whether he's viable, given that the Democratic Party is twisting itself into knots trying NOT to move further Left.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he got the nomination. Sanders is definitely someone I can work with and he'd do a lot of good things. But I still think Warren is the best balance of class consciousness, social progressivism, and electoral viability.

    And I don't super want to elect a white man.

  41. can you think of any good or well written mentally ill villains in media?

    So, I asked Twitter for their thoughts on this ( https://bit.ly/2QPO3fB ) and, after some consideration, I'd say... it depends.

    It hinges on what we mean by "well-written" and "mentally ill." Are trauma and PTSD "mental illnesses?" Because, in that case, there are plenty: Kylo Ren from Star Wars, Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender, and (apparently) several villains on Daredevil. But I don't usually consider trauma or PTSD "mental illness" since they're such common responses to traumatic events, even in neurotypical people.

    For people with discernible personality disorders, either textual or implied, we can talk about Identity, Misery, or Split, and it's dealer's choice whether you'd consider the writing for any of those villains "good" (respectively: no, yes, I doubt it), but I don't think any of them escape the trope of "mental illness used to make villain scarier," which is, in my opinion, innately bad writing, regardless of how well they are otherwise portrayed.

    And then there are lots of characters whoa re well-written and *exhibit some signs* that you could read as neurodivergence? Moriarty on BBC's Sherlock for sociopoathy, Gollum with dissociative identity disorder, Rorschach from Watchmen for acute paranoia and/or antisocial personality disorder, etc. But I don't really think armchair diagnosis is a smart move, and I feel the only reason none of them fall into the "mental illness is scary" trope is precisely because there's no overt diagnosis, other than the vague "madness" characters like The Joker display.

    So: a well-written villain with a concrete diagnosis whose illness is not part of what makes them villainous? I'm sure some have been written, but I don't know any.

  42. Thoughts on Jon Blow? Both the guy and his works?

    Blow is pompous and somewhat problematic. Braid is a wonderful game that complicated by its outsized reputation. The Witness runs like ass on my computer so I haven't played much of it.

    He's wrong about adventure games.

  43. Who are the other 12 most pretentious people on YouTube?

    nice try, cop

  44. I'm rewatching Why Are You So Angry?, and am still so appreciative of you for pulling all that together. I'm curious, has your thinking on Angry Jack changed or evolved in the years since? If so, how?

    The "next hate mob posing as a reform movement" was The Sad Puppies, Comicsgate, and the Alt-Right. GamerGate laid the groundwork for Trump.

  45. I hope this helps to explain clearly what ICERD is:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discrimination

    I chose not to disclose publicly the country and races at first out of fear of backlash and I don't want you to get into trouble (also the fact that I think you had a hard time convincing conservatives here in the US just like my situation here in the country with religious-conservatives)

    If it's no trouble, it's Malaysia. Consisting mainly of Malays, Chinese, Indians & other 7 indigenous races (also notice I arrange them in order so the one I mentioned first are given the most priority and preference in almost all affairs, especially in economics & education, ever since our nation's independence)

    You can read thru about our current prime minister who was once responsible to further enforce this but now defected to a different side and is pushing for reforms and make amends: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamad

    in response to Hi Ian I want to ask you what do you think of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)? Do you comprehensively know what it is and what it does to a country? I've been living in a country where one particular race has exerted the most privilege, power and most preferential treatment compared to the other races for the past 60 years..... A year ago, my country has voted for a new government for the first time in our history and they have been pushing for reforms since. But lately there has been some setbacks most particularly in bringing ICERD into our country.... that would mean setbacks against that privileged race but some of my friends who are of this race argued as such, "With ICERD implemented, our entire country, not just their race, will be in jeopardy economically... Land ownership and land titles would be simply given to anyone even to those from outside the country" How should I respond? Is there a possibility of finding a common ground?

    Ah, ok. Sorry, when people are vague about what races and nations they're talking about, there's always a chance they're racist trolls trying to trick me into agreeing that white people are being oppressed somewhere.

    Regarding your situation specifically, I don't know that I can be of much help. Even with some research, I think a white American can only offer so much insight. Sorry about that. :-/

  46. Hi Ian

    I want to ask you what do you think of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)? Do you comprehensively know what it is and what it does to a country?

    I've been living in a country where one particular race has exerted the most privilege, power and most preferential treatment compared to the other races for the past 60 years.....

    A year ago, my country has voted for a new government for the first time in our history and they have been pushing for reforms since. But lately there has been some setbacks most particularly in bringing ICERD into our country.... that would mean setbacks against that privileged race but some of my friends who are of this race argued as such,

    "With ICERD implemented, our entire country, not just their race, will be in jeopardy economically... Land ownership and land titles would be simply given to anyone even to those from outside the country"

    How should I respond? Is there a possibility of finding a common ground?

    I hadn't heard of ICERD before. Since history and context are big factors in such things, I don't think I could answer this question without knowing the country and races in question, and I'm curious why you elected not to mention either by name.

  47. Re: media based callouts.

    Thanks for the answer, I think I had an issue of the scope I was looking at, I can only afford so much media, both in time and money, especially video games, so I didn't take into account things I can't pay attention to.. I am kinda wary where my own point can be used as an outright dismissal of criticism.

    One emmerging example is not jsut accusing JK Rowling of using anti-semetic mythological narratives in Harry Potter which I agree with and thing was an awful choice, but that people who enjoy Harry Potter are by extension anti-semetic.

    It had kinda come from a place where in particular I've noticed something like, series fans opinions on Fallout are tinged with gate-keeping, often politically accusatory.

    I've both seen:

    It argued that Fallout 2 was the best fallout before Bethesda ruined the series and has ever since been gradually inducing marxist anti-american values, with Fallout 76 having an anarcho-communist faction and pro-union storytelling. Where the person wishes for the good ole days of cool badass villains and politically insensitive jokes about minorities and prostitutes.

    And it argued that Fallout 2 was the satiric highlight, where the villains were capitalists turned genocidal fascists, and thus it's communist praxis actually. And the new ones are jingoistic capitalist propaganda with 76 being the full ruination.

    I've seen more of the former latly, but the bougie side is that I think the underlying argument is an elitist, "in my day media was good and made by real auteurs!" that's using politics to argue you are a worse person, for enjoying the new media. It's a narrative that regardless of political tinge often ignores realities, (like publisher interference causing dev's to leave for on Fallout 2 muddling an auteur narrative)

    But that's a much more narrow scope, and I think the "Proceed with care" answer is biggly important. I've seen some people disenfranchised with politically left youtubers or the like, because treating video game issues and favoritism with as much or more emphasis as societal ills raises red flags.

    Yeah, all of those are examples of the kind of gatekeeping that needs to stop. Beyond the grandstanding, each is a refusal to deal with a piece of media's complexity. There is more to Harry Potter than its anti-Semitic stereotypes, but this does not erase the stereotypes. Fallout 2 is both *more* and *less* progressive than later games in the series.

    These folks are treating opinions as a kind of currency, not valuable in themselves but as means of checking someone's bona fides.

    I may not have hit the point hard enough in my last response that, no matter the reasons for it, *this kind of gatekeeping needs to stop*. The examples you mention aren't likely coming from hypervigilant marginalized people wary of being sold out (I mean, maybe some of them?), but even when it does come from those folks and it's entirely understandable, it's still destructive. My assessment remains the same: Hold and insist on the complex opinion, and don't hesitate to be critical of the media you love.

  48. Re: proactively demonstrating trustworthiness: I'm a big fan of the old "How to be a fan of problematic things" essay: https://socialjusticeleaguenet.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-to-be-a-fan-of-problematic-things/

    That said, I think there are a lot of people who never watched "This Is Phil Fish" and elide the part of the argument where they think people who are fandoming wrong deserve to be punished.

    in response to I'm not sure if this is something you've noticed, but I find a problematic element of online political discourse is tying video games to ideology. People like to claim games they like are politically good and vice versa. Which I've found humour in informing people on the right of blatant left wing themes in their media. But (at risk of both sides rhetoric) there is a weird element on left wing online spaces aswell to treat media opinions almost as seriously and in connection with ideology. Which is weird when I personally know heavy anarchist leftists who are pretty nonchalant when it comes to media. I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be this weird bougie variety of media based gatekeeping in online political spheres that just isn't present in physical spheres.

  49. I just walked in on my younger brother (17) watching a Ben Shapiro interview and am Extremely Displeased. My brother has been, let's say "problematic", for the past few years. Mostly typical Douchey Cis Straight White Boy stuff. I was really hoping that he'd mature and grow out of it, but if he's sitting there listening to people like Ben Shapiro then now really worried. I'm his lame lefty older sister though, so I don't know how I can talk to him about this without him just rolling his eyes the entire time. But if I don't, no one else in our family will. Do you have any ideas or tips for approaching a situation like this?

    The thing I tell everyone is: Talk about your life, your experience, your politics, your worldview *outside the context of an argument*. Your life is political, so when you talk about your life, don't leave your politics out of it. Talk about your queer friends, talk about the kid at school who's transitioning, talk about the racial makeup of your town. Don't present these things as means of changing your brother's mind, and don't hold yourself to the standard of "flipping" him. Just be a progressive in his life and make sure he knows how a progressive lives and looks at the world, so that when Ben Shapiro says "here's what liberals think" it won't be convincing.

    Much of conservative rhetoric depends on ignorance. Disallow him from remaining ignorant. And do it in the context of maintaining a relationship with your brother, not in the context of debate.

  50. I'm not sure if this is something you've noticed, but I find a problematic element of online political discourse is tying video games to ideology. People like to claim games they like are politically good and vice versa. Which I've found humour in informing people on the right of blatant left wing themes in their media.

    But (at risk of both sides rhetoric) there is a weird element on left wing online spaces aswell to treat media opinions almost as seriously and in connection with ideology. Which is weird when I personally know heavy anarchist leftists who are pretty nonchalant when it comes to media.

    I guess what I'm getting at is there seems to be this weird bougie variety of media based gatekeeping in online political spheres that just isn't present in physical spheres.

    Well... yes, there is a lot of problematic gatekeeping on the left, and it needs to change. But I'd hesitate to call it "bougie." What I tend to see is a split between the social justice left and the class conscious left. Your heavy anarchist leftists probably fall in the latter camp, and that camp tends to be pretty blasé about problematic media. It's the other camp that I usually find doing callouts for having fucked-up faves.

    Some of this is just grandstanding, and that's frustrating. But a lot of it comes from an entirely relatable distrust. Like, if you're stanning for a transphobic TV show, it's understandable that a trans person might worry you're a transphobe. I said in one of my videos that a lot of social justice types can be too willing to believe that their allies are just waiting to sell them out, but it usually comes from having been sold out multiple times already. Minoritized get thrown under the bus kind of a lot, and leftists shouting "no war but class war" and dismissing identity politics makes them even more distrustful.

    So, yeah, the gatekeeping is a problem, and some of it is just shitty callout culture. But a lot of it comes from real pain and patterns of shitty allyship. So, I mean, if someone acts like you're a douchecanoe because you listen to a musician who's said homophobic things in the past, maybe they're being unfair, and if they're trying to tear you down in your community for it they're being downright toxic, but, also, maybe there's some onus on you to proactively demonstrate that you are trustworthy and you recognize what's problematic about the music.

    Building trust in communities that keep getting burned is delicate work. Proceed with care.

  51. You sometimes have people on the left decrying you for supporting democrats. From what I have seen, the argument is usually that democrats are an ineffective party, for whatever reason, and are part of the system and they say working in the system will always be ineffective to changing that system.

    Have you challenged them by saying that not supporting democrats and calling and voicing their opinions to democrats is a way of disenfranchising their involvement and reducing their own effectiveness? If you have brought this up, what is their response to that? Do they recognize the very real effect of splitting the vote in a main election and the power of primaries to get candidates they like? Or the power that the right gets from party loyalty? Have they not seen the change in the republican party as traditional candidates have lost primaries?

    It sometimes seems like they want democrats to be an effective and good-valued party without continual engagement and activism to bolster them, and I don't know if any party would be capable of doing that. As I'm not part of the prestigious associates of left-tube, I wonder if you can give some insight on their reasoning.

    Oh, they know all that. But the people decrying my support for Democrats don't want Democrats to an effective, good-valued party. They want socialism.

    The goal of Democrats, when they're worth a damn, is to reform capitalist democracy to make it more egalitarian. And this can be done, to an extent. But, if you believe capitalism is fundamentally anti-egalitarian (which, if I'm being honest, I do), then, no matter how much we reform capitalist democracy, it will always trend back towards inequality and hegemony. That's just what capitalism DOES.

    From this view, any effort to "fix" the system is only perpetuating it. It is fundamentally unfixable. The only thing that will bring about true equity is to replace it with a different system.

    And I don't disagree with this. I think that replacing capitalism should be the end goal. Where I differ with the Leftists who yell at me about working with Democrats is on what should be done in the meantime. I feel that, for the time being, capitalism is what I have to work with. And there are things we can do *right now* to make things better than they are. I feel it would be irresponsible and destructive not to do them.

    Now, the folks who yell at me for working with Democrats will say that any effort to work within the system only entrenches it further. I don't see how this is true, being that, if Leftists refuse to vote, it leaves the country in the hands of the most rabidly pro-capitalist party, which would seem to entrench capitalism *more*. But their argument seems to be "we need revolution," and I guess they feel, in a revolution, anyone working with Democrats is going to be on the wrong side. But I don't see that they have any PLAN for bringing about a revolution other than to yell at people to stop voting.

    I think working with Democrats can achieve some things. At minimum, it can make things better in the short term. Ideally, dragging the Democrats to the left can make the country more amenable to anti-capitalist ideas. The longshot is potentially reforming the Democrats into a socialist party, which I doubt would ever happen but is, technically, possible.

    In any case, I disagree that working with Democrats prevents us from dismantling capitalism. If anything, I'd rather Democrats be in power should someone launch a revolution than Republicans.

  54. Can you name this Ingmar Bergman movie?

    https://twitter.com/sallan7773/status/1061803790322540544?s=19

    While it takes a lot of inspiration from The Seventh Seal, this is a still from Merkel and Macron's Bogus Journey.

  55. I was showing my father your latest video this morning, and as I was re-watching it two elements from it struck me. First, that bad ideas can only be defeated by better ideas, and secondly that They Fucking Hate Us.

    I find this later part is the real stumbling block, because I do think we have the "better" ideas on the left and policy polling seems to back this up when those positions aren't put in a partisan framing, but that is just it: They Fucking Hate Us. It doesn't matter how good an idea we have, because WE came up with it and they didn't, they feel like they HAVE to oppose it because, again, They Fucking Hate us. Even if we can come up with and back a better idea, they might only ever hear the worst version of it (if any at all) because They Fucking Hate Us and consume only media that feeds that existing framing.

    How can we resolve this kind of block and get them to actually digest our ideas?

    Well, as I'm always quick to point out: We Don't Actually Need Them. Democrats are obsessed with "flipping moderate conservatives" as the only way of winning elections, but the fact that even the moderates FUCKING HATE US means this is pointless. And that's freeing! We can drift as far left as we want! They already hate us no matter what we do, so let's just do what we actually believe in!

    We *already get more votes than them*. If we just fixed gerrymandering and voter suppression, Republicans would never hold a majority again. If we run candidates that the Left *actually believe in*, instead of compromise candidates meant to appeal to Republicans who Fucking Hate Us, we will gain more votes from the Left than we would ever get from the center. The only Democrats to take the White House since Reagan did exactly this: They won by appealing to populations that skew further left - in both cases, the Black and youth votes. Whether or not they lived up to their progressive promises is another matter (they didn't) but the strategy worked, and it's the only thing that's worked on the Presidential scale for 40 years.

    Get the money out of politics. Redistrict fairly. Restore the vote to suppressed populations. Grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Run on these things and we'll win elections; make good on them and we'll never lose an election again.

  56. I am trying to create a podcast, and feel overwhelmed by the preliminary research. The more I read, the more I feel the imposter syndrome. How do you end the research and rewrite loop and start to actually record ?

    Podcasts are interesting, because they don't go viral. There isn't really a platform for podcasts to blow up. Their contents aren't easily searchable, the biggest platforms don't have comment sections, and people mostly listen to them while doing something else. So this means podcast audiences grow steadily over time without the wild spikes in traffic we see on other platforms.

    In other words: When you start out, no one's going to be listening, so you're free to be a little crappy. Just accept that you're not going to approach the standards you're trying to meet until several episodes in, and that would be true no matter how long you research, because you won't actually know how to make a great podcast until you've actually made a few.

    Podcasts are one of the safest mediums to make mistakes in. So don't stress about it!

  57. When politics are discussed online, a lot of people use the “#notallrepublicans are bad” and “#notallconservatives are bad” rhetoric. Do you think this could be sincere or are they just trying to mask their bigotry using? More on that, is there any (and I mean any) conceivable reason to vote Republican and expect things to get better for minorities? (I’m calling “no”)

    #notallrepublicans works the same as #notallmen: it's a means of shifting conversation away from the actual problem - a whole lot of men and Republicans are making things a whole lot worse in ways that aren't reflected in their counterparts - and talk instead about whether every individual man or Republican carries the blame for it. Saying "not all Republicans are like that" doesn't even deny that the problem is real! It just says "but I'm not to blame so I don't have to do anything about it."

    This can be sincere or insincere. In either case, it's deflecting responsibility. It's a commitment to not make anything better even as they acknowledge things are getting worse.

    And, no, nothing gets better for minorities with Republicans.

  58. Can you please spread word about a January 15 general strike among your fellow workers and on twitter? Look up earth strike. Climate change is extremely dire and we need action now.

    Well, "look up earth strike" isn't useful because there are a bunch of other things with that title. I've only just heard about this and don't have a ton of info, but there's a Twitter and, through the Twitter, a link to a Discord server: https://twitter.com/StrikeEarth

    I need to look into it further before I champion it, but, by all means, folks reading my CC, check it out yourself.

  59. Can you deceiver what conservatives really mean when they say "We don't live in a democracy we live in a constitutional Republic."

    To the best of my understanding, it's that we don't have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy. We elect officials who don't actually *have* to do what we want them to do. I believe this ability to act independently of their constituents, and the implication that you don't elect people to do what you want but rather you elect people whose judgment you trust even if it means going against your desires, is the idea behind a republic.

    I would, in many cases, prefer a direct democracy, but it makes sense conservatives would prefer a republic.

  60. You a fan of eXistenZ and if so, is that a movie better enjoyed unpacking (mystery box style) or just as a junky silly mess?

    There might be stuff in eXistenZ worth unpacking, but I've never gone digging in it. I've always appreciated it as a junky mess.

  61. This is really morbid, but I don't really know who else to ask.

    If someone were to be close to taking their own life without the consent or knowledge of the people around them, what do you make of the Note vs No Note situation?

    I know you might not be willing to publish this answer because it is often advised against talking about suicide as an inevitability, but if you do, please don't list suicide hotline numbers, please don't reject the premise of the question. I just want an answer to this question.

    Well, that sounds hard, but it's not something I can help you with. I don't mean that as a rejection of the premise, but I don't know you or the people in your life. I don't know if they'd want a note or not. I don't know what you're going through. I've never lost someone to suicide. I could say, "If it was me, I'd want a note," but I have no idea if, should it ever happen to me, a note would make any difference.

    This is beyond my ability to help you with. I'm sorry. I hope things get better for you.

  62. Word play on your resume is EVERYTHING, right?

    Were you a "cashier" that "checked people out & stocked"?

    Or were you a "Professional support Liaison" who "acted as the first method of contact for clientele & aided in product education and location, which boosted client retention" ?

    Do you think that a person should refer to a thesaurus when writing up their resume? Or wouldn't such rephrasing becomes a bit more insincere, dishonest?

    I dunno, fam, I ain't had to write a resume in a long time.

  63. Since midterms are over, who do you think should run for president?

    I've already said Presidents should be selected via Captain Falcon dittos, so I nominate n0ne. He may not run the perfect campaign, but I don't think the Republicans will nominate S2J and we know n0ne can beat Wizzrobe.

    In all seriousness, of the people who look like they're gearing up to run, I'd say Elizabeth Warren has the best balance of progressivism and viability.

  64. I don't know if you're much of a historian, but I have an alternate history question if you're willing to entertain it from what you know: if Hitler had woken up one day and his entire mind had changed, and he had ordered the camps to be destroyed, the people released who were not already murdered, all of that—do you think he would have been despatched by the forces around him? Assassinated by the other fascists or forced into exile.

    I'm not trying to peddle any sort of Hitler As Saviour narrative, I just wonder what kind of fascism was alive at that time. Did the hatred emanate from Hitler from? If not, was it a feedback loop of both him and his subordinates, would it have been able to flourish if that one single person stopped it?

    I mean, when in the process are we talking? I don't know my history *super* well, so take whatever opinions I have with some salt, but the first camps were created in 1933. The Night of the Long Knives was in 1934. The war began in 1939, at which point Hitler formed an alliance with Mussolini, who'd already been in power for nearly two decades. Fascism was not uniquely German, and there were fascist parties is several countries in Europe, not to mention in the US.

    The bigotry and anti-Semitism of the Reich were things Hitler stoked and organized, but he didn't create them. Many in his cadre weren't actively bigoted, just opportunists, capitalizing on racism as a convenient way to gain power for themselves (this is, of course, still bigotry). Some True Believers would have taken ideological issue with Hitler having a change of heart, while some would have had no moral objection one way or another but would have taken issue with ending the Reich's campaign if it meant giving up the power they'd gained.

    Honestly, I think if Hitler had a change of heart after the construction of the camps and the Night of the Long Knives, it wouldn't be a question of *if* we would be assassinated, but by whom. Underlings looking to take his place, racist citizens who thought him a traitor, Jewish victims out for retribution, Italian fascists looking to replace him with someone who'd maintain the alliance. Or maybe he'd just be hanged for war crimes by the Allies.

    I don't think you can wash that much blood off your hands. You cross some lines, people won't let you walk back over them in the other direction. I think it may be why some people, past a certain point, keep on a horrible path even when they start to question it; they know there's no going back.

  65. Hi there. I'm watching The Death of a Euphemism video, and you say: "No one is tightening security at the US-Canada border. No one is pulling over white Europeans to check their visas."

    I was just wondering: the first point there you give as evidence that protecting jobs from undocumented workers is dogwhistling for hating Mexicans, but is that really proven here? You just sort of take it for granted and move on. There's all sorts of things that go into this: Canadians aren't dying to cross the Canada-America border because they are dying in their own countries. I suspect if they were, people would let them in.

    But I still don't think those two things quite go together, and although I fully believe everything in the video, do you have other suggestions for how I could talk about that issue?

    Like, Mexicans are way more likely to need to cross the border for a whole bunch of reasons. Even though the US-Canada border is very lax, quick googling tells me that people aren't crossing all that often*.

    *They may be harder to find, but still.

    Any advice/thoughts?

    Thanks

    Try to look at it from this perspective: If their concern was purely about jobs, how would they behave? If there was a concern that illegal immigrants were stealing jobs from legal citizens, it might make sense to tighten security at the border where more migrants are coming through, but would it make sense to not tighten security at the US-Canada border *at all*? And, similarly, it might make sense to focus ICE's efforts in areas where the most illegal immigration happens, but would it make sense to completely *ignore* immigrants from white nations? And if your concern was really that jobs were being stolen from Americans, why would you focus solely on the people working the most low-paying jobs in the country? Wouldn't you be concerned, at least a little, about people working middle class desk jobs with expired visas?

    The reality, the government already knows who most undocumented citizens are, because it's kind of impossible to exist in this country without being in a number of databases, i.e. most undocumented citizens pay taxes ( https://bit.ly/2RNzqJP ). So, understand, it would be fairly easy to crack down on *all* undocumented workers.

    But, instead, they crack down selectively. And, curiously, they crack down about the same on people coming to the country seeking asylum, rather than for work, even though they have every intent of being documented citizens. And they make it more difficult to become legal citizens, but only for a certain population.

    So when they selectively crack down on many different types of immigrants, you have to ask what these immigrants all have in common if it's not only posing a threat to the jobs market.

    And, what a surprise: They're all brown.

  66. Every time I see Trump has done something illegal on Twitter, how often should I take that as hyperbole? If he is breaking all of these laws, why is literally no action being taken against him? Why isn't the media going on about how he's an unindicted co-conspirator forever? Is it totally ridiculous to say that any one of dozens of Trump's actions would not have been tolerated for Bush or Obama?

    No action is being taken against him because:

    a) Until recently his own party controlled all three branches of government, and they will let him break rather a lot of laws so long as him being in power allows them to further their own agenda.

    b) The media is addicted to a "both sides" narrative that treats every action like it's debatable, in which case no politician ever really breaks the law, they only *arguably* broke the law, and it's up to the viewer to make up their own minds about what facts are.

    c) Democrats in Congress have a mix of the following: A compulsive dislike of treating the system like it's broken for fear they won't look like the calm, reasonable Party anymore; a reasonable worry that there will be retaliatory action from Republicans if they try to impeach; an awareness that impeachment requires a 2/3 majority vote to succeed and they don't have it and they don't believe they'll ever flip enough Republicans to meet that number.

    Basically, impeachment is the about only means of dealing with a President who breaks the law, and our system of impeachment is antiquated and ineffective. It didn't account for party loyalty because, when it was written, political parties didn't exist. And neither party is incentivized to change the rules because, then they're in power, the rules protect them from impeachment.

  67. Wait, why is your new avatar the picture of you with an “x” over your mouth? Are you being censored?

    Maybe I just need to shut up?

  68. Hi Ian,

    Do you notice that in every Charlie Kaufman film, there's a marital affair?
    I mean it could be just a weird coincidence, but still...

    Freaking cool ass writer though, wish he made more but with a bit more optimistic scripts rather than like his past works

    I hadn't noticed that.

    Kaufman doesn't write optimistic work, but sometimes directors find ways to wring optimism out of it.

  69. Hi! Before I begin it is really important for me to acknowledge I'm a huge fan of your work. I'm very genuinely asking this question about one of your sources, on that was relatively important to your latest video.

    It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”

    The problem I'm having is, when I presented this argument as evidence the counter arguments were something I didn't know how to argue against.

    1. That quote is from criminal and civil cases, this has to do with the senate. Why would this apply here

    2. Historically, there is other case law that would make this assumption a little odd
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Noel_Canning

    3. Why would it pass to Obama immediately and not go through the branches of government it would currently be in (So why would there be nothing else it would go to, why instantly back to the president)

    Thank you for your time, and have a nice rest of your day!

    I don't know the legalities and am taking the writer, to an extent, on their word. So far as I know, per 1: If there is no precedent in Senate law, it is not wholly unreasonable to look at precedent in criminal and civil law. Per 3: To my understanding, it is the President's job to fill the seat, so if the President faces an obstruction, the President is expected to find a way around the obstruction. Per 2: I dunno.

    It is possible this argument is in some way weak. I haven't consulted a lawyer on the subject. However, I think we can all agree that, over the last two years, what is and isn't protocol doesn't seem to matter much in Washington, so I'm not sure bending the rules a little more than the article implies would matter.

  70. Sorry, I'm realizing you may not have responded to my question earlier about the wall street journal article you cited for one of two reasons. Either you believe I'm a fascist, which is a reasonable position given the anonymity of the internet, and I will stop asking questions relating to it after this post, or because I didn't cite the article and therefore my question was not cogent. I did not cite it as curious cat bans long words for some reason, and considers links as words. I also didn't have time to replace it with the name of the article.

    The article I was referring to is the following:
    "Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing"

    (Quick aside:
    If you're not going to respond to the original for any reason at all, I would really appreciate a response to this just so that I know I haven't really aggravated you with the two of these. Have a nice rest of your day)

    I didn't answer your question because I've been out of the house all day and didn't check Curious Cat. Also sometimes I don't answer things right away because I just don't have thoughts on the subject yet, or don't answer at all because, for whatever benign reason, I don't want to. Try not to extrapolate too much from it.

  71. How to make jokes without being racist, sexist, xenophobic these days?

    https://twitter.com/wholesomememe

  72. We Know The Devil OP: got around to playing it last night, and while it's phenomenally written, I agree, not a dating sim. Although the "pick two, exclude one" system is pretty unique in the genre, it's not strictly speaking a polyamory "mechanic."

    Also, it's basically the only game I've ever played that approaches a polyamorous ending with grace and while being true to its characters, instead of it being the "harem" ending. Highly recommended.

    So, I guess my question is: do you know of any other games that approach polyamory in a good, realistic way?

    I haven't played Anna Anthropy's Triad, but can vouch it mechanizes a real situation I've dealt with. https://w.itch.io/triad

  73. A while back on twitter you pitched a dating sim where "hard mode" was polyamory. Errant Signal recently did a video on We Know The Devil, and it seems like that actually has a (maybe a bit simplistic) polyamory mechanic? Have you played that/do you think it scratches that itch?

    Well, that game sounds compelling, but polyamory isn't a mechanic, just one of four possible endings, and the game isn't a dating sim. So, it sounds neat! But it's doing something different.

  74. Is it just me or does every white guy with a shaved head look the same?

    I'm the one with the birthmark.

  75. I don't really know how to tell whether or not I can donate money to people I admire on Patreon. I can really only do one or two a month, and they switch every 3 months, because I'm at uni, I live on £30 a week and £15 of that a month goes to Patreon pledges. I'm not saying my life doesn't suck sometimes because of money, but is that fine? when do I know how much I can give to people because, frankly, they give me a lot of entertainment and they don't all seem to be thriving? I just feel so much guilt when people I really like ask for help.

    If you're living on £30 a week, you should keep that all for yourself, friend. Like, I've lived on that before, and it's not healthy. What is most valuable to us is to be supported by people who can afford to support us; if you don't have the financial stability to maintain a monthly pledge, in addition to worrying about your wellbeing, I'm going to worry that your pledge may dry up at any time because you need to feed yourself.

    So, please, take care of yourself before you take care of us! Most of us are living on more than £30 a week. Please don't feel guilty about meeting your own needs. Throw us some money after you graduate and get some kind of income, and if you feel a crushing need in the meantime, maybe tell some friends or followers about our Patreons so they can throw us the few quid that you can't.

    <3

Anon commented:
Ian replied: