The Bigot’s Charity

The current internet explosion centers around Ethan Ralph and his livestream known as the KIllstream.  A few weeks back, Ralph did a “Healstream” using the Youtube feature which allows superchats to go directly to a charity of their choice.  St Jude’s Children’s Hospital was the recipient.  Superchats, for those who haven’t heard of them, are a way for streamers to make money on Youtube.  A commenter donates money and the streamer, usually, reads the chat comment on the stream.  It makes streams a lot like talk radio with superchat breaks instead of advertisements.  These comments range from innocent questions to various repetitions of “kill the Jews 1488” and worse.

The Wall Street Journal decides to do an article about hate and superchats, contacts Ralph for comment, then the next thing you know, all the St Jude’s superchats have been refunded and Ralph has all his channels deleted.

TL;DR has a good run down of the timeline and events surrounding this:

A few sources reporting on this debacle have characterized the Healstream as essentially virtue signalling:

Killstream is known for both its controversial guests and similarly toxic chat. Users have been known to take advantage of YouTube’s Super Chat system to buy and pin toxic messages in the live chat, further defaming the stream’s reputation.

This prompted show host Ethan Ralph to fight back by holding a charity stream to benefit St. Jude’s, a research hospital for children with catastrophic diseases. However, YouTube’s new policy on harmful Super Chats has caused a major rift between Ralph and the platform, as well as the Wall Street Journal – which he is now accusing of taking money away from sick children.

This isn’t exactly accurate.  The superchats for charity idea was originally proposed because Sargon of Akkad refused a debate on Ralph’s channel because Ralph would be getting the money for it.  Ralph offered to give all the money to charity.  Sargon, no doubt because he didn’t want a repeat of the Spencer debate and have someone tell him he’s not as smart as he thinks he is, refused anyway so they had it without him.

Ralph and co. have moved to a different site and promptly crashed it by bringing too much traffic with them.

Advertisements

Ego Implosion

“If people think YouTubers are going to save them then America need to burn to the f—ing ground”
–Mister Metokur

Baked Alaska took his career this past weekend and dumped gasoline all over it then started playing with a flamethrower.  I never particularly liked him and only watched one of his streams because Mister Metokur was on it.  What seems to have really started the implosion was Metokur calling him out on wigging out about mean things chat was saying.  Beyond that I’m not even going to try to summarize–partially because I haven’t the dozens of hours necessary to watch all the streams but also because BA didn’t think the first gas can was enough and keeps bringing more.

While drugs may explain some of the behavior, there’s probably also a good part of what might be called “fame induced psychosis.”  Baked Alaska’s ego swelled up so much it’s killed him.  He and other “influencers” as he called it are not important people.  So what you’ve got so many subscribers?  Baked had the nerve to pull the “you’re just an anonymous nobody hiding in your basement” garbage with Metokur.  You see BA is an activist.  He’s been attacked by anitfa.

But what has any one of these Youtube activists actually done?  People who disseminate information and keep pushing the Overton Window are good and necessary, but a lot of these people are just e-celebs and like real celebrities are mostly fame whores and money grubbers–or they become like that when they get a little popular. So Baked has been attacked by antifa.  Did that actually accomplish something?  Did going out and deliberately putting himself in situations where more people will attack him accomplish anything?  Given Baked’s mad waffling on Warski’s show (“I have a new manger, I’m firing my new manager, I love Jim, Jim is a coward basement dweller,” etc.) he’s only doing what he thinks at this second will get him the reaction that he wants from his audience or interlocutors.

One of Warski’s guests acted surprised by Jim getting mad at BA but this kind of behavior has been Jim’s radar for a long time.  (Language warning of course.)

 

Whatever You Do Don’t Let the Opposition Speak

Andy Warski has made it to the big time!  As article bashing him at a site called Right Wing Watch was featured on SPLC’s Hatewatch blog.

Welcome To YouTube ‘Bloodsports,’ The Alt-Right’s Newest Recruiting Tool

Over the past month, prominent alt-right personalities on YouTube have carved out platforms for themselves on a handful of popular livestreamed political debate channels, where they’ve engaged in debates against “classical liberal,” libertarian and “anti-social justice warrior” YouTube talkers.

The series of debates, which have been affectionately dubbed “bloodsports” by their participants, have provided the white nationalist alt-right with its latest chance to thrust itself into the political consciousness of young people and to appeal to members of some of the subcultures that have splintered from the movement in recent months.
***
One of the most prominent channels hosting these debates belongs to Andy Warski, a YouTube personality who has grown increasingly sympathetic to the alt-right. Warski appeared this month on the alt-right, anti-Semitic podcast “The Daily Shoah,” hosted by host Mike “Enoch” Peinovich, where he said that he thought people falsely believe Peinovich advocates genocide. (The word “Shoah” translates to “Holocaust.”)

In the last few weeks, Warski has hosted debates featuring nearly every popular white nationalist YouTube figure, including J.F. Gariepy, Tara McCarthy, Richard Spencer, Colin Robertson (“Millennial Woes”), Greg Johnson, Peinovich, James Allsup, Nick Fuentes and Tim Gionet (“Baked Alaska”). More often than not, these white nationalist personalities have been paired against conservative opponents who offer incredibly weak pushback to their arguments. On only a few occasions have they faced true, strong counter-arguments. One of these debates—featuring Sargon of Akkad and Tarl Warwick (“Styxhexenhammer666”) debating Spencer and Gariepy—became the highest-trending live video on YouTube during its broadcast. Afterward, Spencer declared that he had “destroyed” in the debate.

This raises the age old question: if their arguments are so bad, wouldn’t you want people to hear them so they’d know how stupid and evil these people are?  For instance, I did in fact listen to all of the Sargon/Spencer debate.  Everyone had a couple good points, but my conclusion was that Sargon is an idiot and Spencer a smug megalomaniac.  I was not suddenly possessed of an obsession with murdering Jews and setting myself up as an elite in an ethnostate.

SJWs know that if their opponents are given a chance to speak, some people will realized that they aren’t all rabid, drooling nazis.  And SJWs are so incompetent that they can’t even take down a Fake-Righter like Spencer, so they rarely agree to debate.  So the only other option is deplatform and attack anyone willing to let them talk.

The State of Entertainment

What is entertainment?  How are compelling stories and interesting characters created? I find it hard to define what makes a good story.  Many others have attempted to make this definition and there is plenty of disagreement about it.  However, there is plenty of agreement that the current state of entertainment is rather lacking.

Hollywood and recent TV (which includes things produced quite a while ago) are frequently criticized for poor quality (amazing special effects and beautiful scenery don’t make up for lame stories) and the annoying, if not infuriating, constant liberal propagandizing.  Cable TV subscriptions have been declining for some time, probably dropped in favor of internet streaming and other ways of accessing entertainment.  Having never lived in a household where there was a cable subscription I find it surprising that so many people continue to pay buckets of money for a service that forces you to watch advertisements and whose content is 90% crap.  You may have to pay for streaming, but at least you have more choice about what you watch.  This doesn’t really solve the problem that 90% of what is and has been produced is still crap.  It does help a little to be able to choose from multiple decades of movies and TV.

One of the things I’ve enjoyed about YouTube, other than the “controversial” political and social commentary they’re busy trying to scrub off the internet, is the old movies and television shows.  Due to over-zealous copyright enforcers these things are prone to disappearing.  The sad thing is that much of this is simply unavailable anywhere else.

Unfortunately, YouTube apparently has a plan to turn itself into a streaming site requiring a paid subscription a la Netflix (see Razorfist’s commentary about YouTube’s future).  The general response to this seems to be: well, there’s a reason I liked YouTube; it wasn’t like TV.  I quit watching TV ages ago because it sucks.  If YT is going to be just like TV, forget it.  This seems like a poor move after all the uproar that’s been caused by their censorship and demonetization.  They deserve to lose both their content creators and their viewers.  When they lose those, advertisers won’t be far behind in abandoning the platform.  All the reasons people have abandoned cable for the internet are going to be done away with if these companies in the pursuit of profit have their way; and then we’ll just have “cable” on the internet.  Oh, joy.  No wonder some people have no problem with pirated content.  We’d be willing to pay if they’d just give us what we want.

Do these producers of entertainment even deserve our money?  Probably not.  But it’s awfully nice to just be entertained sometimes.  A little escape from reality now and then can be good for one’s mental health.  Life, when it’s not full of unpleasant drama, can be drudgery.  It’s often just hard, even when full of happy moments and an awareness of one’s many blessings.  Humans have been seeking to entertain and be entertained forever.  It should be one of life’s little joys.

What isn’t particularly joyful is watching something that insults your beliefs or makes you feel like you’re being emotionally manipulated.  An awful lot of shows are like this.  The ones with content insulting to conservatives and Christians may have good parts, but can you sift the good from the chaff?  It’s hard, if not impossible, to find something to watch without a liberal bias and objectionable content.

How about those shows that start out really good and are subsequently ruined by manufactured drama?  There’s nothing that makes me lose patience with a show like the feeling that I’m being jerked around emotionally in a deliberate attempt by the creators to keep the show going to make a buck.  It indicates a major lack of creativity: you can’t come up with anything better to prolong the story than recycling the same old relationship problems or the same old story-lines?

It’s also frustrating when a likeable character (that must have been created by accident through some fluky combination of writing and the actor’s talent) is ruined as the series progresses, ruined in a way that doesn’t fit with the original representation of the character.  The flip side of changing a character in a way that doesn’t fit the storyline is not changing the character at all.  When a story is handled well, a character may have certain problems or flaws at the beginning, but as things happen in the story he changes, even if he continues to struggle with some basic flaws.  He actually learns from things that happen; he might even not repeat the same mistake 300 times.  But in standard entertainment, he does just that: even when it appears that he has learned from something, give it a couple episodes and he’s back to doing the same dumb things all over again.

This doesn’t mean that characters that stupidly continue on their paths to destruction are never appropriate.  It is possible to write a novel about people making a long line of poor life choices and the misery wrought by those choices and still have a satisfying story.  Take Anna Karenina, a hefty Russian novel, devoted almost entirely to just this and considered a classic; I found it to be quite good and enjoyed reading it, though it is by no means a happy read.  Things that evoke strong emotional responses can also be very well done and not feel manipulative.

There is a difference between making things true and making them “realistic.”  Current entertainment often seeks to embrace a shallow “realism” while failing to be true to life.  Let’s make it more realistic they say; so they throw out happy endings and happy interpersonal relationships.  Let’s make every character severely flawed and probably not very likable.  Let’s blur the lines between good and evil and make sure there are no good choices to be made.  And no objective moral standard that anyone follows.  And lots of misery.  And… voila!  Reality!  No, not even close.  Though it is accurate to say that there’s a lot of unpleasantness in life and people are generally quite flawed, it is not true to deny the goodness in people and all that is noble and true and beautiful in life.  Because that’s there too.

Poldark is the most recent in a long list of shows I have begun only to be disappointed for all of the above reasons.  It was always rather soap-opera-ish with its excessive drama, but at first the characters were interesting and likable enough to endure some of that.  Ross was flawed, too stubborn and too proud, but very principled and trying to do the right things.  Demelza was always spirited, but also grateful and respectful to Ross and generally sweet and good.  Their relationship was appealing because it fit better into more traditional gender roles than what we’re typically offered.  But of course that could not last.  By season three, Ross seems more proud and stubborn and less principled than in season one, and Delmelza is turning into a harping, ungrateful bitch.  These people need marriage counseling about how to treat each other.  And it’s not fun to watch.  For example, Demelza chooses to confront Ross about her disagreement with a choice he made and how he’s not listening to her advice and that he’s neglecting her (wah!) right when he’s reeling emotionally from having learned that a relative has died.  Demelza does have some valid points; Ross frequently acts like an ass and acts too quickly without considering the counsel of others.  But how stupid can you be, to nag your man at a time like that?

Also really annoying in the third season is the portrayal of religion and religious people.  There was little mention of religion in the first two seasons.  Church was seen in social events: funerals, christenings, weddings.  One not-good character was overzealous and unkind in his religion, but seemed an outlier not the norm.  The main characters didn’t mention religious things.  Now, however, there is much dismissal of religious belief by many, if not all, the main “good” characters.  A truly evil “religious” character has been introduced.  The pastor of the local church is just a puppet to the main “bad guy.”  I begin to doubt the story’s historical accuracy: was 18th century England really so heathen?

All “good” characters are rejecting God and his commands for what they see as the better way of just being “good” by their own standards and embracing what little good and pleasure they can find in this life.  Is it any wonder they are selfish and stupid?  The choices they keep making, and are threatening to make, will be their undoing of course.  The show’s creators will undoubtedly manufacture yet another break and then reconciliation between Ross and Demelza after dragging their misery out to another season.  If you cared about the characters, it would be too painful to watch; and if you’ve ceased to care because there’s only so much repeated stupidity you can stand, it’s dumb and pointless.  And it’s too annoying to watch even as a lesson: see what happens when you reject objective moral standards and only care about your own selfish needs and “happiness”?  See what happens when you fail to learn from your mistakes and acknowledge your faults and look realistically on your blessings with gratitude?

I am terribly sick of the standard state of entertainment.  It would often be nice to read an entertaining book or watch a show or movie that serves as a form of escape or maybe something cheerful or funny, or informing or even a lesson learned.  Maybe even good conquering evil, or the triumph of human goodness in the face of great challenges?  There’s only so much human stupidity one can take.  And there’s plenty of that in reality; who needs to add more from fictional characters?  Life actually has plenty of drama in it if you’re paying attention.  Sometimes it’s nice to get a break from the drama of real life.  Realism isn’t very entertaining.

Trump’s Speech to Congress

One thing that struck me about the speech was that if we tweaked a few things (perhaps omitted a couple?) and simply changed that R to a D, the democrats could have applauded the whole speech.  Some did clap at points, but often the Dems sat sullenly while the GOP side erupted in applause, frequently rising to their feet.  There were plenty of causes championed by the Left that got a nod from Trump: black history month, women entrepreneurs, paid family leave, even women’s health.  A democrat probably could have given exactly the same speech a decade ago and been praised by his party.

Surprisingly, many of the reactions, even on the Left, were positive or at least not all-out-attack mode (to which we’ve become accustomed).  Here’s one response:

Liberal CNN commentator Van Jones was blown away by President Trump’s tribute to slain Navy SEAL Ryan Owens and his widow during Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday night.

“He became President of the United States in that moment, period,” Jones said. “There are a lot of people who have a lot of reasons to be frustrated with him, to be fearful of him, to be mad at him. But that was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period.

“And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment. For people who have been hoping that he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little bit worried tonight,” Jones added. “Because that thing you just saw him do–if he can find a way to do that over and over again, he’s going to be there for eight years.”

More responses:

Media Praise For President Trump’s First Address To Congress Rolls In

How the US press reacted to Trump’s Congress speech

Commenders of Chief: Lib Media Hails Trump Speech

And from CBS, “How did world leaders react to Trump’s speech to Congress?” — a somewhat comical article due to it’s rather limited coverage of “world leaders” and that they felt the need to bring up Russia as “a country … the intelligence community believes hacked the 2016 U.S. election to aid Mr. Trump.”

Considering the more-positive-than-expected reactions, it’s interesting that supposedly “fewer people watched President Trump address Congress for the first time than tuned in to see Barack Obama do the same in 2009.”  While Mainstream Networks were rather down in their numbers, Fox did have the highest ratings among them.  But do these numbers say more about the networks losing viewers than they do about interest in the president’s speech?

Lower viewing numbers may have more to do with where people are watching than how many actually watched.  The past 8 years have made a real difference in where folks are getting their news and watching “TV.”  It’s called the internet people.  I know I didn’t watch the speech on tv.  Nielsen’s ratings isn’t bothering to try to calculate numbers for all the people who’ve watched online (is that even possible?); so it seems the rating are rather meaningless for making comparisons.

But considering that a viewing of the speech on youtube leads to multiple recommendations of negative leftist reactions, I can’t help but think the development of alternative platforms are needed now more than ever.  Here’s hoping the non-liberal techies out there are hard at work.

Update: here’s a transcript of the speech

Media Witch Hunt Picks Wrong Victim

You know, the kind that doesn’t roll over and play dead.

Disney Drops PewDiePie and YouTube Distances Itself After Reports of Anti-Semitic Videos

The Disney-owned Maker Studios and YouTube have pulled away from PewDiePie, one of the video platform’s most popular stars, after a report that he had posted several videos featuring anti-Semitic imagery.

Maker Studios said on Monday that it had severed ties with the star, Felix Kjellberg, a Swede better known by his YouTube alias PewDiePie, while YouTube said on Tuesday that it had canceled the release of a coming series and dropped him from a premier advertising program.

The announcements came after The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Kjellberg had posted nine anti-Semitic videos since August.

“Although Felix has created a following by being provocative and irreverent, he clearly went too far in this case, and the resulting videos are inappropriate,’’ a Maker Studios spokeswoman said in a statement on Monday. “Maker Studios has made the decision to end our affiliation with him going forward.”

On Tuesday, a YouTube spokeswoman said the service was canceling the release of “Scare PewDiePie Season 2,” a sequel to an original YouTube series, and dropping PewDiePie from Google Preferred, a program that offers advertisers access to its most popular channels.

So who is Pewdiepie? Only THE most popular YouTuber.  He’s got a measly 53, 381,106 subscribers.  He made 15 MILLION DOLLARS last year.  Do you really think someone with that amount of clout and money is going to back down?

Nope.

I honestly do not like Pewdiepie and that is the first of his videos that I managed to get all the way through, but if he’s going to throw his weight into redpilling Generation Z (it’s been claimed that most of his subscribers are 20 and under), then more power to him.

pewdiepienazi

Source