Asmongold is a big streamer and YouTuber largely known for his World of Warcraft content. I started watching his videos on YouTube back in the pandemic largely because I really wanted to play WoW...
Asmongold is a big streamer and YouTuber largely known for his World of Warcraft content. I started watching his videos on YouTube back in the pandemic largely because I really wanted to play WoW but didn't have a PC. It was fun.
Lately, he's been making a lot of social and political commentary, and it seems to me that he got tired of pretending he is an independent thinker -- Asmongold is now a figure of the alt-right. It's pretty sad (for me).
A lot of his content now is misogynistic, and if you peruse his subreddit the amount of posts that are just hate against women is staggering.
Sorry for the tiny article, that is quite recent. If a mod finds a more substantial source, feel free to swap the link.
Alt-right? He's a fencesitter at best about most issues and generally favourable towards equality of all types. As an example, he's been outspoken towards gay rights multiple times and how he...
Alt-right? He's a fencesitter at best about most issues and generally favourable towards equality of all types. As an example, he's been outspoken towards gay rights multiple times and how he doesn't understand why people would be against gay marriage.
I'm not trying to go to bat for him, but be accurate.
One of the most influential standard-bearers of the alt-right movement was an openly gay man. Supporting gay rights or being a gay person doesn't prevent you from being alt-right, or even a...
One of the most influential standard-bearers of the alt-right movement was an openly gay man. Supporting gay rights or being a gay person doesn't prevent you from being alt-right, or even a fascist, which I believe this guy to be. I don't care how pro-LGBTQ+ you are, if you're openly calling for the annihilation of an entire population and do so in front of an audience of tens of thousands, you're not for equality and certainly deserve to be called nouns a lot harsher than a fence-sitter.
Everyone is multifaceted and there's more leftwing ideas I could associate with him but again, not trying to go to bat for that guy. Not that invested. I simply do not think that label fits. It's...
Everyone is multifaceted and there's more leftwing ideas I could associate with him but again, not trying to go to bat for that guy. Not that invested.
I simply do not think that label fits. It's best reserved for people actually trying to turn the US into a theocracy. At this point it's a diluted term.
Broad and diffuse terms are useful to address phenomena that are broad and diffuse in nature. I wouldn't expect the vocabulary on those to be as narrow as the definition of a right angle. In fact,...
Broad and diffuse terms are useful to address phenomena that are broad and diffuse in nature. I wouldn't expect the vocabulary on those to be as narrow as the definition of a right angle. In fact, without safeguards, being overly analytical about them may counter-intuitively reduce their utility instead of increasing it.
The opposite is also true. It's being used in such a broad manner that it stops being useful altogether. This discussion is the literal proof of that. Then there's the issue of USA two party...
The opposite is also true. It's being used in such a broad manner that it stops being useful altogether. This discussion is the literal proof of that. Then there's the issue of USA two party politics putting everything on a left/right scale where there wouldn't be one.
This dude has general views about the world where some are more rightwing and others more leftwing. Alt right should be reserved for your Tuckers and Bens. Y'know, the actual lunatics.
He can hold views that are multi-faceted, but if all that adds up to is an alt-right audience, I think there are useful inferences to be drawn from that. EDIT: An audience that - to be clear, he...
He can hold views that are multi-faceted, but if all that adds up to is an alt-right audience, I think there are useful inferences to be drawn from that.
EDIT: An audience that - to be clear, he does have some amount of control over, both in the stories he chooses to cover and the way his moderators moderate his chat.
I agree with CptBluebear here. Even if Asmongold is a Trump supporter, he doesn't seem to have any strong ideological beliefs that align him with the alt-right. I doubt he'd even understand the...
I agree with CptBluebear here. Even if Asmongold is a Trump supporter, he doesn't seem to have any strong ideological beliefs that align him with the alt-right. I doubt he'd even understand the subtext behind things like far-right Republicans calling America a Republic and not a Democracy. The alt-right isn't some nebulous force of conservativism in America. There are clear leaders and broad values amongst the political faction.
He seems like more of a populist, and he clearly has some racist takes. That doesn't make him alt-right.
I'n not really interested in furthering that discussion, I would only add that Asmongold is clearly a highly intelligent individual and would have no trouble understanding that subtext.
I'n not really interested in furthering that discussion, I would only add that Asmongold is clearly a highly intelligent individual and would have no trouble understanding that subtext.
I'm guessing you are referring to Ernst Röhm, the head of the SA of the Nazi Party? Or is it another useful idiot that the alt-right likes to use that you are referring to?
I'm guessing you are referring to Ernst Röhm, the head of the SA of the Nazi Party? Or is it another useful idiot that the alt-right likes to use that you are referring to?
That's irrelevant. It's not Jodie Foster's fault John Hinckley shot at Reagan. His content is a mix of multiple viewpoints and that attracts a crowd from any of those viewpoints.
That's irrelevant. It's not Jodie Foster's fault John Hinckley shot at Reagan.
His content is a mix of multiple viewpoints and that attracts a crowd from any of those viewpoints.
I don't think communities surrounding streamers are really comparable to those in other forms of entertainment. There's so much more interaction between the community & the creator that I believe...
I don't think communities surrounding streamers are really comparable to those in other forms of entertainment. There's so much more interaction between the community & the creator that I believe communities surrounding content creators are very largely a reflection of said creator. This is also influenced by how their communities are moderated, which ultimately is driven by what the creator deems is appropriate, who they delegate moderation privileges to, etc.
That is to say, compared to other streamers even within his network (OTK), Asmon attracts a disproportionate quantity of some of the worst people on the internet, and I don't believe that's a coincidence.
And yet if you go to his youtube channel the titles/thumbnails and the clips featured are more often than not bandwagoning on all the "anti-woke" topics, evidently trying to attract a certain kind...
His content is a mix of multiple viewpoints and that attracts a crowd from any of those viewpoints.
And yet if you go to his youtube channel the titles/thumbnails and the clips featured are more often than not bandwagoning on all the "anti-woke" topics, evidently trying to attract a certain kind of audience.
I've heard all those come from the same editor who wants to push that type of content, and that it's not actually Asmon deciding to upload those but... He still shares the opinions that feed into it.
And whether he ultimately believes these things or not is irrelevant, the community he's fostering is clearly very alt-right leaning.
This feels like a reasonable take. While he himself may not identify as alt-right, his audience espouses toxic rhetoric which he should be critical of. It's one thing if the creator attracts a...
This feels like a reasonable take. While he himself may not identify as alt-right, his audience espouses toxic rhetoric which he should be critical of. It's one thing if the creator attracts a certain audience in spite of themselves and actively tries to combat their bad takes, and it's quite another to have an editor that pushes divisive content to drive engagement.
Look, I've followed him for years. He's gotten a lot worse. Not sure if the mask's come off or something happened, but he's become pretty unwatchable if you so much think of women as human beings.
Look, I've followed him for years. He's gotten a lot worse. Not sure if the mask's come off or something happened, but he's become pretty unwatchable if you so much think of women as human beings.
I'm sure that many if not all alt-righters have a varying amount of progressive sentiments and opinions. I am also sure that many left-wing progressives have a certain amount of beliefs that one...
I'm sure that many if not all alt-righters have a varying amount of progressive sentiments and opinions. I am also sure that many left-wing progressives have a certain amount of beliefs that one might call "conservative" or "right-wing". That doesn't make them either not progressive or not conservative, that only makes them human. Saying someone is "a figure of the alt-right" does not imply that every single one of their actions, positions, and inclinations are in full agreement with alt-right stereotypes. What I meant to express is that he became a figure of focus and attraction to those who are either associated or identified with a set of notions and behaviors that are often described as typical of the alt-right. Anyone who watched his coverage of political events (which I did for some reason) can easily tell that he's a Trump supporter.
All I can find is he seems like your standard, disengaged, idiot median voter. It doesn't seem like he has any strong beliefs or ideology besides maximizing engagement and content. If anything, he...
Anyone who watched his coverage of political events (which I did for some reason) can easily tell that he's a Trump supporter.
All I can find is he seems like your standard, disengaged, idiot median voter. It doesn't seem like he has any strong beliefs or ideology besides maximizing engagement and content. If anything, he seems to play both sides and appeal to the 'I remember when politics was less toxic" crowd that know nothing about how politics actually work. I'd 100% believe he voted for Trump, but I don't get the impression he's an avid supporter outside of liking memes and funny words. Notably, he has a positive relationship with another...problematic...leftist streamer, Hasan.
In an American context, it's usually someone with right-wing fascist sympathies that believes that democratic institutions are secondary to ideas of a Christian Republic. They are likely to view...
In an American context, it's usually someone with right-wing fascist sympathies that believes that democratic institutions are secondary to ideas of a Christian Republic. They are likely to view illiberal democracies (Hungary, Russia) as role models in some way, and it's likely they at least support Trump as a means to an end. On the intellectual side, they trace from shock jockey radio, hard-line evangelists, traditionalist Catholicism, and, recently, dark enlightenment political philosophy.
Sort of a trick question given that political positions already have poor definitions and alt right literally doesn't have a solid one since it's not like it's coming from a manifesto like...
Sort of a trick question given that political positions already have poor definitions and alt right literally doesn't have a solid one since it's not like it's coming from a manifesto like communism but instead either self identifying or hostile label.
From personal experience (many private conversations directly with him, albeit none in the last four or so years), I don't believe that Zack believes the terrible shit that he says. He is a...
From personal experience (many private conversations directly with him, albeit none in the last four or so years), I don't believe that Zack believes the terrible shit that he says. He is a classic rage baiter. He knows that he gets views because of controversies, so he makes them as often as possible. He is also not as much of a personal train wreck as he seems to be on steam. It's a persona.
Sometimes things go too far and he apologizes, and I don't believe he means those either. He also does the apology for views.
It is a vapid existence.
Edit: for clarity, I do not view this as an excuse for his actions. If anything, it makes them worse.
It doesn't matter if it's a grifter or a true believer empowering far right rhetoric, the result is all the same. A lot of Nazis were just grifters that wanted power.
It doesn't matter if it's a grifter or a true believer empowering far right rhetoric, the result is all the same. A lot of Nazis were just grifters that wanted power.
I think I mostly agree, but I think that there is something absolutely and purely disgusting about someone who says vitriolic things that they don't believe just for views / money. I think the...
I think I mostly agree, but I think that there is something absolutely and purely disgusting about someone who says vitriolic things that they don't believe just for views / money. I think the closest to what I'm trying to say is expressed by Walter from The Big Lebowski said, "Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos."
The things he said are awful. I definitely don't think that his lack of belief in them is an excuse, but I feel like it is on the edge of making them worse.
I get what you’re saying. I think it comes down to the idea that we generally view personal honesty as a virtue and duplicity as a vice. Someone who has vile beliefs but is being honest about them...
I get what you’re saying. I think it comes down to the idea that we generally view personal honesty as a virtue and duplicity as a vice.
Someone who has vile beliefs but is being honest about them has at least the thin backing of a positive character trait: they’re telling the truth and acting consistently within their beliefs.
But someone who espouses vile beliefs but is also being dishonest about them is doubly negative: there’s no good to be found there.
It's HIS persona, though. And at a certain point, there is no separating the person from the persona that they, themselves, choose to adopt. He may not "believe" what he says, but he sure does say...
It's HIS persona, though. And at a certain point, there is no separating the person from the persona that they, themselves, choose to adopt.
He may not "believe" what he says, but he sure does say it loudly, frequently, and to an adoring audience of right-wing fascist types.
Exactly this. He could pick a lot of personas and topics for views. This guy chose "Palestinianian people are subhuman" as a rage bait topic and he could have put on another other character or...
Exactly this. He could pick a lot of personas and topics for views. This guy chose "Palestinianian people are subhuman" as a rage bait topic and he could have put on another other character or persona.
It's more so about how good you are at acting and how good you are at marketing than the actual content I believe.
I should have been more clear, but I did not leave my comment with the intention of saying that it was an excuse or that it made what he was doing in any way more acceptable. If anything, it's...
I should have been more clear, but I did not leave my comment with the intention of saying that it was an excuse or that it made what he was doing in any way more acceptable. If anything, it's worse. I tried to express that here.
I had a really good friend in high school and through college who I disagreed with about a lot of things, especially politically, but I felt that he was at heart a good person who 1) liked to be...
I had a really good friend in high school and through college who I disagreed with about a lot of things, especially politically, but I felt that he was at heart a good person who 1) liked to be contrarian and 2) was still a bit immature and working through his own beliefs, as he grew up in a pretty closed-off environment and was still a bit sheltered from things.
But then he kept slipping further into the alt-right internet sphere and basically found his echo chamber where he could be antagonistic and get a rise out of people and get celebrated for it. He started as a Paul Ryan styled tea party/"never trump" republican and is now completely onboard the MAGA train. I haven't talked to him in over 5 years now, and I keep expecting to see him pop up behind Trump at some rally in our home state.
At some point, saying things you don't believe just to be outrageous is no different from actually believing those things, especially online, where there's instant reward/response and those who do believe it can use it as fuel to feel empowered and emboldened.
I've said it a couple of other places here, but I think that in some ways it's worse to say things you don't believe. If you're saying something to be contrarian, or for money, there's something...
I've said it a couple of other places here, but I think that in some ways it's worse to say things you don't believe. If you're saying something to be contrarian, or for money, there's something really soulless about it. And I definitely think that being a contrarian can lead to genuinely awful stances - like in the example you've given, being a contrarian turning into a far-right populist dipshit - I think that saying awful things for money when one doesn't believe them is just something totally alien to me. I can't comprehend doing it. To me, it feels worse than just saying bad things that one believes.
Have a friend like that. Says vile shit about black people. He's Latin too, with plenty of African blood. Didn't use to be a political at all. Joined the army, fell down a rabbit hole, hasn't been...
Have a friend like that. Says vile shit about black people. He's Latin too, with plenty of African blood. Didn't use to be a political at all. Joined the army, fell down a rabbit hole, hasn't been the same since. Haven't talked to him in years.
I would be surprised if he actually believe it, but mostly because I don't think he actually believes anything. He thinks up ways to make his stream more engaging to generate more clicks -...
I would be surprised if he actually believe it, but mostly because I don't think he actually believes anything. He thinks up ways to make his stream more engaging to generate more clicks - everything on stream is a set piece and a lie, put there to make the scene seem just so. He's like Mr. Beast, except his target audience is alr-right dipshittery instead of children.
Everyone believes in things. I just don’t see much reason to doubt his belief when they’re pretty modal beliefs by Americans who don’t think a whole lot about this particular issue. You could...
Everyone believes in things. I just don’t see much reason to doubt his belief when they’re pretty modal beliefs by Americans who don’t think a whole lot about this particular issue. You could pluck a lot of random people from the street and the only difference would be that they know the optics of saying “Palestinians are an inferior culture” and “I don’t care what happens to them” are bad.
I understand what you are saying. I am trying to give some context to this though. This is a person that I know / knew. This isn't from a parasocial interaction where I am attributing things to...
I understand what you are saying. I am trying to give some context to this though. This is a person that I know / knew. This isn't from a parasocial interaction where I am attributing things to him; this is from direct conversation with him where he has said, "I don't believe these things, I just say them for views," multiple times about multiple things. I also know that his real home is not like the pigsty you see when he streams.
From behind the curtain: everything about him is an act. He is smart, calm, and erudite. He doesn't believe in things. Just money.
I know you're not advocating for him, but if anything I think less of him for that. and I don't know much about him so it's been a quick fall, but damn, that's a shitty human being thing to do.
I know you're not advocating for him, but if anything I think less of him for that. and I don't know much about him so it's been a quick fall, but damn, that's a shitty human being thing to do.
Because he’s American, and that’s the cultural and political context he lives in. And I don’t think it’s some minority position in the US, just usually not bluntly stated. He expressed two ideas:...
Because he’s American, and that’s the cultural and political context he lives in. And I don’t think it’s some minority position in the US, just usually not bluntly stated.
He expressed two ideas:
that the people of Palestine have an inferior culture. I’d imagine many Americans would think this way, as strict Islamic cultural norms violate many western customs and traditions around human rights. Not to mention western first world nations generally don’t think highly of impoverished developing countries.
That he doesn’t care what happens in Gaza. This is fairly evident in polling. Most Americans do not care. Tomato’s being $1 than a year ago weighs more on the average American’s heart than anything in the Middle East.
The question at hand was whether or not he’s doing it on purpose or not. I don’t think anything he said deviates all that much from the average American view, just the lack of filter to say it out loud. Which is why I don’t think it’s not genuine.
I've no skin in the game for the Asmongold situation but did feel like responding to your second point.I can personally see why most Americans would be more concerned about their produce prices...
I've no skin in the game for the Asmongold situation but did feel like responding to your second point.I can personally see why most Americans would be more concerned about their produce prices than a conflict being fought on the other side of the planet.
After moving to Malaysia (which from what I've seen is very pro Palestine) I had a number of people I know ask me what my opinion of the conflict was as an American and most were shocked that I didn't have one. It might sound cruel to say, but it's not my war, I have no stake in it. I barely have enough time between work, taking care of my kids, household chores, and helping my in laws to do more than read a bit or watch an episode of a show with my wife at the end of the day.
It's just something I'm not interested in spending the time educating myself on to have an opinion of. There's just so much negativity that I could doom scroll all day keeping up with the different conflicts in the world, or the opinions of political figures and what they're doing. I never thought 4-5 years ago I'd be one to just put my head in the sand and not pay attention but it's happened.
My experience is anecdotal of course, but chatting with my friends in the US has a general concern of cost of living and their own finances over things happening abroad it even in the greater area they live in.
I know you might get some heat for saying such a thing, but it's more common than you'd think. Ask most Americans (or Western Europeans) about the Uyghur and Muslim genocides in China, or the...
I know you might get some heat for saying such a thing, but it's more common than you'd think. Ask most Americans (or Western Europeans) about the Uyghur and Muslim genocides in China, or the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda and they'll probably say, "the what, genocides?!"
Many people are kept in the dark about these things, and it takes an active search to find them in the places they aren't happening. The very, very thin silver-lining of the genocide of Palestine and it's politicalization is that it has brought other conflicts and human rights violations into the spotlight for the layman to look at.
I understand your view, and I empathize. But I need to be critical of some of your points. I hope you see this as a kindness and not as criticism of your character.
It's just something I'm not interested in spending the time educating myself on to have an opinion of.
It's not difficult to become knowledgeable on these things. As long as you obtain some level of analyzing media/media literacy, and work from places of knowledge you already know, you'll have more information than most.
but it's not my war, I have no stake in it.
We think this a lot. That geopolitical issues won't affect us at home. But history tells us this isn't true. The September 11th attacks and Pearl Harbor come to mind here. One day either you or your children will have a stake in it, and you'll have wished that you paid more attention when the problem was small enough to be handled head-on.
We are already being affected by this. I don't mean Xitter users putting the Palestinian flag in their bio, either. Take away the American politics, the online politics, and look at the situation plainly. We have a foreign country emboldened by lack of outside intervention operating illegally outside of its borders to commit human rights violations en masse. This emboldening has already led to the death of several American journalists, troops, and the firing of said country's missiles on an American warship.
I barely have enough time between work, taking care of my kids, household chores, and helping my in laws to do more than read a bit or watch an episode of a show with my wife at the end of the day.
There are things worth carving time out for. A podcast on the way to work, a quick article in the break room. It doesn't have to happen all at once. If you want specific issues to look at, or the best resources, there are plenty of experts in online forums, itching to share their wealth of knowledge with anyone. All you have to do is take the first step and ask for help.
What kind of things do you feel you'd want to be knowledgeable about?
I utterly disagree. I know people who've spent most of their life studying things like the various conflicts in the middle east, and they're all a hell of a lot less sure about the right and wrong...
It's not difficult to become knowledgeable on these things. As long as you obtain some level of analyzing media/media literacy, and work from places of knowledge you already know, you'll have more information than most.
I utterly disagree. I know people who've spent most of their life studying things like the various conflicts in the middle east, and they're all a hell of a lot less sure about the right and wrong of those situations than the people who spent a few days reading one op ed from someone they liked.
It's, in my opinion, easy to be well informed enough to know how uninformed you are, but actually getting a meaningful grasp on any of these issues, ESPECIALLY as a foreign outsider who doesn't even speak the language, is so much harder than people want to admit.
You've made some excellent points that I'd like to address. This is anecdotal evidence. It may not be (and I dont think it is) representative of the larger population. I won't reject it, though,...
You've made some excellent points that I'd like to address.
I know people who've spent most of their life studying things like the various conflicts in the middle east, and they're all a hell of a lot less sure about the right and wrong of those situations than the people who spent a few days reading one op ed from someone they liked.
This is anecdotal evidence. It may not be (and I dont think it is) representative of the larger population. I won't reject it, though, because there is still a lot of value in your examples, and I appreciate you making a good response.
I'll say confidence ≠ knowledge. I asserted that the 'media literacy' and 'working from topics you know' will make you more knowledgeable, not more confident.
Your life-long-learning friends likely do know more about these particular conflicts, and are able to understand the nuance required to navigate that conversation.
A hesitance to support one side or the other, or label certain actions as 'right' or 'wrong' is still a deliberate choice. I am reminded of the saying (which i feel i'm butchering), "even inaction is action"
It's, in my opinion, easy to be well informed enough to know how uninformed you are
This is a philosophical landmine that I can't really defuse. I think that knowing what we don't know is one of, if not the singular most difficult aspects of thought that history's greatest thinkers had trouble with. You're not wrong, but I disagree.
but actually getting a meaningful grasp on any of these issues, ESPECIALLY as a foreign outsider who doesn't even speak the language, is so much harder than people want to admit.
'Meaningful grasp' is very loose and can mean a lot of things. 'Actionable understanding' is a term that I prefer, if that's the idea you were aiming for, I disagree. But I could be misunderstanding this.
On this part: "ESPECIALLY as a foreign outsider who doesn't even speak the language". I don't think a distinction needs to be made on language. Sure, cultural differences may play a part, but I'm not sure about language itself. Could you provide an example here on how language may play a part so I can better understand?
My example on this: I don't speak Chinese, which limits access to first-hand sources of prominent societal problems like the Chinese government's censorship of its people (or Tofu Dreg construction), but I can still understand what's going on, and I do have access to translation services. (I will recognize that this could be considered difficult for some people, so your view has validity here.)
For this part: "…is so much harder than people want to admit." I don't really have a baseline for this. So I'll give you that point: 100%. I trust you on that.
I wasn't trying to assert that someone will become an expert quickly or easily. If that is how it appeared, I apologize. I also didnt mean to diminish the work it does take to become an expert.
I am speaking specifically on having a working knowledge of an issue like an international conflict to the point of holding an educated stance to work as a small part of a whole in developing a plan of action to remedy that issue (or, to add in now, even just being knowledgeable enough to see what is coming ahead of us and prepare).
If you want to test this (I'd kind of like to, just to see firsthand because I genuinely want to know); let's pick an esoteric topic, and see if it is truly easy or difficult to get a workable grasp of the topic (enough to have a serious debate perhaps)
For my previous paragraph: I will say, after some short deliberation before posting, it may be cheating on this experiment because I feel like we are primed to be good at digging deep, far better than a layman. I already have the framework myself to do research, like the CIW papers.
Hmm…I'm not so sure now. What are your thoughts? This conversation with you all has provided me with a lot of material to contemplate on and mull over.
I don't have an answer for the middle east (I don't know the local languages), but I can provide a Japanese example. Japanese is not a gendered language, but there are complex ways to communicate...
Could you provide an example here on how language may play a part so I can better understand?
I don't have an answer for the middle east (I don't know the local languages), but I can provide a Japanese example. Japanese is not a gendered language, but there are complex ways to communicate gender with historical gender presentations that don't cleanly map to transgender identities. Even if you know the language and history, it's still easy to create controversy when localizing characters with complicated gender presentation.
That is incredibly fair. What a glaring blindspot on my part. I'll (anull?)–I'll give you the point on that. Aside: Do you feel this article is an adequate first glance into that topic?...
That is incredibly fair. What a glaring blindspot on my part. I'll rescind (anull?)–I'll give you the point on that.
Aside: Do you feel this article is an adequate first glance into that topic?
That's an okay start though it seemed pretty focused on varying gender presentations in the arts. Tofugu is a good source with accurate articles written for a Western audience (they're mostly...
That's an okay start though it seemed pretty focused on varying gender presentations in the arts. Tofugu is a good source with accurate articles written for a Western audience (they're mostly written for Japanese learners, so you may need Google translate or Jisho for some of the vocab):
The identity which even most queer weebs won't recognize is "onabe". While plenty of weebs will recognize terms like "okama" (used by popular characters in One Piece and Gurren Lagann), the best English approximation I have is the fuzzy middle between non-binary, butch, and gender non-confirming women with more masculine presentation. In Japanese, it's non-traditional, but the presentation doesn't need to be nailed down any more than "onabe" and whatever pronouns, attire, and patterns of speech the person prefers. Interestingly, the dominant non-binary umbrella term is now "X-gender" in Japan.
Fundamentally, it's hard to understand foreign norms without the language and surrounding cultural context. This is just as true for historical works. One of the first novels in the world (it's hotly debated), The Tale of Genji prominently features sexual encounters that reads as rape. It was written by a woman, and the Japanese cultural context of the time was radically different from today. This NYT article dwells on the novel a lot more.
I want to agree with you more than the person that you replied to, but after all of this education, then what? I ask because I do go looking for this information, and I get very sad about the...
I want to agree with you more than the person that you replied to, but after all of this education, then what? I ask because I do go looking for this information, and I get very sad about the atrocities that are happening, but then what should I do with that information? As an American living abroad, I can't show up to a campus protest. I can vote, but there are currently no candidates running who intend to stop or even curtail America's participation in this genocide. Am I learning just so that I can carry those horrors with me? Is there some benefit to that?
I personally enjoy politics, so I keep up with the news. It's not doom scrolling for me. As silly as it sounds, what's the point for someone that already knows the vague details about various...
It's not difficult to become knowledgeable on these things. As long as you obtain some level of analyzing media/media literacy, and work from places of knowledge you already know, you'll have more information than most
I personally enjoy politics, so I keep up with the news. It's not doom scrolling for me. As silly as it sounds, what's the point for someone that already knows the vague details about various happenings in the world and votes for the right people? To some extent, the job of politicians is to deal with politics. I don't think everyone needs to be an expert that's constantly aware of what's going on.
If someone genuinely doesn't enjoy keeping up with the news, what's the benefit as long as they show up when it counts? I guess they can have more educated opinions when politics come up with work or friends? Political philosophy doesn't require reading the news though.
Edit: one thing I will say about people who avoid the news is that they avoid the major brunt of the American Culture Wars. They still get ripples of it, but it's not a massive...
Edit: one thing I will say about people who avoid the news is that they avoid the major brunt of the American Culture Wars. They still get ripples of it, but it's not a massive personality-changing overload.
As silly as it sounds, what's the point for someone that already knows the vague details about various happenings in the world and votes for the right people?
It doesn't sound silly at all. You've asked a good question.
Knowing only the vague details results in having an incomplete view, which will warp our opinion, which warps the actions we take to remedy the situation. It's also hard to tell what level of 'vague' our vagueness is (if that makes sense) without the reference point of the more nuanced information. It's even harder to tell if that information we have is truthful.
Let's use the Israel-Palestine conflict (also referred to as the Palestinian Genocide) as our example. First level of vagueness: Israel is fighting terrorists that keep attacking it. Israel = friend, terrorist = bad guys. So those who exist at this level support Israel wholeheartedly. You and I are well-read enough in the topic, I think, to understand how the simplification of the conflict completely warps the perception of who to support (or if we should support anyone at all)
Next level, which i think is what most online activists sit at: Hamas is a reaction to Israel killing Palestinians. Israel is committing war crimes and human rights violations. So, hamas = good guys, Israel = bad guys. So people who exist at this level fully support hamas's fight against Israel. Once again, I feel that we both know this is not right.
So we get further into the nuance. We delve into the origin of Israel in ancient times, the conflict between Judaism and Islam in those times. We move forward, we look into the holocaust, we look into British solutions to a new Jewish homeland. We see the anti-british/anti-american terrorist, paramilitary origin of the IDF high command. We look into the two-stste solution. History of Jihad. Organization and funding of Hamas. Why the people who fund them are funding them (Hint-hint one of their funders are AQ, and another is a well-known US adversary). We analyze why Israel has US connections, what that means for the homeland and the security of the Middle East. That level of stuff.
So we then can understand that this is a nuanced issue, and one we may not know everything. Maybe people at this level of knowledge will say something like: "I support the people of Palestine, and empathize with the citizens of Israel because it's the government that is the problem. But I also don't condone the actions of Hamas who use civilians as cover to commit their terrorist actions."
Or the flip side, people who think that Israel's citizenry are culpable in their inaction against their government, but still maintain that it's a problem with Israel, and not the Jewish religion. Maybe people at this level urge world powers to start an investigation and hold Israel accountable for their crimes, but also give it protection from Hamas and their funders.
Hopefully that long-winded passage helped explain my view. If there are any problems with it, I can reconstruct or reinforce points. It's essentially a Cliffnotes version of the conflict. Even just the origin of Haganah could be days worth of conversation.
To some extent, the job of politicians is to deal with politics. I don't think everyone needs to be an expert that's constantly aware of what's going on.
Those same politicians use public inattention or lack of knowledge to manipulate them, furthering the politician's own agenda. In an ideal system the populace wouldn't have to fact-check their leaders, but modern politics is far from ideal. Remember when the American populace was told by Colin Powell that there were WMDs in Iraq, such as nuclear weapons and 18 mobile Anthrax/Botulism toxin labs and we had to act immediately?
While there was a great deal of good (and bad) that came out of the toppling of Saddam's regime, the pivotal reason (dare I say the catalyst?) for the invasion of Iraq was based on vague information that we didn't fact check. That informatikn turned out to be wrong when third-party organizations started asking questions. That questioning was ignited by people, you and I, going "that sounds wrong."
We choose who gets into office and we choose them (ideally) on their solutions to current problems. Our politicians are representative of our views (ideally) and we establish those views based on our knowledge. Bad knowledge = bad politicians (look to the past 8-12 years).
If someone genuinely doesn't enjoy keeping up with the news, what's the benefit as long as they show up when it counts?
The issue is that they aren't 'showing up when it counts', unfortunately. The person who does the right thing unknowingly isn't made good because of that action, and more often than not they are outnumbered by people who are unknowingly (or knowingly) doing the wrong thing. Being knowledgeable is a form of protection.
Political philosophy doesn't require reading the news though.
Initial impression: I want to disagree, but I haven't encountered this point before. I need to do some additional thinking before I can agree or disagree.
I hope this response was helpful. I did try my best to pull real-world examples where I made critical points.
I largely agree with you, but I think that there's a lot of variation in what counts as "showing up when it counts". Is that only at elections? Is it elections plus communications with your...
I largely agree with you, but I think that there's a lot of variation in what counts as "showing up when it counts". Is that only at elections? Is it elections plus communications with your representatives to make clear your priorities? Is it that plus local community action? Is it community action and not bothering with your representatives? Any choice is a political choice, and there's broad disagreement regarding what the right choice is. I do agree that staying aware of the broader political landscape isn't the right choice for everyone. But if they don't, they're operating at the direction of whoever they trust who is aware of what's going on. That's half of why we're in this mess in the USA. Too many people "doing their own research" when it ends up just listening to con men.
Yep, this is also what it gets down to. I'm not convinced that activism always makes a difference, and I definitely don't think everyone needs to be ready to protest at the drop of a hat (if...
Yep, this is also what it gets down to. I'm not convinced that activism always makes a difference, and I definitely don't think everyone needs to be ready to protest at the drop of a hat (if anything, too many protests weaken their effects as recent history and studies show).
u/Queresote, I think you're right that we need independent oversight from media with sunshine and data access laws, but I'm not certain more involvement always leads to better outcomes. As an example, the community planning process in the Anglosphere has too much input from NIMBYs throwing up road blocks to everything. More good things would get built if there were fewer fingers in the planning pie. (But also to your point, YIMBYs getting involved currently makes a huge difference because the systems incentivize NIMBYs.)
I appreciate your kind and honest non hostile response. My first reaction was a bit defensive which was of course knee jerk to having my view poked at. I think to give some small clarity, I would...
I appreciate your kind and honest non hostile response. My first reaction was a bit defensive which was of course knee jerk to having my view poked at.
I think to give some small clarity, I would say I'm head in the sand now compared to me previously. I mentioned in another thread of getting into politics and wanting to learn more through having a good friend of mine to bounce political chats off of. It was great to be challenged and debate, but it soured over time due to it essentially becoming all my friend would want to chat about. Him coming at me with a wall of texts and sources for everything, and me not agreeing with all his points of view and then having to spend time coming up with other "counter arguments" and reading sources. By the time I'd have one counter to a point he'd wall of text that one point.
This experience, among others, and changing interests have led me to just not want to dive in as much to topics like this. I see enough to have a cursory overview of something in a "geopolitical" sense. If I think it's going to impact me and my family I of course take action. Saw early COVID, took steps to prepare for it and even got laughed at by my coworkers at the time for masking up at work because the government lied about masks not being effective at that time. Saw the war in Ukraine starting, looked into it enough to guess energy and flour prices would rise and then took steps, etc. I don't need to know the ins and outs of the conflict and have a deep held opinions on it.
When you had mentioned to another commenter that there are levels of understanding and nuance to the topic. I feel like from what I've seen I fall under the condoing the actions of Israel's government and the actions of Hamas which have in turn contributed to the civilian casualty count. Beyond that this a decades long conflict in a sense with treaties, ceasefires and agreements, government policies, other nations, and before that there's the background of how Israel was founded, religious conflict and the complexities of regional politics. That might mean I have a "higher level" of awareness of the conflict compared to the average Joe in the states, but it also makes me view this topic as a contentious one that I don't want to spend the time to really dive in and form my own nuanced opinion. In the immediate sense I also need to keep an appraisal of what China is up to because their shenanigans in the South China sea and with Taiwan are way closer to home.
It also doesn't benefit me to have an opinion where I live now, or even in the US. Where I live now the government is anti-Israel and very pro Palestine. Me engaging with the people who asked me my opinion and getting into a detailed debate about this could give me a negative label if I didn't whole heartedly denounce all of Israel's actions. Which at this point I've not followed what is happening there beyond the surface level, things are continuing to happen.
I know you made great points about it being easy to learn more about the conflict and that things like this can be worth carving time out to become better educated, and I do appreciate that. I just don't see myself taking that step in all honesty. I have way too many podcasts I'd like to listen to, with a sizeable chunk of my podcast time being devoted to topics related to my career. I thankfully work from home and when I have a break I spend it with my toddlers.
To answer your last question of what I'd like to be more knowledgeable about. I have a laundry list, learning more about my wife's culture and where I live now, the language that are spoken here so I can get to a point of being conversational, ways I can prepare for the next stages of my kids' development, how to be a better cook/new recipes so I can help get more veggies into the meals at home, more about gardening so I kill less of my plants, my faith, the history of this region of the world, what my friends are up to back in the states because I got rid of my social media and the only way to learn is to reach out and ask, finances and investments to make sure I'm going to have resources for my future and my children's future, I could go on but I think you get the general idea.
When I started shifting my focus from spending my off hours trying to keep up and dive into news and topics (plus seeing the international nothing response as a whole to the Uyghur genocide contributed to sense of futility of it all) and instead spent time investing into my marriage and into certifications for my career I felt like it was time better spent. I leveraged those certifications into promotions and I don't think I would have landed my current remote job without the experience I got from doing that.
I respect people who dive into these global issues and want to make a difference, I also respect people who don't have it in them to care when rent is due and the rising cost of living is making them consider moving back with family or ponder how they're going to make ends meet. I had a period of being out of work, which also overlapped a lot with this whole situation breaking out, and I spent every spare minute I had job hunting, networking, or trying to touch up my resume/cover letter.
I know my answer might be a bit rambling but it's been building in my head after reading your comment and I couldn't get back to sleep after my kids woke me up.
Once again, I may take little credit for the cordiality of the discussions here. It is others like yourself, whose acting in good faith and measuring me by my intent to learn, that have allowed a...
Exemplary
I appreciate your kind and honest non hostile response
Once again, I may take little credit for the cordiality of the discussions here. It is others like yourself, whose acting in good faith and measuring me by my intent to learn, that have allowed a delicate and nuanced conversation to take place without fear of delving into hostilities.
My first reaction was a bit defensive which was of course knee jerk to having my view poked at.
If there was any friction/negative tone in your response, perception of such a thing did not reach me. I feel that guarding strongly-held beliefs is important, especially so if we've rooted them in logic and good faith. Knowing that as such, you still honor me in bringing that information to the forefront of our talk here. That must have been difficult, so I thank you.
Him coming at me with a wall of texts and sources for everything, and me not agreeing with all his points of view and then having to spend time coming up with other "counter arguments" and reading sources. By the time I'd have one counter to a point he'd wall of text that one point.
I have my own qualms with modern discourse and the "Umm… you got a source for that chief?"-style of online argumentation, but I think that may be a conversation best saved for a time it can come up naturally.
As for the main body of your response, I appreciate the clarity on your life-situation. The world–our world, becomes significantly smaller when we bring life into it. The order of responsibility changes, so to focus on the families of others in lands unknown when ours is at risk of perishing here can be incredibly selfish.
You made a lot of good points, and explained your position on each topic well. If my brevity and broadness in response is an offense, I apologize.
I know my answer might be a bit rambling…
To ramble is to digress or tirade heavily into topics unrelated to the main subject or larger conversational narrative. You did no such thing. We covered a lot of different topics and your final response tastefully covered each in respect to your own life. I'd say as far as good conversationalists go, you may count yourself amongst their ranks.
As a genuine courtesy I should inform you this will be my final response on this topic, but hopefully not my final response to you, pekt, across the platform. Good conversation is a rarity in this new world—a delectable treat, and I fear myself a glutton. I shall see you at another feast, though, my friend. In good time.
Uh, ok, but his American-ness really wasn't part of the discussion before you brought it up. Didn't seem especially relevant, especially considering how far-right political sentiment has been...
Uh, ok, but his American-ness really wasn't part of the discussion before you brought it up. Didn't seem especially relevant, especially considering how far-right political sentiment has been rising all over the place.
I'm confused how it's not relevant. I bring it up because it's relevant to my argument as to why it's believable, or likely, that what he said is what he really thought. On ther hand, how would...
I'm confused how it's not relevant. I bring it up because it's relevant to my argument as to why it's believable, or likely, that what he said is what he really thought.
On ther hand, how would what people think in Germany or something matter at all to that discussion when he lives in Texas? The culture a person lives in is critical to determine the normality of what they believe relative to their background. In fact, you can't discuss it without mentioning it.
I wouldn't exactly say it's all that "right wing" either. It's not something that is on the political spectrum - it's more about apathy.
It's irrelevant because there are hundreds of millions of Americans, all with their own unique perspectives on the world. The simple fact that there's so much disagreement in America about things...
It's irrelevant because there are hundreds of millions of Americans, all with their own unique perspectives on the world. The simple fact that there's so much disagreement in America about things like the morality of Israeli expansionism suggests that being American itself is irrelevant to how one thinks about the things this douche has said.
I have lots of criticisms about the way some of my fellow citizens approach politics and ethics, but I don't chalk it up to being American. That's reductionist to the point of absurdity.
You’re taking about apples and oranges. I haven’t mentioned the morality at all. The question is was whether or not Asmongold was being genuine. Having said beliefs be common amongst Americans...
You’re taking about apples and oranges. I haven’t mentioned the morality at all. The question is was whether or not Asmongold was being genuine. Having said beliefs be common amongst Americans makes it far more likely he is being genuine.
On the other hand, if Asmongold was from Lebanon, his beliefs would be very much an outlier, and it would be more likely he is pretending to have the opposite opinion of his actual beliefs for the purpose of incitement.
Again, I’ve opined not at all about the ethics of the situation. I feel like you’re trying to push back on an impression that I’m making an insulting implication on “Americans” when that’s completely tangential.
I've never watched a ton of his content, but I've seen little bits and pieces of his stuff for years, and I feel like I know enough about him to make an assessment. As much as I think that putting...
I've never watched a ton of his content, but I've seen little bits and pieces of his stuff for years, and I feel like I know enough about him to make an assessment.
As much as I think that putting people into "genres" isn't exactly accurate, in many cases it's a fair enough way to assess people, and I think it's fair here.
I've met a lot of people like asmongold, and their issue is chiefly that they haven't lived a real life. All of their formative years were spent isolated in a room playing videogames; usually one video game in particular, and the only people they ever regularly interacted with were also cloistered video game addicts that haven't experienced the real world.
None of them have traveled, met people different like them, had deep emotional connections with people from different backgrounds or with different views on life. They haven't been in challenging social situations, they haven't seen the impact that poor living conditions, or policy, or economic conditions can have on people.
As such, they're working with a completely remedial framework of the real world.
People like that tend to think the world is much more simple than it really is. They think that there's a black and white, good guys and bad guys, and the solutions to all of our problems are very simple, most people are just too stupid to realize it.
It's really frustrating to encounter people like that, because you can't make them understand. They just lack the fundamental basis and foundation. It'd be like trying to explain calculus to someone who has never taken elementary school arithmetic.
The most annoying part is that this guy in particular now has a platform. People pay him to confidently state his completely misinformed opinions that have no basis in the real world whatsoever. Even though he has the resources to do so, he still hasn't actually done any of the base level emotional work needed to form an actual opinion on this kind of thing. He's spent the limited time we have on earth locked in a room, interacting with an ephemeral, fake world created for entertainment. He's never actually lived.
It's really irritating to hear a guy that very obviously has no clue what he's talking about in any arena other than how to be good at one or two specific video games talk like he's an expert on anything, let alone a conflict where thousands of people have died on both sides.
I wonder how long before r/Asmongold is quarantined or banned by the Reddit admins. The entire subreddit has turned into KotakuInAction4 and is just full of whinging about wokeness and DEI in...
I wonder how long before r/Asmongold is quarantined or banned by the Reddit admins.
The entire subreddit has turned into KotakuInAction4 and is just full of whinging about wokeness and DEI in games.
I miss the days when he just played Diablo III and WoW...
It really is sad looking at this particular situation and then realizing how dumb the twitch sphere is now compared to 10 years ago. Yeah people shared their shitty politics on twitch back then...
It really is sad looking at this particular situation and then realizing how dumb the twitch sphere is now compared to 10 years ago. Yeah people shared their shitty politics on twitch back then too, but I miss when it wasn’t normal for some shithead cave dweller like asmon to just spout bullshit and prey on the parasocial relationship thousands have built with him. The top streamers used to just play games without the bullshit.
It’s a bit terrifying and very sad that sad people like this can have this many followers. Mass appeal internet culture has really taken a nosedive. I still don’t understand how this dude has a following when it’s public knowledge that he has a bloody tooth wall, the rat alarm clock, soda cups everywhere, etc.
I feel like my comment is not fully formed and I’m just spitting out words/venting about twitch culture, but whatever.
I don’t think that really makes sense in this situation. Asmongold IS the twitch streamer of 10 years ago. That’s his main call to fame, really, at this point. Being one of the OG OG streamers....
I don’t think that really makes sense in this situation. Asmongold IS the twitch streamer of 10 years ago. That’s his main call to fame, really, at this point. Being one of the OG OG streamers.
Twitch culture has definitely taken a turn, you have a lot more IRL nuisance streamers, for instance, but that’s the opposite of a basement dweller gamer like Asmongold. He represents the past, not the future.
I understand what you're saying, but there might be some rose-tinted spectacles here. Gamergate was roughly 10 years ago, and that was only tangentially related to gaming. What you're talking...
I understand what you're saying, but there might be some rose-tinted spectacles here. Gamergate was roughly 10 years ago, and that was only tangentially related to gaming. What you're talking about does still exist with more professional groups like Hololive vtubers where there's a corporate policy of avoiding hot topics. Outrage drives more clicks though.
Yeah, maybe 10 years back isn't far back enough, and I know this shit still existed back then, but it felt easier to avoid, since social media has only gotten shittier and shitter since outrage...
Yeah, maybe 10 years back isn't far back enough, and I know this shit still existed back then, but it felt easier to avoid, since social media has only gotten shittier and shitter since outrage does indeed drive more engagement. Maybe a little rose tinted, but I don't really remember that many of these popular games streamers spouting off their shitty politics to followings of millions. Not to say every streamer does that these days, either, it's still a minority, but yeah. I don't really know what I'm trying to say, like I said, I think my comment was not fully formed above, but I think it boils down to that I'm sick of chuds being chuds and getting cheered for it by a lot of people, ha.
ahh, gotcha. I can't speak much for that scene (I can rarely catch livestreams live, and I don't "wander" too much when I do use it), but I'm assuming the situation isn't magically much better...
ahh, gotcha. I can't speak much for that scene (I can rarely catch livestreams live, and I don't "wander" too much when I do use it), but I'm assuming the situation isn't magically much better than every other social media.
Twitch, YouTube doesn't give a shit. Legitimately there are accounts distributing CSAM materials on that hellsite, they couldn't care less about brown kids dying or people saying horrific shit...
Twitch, YouTube doesn't give a shit.
Legitimately there are accounts distributing CSAM materials on that hellsite, they couldn't care less about brown kids dying or people saying horrific shit about it.
I agree those platforms have problems, but the distribution of CSAM happens in spite of all the protections and guard rails in place. They most certainly care about hate speech that violates laws...
I agree those platforms have problems, but the distribution of CSAM happens in spite of all the protections and guard rails in place. They most certainly care about hate speech that violates laws too, but it's harder to draw those lines. (Does saying we should punch Nazis count as a call to violence?)
We're commenting under a story about a huge streamer's suspension for his comments about Palestinians, so it seems like they actually could care less. They're clearly doing something.
YouTube didn't bop him...Twitch did. YouTube never touched his channel. YouTube only cares if an advertiser complains about it, that's it. They've allowed some of the most heinous shit ever to...
YouTube didn't bop him...Twitch did. YouTube never touched his channel.
YouTube only cares if an advertiser complains about it, that's it. They've allowed some of the most heinous shit ever to proliferate and infect so many places and spaces.
Twitch and YouTube are different companies. If he didn't make any controversial, bannable statements on YouTube, I don't see why they should do anything to his channels.
Twitch and YouTube are different companies. If he didn't make any controversial, bannable statements on YouTube, I don't see why they should do anything to his channels.
In terms of enforcement, I'd say Twitch is much more on the ball about handing out punishments. It's not unusual for Twitch to act on even their biggest streamers. Twitch also has a reputation for...
In terms of enforcement, I'd say Twitch is much more on the ball about handing out punishments. It's not unusual for Twitch to act on even their biggest streamers. Twitch also has a reputation for being a bit heavy-handed with their punishments, including banning people for something accidentally shown on stream. They may be slow and inconsistent but they are at least active.
YouTube is like reddit, where they only move when something brings in a significant amount of negative press or legal issues. They also don't even do it properly most of the time, removing an account but leaving up all the re-uploaders and other offending material. Slow, sloppy, stupid.
The posterchild of dangerous is Kick, who actively encourage highly questionable behaviour. I believe there was a recent story where Drake, the famous rapper, was caught giving a lot of money and support to a Kick streamer whose whole thing was convincing underage people to strip on camera. It turns out he was (somewhat) contracted and instructed to do it by Kick themselves. Kick has a lot of known CSAM distributors and apologists among its ranks. Only the worst of the worst go over there. They've only banned people for doing extremely illegal things on camera.
Asmongold is a big streamer and YouTuber largely known for his World of Warcraft content. I started watching his videos on YouTube back in the pandemic largely because I really wanted to play WoW but didn't have a PC. It was fun.
Lately, he's been making a lot of social and political commentary, and it seems to me that he got tired of pretending he is an independent thinker -- Asmongold is now a figure of the alt-right. It's pretty sad (for me).
A lot of his content now is misogynistic, and if you peruse his subreddit the amount of posts that are just hate against women is staggering.
Sorry for the tiny article, that is quite recent. If a mod finds a more substantial source, feel free to swap the link.
Alt-right? He's a fencesitter at best about most issues and generally favourable towards equality of all types. As an example, he's been outspoken towards gay rights multiple times and how he doesn't understand why people would be against gay marriage.
I'm not trying to go to bat for him, but be accurate.
One of the most influential standard-bearers of the alt-right movement was an openly gay man. Supporting gay rights or being a gay person doesn't prevent you from being alt-right, or even a fascist, which I believe this guy to be. I don't care how pro-LGBTQ+ you are, if you're openly calling for the annihilation of an entire population and do so in front of an audience of tens of thousands, you're not for equality and certainly deserve to be called nouns a lot harsher than a fence-sitter.
Everyone is multifaceted and there's more leftwing ideas I could associate with him but again, not trying to go to bat for that guy. Not that invested.
I simply do not think that label fits. It's best reserved for people actually trying to turn the US into a theocracy. At this point it's a diluted term.
Broad and diffuse terms are useful to address phenomena that are broad and diffuse in nature. I wouldn't expect the vocabulary on those to be as narrow as the definition of a right angle. In fact, without safeguards, being overly analytical about them may counter-intuitively reduce their utility instead of increasing it.
The opposite is also true. It's being used in such a broad manner that it stops being useful altogether. This discussion is the literal proof of that. Then there's the issue of USA two party politics putting everything on a left/right scale where there wouldn't be one.
This dude has general views about the world where some are more rightwing and others more leftwing. Alt right should be reserved for your Tuckers and Bens. Y'know, the actual lunatics.
He can hold views that are multi-faceted, but if all that adds up to is an alt-right audience, I think there are useful inferences to be drawn from that.
EDIT: An audience that - to be clear, he does have some amount of control over, both in the stories he chooses to cover and the way his moderators moderate his chat.
I agree with CptBluebear here. Even if Asmongold is a Trump supporter, he doesn't seem to have any strong ideological beliefs that align him with the alt-right. I doubt he'd even understand the subtext behind things like far-right Republicans calling America a Republic and not a Democracy. The alt-right isn't some nebulous force of conservativism in America. There are clear leaders and broad values amongst the political faction.
He seems like more of a populist, and he clearly has some racist takes. That doesn't make him alt-right.
I'n not really interested in furthering that discussion, I would only add that Asmongold is clearly a highly intelligent individual and would have no trouble understanding that subtext.
I'm guessing you are referring to Ernst Röhm, the head of the SA of the Nazi Party? Or is it another useful idiot that the alt-right likes to use that you are referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos
Just take a look at his subreddit to see the types that follow him. Also, weirdly, even queer alt-righters exist.
That's irrelevant. It's not Jodie Foster's fault John Hinckley shot at Reagan.
His content is a mix of multiple viewpoints and that attracts a crowd from any of those viewpoints.
I don't think communities surrounding streamers are really comparable to those in other forms of entertainment. There's so much more interaction between the community & the creator that I believe communities surrounding content creators are very largely a reflection of said creator. This is also influenced by how their communities are moderated, which ultimately is driven by what the creator deems is appropriate, who they delegate moderation privileges to, etc.
That is to say, compared to other streamers even within his network (OTK), Asmon attracts a disproportionate quantity of some of the worst people on the internet, and I don't believe that's a coincidence.
And yet if you go to his youtube channel the titles/thumbnails and the clips featured are more often than not bandwagoning on all the "anti-woke" topics, evidently trying to attract a certain kind of audience.
I've heard all those come from the same editor who wants to push that type of content, and that it's not actually Asmon deciding to upload those but... He still shares the opinions that feed into it.
And whether he ultimately believes these things or not is irrelevant, the community he's fostering is clearly very alt-right leaning.
This feels like a reasonable take. While he himself may not identify as alt-right, his audience espouses toxic rhetoric which he should be critical of. It's one thing if the creator attracts a certain audience in spite of themselves and actively tries to combat their bad takes, and it's quite another to have an editor that pushes divisive content to drive engagement.
I just do not believe that.
Look, I've followed him for years. He's gotten a lot worse. Not sure if the mask's come off or something happened, but he's become pretty unwatchable if you so much think of women as human beings.
I'm sure that many if not all alt-righters have a varying amount of progressive sentiments and opinions. I am also sure that many left-wing progressives have a certain amount of beliefs that one might call "conservative" or "right-wing". That doesn't make them either not progressive or not conservative, that only makes them human. Saying someone is "a figure of the alt-right" does not imply that every single one of their actions, positions, and inclinations are in full agreement with alt-right stereotypes. What I meant to express is that he became a figure of focus and attraction to those who are either associated or identified with a set of notions and behaviors that are often described as typical of the alt-right. Anyone who watched his coverage of political events (which I did for some reason) can easily tell that he's a Trump supporter.
All I can find is he seems like your standard, disengaged, idiot median voter. It doesn't seem like he has any strong beliefs or ideology besides maximizing engagement and content. If anything, he seems to play both sides and appeal to the 'I remember when politics was less toxic" crowd that know nothing about how politics actually work. I'd 100% believe he voted for Trump, but I don't get the impression he's an avid supporter outside of liking memes and funny words. Notably, he has a positive relationship with another...problematic...leftist streamer, Hasan.
Out of curiosity, what would be your criteria for labeling someone "alt-right?"
In an American context, it's usually someone with right-wing fascist sympathies that believes that democratic institutions are secondary to ideas of a Christian Republic. They are likely to view illiberal democracies (Hungary, Russia) as role models in some way, and it's likely they at least support Trump as a means to an end. On the intellectual side, they trace from shock jockey radio, hard-line evangelists, traditionalist Catholicism, and, recently, dark enlightenment political philosophy.
Sort of a trick question given that political positions already have poor definitions and alt right literally doesn't have a solid one since it's not like it's coming from a manifesto like communism but instead either self identifying or hostile label.
From personal experience (many private conversations directly with him, albeit none in the last four or so years), I don't believe that Zack believes the terrible shit that he says. He is a classic rage baiter. He knows that he gets views because of controversies, so he makes them as often as possible. He is also not as much of a personal train wreck as he seems to be on steam. It's a persona.
Sometimes things go too far and he apologizes, and I don't believe he means those either. He also does the apology for views.
It is a vapid existence.
Edit: for clarity, I do not view this as an excuse for his actions. If anything, it makes them worse.
It doesn't matter if it's a grifter or a true believer empowering far right rhetoric, the result is all the same. A lot of Nazis were just grifters that wanted power.
I think I mostly agree, but I think that there is something absolutely and purely disgusting about someone who says vitriolic things that they don't believe just for views / money. I think the closest to what I'm trying to say is expressed by Walter from The Big Lebowski said, "Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, but at least it's an ethos."
The things he said are awful. I definitely don't think that his lack of belief in them is an excuse, but I feel like it is on the edge of making them worse.
I get what you’re saying. I think it comes down to the idea that we generally view personal honesty as a virtue and duplicity as a vice.
Someone who has vile beliefs but is being honest about them has at least the thin backing of a positive character trait: they’re telling the truth and acting consistently within their beliefs.
But someone who espouses vile beliefs but is also being dishonest about them is doubly negative: there’s no good to be found there.
YES, thank you. I've struggled to put that into words in like five comments.
It's HIS persona, though. And at a certain point, there is no separating the person from the persona that they, themselves, choose to adopt.
He may not "believe" what he says, but he sure does say it loudly, frequently, and to an adoring audience of right-wing fascist types.
Exactly this. He could pick a lot of personas and topics for views. This guy chose "Palestinianian people are subhuman" as a rage bait topic and he could have put on another other character or persona.
It's more so about how good you are at acting and how good you are at marketing than the actual content I believe.
It's literally why the word "grifter" has been used so much when describing right wingers.
I should have been more clear, but I did not leave my comment with the intention of saying that it was an excuse or that it made what he was doing in any way more acceptable. If anything, it's worse. I tried to express that here.
I had a really good friend in high school and through college who I disagreed with about a lot of things, especially politically, but I felt that he was at heart a good person who 1) liked to be contrarian and 2) was still a bit immature and working through his own beliefs, as he grew up in a pretty closed-off environment and was still a bit sheltered from things.
But then he kept slipping further into the alt-right internet sphere and basically found his echo chamber where he could be antagonistic and get a rise out of people and get celebrated for it. He started as a Paul Ryan styled tea party/"never trump" republican and is now completely onboard the MAGA train. I haven't talked to him in over 5 years now, and I keep expecting to see him pop up behind Trump at some rally in our home state.
At some point, saying things you don't believe just to be outrageous is no different from actually believing those things, especially online, where there's instant reward/response and those who do believe it can use it as fuel to feel empowered and emboldened.
I've said it a couple of other places here, but I think that in some ways it's worse to say things you don't believe. If you're saying something to be contrarian, or for money, there's something really soulless about it. And I definitely think that being a contrarian can lead to genuinely awful stances - like in the example you've given, being a contrarian turning into a far-right populist dipshit - I think that saying awful things for money when one doesn't believe them is just something totally alien to me. I can't comprehend doing it. To me, it feels worse than just saying bad things that one believes.
Have a friend like that. Says vile shit about black people. He's Latin too, with plenty of African blood. Didn't use to be a political at all. Joined the army, fell down a rabbit hole, hasn't been the same since. Haven't talked to him in years.
In this case I wouldn’t be surprised if he genuinely believed the things he said. I don’t think either is all that uncommon amongst Americans.
I would be surprised if he actually believe it, but mostly because I don't think he actually believes anything. He thinks up ways to make his stream more engaging to generate more clicks - everything on stream is a set piece and a lie, put there to make the scene seem just so. He's like Mr. Beast, except his target audience is alr-right dipshittery instead of children.
Everyone believes in things. I just don’t see much reason to doubt his belief when they’re pretty modal beliefs by Americans who don’t think a whole lot about this particular issue. You could pluck a lot of random people from the street and the only difference would be that they know the optics of saying “Palestinians are an inferior culture” and “I don’t care what happens to them” are bad.
I understand what you are saying. I am trying to give some context to this though. This is a person that I know / knew. This isn't from a parasocial interaction where I am attributing things to him; this is from direct conversation with him where he has said, "I don't believe these things, I just say them for views," multiple times about multiple things. I also know that his real home is not like the pigsty you see when he streams.
From behind the curtain: everything about him is an act. He is smart, calm, and erudite. He doesn't believe in things. Just money.
I know you're not advocating for him, but if anything I think less of him for that. and I don't know much about him so it's been a quick fall, but damn, that's a shitty human being thing to do.
I don't know why you have to make it an American stereotype. There are plenty of shitheads and charlatans in every country.
Because he’s American, and that’s the cultural and political context he lives in. And I don’t think it’s some minority position in the US, just usually not bluntly stated.
He expressed two ideas:
that the people of Palestine have an inferior culture. I’d imagine many Americans would think this way, as strict Islamic cultural norms violate many western customs and traditions around human rights. Not to mention western first world nations generally don’t think highly of impoverished developing countries.
That he doesn’t care what happens in Gaza. This is fairly evident in polling. Most Americans do not care. Tomato’s being $1 than a year ago weighs more on the average American’s heart than anything in the Middle East.
The question at hand was whether or not he’s doing it on purpose or not. I don’t think anything he said deviates all that much from the average American view, just the lack of filter to say it out loud. Which is why I don’t think it’s not genuine.
I've no skin in the game for the Asmongold situation but did feel like responding to your second point.I can personally see why most Americans would be more concerned about their produce prices than a conflict being fought on the other side of the planet.
After moving to Malaysia (which from what I've seen is very pro Palestine) I had a number of people I know ask me what my opinion of the conflict was as an American and most were shocked that I didn't have one. It might sound cruel to say, but it's not my war, I have no stake in it. I barely have enough time between work, taking care of my kids, household chores, and helping my in laws to do more than read a bit or watch an episode of a show with my wife at the end of the day.
It's just something I'm not interested in spending the time educating myself on to have an opinion of. There's just so much negativity that I could doom scroll all day keeping up with the different conflicts in the world, or the opinions of political figures and what they're doing. I never thought 4-5 years ago I'd be one to just put my head in the sand and not pay attention but it's happened.
My experience is anecdotal of course, but chatting with my friends in the US has a general concern of cost of living and their own finances over things happening abroad it even in the greater area they live in.
I know you might get some heat for saying such a thing, but it's more common than you'd think. Ask most Americans (or Western Europeans) about the Uyghur and Muslim genocides in China, or the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda and they'll probably say, "the what, genocides?!"
Many people are kept in the dark about these things, and it takes an active search to find them in the places they aren't happening. The very, very thin silver-lining of the genocide of Palestine and it's politicalization is that it has brought other conflicts and human rights violations into the spotlight for the layman to look at.
I understand your view, and I empathize. But I need to be critical of some of your points. I hope you see this as a kindness and not as criticism of your character.
It's not difficult to become knowledgeable on these things. As long as you obtain some level of analyzing media/media literacy, and work from places of knowledge you already know, you'll have more information than most.
We think this a lot. That geopolitical issues won't affect us at home. But history tells us this isn't true. The September 11th attacks and Pearl Harbor come to mind here. One day either you or your children will have a stake in it, and you'll have wished that you paid more attention when the problem was small enough to be handled head-on.
We are already being affected by this. I don't mean Xitter users putting the Palestinian flag in their bio, either. Take away the American politics, the online politics, and look at the situation plainly. We have a foreign country emboldened by lack of outside intervention operating illegally outside of its borders to commit human rights violations en masse. This emboldening has already led to the death of several American journalists, troops, and the firing of said country's missiles on an American warship.
There are things worth carving time out for. A podcast on the way to work, a quick article in the break room. It doesn't have to happen all at once. If you want specific issues to look at, or the best resources, there are plenty of experts in online forums, itching to share their wealth of knowledge with anyone. All you have to do is take the first step and ask for help.
What kind of things do you feel you'd want to be knowledgeable about?
I utterly disagree. I know people who've spent most of their life studying things like the various conflicts in the middle east, and they're all a hell of a lot less sure about the right and wrong of those situations than the people who spent a few days reading one op ed from someone they liked.
It's, in my opinion, easy to be well informed enough to know how uninformed you are, but actually getting a meaningful grasp on any of these issues, ESPECIALLY as a foreign outsider who doesn't even speak the language, is so much harder than people want to admit.
You've made some excellent points that I'd like to address.
This is anecdotal evidence. It may not be (and I dont think it is) representative of the larger population. I won't reject it, though, because there is still a lot of value in your examples, and I appreciate you making a good response.
I'll say confidence ≠ knowledge. I asserted that the 'media literacy' and 'working from topics you know' will make you more knowledgeable, not more confident.
Your life-long-learning friends likely do know more about these particular conflicts, and are able to understand the nuance required to navigate that conversation.
A hesitance to support one side or the other, or label certain actions as 'right' or 'wrong' is still a deliberate choice. I am reminded of the saying (which i feel i'm butchering), "even inaction is action"
This is a philosophical landmine that I can't really defuse. I think that knowing what we don't know is one of, if not the singular most difficult aspects of thought that history's greatest thinkers had trouble with. You're not wrong, but I disagree.
'Meaningful grasp' is very loose and can mean a lot of things. 'Actionable understanding' is a term that I prefer, if that's the idea you were aiming for, I disagree. But I could be misunderstanding this.
On this part: "ESPECIALLY as a foreign outsider who doesn't even speak the language". I don't think a distinction needs to be made on language. Sure, cultural differences may play a part, but I'm not sure about language itself. Could you provide an example here on how language may play a part so I can better understand?
My example on this: I don't speak Chinese, which limits access to first-hand sources of prominent societal problems like the Chinese government's censorship of its people (or Tofu Dreg construction), but I can still understand what's going on, and I do have access to translation services. (I will recognize that this could be considered difficult for some people, so your view has validity here.)
For this part: "…is so much harder than people want to admit." I don't really have a baseline for this. So I'll give you that point: 100%. I trust you on that.
I wasn't trying to assert that someone will become an expert quickly or easily. If that is how it appeared, I apologize. I also didnt mean to diminish the work it does take to become an expert.
I am speaking specifically on having a working knowledge of an issue like an international conflict to the point of holding an educated stance to work as a small part of a whole in developing a plan of action to remedy that issue (or, to add in now, even just being knowledgeable enough to see what is coming ahead of us and prepare).
If you want to test this (I'd kind of like to, just to see firsthand because I genuinely want to know); let's pick an esoteric topic, and see if it is truly easy or difficult to get a workable grasp of the topic (enough to have a serious debate perhaps)
For my previous paragraph: I will say, after some short deliberation before posting, it may be cheating on this experiment because I feel like we are primed to be good at digging deep, far better than a layman. I already have the framework myself to do research, like the CIW papers.
Hmm…I'm not so sure now. What are your thoughts? This conversation with you all has provided me with a lot of material to contemplate on and mull over.
I don't have an answer for the middle east (I don't know the local languages), but I can provide a Japanese example. Japanese is not a gendered language, but there are complex ways to communicate gender with historical gender presentations that don't cleanly map to transgender identities. Even if you know the language and history, it's still easy to create controversy when localizing characters with complicated gender presentation.
That is incredibly fair. What a glaring blindspot on my part. I'll
rescind(anull?)–I'll give you the point on that.Aside: Do you feel this article is an adequate first glance into that topic?
https://torch.ox.ac.uk/article/no-reason-to-fear-her-karma-gender-variance-in-japanese-history-and-culture
Where do you recommend I get started on this?
That's an okay start though it seemed pretty focused on varying gender presentations in the arts. Tofugu is a good source with accurate articles written for a Western audience (they're mostly written for Japanese learners, so you may need Google translate or Jisho for some of the vocab):
The identity which even most queer weebs won't recognize is "onabe". While plenty of weebs will recognize terms like "okama" (used by popular characters in One Piece and Gurren Lagann), the best English approximation I have is the fuzzy middle between non-binary, butch, and gender non-confirming women with more masculine presentation. In Japanese, it's non-traditional, but the presentation doesn't need to be nailed down any more than "onabe" and whatever pronouns, attire, and patterns of speech the person prefers. Interestingly, the dominant non-binary umbrella term is now "X-gender" in Japan.
Fundamentally, it's hard to understand foreign norms without the language and surrounding cultural context. This is just as true for historical works. One of the first novels in the world (it's hotly debated), The Tale of Genji prominently features sexual encounters that reads as rape. It was written by a woman, and the Japanese cultural context of the time was radically different from today. This NYT article dwells on the novel a lot more.
I want to agree with you more than the person that you replied to, but after all of this education, then what? I ask because I do go looking for this information, and I get very sad about the atrocities that are happening, but then what should I do with that information? As an American living abroad, I can't show up to a campus protest. I can vote, but there are currently no candidates running who intend to stop or even curtail America's participation in this genocide. Am I learning just so that I can carry those horrors with me? Is there some benefit to that?
I personally enjoy politics, so I keep up with the news. It's not doom scrolling for me. As silly as it sounds, what's the point for someone that already knows the vague details about various happenings in the world and votes for the right people? To some extent, the job of politicians is to deal with politics. I don't think everyone needs to be an expert that's constantly aware of what's going on.
If someone genuinely doesn't enjoy keeping up with the news, what's the benefit as long as they show up when it counts? I guess they can have more educated opinions when politics come up with work or friends? Political philosophy doesn't require reading the news though.
Edit: one thing I will say about people who avoid the news is that they avoid the major brunt of the American Culture Wars. They still get ripples of it, but it's not a massive personality-changing overload.
It doesn't sound silly at all. You've asked a good question.
Knowing only the vague details results in having an incomplete view, which will warp our opinion, which warps the actions we take to remedy the situation. It's also hard to tell what level of 'vague' our vagueness is (if that makes sense) without the reference point of the more nuanced information. It's even harder to tell if that information we have is truthful.
Let's use the Israel-Palestine conflict (also referred to as the Palestinian Genocide) as our example. First level of vagueness: Israel is fighting terrorists that keep attacking it. Israel = friend, terrorist = bad guys. So those who exist at this level support Israel wholeheartedly. You and I are well-read enough in the topic, I think, to understand how the simplification of the conflict completely warps the perception of who to support (or if we should support anyone at all)
Next level, which i think is what most online activists sit at: Hamas is a reaction to Israel killing Palestinians. Israel is committing war crimes and human rights violations. So, hamas = good guys, Israel = bad guys. So people who exist at this level fully support hamas's fight against Israel. Once again, I feel that we both know this is not right.
So we get further into the nuance. We delve into the origin of Israel in ancient times, the conflict between Judaism and Islam in those times. We move forward, we look into the holocaust, we look into British solutions to a new Jewish homeland. We see the anti-british/anti-american terrorist, paramilitary origin of the IDF high command. We look into the two-stste solution. History of Jihad. Organization and funding of Hamas. Why the people who fund them are funding them (Hint-hint one of their funders are AQ, and another is a well-known US adversary). We analyze why Israel has US connections, what that means for the homeland and the security of the Middle East. That level of stuff.
So we then can understand that this is a nuanced issue, and one we may not know everything. Maybe people at this level of knowledge will say something like: "I support the people of Palestine, and empathize with the citizens of Israel because it's the government that is the problem. But I also don't condone the actions of Hamas who use civilians as cover to commit their terrorist actions."
Or the flip side, people who think that Israel's citizenry are culpable in their inaction against their government, but still maintain that it's a problem with Israel, and not the Jewish religion. Maybe people at this level urge world powers to start an investigation and hold Israel accountable for their crimes, but also give it protection from Hamas and their funders.
Hopefully that long-winded passage helped explain my view. If there are any problems with it, I can reconstruct or reinforce points. It's essentially a Cliffnotes version of the conflict. Even just the origin of Haganah could be days worth of conversation.
Those same politicians use public inattention or lack of knowledge to manipulate them, furthering the politician's own agenda. In an ideal system the populace wouldn't have to fact-check their leaders, but modern politics is far from ideal. Remember when the American populace was told by Colin Powell that there were WMDs in Iraq, such as nuclear weapons and 18 mobile Anthrax/Botulism toxin labs and we had to act immediately?
While there was a great deal of good (and bad) that came out of the toppling of Saddam's regime, the pivotal reason (dare I say the catalyst?) for the invasion of Iraq was based on vague information that we didn't fact check. That informatikn turned out to be wrong when third-party organizations started asking questions. That questioning was ignited by people, you and I, going "that sounds wrong."
We choose who gets into office and we choose them (ideally) on their solutions to current problems. Our politicians are representative of our views (ideally) and we establish those views based on our knowledge. Bad knowledge = bad politicians (look to the past 8-12 years).
The issue is that they aren't 'showing up when it counts', unfortunately. The person who does the right thing unknowingly isn't made good because of that action, and more often than not they are outnumbered by people who are unknowingly (or knowingly) doing the wrong thing. Being knowledgeable is a form of protection.
Initial impression: I want to disagree, but I haven't encountered this point before. I need to do some additional thinking before I can agree or disagree.
I hope this response was helpful. I did try my best to pull real-world examples where I made critical points.
I largely agree with you, but I think that there's a lot of variation in what counts as "showing up when it counts". Is that only at elections? Is it elections plus communications with your representatives to make clear your priorities? Is it that plus local community action? Is it community action and not bothering with your representatives? Any choice is a political choice, and there's broad disagreement regarding what the right choice is. I do agree that staying aware of the broader political landscape isn't the right choice for everyone. But if they don't, they're operating at the direction of whoever they trust who is aware of what's going on. That's half of why we're in this mess in the USA. Too many people "doing their own research" when it ends up just listening to con men.
Yep, this is also what it gets down to. I'm not convinced that activism always makes a difference, and I definitely don't think everyone needs to be ready to protest at the drop of a hat (if anything, too many protests weaken their effects as recent history and studies show).
u/Queresote, I think you're right that we need independent oversight from media with sunshine and data access laws, but I'm not certain more involvement always leads to better outcomes. As an example, the community planning process in the Anglosphere has too much input from NIMBYs throwing up road blocks to everything. More good things would get built if there were fewer fingers in the planning pie. (But also to your point, YIMBYs getting involved currently makes a huge difference because the systems incentivize NIMBYs.)
I appreciate your kind and honest non hostile response. My first reaction was a bit defensive which was of course knee jerk to having my view poked at.
I think to give some small clarity, I would say I'm head in the sand now compared to me previously. I mentioned in another thread of getting into politics and wanting to learn more through having a good friend of mine to bounce political chats off of. It was great to be challenged and debate, but it soured over time due to it essentially becoming all my friend would want to chat about. Him coming at me with a wall of texts and sources for everything, and me not agreeing with all his points of view and then having to spend time coming up with other "counter arguments" and reading sources. By the time I'd have one counter to a point he'd wall of text that one point.
This experience, among others, and changing interests have led me to just not want to dive in as much to topics like this. I see enough to have a cursory overview of something in a "geopolitical" sense. If I think it's going to impact me and my family I of course take action. Saw early COVID, took steps to prepare for it and even got laughed at by my coworkers at the time for masking up at work because the government lied about masks not being effective at that time. Saw the war in Ukraine starting, looked into it enough to guess energy and flour prices would rise and then took steps, etc. I don't need to know the ins and outs of the conflict and have a deep held opinions on it.
When you had mentioned to another commenter that there are levels of understanding and nuance to the topic. I feel like from what I've seen I fall under the condoing the actions of Israel's government and the actions of Hamas which have in turn contributed to the civilian casualty count. Beyond that this a decades long conflict in a sense with treaties, ceasefires and agreements, government policies, other nations, and before that there's the background of how Israel was founded, religious conflict and the complexities of regional politics. That might mean I have a "higher level" of awareness of the conflict compared to the average Joe in the states, but it also makes me view this topic as a contentious one that I don't want to spend the time to really dive in and form my own nuanced opinion. In the immediate sense I also need to keep an appraisal of what China is up to because their shenanigans in the South China sea and with Taiwan are way closer to home.
It also doesn't benefit me to have an opinion where I live now, or even in the US. Where I live now the government is anti-Israel and very pro Palestine. Me engaging with the people who asked me my opinion and getting into a detailed debate about this could give me a negative label if I didn't whole heartedly denounce all of Israel's actions. Which at this point I've not followed what is happening there beyond the surface level, things are continuing to happen.
I know you made great points about it being easy to learn more about the conflict and that things like this can be worth carving time out to become better educated, and I do appreciate that. I just don't see myself taking that step in all honesty. I have way too many podcasts I'd like to listen to, with a sizeable chunk of my podcast time being devoted to topics related to my career. I thankfully work from home and when I have a break I spend it with my toddlers.
To answer your last question of what I'd like to be more knowledgeable about. I have a laundry list, learning more about my wife's culture and where I live now, the language that are spoken here so I can get to a point of being conversational, ways I can prepare for the next stages of my kids' development, how to be a better cook/new recipes so I can help get more veggies into the meals at home, more about gardening so I kill less of my plants, my faith, the history of this region of the world, what my friends are up to back in the states because I got rid of my social media and the only way to learn is to reach out and ask, finances and investments to make sure I'm going to have resources for my future and my children's future, I could go on but I think you get the general idea.
When I started shifting my focus from spending my off hours trying to keep up and dive into news and topics (plus seeing the international nothing response as a whole to the Uyghur genocide contributed to sense of futility of it all) and instead spent time investing into my marriage and into certifications for my career I felt like it was time better spent. I leveraged those certifications into promotions and I don't think I would have landed my current remote job without the experience I got from doing that.
I respect people who dive into these global issues and want to make a difference, I also respect people who don't have it in them to care when rent is due and the rising cost of living is making them consider moving back with family or ponder how they're going to make ends meet. I had a period of being out of work, which also overlapped a lot with this whole situation breaking out, and I spent every spare minute I had job hunting, networking, or trying to touch up my resume/cover letter.
I know my answer might be a bit rambling but it's been building in my head after reading your comment and I couldn't get back to sleep after my kids woke me up.
Once again, I may take little credit for the cordiality of the discussions here. It is others like yourself, whose acting in good faith and measuring me by my intent to learn, that have allowed a delicate and nuanced conversation to take place without fear of delving into hostilities.
If there was any friction/negative tone in your response, perception of such a thing did not reach me. I feel that guarding strongly-held beliefs is important, especially so if we've rooted them in logic and good faith. Knowing that as such, you still honor me in bringing that information to the forefront of our talk here. That must have been difficult, so I thank you.
I have my own qualms with modern discourse and the "Umm… you got a source for that chief?"-style of online argumentation, but I think that may be a conversation best saved for a time it can come up naturally.
As for the main body of your response, I appreciate the clarity on your life-situation. The world–our world, becomes significantly smaller when we bring life into it. The order of responsibility changes, so to focus on the families of others in lands unknown when ours is at risk of perishing here can be incredibly selfish.
You made a lot of good points, and explained your position on each topic well. If my brevity and broadness in response is an offense, I apologize.
To ramble is to digress or tirade heavily into topics unrelated to the main subject or larger conversational narrative. You did no such thing. We covered a lot of different topics and your final response tastefully covered each in respect to your own life. I'd say as far as good conversationalists go, you may count yourself amongst their ranks.
As a genuine courtesy I should inform you this will be my final response on this topic, but hopefully not my final response to you, pekt, across the platform. Good conversation is a rarity in this new world—a delectable treat, and I fear myself a glutton. I shall see you at another feast, though, my friend. In good time.
Best Regards,
𝕼𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔬𝔱𝔢
Uh, ok, but his American-ness really wasn't part of the discussion before you brought it up. Didn't seem especially relevant, especially considering how far-right political sentiment has been rising all over the place.
It just seemed odd.
I'm confused how it's not relevant. I bring it up because it's relevant to my argument as to why it's believable, or likely, that what he said is what he really thought.
On ther hand, how would what people think in Germany or something matter at all to that discussion when he lives in Texas? The culture a person lives in is critical to determine the normality of what they believe relative to their background. In fact, you can't discuss it without mentioning it.
I wouldn't exactly say it's all that "right wing" either. It's not something that is on the political spectrum - it's more about apathy.
It's irrelevant because there are hundreds of millions of Americans, all with their own unique perspectives on the world. The simple fact that there's so much disagreement in America about things like the morality of Israeli expansionism suggests that being American itself is irrelevant to how one thinks about the things this douche has said.
I have lots of criticisms about the way some of my fellow citizens approach politics and ethics, but I don't chalk it up to being American. That's reductionist to the point of absurdity.
You’re taking about apples and oranges. I haven’t mentioned the morality at all. The question is was whether or not Asmongold was being genuine. Having said beliefs be common amongst Americans makes it far more likely he is being genuine.
On the other hand, if Asmongold was from Lebanon, his beliefs would be very much an outlier, and it would be more likely he is pretending to have the opposite opinion of his actual beliefs for the purpose of incitement.
Again, I’ve opined not at all about the ethics of the situation. I feel like you’re trying to push back on an impression that I’m making an insulting implication on “Americans” when that’s completely tangential.
At least in this case, I assume it's because he's an American, so it makes sense to analyze his behavior in an American context.
For what it's worth, I feel he's gotten much worse these last 2 years.
I've never watched a ton of his content, but I've seen little bits and pieces of his stuff for years, and I feel like I know enough about him to make an assessment.
As much as I think that putting people into "genres" isn't exactly accurate, in many cases it's a fair enough way to assess people, and I think it's fair here.
I've met a lot of people like asmongold, and their issue is chiefly that they haven't lived a real life. All of their formative years were spent isolated in a room playing videogames; usually one video game in particular, and the only people they ever regularly interacted with were also cloistered video game addicts that haven't experienced the real world.
None of them have traveled, met people different like them, had deep emotional connections with people from different backgrounds or with different views on life. They haven't been in challenging social situations, they haven't seen the impact that poor living conditions, or policy, or economic conditions can have on people.
As such, they're working with a completely remedial framework of the real world.
People like that tend to think the world is much more simple than it really is. They think that there's a black and white, good guys and bad guys, and the solutions to all of our problems are very simple, most people are just too stupid to realize it.
It's really frustrating to encounter people like that, because you can't make them understand. They just lack the fundamental basis and foundation. It'd be like trying to explain calculus to someone who has never taken elementary school arithmetic.
The most annoying part is that this guy in particular now has a platform. People pay him to confidently state his completely misinformed opinions that have no basis in the real world whatsoever. Even though he has the resources to do so, he still hasn't actually done any of the base level emotional work needed to form an actual opinion on this kind of thing. He's spent the limited time we have on earth locked in a room, interacting with an ephemeral, fake world created for entertainment. He's never actually lived.
It's really irritating to hear a guy that very obviously has no clue what he's talking about in any arena other than how to be good at one or two specific video games talk like he's an expert on anything, let alone a conflict where thousands of people have died on both sides.
I wonder how long before r/Asmongold is quarantined or banned by the Reddit admins.
The entire subreddit has turned into KotakuInAction4 and is just full of whinging about wokeness and DEI in games.
I miss the days when he just played Diablo III and WoW...
It really is sad looking at this particular situation and then realizing how dumb the twitch sphere is now compared to 10 years ago. Yeah people shared their shitty politics on twitch back then too, but I miss when it wasn’t normal for some shithead cave dweller like asmon to just spout bullshit and prey on the parasocial relationship thousands have built with him. The top streamers used to just play games without the bullshit.
It’s a bit terrifying and very sad that sad people like this can have this many followers. Mass appeal internet culture has really taken a nosedive. I still don’t understand how this dude has a following when it’s public knowledge that he has a bloody tooth wall, the rat alarm clock, soda cups everywhere, etc.
I feel like my comment is not fully formed and I’m just spitting out words/venting about twitch culture, but whatever.
I don’t think that really makes sense in this situation. Asmongold IS the twitch streamer of 10 years ago. That’s his main call to fame, really, at this point. Being one of the OG OG streamers.
Twitch culture has definitely taken a turn, you have a lot more IRL nuisance streamers, for instance, but that’s the opposite of a basement dweller gamer like Asmongold. He represents the past, not the future.
I understand what you're saying, but there might be some rose-tinted spectacles here. Gamergate was roughly 10 years ago, and that was only tangentially related to gaming. What you're talking about does still exist with more professional groups like Hololive vtubers where there's a corporate policy of avoiding hot topics. Outrage drives more clicks though.
Yeah, maybe 10 years back isn't far back enough, and I know this shit still existed back then, but it felt easier to avoid, since social media has only gotten shittier and shitter since outrage does indeed drive more engagement. Maybe a little rose tinted, but I don't really remember that many of these popular games streamers spouting off their shitty politics to followings of millions. Not to say every streamer does that these days, either, it's still a minority, but yeah. I don't really know what I'm trying to say, like I said, I think my comment was not fully formed above, but I think it boils down to that I'm sick of chuds being chuds and getting cheered for it by a lot of people, ha.
TIL Asmongold and Penguinz0 are not the same person.
All the racism and sexism I see on the daily from Youtube but palestine is where Youtube draws the line. Interesting.
Minor correction, he was temporarily banned from Twitch, not YouTube.
ahh, gotcha. I can't speak much for that scene (I can rarely catch livestreams live, and I don't "wander" too much when I do use it), but I'm assuming the situation isn't magically much better than every other social media.
Twitch, YouTube doesn't give a shit.
Legitimately there are accounts distributing CSAM materials on that hellsite, they couldn't care less about brown kids dying or people saying horrific shit about it.
I agree those platforms have problems, but the distribution of CSAM happens in spite of all the protections and guard rails in place. They most certainly care about hate speech that violates laws too, but it's harder to draw those lines. (Does saying we should punch Nazis count as a call to violence?)
We're commenting under a story about a huge streamer's suspension for his comments about Palestinians, so it seems like they actually could care less. They're clearly doing something.
YouTube didn't bop him...Twitch did. YouTube never touched his channel.
YouTube only cares if an advertiser complains about it, that's it. They've allowed some of the most heinous shit ever to proliferate and infect so many places and spaces.
Twitch and YouTube are different companies. If he didn't make any controversial, bannable statements on YouTube, I don't see why they should do anything to his channels.
In terms of enforcement, I'd say Twitch is much more on the ball about handing out punishments. It's not unusual for Twitch to act on even their biggest streamers. Twitch also has a reputation for being a bit heavy-handed with their punishments, including banning people for something accidentally shown on stream. They may be slow and inconsistent but they are at least active.
YouTube is like reddit, where they only move when something brings in a significant amount of negative press or legal issues. They also don't even do it properly most of the time, removing an account but leaving up all the re-uploaders and other offending material. Slow, sloppy, stupid.
The posterchild of dangerous is Kick, who actively encourage highly questionable behaviour. I believe there was a recent story where Drake, the famous rapper, was caught giving a lot of money and support to a Kick streamer whose whole thing was convincing underage people to strip on camera. It turns out he was (somewhat) contracted and instructed to do it by Kick themselves. Kick has a lot of known CSAM distributors and apologists among its ranks. Only the worst of the worst go over there. They've only banned people for doing extremely illegal things on camera.