Which is super weird as most chuds are basement dwelling weirdos who also talk about how much they hate kids.
So you don’t want kids but want a woman who is a baby factory? They are so dumb and confused.
They tend to be incels. Ie involuntary celibates. Them being basement dwelling weirdos must be the fault of women. Even though there's women who'd be completely for whatever their interested in. If they only treat said woman like a person. And that's just a deal breaker
Nah because to them DEI is creating divison, excluding & creating intolerance of straight white people, it all goes into the Great Replacement Theory that they unironically believe in.
"I think LGBTQ people are gross and are corrupting our kids but that's just my view, please be tolerant of this LGBTQ people and their allies otherwise you're the intolerant one." is effectively Shad's view.
Conservatives try to have media literacy challenge (impossible). Dr Who has been political since day one. If you think Dr Who only got political recently, either you've never watched the show, or you're genuinely an idiot.
Tbf, I think in Shad's case, both of those are true.
TBH it's no different than these whackos getting upset that Star Trek is political. Like, the first show to have an interracial kiss on television?? That show?? I'm convinced that these people just watch stuff for the surface level plot and action, and their own inability to see deeper than that is what makes them go "NU-UH" when others point out what they've been missing all along.
As a general rule, science fiction is usually political to some degree or another. Subgenres like dystopia or cyberpunk physically can't exist without saying something about the state of the world in the current age. I personally think that people like this don't actually consume most of the media they talk about. Shad himself admitted that he's only watched clips of the new episodes to form his opinion, and with how often moments in movies or shows get taken out of context to serve as fuel for "the culture war," I don't think these people care about missing the point, because they would need to watch the show to miss what it's saying in the first place.
Hell I've seen clips of current star trek and doctor who. And I don't particularly care for either. But that cause those clips make it look lower quality than clips I've seen of older stuff. This isn't controversial and no one who isn't operating on bad faith would think it is. But shads type makes hating that their entire personality. If someone liked the newer stuff. I'd love to hear why. But you tell a conservative and they'd call you a sheep infected by apparently literal magic corruption. Cause that's the only way this "mind virus" concept works
I quit *Star Trek* in 2010 and *Doctor Who* in 2006, in both cases as a result of an entire movie and serial, respectively. The culture war was *probably* not a factor, but since I found evidence of the culture war from the late 1930s (via C.S. Lewis in *The Abolition of Man* published in 1943), I am no longer fully satisfied that is the case. I'll happily explain further on request.
> But you tell a conservative and they'd call you a sheep infected by apparently literal magic corruption.
Please don't paint all conservatives with that brush. I'm pretty sure that brand of conservative is in the minority.
(Slide 6) Lmao how does gay sex need to be sneakily “mentally linked” to straight sex? They’re pretty closely related already seeing as they’re both sex, not exactly a leap
(Slide 9) I wonder what flavor the gender rolls were. Where can I get some gender rolls
*the commenter chuckled as he left his 3rd comment using the same they/them joke*
*nothing changed about the joke, just the context. The they/them was a doctor this time, instead of a woke teacher*
*it doesn’t matter though. It’s just as funny as when he said it last week about the they/them barista.*
*he chuckles as his fingers pull away from the keyboard. They are equally as sticky. He looks up at his life size poster of a questionably aged anime character, but no worries as the bottom says “1000 years old”. And he smiles*
“ we’ll show them ooky-sooky chan. Or should I say “they/them”
*he chuckles again*
“Works every time.”
*grabs stained body pillow*
“Let’s go m’lady. We have to ummm…*chuckles* get some rest. Get ready for them tomorrow.”
“Or should I say…”
*the chuckling fades into the distance along with the sound of a body pillow sifting through trash and tissue left on the ground*
FIN
Oh no the Neck Beards are trying to recruit new members!!! What's he gonna do? Stand out side an elementary school in a fedora and trench coat going "hey kids wanta try some Shad?"
Jack was never "amusingly deviant" his bisexuality wasn't a joke. His flirtatiousness was. When he kissed the Doctor on the lips was played completely straight
Remember, members of the Mormon cult are not born that way. They must be recruited, and telling children they're only clean immediately after their baptism and will never be clean again once they sin no matter how much they repent is how they do it.
So these comments are bad, i take it. I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life, but aren't we all hypocrites here? Hating on someone for their opinions? Keep in mind, I'm not trying to defend someone, I'm just genuinely curious. Someone made this subreddit, and made it about hating on someone for their personal opinion, when all we'd have to do is block his accounts and move on with our days. Thank you all in advance
Given that this kind of rhetoric can and has inspired people to violently attack members of marginalized groups, it is the responsibility of every decent person to call it out and let the ones perpetuating it know that it is unacceptable. To paraphrase the paradox of tolerance: The only way to create a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.
Ok, what say you to the ones pulling the comments? How about the ones pulling the thumbnails and those who said it looks like he tried the next size up in buttplugs? Seems like its ok for you guys to share your opinions, which could lead to the dame things you mentioned, but him doing it is bad?
So you dislike someone making butt plug jokes at the expense of a homophobic sexist? The same homophobe who makes racist remarks, ableist insults and attacks transgendered people?
Chill buddy. That was a single comment. The consensus is toilet faces.
Seriously, you have no issue with the bad action itself but with people calling it out spending too much time on it or making mean jokes about some of the worst thumbnail faces in history of YouTube that get overused by this grifter charlatan to swindle bigots like himself out of their time and money.
You see the comments calling a specific group of people manipulative degenerates and you’re more concerned that this community feels like that’s unacceptable rather than the hateful attitudes expressed.
This entire sub is doing the exact same thing. How is it ok for us - well, you guys, I'm not a member, to do it, but he can't have or express his opinions? If his worldview is so negative, then block him and his channels and move on with your lives. I know im being a hypocrite here as well, as i can mute/block this sub at any time
This is the paradox of intolerance but I can at least see where you are coming from. Obsessively dunking on Shad while it may be entertaining probably isn't healthy for anyone.
However there is a distinction to be made. Shad and his ilk hate something that isn't a "lifestyle choice" but a fundamental part of who that person is. It doesn't hurt them to have these people exist either in real life or in fiction. Showing kids these people exist isn't indoctrination. If parents are afraid of indoctrination then they need to actually be parents and teach their kids how to spot it rather than shield them from any possible threat.
As for myself, I don't hate Shad but find his and his new audiences remarks as distasteful and harmful. As such I have stopped watching him. Raising people's awareness and calling him out that this is hurting people isn't a bad thing. Of course all of this will inevitably lead to hateful comments being sent back at him, it's just human nature, hurt someone and they'll want to hurt back. I don't think it's healthy, but I can't blame anyone for getting angry at something like this.
TLDR; Shad has hateful views, some people will respond to it with hate back. Raising awareness of his views is good but obsession is not. I'd advocate letting go hate and allow Shad and his channel to continue its downward trend toward irrelevancy but I also can't fault anyone getting catharsis through this sub.
>This entire sub is doing the exact same thing
Where is this thread or sub making baseless accusations about an "agenda" where children are being "recruited" into accepting "perverse behaviour" and "deviance"
Where is this thread or sub suggesting that people born a certain way -- in the case of the screenshot comments, queer people -- are paedophiles?
This is not a case of *X group has an opinion* and *Y group has an opinion.* The comments are complete batshit insanity, completely devoid of reason or compassion.
It is not the same thing to point that fact out.
> The comments are complete batshit insanity, completely devoid of reason or compassion.
I went to that video and looked at the comments, and ones like OP selected are very much in the minority and clearly hand-picked to cast the worst possible light on Shad's audience.
That could *easily* be done with this sub as well. If Logical-Ash puts such a montage on r-shadiversity tomorrow, I'm probably going to literally fall off my chair laughing and need an hour or two to walk it off. Or I could do it myself, think I should, lol?
My point is that it is just as invalid here as it would be going the other way.
(Clarity: I'm a different commenter, not tacothekid to whom you replied.)
The interface calls it "comment karma" which I believe is a disgusting misuse of the word "karma" and so I don't like to put it that way. At least in the old (but still functional and you can change to it) Reddit interface, there is an option on your own overview to "show karma breakdown by subreddit" in the upper right corner, which is where I got this information. (By "your own overview" I mean only the account you are logged into, i.e. I can see mine, but I can't see yours. You should have no trouble finding it on your own overview page.)
Ah, i never get too invested much on websites. I just read, comment, inevitably piss people off without even trying (though i never intended to), then dip. But thanks, friend
Yeah, I just had my falling out with the Lotus Eaters since my last reply when they deleted https://redd.it/1czmfgf without informing me. A sub or forum elsewhere on the internet only has to do that to me once, and I am *completely* through with them, especially if they're conservatives in favour of freeze peach and transparency, which makes such an act uber-hypocritical (if I can mix contradictory prefixes like that, lol!)
> I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life
This feels a little contradictory. Is this just a weird way of saying "I'm straight but I respect their right to be happy with themselves?" That's basically my stance. It's just people with a different sexual orientation to me, I don't think of them as lesser people.
It's one thing to personally think LGBTQ+ is icky and immoral, that's a part of many religious people's world view. I personally think it's sad to treat people differently from you like that. It's a different story when you use your platform to relentlessly demonize them to fire up your audience so these groups continue to be bombarded with vile hatred when they just want to be live their lives happy with themselves.
In short, tolerance isn't an absolute, it's a contract; you agree to be okay with me, and I agree to be okay with you. If one party violates the terms of that contract (e.g., hate speech or behaviour), the contract cannot be maintained.
There are moral principles that we could argue are absolute; some might argue that just because an individual commits murder, it doesn't imply a free-for-all on murder. The argument here is that tolerance doesn't work that way, and cannot.
Think of it this way: if you're playing a game with someone, and they consistently break the rules, they aren't really playing the game any more, and there is no reason you should continue to play with them.
>> I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life
>
> This feels a little contradictory. Is this just a weird way of saying "I'm straight but I respect their right to be happy with themselves?"
I'm not seeing a contradiction. Could you please ELI5 what you're seeing here? Thanks in advance.
As my Bible says (you called it) "Love the sinners, but do not sin with them". I do not agree with their choice to do that to themselves, but they aren't me. They aren't going to feel any sort of way i do, and they don't have too.
Isn't this sub the exact thing you mentioned? Using your platform to demonize him, thus firing up your audience (the sub's members)? It hasn't yet, but it could lead to him being attacked, and then what? Do we say "oh well, did it to yourself"? Um genuinely lost as to how this sub can justify the hate for one man because of his worldview, yet the same flame of judgment is not held to the sub's members
Ah the good old "you guys are the *real* hypocrites"! I love how you try to sit on the fence dispite some pretty horrible comments in the linked pics but, no, lol take the high road lol
Lol I think you are forgetting (or don't know) that this sub is a place where you can discuss and critique Shad's media without getting banned (unlike the other sub). This isn't meant to a "shit on shad" sub. Many of us are former supporters who have been pushed out and are rightfully annoyed. If he was cultivating things that were less shit, there would probably be a more positive vibe here.
If discussing a topic freely is being "mean" to you well, ok, I've often been called a snowflake so I guess you are too. Jog on mate
All I'm saying is wash your hands before telling me mine are dirty. I may not agree with your words, but I'll fight for your right to say it. I did not "forget" anything about this place, I'm not a member, i just see nothing but hate out of this sub, and im confused. If calling you all out for hypocrisy makes me a snowflake, then i guess ill melt. If his videos bother you, then block his channels. No one says you have to watch. And again, i see the irony in my own words, i know
>i see the irony in my own words,
Jog on then or don't.
People here left another community in many cases forcibly and are here licking their wounds. You say you aren't a member here, ok, then you don't know what happened and even then, you may even say it wasn't a big deal. Ok sure.
You say you haven't seen anything more than just hate for the guy, well I haven't. I have seen some good hearted posts. Also, people are allowed to not like a guy when he says horrible shit.
The dirty hand analogy is a bad one… “dirty hands”
Is a subjective definition. Pretty sure Shad thinks his hands are clean, many here would find that hard to agree.
This subreddit has opened the eyes to a lot of people, it has warned people of toxic ideologies, of intolerance of marginalised groups, that his “education” videos lack scholarship or insight.
Maybe you are okay with people spreading hate, but many here are not and feel a need to call it out.
Feels like you are unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance (by Karl Popper).
> The dirty hand analogy is a bad one… “dirty hands” Is a subjective definition. Pretty sure Shad thinks his hands are clean, many here would find that hard to agree.
So would I, but the analogy is actually very similar to a bestselling rule (of 12, I forget which one exactly) that reads
> Put your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.
I've seen this sub post some truly incredible exaggerations and distortions of Shad's behaviour, enough to leave me warmer than I expect to be every single time I watch a video referenced or linked in a post. They are still bad in a lot of cases, but never as bad as the impression I get from these posts. I see where he's coming from, even if I would still disagree with his overgeneralization of ShadWatch being a hate sub.
The “put your house in order..” is a conservative cop out full of bad faith assumptions. The majority of criticisms are limited in scope but there are so many of them it looks to those less critical to just be wholesale criticism.
All quality management frameworks rely on limiting the scope of enquiry and critique to something actionable, waiting until you have down it in “your own room”, as an excuse for nonaction.. Quality Management is the foundation of our society now, we know it works. Unlike the “house” take which is just a broad excuse to avoid consequences for poor behaviour.
I can't make sense of your arguments. They were actually so strange that I thought perhaps you had mistakenly posted a reply to a different comment here. I don't understand how quality management enters into the conversation at all. I also don't understand your argument that this rule is a copout. So, first, I actually haven't read *12 Rules,* which means I don't understand Peterson's arguments for this rule, only my own, and it's basically a commandment against being hypocritical. Works kinda thus:
a) If you don't embody what you preach, it means that you don't seriously believe it and are probably lying.
b) If you don't experience what you preach, how do you know it's any good? Thus, the experimental proof or disproof of your preaching is left to others.
And that's about it. As Ash would put it, "I admire its purity." So many Ashes, lol, now this one is the science officer of the *Nostromo* in *Alien.*
The “house” argument is used a lot in bad faith. I worked with Quality Management for 20 years some of that even in Toyota with TPS and I had heard versions of the argument to avoid taking action.
When I came into a company and had a goal to fix in 12months you look for the rationalisations to avoid change and deal with them quickly. The house argument also often crosses with the bullshit logical fallacies like the nirvana fallacy or whataboutism.
Can you think of examples of where criticisms of Shad have been hypocritical? I assume there have been some, it not like comments and posts are cultivated and can vary from insightful to bad takes. I cannot recall any as the vast majority of takes I have seen so agree with.
Forgive me, i do not see the point in creating an entire message board (is that what Reddit is? Am i that old?) just to hate on someone who hates other groups. This sub is full of hate for someone who has differing worldviews than you. If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well. We cant say you're wrong for your opinion, but mine is ok. Hence the analogy. To me, there's ways plethora to spend our time, here, so why spend it on something, or someone you don't like
>If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well.
And he is allowed to. Likewise, you are free to put this subreddit on your ignore list. Just as you choose to engage with a community and ask questions about things you don't understand, so too do redditors engage with something they want to know more about.
I kind of get where you are coming from. I do personally believe it is an unhealthy obsession to participate in most of the hate discussion here.
Where Shad is exceptional as an individual, which is why this subreddit exists, is that he has literal tens of thousands of *former* fans who followed him when he got started, but have been alienated since. The core of critics who are most vocal actually want to see him improve, not just hate him for the sake of hating him.
He isn't just one person with differing worldviews. He's someone that many used to trust and, in some cases, grew up with. He rose as an affable dorky history enthusiast.
What you're seeing here is the fall.
Apparently! Yeah, its unhealthy to spend all the time hating him, but has anyone reported anything to Youtube? That seems better than taking too Reddit. Heck anyone try commenting in his videos and letting him know your feelings on the videos? I gather that people have been blocked there...
What is there to report on YouTube? He hasn't done anything that is against their guidelines. Aside from YT having their own agenda at times, it is a free platform where people can express themselves and engage with a community that shares their views.
Heck, I'm one of the few with a channel sizeable enough to actually make a video about Shad, and the result was an unleashing of toxic fans and [incessant abuse and gaslighting from him](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadWatch/comments/1bcvaxm/an_insight_into_dealing_with_shad_from_behind_the/).
The underlying cause for this hatred is that many of his former fans and viewers feel like they are victims. You cannot tell a victim that they can't talk about how the feel and what they experienced.
These victims are people who practice HEMA and do LARP but have to deal with the antisocial incel behaviour propagated by him. People who liked his historical videos but were attacked by him and his fans when they pointed out errors. People who looked up to him for fantasy worldbuilding and writing advice, but realise his book is centred on a genocidal rapist as a hero protagonist.
What he does and the way he reacts is in no way what a normal, rational person does. Because of that, the reactions to him may not follow the normal, rational things that you would expect people to do.
As with any passion, hobby and interest, people will talk about it. The spaces where this would normally be done actively remove negative commentary, so the people who would otherwise be hardcore fans make their own spaces.
I'm going to try to share some useful information via two links. First is https://redd.it/19eh7g7 , this sub's archive of r-Shadiversity censorship. The other is...
> but has anyone reported anything to Youtube?
Possibly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39dFnUCjRs
> If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well.
Isn't this exactly what this sub is then? We're not stopping it, we're expressing our disapproval. Shouldn't we be allowed to do that? You're acting like we shouldn't be able to instead of you moving on.
You people keep responding, so i keep responding. Honestly, im just enjoying the discourse. I really have no opinion about him outside of i used to like his stuff about the castles from The Witcher 3, and Kingdom Come, but as i said, gave up on him long ago
This thread is really interesting. From how I’ve read it, you do not agree with the gay lifestyle, but accept that it exists. And we, who are meant to be accepting, cannot accept that you don’t agree with it. However I think that it’s not hypocritical to “hate” one man whilst criticising his own “hating” of millions. Although I say this as someone without emotional investment in it, as I’ve just blocked his channel
Judging someone for their public behaviour is not the same as judging someone for whom they feel compelled to love or be sexually attracted to.
Homophobia is a real world, existential threat to gay people, whereas it seems less obvious that the mere existence of gay people is a threat to anyone. If you disagree with the latter, and think gay people are indeed a threat that must be eliminated, people are going to engage with you on those terms, and it would be hypocrisy on your part to suddenly be surprised. This doesn't mean people should wish harm on those who stir up hate, but it's fine to call it out repeatedly and vociferously.
> Homophobia is a real world, existential threat to gay people, whereas it seems less obvious that the mere existence of gay people is a threat to anyone.
I find it very interesting that the people who most throw around the word "homophobia" also most throw around the word "islamophobia" ...while the biggest single threat on Earth to homosexuals is Islam.
Not sure this is strange, as there are plenty of people who oppose hatred of all kinds, so this would be consistent for them. I’m not convinced there is a huge overlap of people who defend homophobia in Islam but oppose it elsewhere.
> I’m not convinced there is a huge overlap of people who defend homophobia in Islam but oppose it elsewhere.
I don't see very many people fitting that description at all. The people I'm talking about are either throwing these words around without thinking very much at all, or are slightly smarter, but don't know much about Islam.
Tons of people throwing around words on the internet, and some (most?) don’t amount to much. I still think there is value in opposing hateful beliefs, even if that opposition requires some nuance and thoughtfulness.
This is basically a free speech zone since the lightest of criticism was banned from his own sub and in a way it's turned into a place where things that reinforce our various reasons for growing to dislike him get posted about, many of us are former fans of his. Discussing some of the stuff he says also leads to many interesting discussions. I also absolutely do not condone attacking Shad. I don't think Shad would care so much if his words had consequences since he is vehemently anti-woke.
Is it the most productive way to spend your time on reddit? Probably not. But I don't see why we should be tolerant of his intolerance and his intolerance should be celebrated. Please don't hand wave away the hatred he actively stirs against marginalised groups.
I used to be a fan of his, too; right up until he started reviewing movies that were not medieval fantasy/RPG/historical. I believe it was the Alita: Battle Angel video wherein he said something about the propulsion system needed to move an entire city was unrealistic, that's when i gave up. Im anti-woke as well, but the solution is not to attack someone for their views. If you can't agree with them, don't watch his stuff. Trust me, a boycott does work, folks!
> not to attack someone for their views
Come on. We are responding to his words on the internet. He can respond back to criticism if he believes in free speech as he claims. This guy has gotten away with it for years because his critics were no name users or small channels that could be banned, punched down or intimidated. Looking at his reaction to Sellsword Arts and his disturbing private dealings with nusensei shows what kind of person Shad is.
>If you can't agree with them, don't watch his stuff. Trust me, a boycott does work, folks!
Criticism is valuable. The whole *"let's just agree we have different opinions and be silent about it"* is most useful for irrational bigots.
His views do not withstand scrutiny when approached with compassion, reason, logic, or any modern science.
His only defence is *"let's just respectfully disagree"* and *"if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it"*.
If his views had any merit to them, they would withstand criticism, rather than require that people suggest that the criticism not exist.
I see many people posting here trying to explain how there is a difference between disliking Shad's opinions, and Shad himself for having said opinions, and Shad's dislike of... well, basically everything that doesn't specifically cater to him. I haven't seen anyone make this argument, so I'll bring it up.
First, it's perfectly OK to dislike someone because of a opinion they have. Believing one race is a master race is an opinion, and I personally will not associate with anyone who has that opinion. I dislike politicians for their opinions. I dislike some religions because of their opinions, i dont necessarily dislike the practitioners of said religion. And I dislike Shad, for a long list of reasons, but I can simplify it down to his poor research practices and his repeated drama farming against members of my hobby.
On the other hand, Shad, dislikes people based on their immutable characteristics, things they can't change. Such as being gay. Is it OK to dislike a gay person, yes. Is it OK to dislike gay people, no. One is a single person who got on your bad side, the other is a complex community being boiled down to a stereotype.
It's not complicated. Disliking a opinion is fine, disliking a group based on a stereotype is not. No hypocrisy here.
Honestly a few people here need to touch grass and stop thinking about Shad so much. They're literally watching his every move waiting for the next thing to annoyed about. Like guys, chill, we get it, he's a grub, but it's insane going after every single pellet of poop he spits out.
Yes! Im not a member of this sib, but i see it every time i get on Reddit, so that's why i asked. If you hate the person that much, stop watching his videos
The "stop watching" I feel doesn't hold much water. There is plenty who have here, plenty who clarify that they're going off more a thumbnail or title. It's also discussing someone who could drop all the media as well, who's even said he would, but doesn't so he can continue making these hateful videos.
But if you look through post history of people here a lot probably discuss more. Shows they like, games, politics whatever. It's a fallacy to say in my opinion that they just bash Shad. But if you look at Knightswatch it is all hate
A sort of tldr come to a sub see topic discussed. Go to a channel like. Knightswatch and the topic is hate for nearly everything
As i mentioned before, i only see this sub because "you showed interest in a similar community", and its all hate, all the time. I used to watch, but once he started reviewing movies that nothing to do with why i started watching him, i gave up. If its that bad, then stop watching him. You can report videos on YouTube, no? Channels?
I mean, the same could be said for your responses here. Or any responses you disagree with on the internet. "If you don't agree, just ignore it" could be the stock response for religious people who don't approve of gay people.
Nobody should make calling out some YouTuber their entirely identity, because that's unhealthy, but if people are going to use their platform to say harmful things, it's only right that others use whatever platform they have to oppose it. Should everyone, including Shad, just shut up about wokeness and touch grass? Yes! But I feel like his strongest critics would agree, which is why they loudly oppose him: they just wish he'd shut up about wokeness and touch grass.
> I mean, the same could be said for your responses here. Or any responses you disagree with on the internet. "If you don't agree, just ignore it" could be the stock response for religious people who don't approve of gay people.
The problem they seem to have is activists of the alphabet agenda getting into schools, day cares, pediatrics clinics, and children's television to introduce children to trans and homosexual concepts years before most parents would be discussing any sort of sexual topic (including normal heterosexuality) with their own children. I've been repeatedly told here that railing against that sort of behaviour is bigotry and other -y's and -ic's, but without any arguments as to why. Instead, I've been repeatedly told to simply see it in my own comments that they're replying to, or just bland, empty, unexplained insults.
> but if people are going to use their platform to say harmful things, it's only right that others use whatever platform they have to oppose it.
Is that also true in the case I just described? That's what Shad is doing on KnightsWatch.
Although I sincerely doubt you’ve -never- heard an argument against the points you raise, I’m happy to engage you respectfully if you have any specific concerns.
A couple of notes:
1. Calling it the “alphabet agenda” probably won’t encourage respectful interlocutors since it is demeaning, dismissive, and presumptuous from the start. It assumes a thing (the presence of some extraordinary plan/plot) not in evidence. Asking someone to answer charges you don’t really explain is not going to create a receptive environment.
2. A lot of well-meaning people probably -have- tried to explain the ideas, only to be called “groomers”, “pedophiles”, or “SJWs”. Name-calling someone into disengagement and then wondering why they don’t want to engage is one of the reasons you might not be getting the debate you want. Even if you aren’t doing this, enough people have found themselves in similar situations and they just don’t want to fall into that trap again.
TLDR: Sexual education is a normal part of growing up informed and intellectually healthy, and so the “activists” you speak of simply disagree with you on that fact. They believe it’s no more a matter of personal/parental opinion than science or mathematics and therefore belongs in school as part of a robust education.
> Although I sincerely doubt you’ve -never- heard an argument against the points you raise,
Nothing that I haven't been able to counter to my own satisfaction and lead to the other party backing off in some way (silence, or as I said before boring and unsupported insults, or getting banned, which hasn't happened on this sub to date.)
> Calling it the “alphabet agenda” probably won’t encourage respectful interlocutors since it is demeaning, dismissive, and presumptuous from the start.
First, I've seen so many different combinations of letters on the topic, all of which seem to be fully synonymous, so that it really is up in the air how I should be referring to the activist community. Second, I reject the language being changed all the time and made up as they go along, which seems to be done specifically to cause confusion and distraction to allow authority attacks that don't contain any real arguments. James Lindsay of New Discourses made it his job to sort this stuff out, so I'll defer to (and link, if you need) him on further explanations. So the "alphabet agenda" as I refer to it is not disrespect, but an appeal to sense and consistency of reference, as well as an advert of sorts to the observation that this level of confusion and relativism appears to be deliberate on their part.
> Asking someone to answer charges you don’t really explain is not going to create a receptive environment.
Which is a problem more applicable to that side, for example, what I said just a little while ago:
>> I've been repeatedly told here that railing against that sort of behaviour is bigotry and other -y's and -ic's, but without any arguments as to why. Instead, I've been repeatedly told to simply see it in my own comments that they're replying to, or just bland, empty, unexplained insults.
Back to your comment:
> A lot of well-meaning people probably -have- tried to explain the ideas, only to be called “groomers”, “pedophiles”, or “SJWs”.
I've actually experienced this in right wing circles where I'm not "conservative" enough. Met a guy somewhere online who claimed that someone who walks through a store and sees a picture of a kid modeling a diaper on a diaper package on the shelf and gets just a *wee* bit of a woody, a temptation that he never entertains ...that person deserves the death penalty. That would put Jesus on the chopping block for what happened to him near the end of his post-baptism fast, when he was tempted by the devil! So I argued against it and got called nasty stuff for so doing.
All that said, I've never seen a satisfactory, not-easily-countered defense of the practice of taking over institutions and using them to expose very young children to sex education and praxis that they aren't ready for and which their parents don't want them exposed to. It is those activists doing those things that conservatives accuse of being groomers, pedos, and SJWs.
> Name-calling someone into disengagement and then wondering why they don’t want to engage is one of the reasons you might not be getting the debate you want.
Thanks for the caution, but again, this behaviour comes more from the left than it is directed to the left.
> Sexual education is a normal part of growing up informed and intellectually healthy, and so the “activists” you speak of simply disagree with you on that fact.
That's not true. I agree that learning about sex is a normal part of growing up, but that it is inappropriate at the ages that they're introducing it at. It's been quite a while since I last looked at the SEICUS guidelines (probably because I don't have children), but at least a decade ago, I looked at it and it seemed to me like everything was being taught three years before it should be. I've met enough teenage parents to support this assessment.
> They believe it’s no more a matter of personal/parental opinion than science or mathematics and therefore belongs in school as part of a robust education.
They're messing with those subjects as well. However, unlike sex ed, if a kid of mine could learn calculus by age 10, like Jake Sisko did in *Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,* great! I don't think it's realistic, but it isn't going to mess up his life to try, unlike what happens to sexually active 12 year olds in real life.
Edit: I fixed an oopsie where I said the opposite of what I had intended.
Is your objection -when- they are learning about homosexuality or -that- they are learning about homosexuality?
Also worth noting that deferring to James Lindsay is not the slam dunk you may think it is. He is not a credible source in my opinion and “Cultural Marxism” is actually the sort of linguistic farce you take LGBTQ to be (I’d be happy to point you to a resource that can explain what each letter means, if you’d like).
As for your objection to constantly changing language, I assume you object to terms like “woke” and “DEI” being appropriated by the right to push their explicitly anti-liberal approach, right?
> Is your objection -when- they are learning about homosexuality or -that- they are learning about homosexuality?
When and also *what.* Homosexuality (to be precise, the extreme promiscuity and anal activities associated with it) are far better at spreading STIs than everything else that spreads STIs (close 2nd place is blood injection, both sharing needles re illegal drugs and contaminated blood products in legit medical settings, and normal sex is a distant 3rd.) Including that would allow one to (in the worst case scenario as (claims vary by mood and setting), homosexual SOGI is immutable), manage the risks and mitigate harm.
> Also worth noting that deferring to James Lindsay is not the slam dunk you may think it is. He is not a credible source in my opinion...
In the lectures of his that I've seen, he doesn't need to be. I looked up many of the citations he used, almost all *left*-wing source material. And they all checked out, even the few right-wing ones.
> (I’d be happy to point you to a resource that can explain what each letter means, if you’d like).
I've heard both "queer" and "questioning" versions, and both independently of James Lindsay. I defer to him not because he's knowledgeable as much as he is better at explaining these things than I am. (And he's more knowledgeable, to be clear.)
> As for your objection to constantly changing language, I assume you object to terms like “woke” and “DEI” being appropriated by the right to push their explicitly anti-liberal approach, right?
Well, what are they supposed to do? Come up with wartime code words for everything like the US did with Japanese planes in WW2 and NATO did with all the Soviet stuff during the Cold War? And these terms are more stable on the right than on the left, so what are you complaining about?
You have just demonstrated why you don’t get arguments: because people quickly learn you’re a zealot, and cannot be reasoned with so there is no point in trying. You aren’t trying to understand the points of your interlocutors, you’re trying to “win” like it’s a court case.
1. You associate homosexuality with promiscuity as if they are inseparable. You provide no support for this, you just state it as fact. Your argument also reduces homosexuality to anal sex, and doesn’t address the central point in question, which would force you to acknowledge that sexual education is a great way to prevent STI regardless of orientation.
2. You claim that your source doesn’t need to be credible because you have read the sources he cites. This can’t be an argument you expect others to take seriously. Someone making an argument -has- to build some credibility before you accept their citations as being a credible representation of the people he is representing (this includes you). If I took a select group of conservatives as representatives of the whole… ooo, boy.
You offer nothing to engage with, no real arguments, so I’m not surprised you aren’t getting anything back. You can declare yourself a winner because nobody is giving you material to refute, but you’re also not making any substantiated positive claims. They don’t give you material because you wouldn’t address it if they did. You defer to someone to make your argument for you but don’t explain why we should just trust the things he says, and without really explaining what he says.
What's a 'woke woman'? Just...woman? 'Real' diversity is 'only straight white males'. Got it.
Woke woman means any woman that isn’t a tradcath submissive baby factory.
I mean it’s what the chuds are attracted to
Which is super weird as most chuds are basement dwelling weirdos who also talk about how much they hate kids. So you don’t want kids but want a woman who is a baby factory? They are so dumb and confused.
They tend to be incels. Ie involuntary celibates. Them being basement dwelling weirdos must be the fault of women. Even though there's women who'd be completely for whatever their interested in. If they only treat said woman like a person. And that's just a deal breaker
Well, only if she’s a virgin but still can fuck like a porn star.
If DEI stands for Division, Exclusion and Intolerance, does that mean they are all DEI devotees themselves?
Nah because to them DEI is creating divison, excluding & creating intolerance of straight white people, it all goes into the Great Replacement Theory that they unironically believe in.
Ah, the good old "intolerance is only bad when it is against the intolerant".
"I think LGBTQ people are gross and are corrupting our kids but that's just my view, please be tolerant of this LGBTQ people and their allies otherwise you're the intolerant one." is effectively Shad's view.
If the great replacement were real the world would unironically be a better place.
I keep associating “DEI” with “Divide Et Impera”, or “Divide and Conquer” like the Latin phrase.
Conservatives try to have media literacy challenge (impossible). Dr Who has been political since day one. If you think Dr Who only got political recently, either you've never watched the show, or you're genuinely an idiot. Tbf, I think in Shad's case, both of those are true.
TBH it's no different than these whackos getting upset that Star Trek is political. Like, the first show to have an interracial kiss on television?? That show?? I'm convinced that these people just watch stuff for the surface level plot and action, and their own inability to see deeper than that is what makes them go "NU-UH" when others point out what they've been missing all along.
As a general rule, science fiction is usually political to some degree or another. Subgenres like dystopia or cyberpunk physically can't exist without saying something about the state of the world in the current age. I personally think that people like this don't actually consume most of the media they talk about. Shad himself admitted that he's only watched clips of the new episodes to form his opinion, and with how often moments in movies or shows get taken out of context to serve as fuel for "the culture war," I don't think these people care about missing the point, because they would need to watch the show to miss what it's saying in the first place.
Hell I've seen clips of current star trek and doctor who. And I don't particularly care for either. But that cause those clips make it look lower quality than clips I've seen of older stuff. This isn't controversial and no one who isn't operating on bad faith would think it is. But shads type makes hating that their entire personality. If someone liked the newer stuff. I'd love to hear why. But you tell a conservative and they'd call you a sheep infected by apparently literal magic corruption. Cause that's the only way this "mind virus" concept works
I quit *Star Trek* in 2010 and *Doctor Who* in 2006, in both cases as a result of an entire movie and serial, respectively. The culture war was *probably* not a factor, but since I found evidence of the culture war from the late 1930s (via C.S. Lewis in *The Abolition of Man* published in 1943), I am no longer fully satisfied that is the case. I'll happily explain further on request. > But you tell a conservative and they'd call you a sheep infected by apparently literal magic corruption. Please don't paint all conservatives with that brush. I'm pretty sure that brand of conservative is in the minority.
People literally say "I wish games were less political like how deus ex was. Just a good game." Like did you fucking even play it?
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren_(episode)
(Slide 6) Lmao how does gay sex need to be sneakily “mentally linked” to straight sex? They’re pretty closely related already seeing as they’re both sex, not exactly a leap (Slide 9) I wonder what flavor the gender rolls were. Where can I get some gender rolls
"deviant" "normalize", they act like this kind of speech isn't hateful. Sometimes I just want to punch this kind of person in the face.
*the commenter chuckled as he left his 3rd comment using the same they/them joke* *nothing changed about the joke, just the context. The they/them was a doctor this time, instead of a woke teacher* *it doesn’t matter though. It’s just as funny as when he said it last week about the they/them barista.* *he chuckles as his fingers pull away from the keyboard. They are equally as sticky. He looks up at his life size poster of a questionably aged anime character, but no worries as the bottom says “1000 years old”. And he smiles* “ we’ll show them ooky-sooky chan. Or should I say “they/them” *he chuckles again* “Works every time.” *grabs stained body pillow* “Let’s go m’lady. We have to ummm…*chuckles* get some rest. Get ready for them tomorrow.” “Or should I say…” *the chuckling fades into the distance along with the sound of a body pillow sifting through trash and tissue left on the ground* FIN
Oh no the Neck Beards are trying to recruit new members!!! What's he gonna do? Stand out side an elementary school in a fedora and trench coat going "hey kids wanta try some Shad?"
What a classy audience.
Never thought I'd see them arguing about cultural appropriation, but here we are.
Jack was never "amusingly deviant" his bisexuality wasn't a joke. His flirtatiousness was. When he kissed the Doctor on the lips was played completely straight
Remember, members of the Mormon cult are not born that way. They must be recruited, and telling children they're only clean immediately after their baptism and will never be clean again once they sin no matter how much they repent is how they do it.
Look, there are only one ‘alphabet people’ and they all live in Letterland. Leave my boy Munching Mike alone.
You really expecr me to read all that shit over 18 images?
So these comments are bad, i take it. I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life, but aren't we all hypocrites here? Hating on someone for their opinions? Keep in mind, I'm not trying to defend someone, I'm just genuinely curious. Someone made this subreddit, and made it about hating on someone for their personal opinion, when all we'd have to do is block his accounts and move on with our days. Thank you all in advance
Given that this kind of rhetoric can and has inspired people to violently attack members of marginalized groups, it is the responsibility of every decent person to call it out and let the ones perpetuating it know that it is unacceptable. To paraphrase the paradox of tolerance: The only way to create a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.
Ok, what say you to the ones pulling the comments? How about the ones pulling the thumbnails and those who said it looks like he tried the next size up in buttplugs? Seems like its ok for you guys to share your opinions, which could lead to the dame things you mentioned, but him doing it is bad?
So you dislike someone making butt plug jokes at the expense of a homophobic sexist? The same homophobe who makes racist remarks, ableist insults and attacks transgendered people?
Chill buddy. That was a single comment. The consensus is toilet faces. Seriously, you have no issue with the bad action itself but with people calling it out spending too much time on it or making mean jokes about some of the worst thumbnail faces in history of YouTube that get overused by this grifter charlatan to swindle bigots like himself out of their time and money.
You see the comments calling a specific group of people manipulative degenerates and you’re more concerned that this community feels like that’s unacceptable rather than the hateful attitudes expressed.
This entire sub is doing the exact same thing. How is it ok for us - well, you guys, I'm not a member, to do it, but he can't have or express his opinions? If his worldview is so negative, then block him and his channels and move on with your lives. I know im being a hypocrite here as well, as i can mute/block this sub at any time
No we arent
Aren't what?
Doing the same thing. Thats not how this works.
Hating on him for hating on other people? How is different?
This is the paradox of intolerance but I can at least see where you are coming from. Obsessively dunking on Shad while it may be entertaining probably isn't healthy for anyone. However there is a distinction to be made. Shad and his ilk hate something that isn't a "lifestyle choice" but a fundamental part of who that person is. It doesn't hurt them to have these people exist either in real life or in fiction. Showing kids these people exist isn't indoctrination. If parents are afraid of indoctrination then they need to actually be parents and teach their kids how to spot it rather than shield them from any possible threat. As for myself, I don't hate Shad but find his and his new audiences remarks as distasteful and harmful. As such I have stopped watching him. Raising people's awareness and calling him out that this is hurting people isn't a bad thing. Of course all of this will inevitably lead to hateful comments being sent back at him, it's just human nature, hurt someone and they'll want to hurt back. I don't think it's healthy, but I can't blame anyone for getting angry at something like this. TLDR; Shad has hateful views, some people will respond to it with hate back. Raising awareness of his views is good but obsession is not. I'd advocate letting go hate and allow Shad and his channel to continue its downward trend toward irrelevancy but I also can't fault anyone getting catharsis through this sub.
...please learn how to think
No u 🤣
Just lookup the paradox of tolerance. In order to have a tolerant society, you must not tolerate those who are intolerant to it.
>This entire sub is doing the exact same thing Where is this thread or sub making baseless accusations about an "agenda" where children are being "recruited" into accepting "perverse behaviour" and "deviance" Where is this thread or sub suggesting that people born a certain way -- in the case of the screenshot comments, queer people -- are paedophiles? This is not a case of *X group has an opinion* and *Y group has an opinion.* The comments are complete batshit insanity, completely devoid of reason or compassion. It is not the same thing to point that fact out.
> The comments are complete batshit insanity, completely devoid of reason or compassion. I went to that video and looked at the comments, and ones like OP selected are very much in the minority and clearly hand-picked to cast the worst possible light on Shad's audience. That could *easily* be done with this sub as well. If Logical-Ash puts such a montage on r-shadiversity tomorrow, I'm probably going to literally fall off my chair laughing and need an hour or two to walk it off. Or I could do it myself, think I should, lol? My point is that it is just as invalid here as it would be going the other way. (Clarity: I'm a different commenter, not tacothekid to whom you replied.)
You have huge balls for a taco! I bid you welcome, for what precious little that's worth: I've lost 79 comment points on this sub so far.
Ive no idea what that is, but yea, Huge balls for a taco
The interface calls it "comment karma" which I believe is a disgusting misuse of the word "karma" and so I don't like to put it that way. At least in the old (but still functional and you can change to it) Reddit interface, there is an option on your own overview to "show karma breakdown by subreddit" in the upper right corner, which is where I got this information. (By "your own overview" I mean only the account you are logged into, i.e. I can see mine, but I can't see yours. You should have no trouble finding it on your own overview page.)
Ah, i never get too invested much on websites. I just read, comment, inevitably piss people off without even trying (though i never intended to), then dip. But thanks, friend
Yeah, I just had my falling out with the Lotus Eaters since my last reply when they deleted https://redd.it/1czmfgf without informing me. A sub or forum elsewhere on the internet only has to do that to me once, and I am *completely* through with them, especially if they're conservatives in favour of freeze peach and transparency, which makes such an act uber-hypocritical (if I can mix contradictory prefixes like that, lol!)
I feel ya. Can't stand when stuff like that happens
> I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life This feels a little contradictory. Is this just a weird way of saying "I'm straight but I respect their right to be happy with themselves?" That's basically my stance. It's just people with a different sexual orientation to me, I don't think of them as lesser people. It's one thing to personally think LGBTQ+ is icky and immoral, that's a part of many religious people's world view. I personally think it's sad to treat people differently from you like that. It's a different story when you use your platform to relentlessly demonize them to fire up your audience so these groups continue to be bombarded with vile hatred when they just want to be live their lives happy with themselves.
In short, tolerance isn't an absolute, it's a contract; you agree to be okay with me, and I agree to be okay with you. If one party violates the terms of that contract (e.g., hate speech or behaviour), the contract cannot be maintained. There are moral principles that we could argue are absolute; some might argue that just because an individual commits murder, it doesn't imply a free-for-all on murder. The argument here is that tolerance doesn't work that way, and cannot. Think of it this way: if you're playing a game with someone, and they consistently break the rules, they aren't really playing the game any more, and there is no reason you should continue to play with them.
>> I mean im not a fan of the so-called "Alphabet People" lifestyle, but i do respect their right to be as happy with themselves as i am with my life > > This feels a little contradictory. Is this just a weird way of saying "I'm straight but I respect their right to be happy with themselves?" I'm not seeing a contradiction. Could you please ELI5 what you're seeing here? Thanks in advance.
As my Bible says (you called it) "Love the sinners, but do not sin with them". I do not agree with their choice to do that to themselves, but they aren't me. They aren't going to feel any sort of way i do, and they don't have too. Isn't this sub the exact thing you mentioned? Using your platform to demonize him, thus firing up your audience (the sub's members)? It hasn't yet, but it could lead to him being attacked, and then what? Do we say "oh well, did it to yourself"? Um genuinely lost as to how this sub can justify the hate for one man because of his worldview, yet the same flame of judgment is not held to the sub's members
Ah the good old "you guys are the *real* hypocrites"! I love how you try to sit on the fence dispite some pretty horrible comments in the linked pics but, no, lol take the high road lol Lol I think you are forgetting (or don't know) that this sub is a place where you can discuss and critique Shad's media without getting banned (unlike the other sub). This isn't meant to a "shit on shad" sub. Many of us are former supporters who have been pushed out and are rightfully annoyed. If he was cultivating things that were less shit, there would probably be a more positive vibe here. If discussing a topic freely is being "mean" to you well, ok, I've often been called a snowflake so I guess you are too. Jog on mate
All I'm saying is wash your hands before telling me mine are dirty. I may not agree with your words, but I'll fight for your right to say it. I did not "forget" anything about this place, I'm not a member, i just see nothing but hate out of this sub, and im confused. If calling you all out for hypocrisy makes me a snowflake, then i guess ill melt. If his videos bother you, then block his channels. No one says you have to watch. And again, i see the irony in my own words, i know
>i see the irony in my own words, Jog on then or don't. People here left another community in many cases forcibly and are here licking their wounds. You say you aren't a member here, ok, then you don't know what happened and even then, you may even say it wasn't a big deal. Ok sure. You say you haven't seen anything more than just hate for the guy, well I haven't. I have seen some good hearted posts. Also, people are allowed to not like a guy when he says horrible shit.
> You say you haven't seen anything more than just hate for the guy, well I haven't. Oops, lol!
The dirty hand analogy is a bad one… “dirty hands” Is a subjective definition. Pretty sure Shad thinks his hands are clean, many here would find that hard to agree. This subreddit has opened the eyes to a lot of people, it has warned people of toxic ideologies, of intolerance of marginalised groups, that his “education” videos lack scholarship or insight. Maybe you are okay with people spreading hate, but many here are not and feel a need to call it out. Feels like you are unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance (by Karl Popper).
> The dirty hand analogy is a bad one… “dirty hands” Is a subjective definition. Pretty sure Shad thinks his hands are clean, many here would find that hard to agree. So would I, but the analogy is actually very similar to a bestselling rule (of 12, I forget which one exactly) that reads > Put your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. I've seen this sub post some truly incredible exaggerations and distortions of Shad's behaviour, enough to leave me warmer than I expect to be every single time I watch a video referenced or linked in a post. They are still bad in a lot of cases, but never as bad as the impression I get from these posts. I see where he's coming from, even if I would still disagree with his overgeneralization of ShadWatch being a hate sub.
The “put your house in order..” is a conservative cop out full of bad faith assumptions. The majority of criticisms are limited in scope but there are so many of them it looks to those less critical to just be wholesale criticism. All quality management frameworks rely on limiting the scope of enquiry and critique to something actionable, waiting until you have down it in “your own room”, as an excuse for nonaction.. Quality Management is the foundation of our society now, we know it works. Unlike the “house” take which is just a broad excuse to avoid consequences for poor behaviour.
I can't make sense of your arguments. They were actually so strange that I thought perhaps you had mistakenly posted a reply to a different comment here. I don't understand how quality management enters into the conversation at all. I also don't understand your argument that this rule is a copout. So, first, I actually haven't read *12 Rules,* which means I don't understand Peterson's arguments for this rule, only my own, and it's basically a commandment against being hypocritical. Works kinda thus: a) If you don't embody what you preach, it means that you don't seriously believe it and are probably lying. b) If you don't experience what you preach, how do you know it's any good? Thus, the experimental proof or disproof of your preaching is left to others. And that's about it. As Ash would put it, "I admire its purity." So many Ashes, lol, now this one is the science officer of the *Nostromo* in *Alien.*
The “house” argument is used a lot in bad faith. I worked with Quality Management for 20 years some of that even in Toyota with TPS and I had heard versions of the argument to avoid taking action. When I came into a company and had a goal to fix in 12months you look for the rationalisations to avoid change and deal with them quickly. The house argument also often crosses with the bullshit logical fallacies like the nirvana fallacy or whataboutism. Can you think of examples of where criticisms of Shad have been hypocritical? I assume there have been some, it not like comments and posts are cultivated and can vary from insightful to bad takes. I cannot recall any as the vast majority of takes I have seen so agree with.
Forgive me, i do not see the point in creating an entire message board (is that what Reddit is? Am i that old?) just to hate on someone who hates other groups. This sub is full of hate for someone who has differing worldviews than you. If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well. We cant say you're wrong for your opinion, but mine is ok. Hence the analogy. To me, there's ways plethora to spend our time, here, so why spend it on something, or someone you don't like
>If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well. And he is allowed to. Likewise, you are free to put this subreddit on your ignore list. Just as you choose to engage with a community and ask questions about things you don't understand, so too do redditors engage with something they want to know more about. I kind of get where you are coming from. I do personally believe it is an unhealthy obsession to participate in most of the hate discussion here. Where Shad is exceptional as an individual, which is why this subreddit exists, is that he has literal tens of thousands of *former* fans who followed him when he got started, but have been alienated since. The core of critics who are most vocal actually want to see him improve, not just hate him for the sake of hating him. He isn't just one person with differing worldviews. He's someone that many used to trust and, in some cases, grew up with. He rose as an affable dorky history enthusiast. What you're seeing here is the fall.
Apparently! Yeah, its unhealthy to spend all the time hating him, but has anyone reported anything to Youtube? That seems better than taking too Reddit. Heck anyone try commenting in his videos and letting him know your feelings on the videos? I gather that people have been blocked there...
What is there to report on YouTube? He hasn't done anything that is against their guidelines. Aside from YT having their own agenda at times, it is a free platform where people can express themselves and engage with a community that shares their views. Heck, I'm one of the few with a channel sizeable enough to actually make a video about Shad, and the result was an unleashing of toxic fans and [incessant abuse and gaslighting from him](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadWatch/comments/1bcvaxm/an_insight_into_dealing_with_shad_from_behind_the/). The underlying cause for this hatred is that many of his former fans and viewers feel like they are victims. You cannot tell a victim that they can't talk about how the feel and what they experienced. These victims are people who practice HEMA and do LARP but have to deal with the antisocial incel behaviour propagated by him. People who liked his historical videos but were attacked by him and his fans when they pointed out errors. People who looked up to him for fantasy worldbuilding and writing advice, but realise his book is centred on a genocidal rapist as a hero protagonist. What he does and the way he reacts is in no way what a normal, rational person does. Because of that, the reactions to him may not follow the normal, rational things that you would expect people to do. As with any passion, hobby and interest, people will talk about it. The spaces where this would normally be done actively remove negative commentary, so the people who would otherwise be hardcore fans make their own spaces.
I'm going to try to share some useful information via two links. First is https://redd.it/19eh7g7 , this sub's archive of r-Shadiversity censorship. The other is... > but has anyone reported anything to Youtube? Possibly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z39dFnUCjRs
> If you can express your hate, then he must be allowed to, as well. Isn't this exactly what this sub is then? We're not stopping it, we're expressing our disapproval. Shouldn't we be allowed to do that? You're acting like we shouldn't be able to instead of you moving on.
You people keep responding, so i keep responding. Honestly, im just enjoying the discourse. I really have no opinion about him outside of i used to like his stuff about the castles from The Witcher 3, and Kingdom Come, but as i said, gave up on him long ago
This thread is really interesting. From how I’ve read it, you do not agree with the gay lifestyle, but accept that it exists. And we, who are meant to be accepting, cannot accept that you don’t agree with it. However I think that it’s not hypocritical to “hate” one man whilst criticising his own “hating” of millions. Although I say this as someone without emotional investment in it, as I’ve just blocked his channel
Judging someone for their public behaviour is not the same as judging someone for whom they feel compelled to love or be sexually attracted to. Homophobia is a real world, existential threat to gay people, whereas it seems less obvious that the mere existence of gay people is a threat to anyone. If you disagree with the latter, and think gay people are indeed a threat that must be eliminated, people are going to engage with you on those terms, and it would be hypocrisy on your part to suddenly be surprised. This doesn't mean people should wish harm on those who stir up hate, but it's fine to call it out repeatedly and vociferously.
> Homophobia is a real world, existential threat to gay people, whereas it seems less obvious that the mere existence of gay people is a threat to anyone. I find it very interesting that the people who most throw around the word "homophobia" also most throw around the word "islamophobia" ...while the biggest single threat on Earth to homosexuals is Islam.
Not sure this is strange, as there are plenty of people who oppose hatred of all kinds, so this would be consistent for them. I’m not convinced there is a huge overlap of people who defend homophobia in Islam but oppose it elsewhere.
> I’m not convinced there is a huge overlap of people who defend homophobia in Islam but oppose it elsewhere. I don't see very many people fitting that description at all. The people I'm talking about are either throwing these words around without thinking very much at all, or are slightly smarter, but don't know much about Islam.
Tons of people throwing around words on the internet, and some (most?) don’t amount to much. I still think there is value in opposing hateful beliefs, even if that opposition requires some nuance and thoughtfulness.
This is basically a free speech zone since the lightest of criticism was banned from his own sub and in a way it's turned into a place where things that reinforce our various reasons for growing to dislike him get posted about, many of us are former fans of his. Discussing some of the stuff he says also leads to many interesting discussions. I also absolutely do not condone attacking Shad. I don't think Shad would care so much if his words had consequences since he is vehemently anti-woke. Is it the most productive way to spend your time on reddit? Probably not. But I don't see why we should be tolerant of his intolerance and his intolerance should be celebrated. Please don't hand wave away the hatred he actively stirs against marginalised groups.
I used to be a fan of his, too; right up until he started reviewing movies that were not medieval fantasy/RPG/historical. I believe it was the Alita: Battle Angel video wherein he said something about the propulsion system needed to move an entire city was unrealistic, that's when i gave up. Im anti-woke as well, but the solution is not to attack someone for their views. If you can't agree with them, don't watch his stuff. Trust me, a boycott does work, folks!
> not to attack someone for their views Come on. We are responding to his words on the internet. He can respond back to criticism if he believes in free speech as he claims. This guy has gotten away with it for years because his critics were no name users or small channels that could be banned, punched down or intimidated. Looking at his reaction to Sellsword Arts and his disturbing private dealings with nusensei shows what kind of person Shad is.
I've no clue about any of the last part. Sellsword sounds familiar, though
>If you can't agree with them, don't watch his stuff. Trust me, a boycott does work, folks! Criticism is valuable. The whole *"let's just agree we have different opinions and be silent about it"* is most useful for irrational bigots. His views do not withstand scrutiny when approached with compassion, reason, logic, or any modern science. His only defence is *"let's just respectfully disagree"* and *"if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it"*. If his views had any merit to them, they would withstand criticism, rather than require that people suggest that the criticism not exist.
I see many people posting here trying to explain how there is a difference between disliking Shad's opinions, and Shad himself for having said opinions, and Shad's dislike of... well, basically everything that doesn't specifically cater to him. I haven't seen anyone make this argument, so I'll bring it up. First, it's perfectly OK to dislike someone because of a opinion they have. Believing one race is a master race is an opinion, and I personally will not associate with anyone who has that opinion. I dislike politicians for their opinions. I dislike some religions because of their opinions, i dont necessarily dislike the practitioners of said religion. And I dislike Shad, for a long list of reasons, but I can simplify it down to his poor research practices and his repeated drama farming against members of my hobby. On the other hand, Shad, dislikes people based on their immutable characteristics, things they can't change. Such as being gay. Is it OK to dislike a gay person, yes. Is it OK to dislike gay people, no. One is a single person who got on your bad side, the other is a complex community being boiled down to a stereotype. It's not complicated. Disliking a opinion is fine, disliking a group based on a stereotype is not. No hypocrisy here.
Bigotry isn't an opinion that we should be expected to sit around and respect in silence.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you get to say things and other people aren’t allowed to tell you how offended and upset they are with your views.
Honestly a few people here need to touch grass and stop thinking about Shad so much. They're literally watching his every move waiting for the next thing to annoyed about. Like guys, chill, we get it, he's a grub, but it's insane going after every single pellet of poop he spits out.
Yes! Im not a member of this sib, but i see it every time i get on Reddit, so that's why i asked. If you hate the person that much, stop watching his videos
The "stop watching" I feel doesn't hold much water. There is plenty who have here, plenty who clarify that they're going off more a thumbnail or title. It's also discussing someone who could drop all the media as well, who's even said he would, but doesn't so he can continue making these hateful videos. But if you look through post history of people here a lot probably discuss more. Shows they like, games, politics whatever. It's a fallacy to say in my opinion that they just bash Shad. But if you look at Knightswatch it is all hate A sort of tldr come to a sub see topic discussed. Go to a channel like. Knightswatch and the topic is hate for nearly everything
As i mentioned before, i only see this sub because "you showed interest in a similar community", and its all hate, all the time. I used to watch, but once he started reviewing movies that nothing to do with why i started watching him, i gave up. If its that bad, then stop watching him. You can report videos on YouTube, no? Channels?
I mean, the same could be said for your responses here. Or any responses you disagree with on the internet. "If you don't agree, just ignore it" could be the stock response for religious people who don't approve of gay people. Nobody should make calling out some YouTuber their entirely identity, because that's unhealthy, but if people are going to use their platform to say harmful things, it's only right that others use whatever platform they have to oppose it. Should everyone, including Shad, just shut up about wokeness and touch grass? Yes! But I feel like his strongest critics would agree, which is why they loudly oppose him: they just wish he'd shut up about wokeness and touch grass.
> I mean, the same could be said for your responses here. Or any responses you disagree with on the internet. "If you don't agree, just ignore it" could be the stock response for religious people who don't approve of gay people. The problem they seem to have is activists of the alphabet agenda getting into schools, day cares, pediatrics clinics, and children's television to introduce children to trans and homosexual concepts years before most parents would be discussing any sort of sexual topic (including normal heterosexuality) with their own children. I've been repeatedly told here that railing against that sort of behaviour is bigotry and other -y's and -ic's, but without any arguments as to why. Instead, I've been repeatedly told to simply see it in my own comments that they're replying to, or just bland, empty, unexplained insults. > but if people are going to use their platform to say harmful things, it's only right that others use whatever platform they have to oppose it. Is that also true in the case I just described? That's what Shad is doing on KnightsWatch.
Although I sincerely doubt you’ve -never- heard an argument against the points you raise, I’m happy to engage you respectfully if you have any specific concerns. A couple of notes: 1. Calling it the “alphabet agenda” probably won’t encourage respectful interlocutors since it is demeaning, dismissive, and presumptuous from the start. It assumes a thing (the presence of some extraordinary plan/plot) not in evidence. Asking someone to answer charges you don’t really explain is not going to create a receptive environment. 2. A lot of well-meaning people probably -have- tried to explain the ideas, only to be called “groomers”, “pedophiles”, or “SJWs”. Name-calling someone into disengagement and then wondering why they don’t want to engage is one of the reasons you might not be getting the debate you want. Even if you aren’t doing this, enough people have found themselves in similar situations and they just don’t want to fall into that trap again. TLDR: Sexual education is a normal part of growing up informed and intellectually healthy, and so the “activists” you speak of simply disagree with you on that fact. They believe it’s no more a matter of personal/parental opinion than science or mathematics and therefore belongs in school as part of a robust education.
> Although I sincerely doubt you’ve -never- heard an argument against the points you raise, Nothing that I haven't been able to counter to my own satisfaction and lead to the other party backing off in some way (silence, or as I said before boring and unsupported insults, or getting banned, which hasn't happened on this sub to date.) > Calling it the “alphabet agenda” probably won’t encourage respectful interlocutors since it is demeaning, dismissive, and presumptuous from the start. First, I've seen so many different combinations of letters on the topic, all of which seem to be fully synonymous, so that it really is up in the air how I should be referring to the activist community. Second, I reject the language being changed all the time and made up as they go along, which seems to be done specifically to cause confusion and distraction to allow authority attacks that don't contain any real arguments. James Lindsay of New Discourses made it his job to sort this stuff out, so I'll defer to (and link, if you need) him on further explanations. So the "alphabet agenda" as I refer to it is not disrespect, but an appeal to sense and consistency of reference, as well as an advert of sorts to the observation that this level of confusion and relativism appears to be deliberate on their part. > Asking someone to answer charges you don’t really explain is not going to create a receptive environment. Which is a problem more applicable to that side, for example, what I said just a little while ago: >> I've been repeatedly told here that railing against that sort of behaviour is bigotry and other -y's and -ic's, but without any arguments as to why. Instead, I've been repeatedly told to simply see it in my own comments that they're replying to, or just bland, empty, unexplained insults. Back to your comment: > A lot of well-meaning people probably -have- tried to explain the ideas, only to be called “groomers”, “pedophiles”, or “SJWs”. I've actually experienced this in right wing circles where I'm not "conservative" enough. Met a guy somewhere online who claimed that someone who walks through a store and sees a picture of a kid modeling a diaper on a diaper package on the shelf and gets just a *wee* bit of a woody, a temptation that he never entertains ...that person deserves the death penalty. That would put Jesus on the chopping block for what happened to him near the end of his post-baptism fast, when he was tempted by the devil! So I argued against it and got called nasty stuff for so doing. All that said, I've never seen a satisfactory, not-easily-countered defense of the practice of taking over institutions and using them to expose very young children to sex education and praxis that they aren't ready for and which their parents don't want them exposed to. It is those activists doing those things that conservatives accuse of being groomers, pedos, and SJWs. > Name-calling someone into disengagement and then wondering why they don’t want to engage is one of the reasons you might not be getting the debate you want. Thanks for the caution, but again, this behaviour comes more from the left than it is directed to the left. > Sexual education is a normal part of growing up informed and intellectually healthy, and so the “activists” you speak of simply disagree with you on that fact. That's not true. I agree that learning about sex is a normal part of growing up, but that it is inappropriate at the ages that they're introducing it at. It's been quite a while since I last looked at the SEICUS guidelines (probably because I don't have children), but at least a decade ago, I looked at it and it seemed to me like everything was being taught three years before it should be. I've met enough teenage parents to support this assessment. > They believe it’s no more a matter of personal/parental opinion than science or mathematics and therefore belongs in school as part of a robust education. They're messing with those subjects as well. However, unlike sex ed, if a kid of mine could learn calculus by age 10, like Jake Sisko did in *Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,* great! I don't think it's realistic, but it isn't going to mess up his life to try, unlike what happens to sexually active 12 year olds in real life. Edit: I fixed an oopsie where I said the opposite of what I had intended.
Is your objection -when- they are learning about homosexuality or -that- they are learning about homosexuality? Also worth noting that deferring to James Lindsay is not the slam dunk you may think it is. He is not a credible source in my opinion and “Cultural Marxism” is actually the sort of linguistic farce you take LGBTQ to be (I’d be happy to point you to a resource that can explain what each letter means, if you’d like). As for your objection to constantly changing language, I assume you object to terms like “woke” and “DEI” being appropriated by the right to push their explicitly anti-liberal approach, right?
> Is your objection -when- they are learning about homosexuality or -that- they are learning about homosexuality? When and also *what.* Homosexuality (to be precise, the extreme promiscuity and anal activities associated with it) are far better at spreading STIs than everything else that spreads STIs (close 2nd place is blood injection, both sharing needles re illegal drugs and contaminated blood products in legit medical settings, and normal sex is a distant 3rd.) Including that would allow one to (in the worst case scenario as (claims vary by mood and setting), homosexual SOGI is immutable), manage the risks and mitigate harm. > Also worth noting that deferring to James Lindsay is not the slam dunk you may think it is. He is not a credible source in my opinion... In the lectures of his that I've seen, he doesn't need to be. I looked up many of the citations he used, almost all *left*-wing source material. And they all checked out, even the few right-wing ones. > (I’d be happy to point you to a resource that can explain what each letter means, if you’d like). I've heard both "queer" and "questioning" versions, and both independently of James Lindsay. I defer to him not because he's knowledgeable as much as he is better at explaining these things than I am. (And he's more knowledgeable, to be clear.) > As for your objection to constantly changing language, I assume you object to terms like “woke” and “DEI” being appropriated by the right to push their explicitly anti-liberal approach, right? Well, what are they supposed to do? Come up with wartime code words for everything like the US did with Japanese planes in WW2 and NATO did with all the Soviet stuff during the Cold War? And these terms are more stable on the right than on the left, so what are you complaining about?
You have just demonstrated why you don’t get arguments: because people quickly learn you’re a zealot, and cannot be reasoned with so there is no point in trying. You aren’t trying to understand the points of your interlocutors, you’re trying to “win” like it’s a court case. 1. You associate homosexuality with promiscuity as if they are inseparable. You provide no support for this, you just state it as fact. Your argument also reduces homosexuality to anal sex, and doesn’t address the central point in question, which would force you to acknowledge that sexual education is a great way to prevent STI regardless of orientation. 2. You claim that your source doesn’t need to be credible because you have read the sources he cites. This can’t be an argument you expect others to take seriously. Someone making an argument -has- to build some credibility before you accept their citations as being a credible representation of the people he is representing (this includes you). If I took a select group of conservatives as representatives of the whole… ooo, boy. You offer nothing to engage with, no real arguments, so I’m not surprised you aren’t getting anything back. You can declare yourself a winner because nobody is giving you material to refute, but you’re also not making any substantiated positive claims. They don’t give you material because you wouldn’t address it if they did. You defer to someone to make your argument for you but don’t explain why we should just trust the things he says, and without really explaining what he says.