Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Good writing is male privilege

Transcript

Good writing is male privilege · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: And we are live. Hello everybody, and welcome to Honeybag Radio.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is Brian. I'm here with Alison and this
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: is maintaining frame a good writing is male privilege. Where
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: we're going to be responding to a video from a channel.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: What is this channel called? All right, you forgot mister Zod.
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: It's called mister Zod and I guess yeah. This is
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: like part of the literary YouTube. This is literature YouTube
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: and they talk about writing and storytelling and stuff like that.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: But of course, because this is just the reality we
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: live in, everything becomes political when there is a disagreement
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: about how to construct anything basically. I mean there's probably
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: channels about, you know, building custom motorcycles that suddenly has
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: like a political conversation erupting. So this channel, mister Zod
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: is talking about another video by another channel called the
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Second Story, which is I'll show you guys the channels.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: You guys can see it. This is the Second Story.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: This woman does critiques of modern literature because she is
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: concerned with the direction storytelling is going, and you can
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: see that here. Some of her titles bring back real women.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: Strong female characters are just toxic men. The absolute degeneracy
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: of modern writing. I think she talked about the pornification,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: let's say, of literature and romanticy fan fiction, ruins everything,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: no lines detected, and things like that. So she's kind
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: of like critiquing the sort of current state of literature,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: and that is not going to happen without some blowback
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: from the people defending that status quo. So we have
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: mister Zod here who is going to sweep in and
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: tell the woman to shut up and sit down because
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: she's doing it wrong and it's political, even though she
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: isn't political at all. So we're gonna be looking at that. No,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: she just cares about.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, that's it. Yeah, yeah, so we're gonna be
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: looking at that. That's the last I interrupted you before
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: you can complete your thought. Apologies. It gets you used
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: to it, all right. So if at any point throughout
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: the show you want to send us a message, you
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: can do so at feedbadger dot com slash just the
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: tip and a tip with that message. I guess it's
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: not I guess it's actually, come to think of it,
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: it's not just the tip, is it. It's it's also
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: a message with the tip. Anyway, Feed the badger dot
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: com slash just the tip very best way for you
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: to send us funds and the best way for you
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: to send that comment not through YouTube's comment enhancement system.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: And if you want to support the show, that's a
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: Feedbadger dot com slash support. This item was was actually
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: sort of request by Richard, not quite as like a
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: break from the Byrony cancer. Yeah, so thank you Richard
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: for taking your boot off our neck for one episode.
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: But anyway, no, I'm just teasing or crying inside. So
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: once again, if you want to support the show, feed
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: the Badger dot com slash support, and if you want
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: to join us in our community, feed the Badger. Nope,
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: not feed the Badger strike that it would be Badger
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: Nation done online. Okay, So yeah, so you know.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: I will say I did see this video like a
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: week ago or something, and I thought about putting it through.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: But it's like an hour and for fifteen minutes. And
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: that's the thing. A lot of what I've noticed with
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: a lot of these like i'll just say it, like
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: feminist kind of responses or woke responses to like regular
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: people that just have regular concerns, is that they know
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: that it's not easy for them to make a good
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: argument quickly and succinctly, so they take like an hour
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: to like roll it all out slowly, with lots and
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: lots of rhetoric and padding. So that's why I was like, God,
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: this is just so much to go through. But I
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: do have some some of something of a I guess
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: you could say, a bullet point list of things to
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: look at. So let's go ahead and get into the
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: primary arguments. Let me see here, we'll jump to about
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: two minutes in so well, I'll play at the beginnings.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: We have a little bit of a background.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: What no, I'm looking forward to this.
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: All right, let's do it flavor of that genre that
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: being a woman presenting with kind of this low key
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: school teacher vibe, wearing a light sweater, sipping tea, surrounded
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: by books. Think maybe Zoe b or Jessa Shire. Now
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: I know I'm painting with a pretty broad stroke of
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: the brush, and maybe it sounds like I'm commoditizing a
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: certain way that women present themselves, But you know, people
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: do brand themselves certain ways for a reason, And I
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: like the kind of thoughtful, relaxing sort of presentation that
• 5:05
  Speaker 3: usually accompanies this esthetic in this case, not so much.
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: This one turned out being a weird conclusion seeking airing.
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: Of fucking God. He doesn't like it because she doesn't
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: share his opinion.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, just to explain, like the second story, all
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: of her videos are sort of like she has like
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: a big mug of coffee or tea or something, and
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: it's like a cozy atmosphere. Like that's her like setup.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: And there's a lot of I guess book two people
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: that have the same kind of setup. And so he's saying, well,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: it's a weird thing to open with, is you know,
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: visually it looks okay, but then she opened her mouth.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: You know, that's kind of what he's saying, right, weird
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: for a male feminist. Yeah, weird thing for a male
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: feminist to say. But okay, he even like, like, you know,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: you notice how he sort of like uh leads it
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: with I don't normally, you know, I prefer this kind
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: of Here are some other women that are more based
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: in my opinion, that also do this. He's like setting
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: it up like I'm not being a sexist because I'm
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: attacking the right woman.
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: But anyway, but also I just wanted to add, like,
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: if you like books, you're gonna have books, right, and
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: you know what's really good to pair with books? Actually
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: not for me, because eventually the contents of my mug
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: will end up on the book. But what's really good
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: to pair with a book generally is a hot beverage
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: of some kind. So I think that the esthetic is
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: less an aesthetic and just what usually happens when somebody
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: likes books, you know, you know what I mean, Just
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: like there are certain things that you usually happen if
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: someone engages in car repair, there are things that accrue
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: when you engage in this particular activity. And maybe it's
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: not an aesthetic, you know what? This is what I'm
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: getting at. Yeah, okay, all right, all.
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: Right, let's let's keep going the wrong ways.
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: It kind of shows how regressive ideas can seep into
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: otherwise normal, thoughtful conversations. And I don't know, it was
• 7:30
  Speaker 3: just kind of a wild ride, so let's go on it.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: So he immediately goes with she's got regressive ideas, all right.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: So again I'm gonna remind you guys that the second
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: story basically takes issue with the direction that fiction writing
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: is headed. That's kind of like where that's that's her
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: only real thing. You know, she's not, like I said,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: she's not political. She's not even really like you know,
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: I don't think she's like base and red pilled or anything.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: She's pretty normal. But that's what I'm I think what's
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: interesting is that the norm, the normal, is now the
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: enemy as well. But all right, so this is the channel,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: it's called, mister z Odd, can I just yep?
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: Oh wait, we should probably you know what I wanted
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: to say something about how pervasive this, what the Second Story,
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: the woman who created the Second Story channel, what her
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: opinion is like, publishing is an industry that is dead.
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna be I'm gonna just lay it out to
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: you and I can talk about the the actual on
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: the ground numbers about this industry, and I will. But
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: there are there. It's not just the Second Story that
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: has a problem with it. Almost like a huge part
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: of everybody who reads has a problem with it. It's
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: just they're not telling anyone, they're just not buying anymore.
• 9:04
  Speaker 3: All right, Okay, Now, before actually getting into her topic,
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: she started with some light drama about who didn't didn't
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: like her previous video, But that kind of washed over
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: me the first time I watched the video, so we're
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: gonna save that for later. There is definitely a rabbit
• 9:21
  Speaker 3: hole to go down there, and the fact.
• 9:22
  Speaker 4: That there has been just as much support, if not more,
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: from women, is also very hardening.
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: The fact that she considers it a little surprising that
• 9:31
  Speaker 3: women also supported her for this last video paints a
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: little bit of the picture, but again, we'll get to
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: that later.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: How yeah, how like do you see that? He's like,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: I don't. There's a lot of like sort of but
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: it's like he he doesn't want to be aggressive, so
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: he does this thing where it's like, well, that says
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: a lot about so and so that says a lot
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: like it like it's very passive aggressive. It's like it's
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: very passive aggressive. But okay, for.
• 10:11
  Speaker 3: Now, let's start into the actual topic of this video,
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: which begins with a description of what an antagonist is
• 10:16
  Speaker 3: in the role they play in a story.
• 10:18
  Speaker 4: Right, let's get into it. Villains or if you like,
• 10:21
  Speaker 4: antagonists are an essential component of any story. This can
• 10:25
  Speaker 4: take a whole assortment of forms. Basically, antagonist really only
• 10:29
  Speaker 4: means that the hero or a protagonist has to have
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: some significant resistance to his ultimate narrative goal. For that reason,
• 10:36
  Speaker 4: you can get away with things like the environment being
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: the antagonist and disaster movies, or the protagonist himself being
• 10:43
  Speaker 4: his own worst enemy in certain kinds of dramatic stories,
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: or both. A villain is really just the opposition to
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: the hero's goal, all right.
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: So this is the video specifically that he's reacting to
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: by her. I believe she wrote a She has a
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: video called Pathetic Evil where she talks about how and
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: I think, oh, it's called safe evil, Safe evil, And
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: the title of video is modern villains are pitiful and impotent.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: So I want you guys to think about that and
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: tell me do you agree with that? So this is
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: the video right here. It's called safe evil. Modern villains
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: are pitiful and impotent. Do you think that's true? Because
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: that's the criticism she's levying at, like the current state
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: of not just books like you know, the the literature,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: but also film and television like right now. That's why
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: her her thumbnail has like, you know, I guess what
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: she would call good examples like Thanos and what's the
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: guy from Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter, Comedists from
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: the Gladiator movie, and surn from Lord of the rings.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: So she's basically saying that they don't write villains like
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: that anymore. So, Uh, okay, I don't know if you
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: want to say anything about that, Allison, or if you're.
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: Just want me to he Yeah, I'm thinking that we're
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: not going to really have a discussion of whether or
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: not villains are sort of pathetic. Now. I think we're
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: gonna have a discussion of something completely different than what
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: she's trying to have a discussion about.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: Now, for something completely different, completely different.
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: I suspect that's what.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Man three buttons, mister.
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: Sad is going to bring. We're gonna be He's gonna
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: bring the conversation about the man with three buttocks.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: This is not the ZOD that I remember. All right,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: let's let's keep going.
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: Is it just me or did the science? Did the
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: sound just stop?
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: Oh you can't hear it? Oh I might have to wait,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: let me see. Yeah right, yeah. You know. For some reason,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: some some times when I pause this, I have to
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: do the uh hold on, I have to stop sharing
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: and then share it again. I don't get why that.
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: Is, because it wants to be difficult.
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, lame is what it is, all right.
• 13:16
  Speaker 4: It is really just the opposition to the hero's goal.
• 13:19
  Speaker 3: So I guess this is fine. Is kind of a
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: basic classroom style explanation of what an antagonist is. It's
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: pretty basic, but sometimes you do need to lay the groundwork.
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: So that's all cool. We will revisit this soon. Then
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: she gets into her thesis. First, she describes what she
• 13:35
  Speaker 3: sees as a change in modern stories.
• 13:38
  Speaker 4: That being said villains. That it's to say, bad guys
• 13:42
  Speaker 4: have been experiencing a strange evolution in the last few decades,
• 13:45
  Speaker 4: especially more recently. For one thing, they have become less
• 13:48
  Speaker 4: and less villainous. Taking it further, they have become less
• 13:52
  Speaker 4: and less evil.
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: Then she describes why bad guys aren't as bad as
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: they once were.
• 13:57
  Speaker 4: Part of this isn't an effort in modern and most
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: modern literature to provide all aspects of the story with
• 14:03
  Speaker 4: more multidimensional realism.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: All right, let me before she misrepresents, and I should
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: have audio now, so let me know. Do you guys
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: see it? She said? Part of the reason for this,
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: So like she's being very charitable by saying, well, modern
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: writers are trying to basically like make the villains more
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: three dimensional and less kind of like you know, flat
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: or overly simplistic, right, So that's but this is her
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: saying that's part of it. And nuanced villains have always existed,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: so it's not like the modern writing culture created that,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: so you know. But she's basically explaining that while this
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: is okay in certain circumstances, it's become, I think, the
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: predominant way that we write. In fact, it's almost inverted,
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: which you know, I would argue it is inverted and
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: it's on purpose, but she's trying to be very delicate.
• 15:07
  Speaker 4: So naturally a villain.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: Time, what the time for charity is gone? It's over?
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah? No, no, yeah, for sure?
• 15:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah, adjacent, So there ought to be more to him
• 15:20
  Speaker 4: than just being the bad guy. Maybe we ought to
• 15:23
  Speaker 4: examine how he came to be the bad guy, or
• 15:26
  Speaker 4: whether or not his goals might have some merit.
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: So basically, modern antagonists are being painted as less one
• 15:32
  Speaker 3: dimensionally evil so they can serve as actual characters in
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: a more realistic story. Makes sense to me, but she
• 15:41
  Speaker 3: doesn't see it exactly that way.
• 15:42
  Speaker 4: All of this ostensibly in the pursuit of richer characters,
• 15:46
  Speaker 4: which is not an unworthy pursuit. But let's tackle this
• 15:49
  Speaker 4: issue one piece at a time. All of this literary
• 15:52
  Speaker 4: experimentation has its place, I suppose, if you do it right, which,
• 15:56
  Speaker 4: as I said, we'll get into in a bit here.
• 15:58
  Speaker 3: And here we go. Oh, this kind of writing has
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: its place, I suppose if you do it right. Now,
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: the words if you do it right just don't sit
• 16:10
  Speaker 3: super well with me. Like, maybe I'm being a little
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: harsh with the graphic I already know I plan to
• 16:14
  Speaker 3: put on screen, But I think the core comparison stands.
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: Okay, now here's where we jumped the shark. Did you
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: guys catch that? Allison? Did you catch that? Uh?
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: Yes I did. Why can't they protest peacefully? But not
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: like that? Like that and not like this? Okay, Well,
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: so we're comparing any expectation of quality or standard to
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: marginalizing people who are protesting. And I assume that the
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: Canadian trucker protest isn't it doesn't belong on this meme,
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: this left meme at all. No, for some reason, government
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: overreach in particular in a particular time period is completely fine.
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: But I digress. We are now basically saying right that
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: she has an opinion on how things should be written. Now,
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: whether or not it's personal opinion or it's an objective
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: craft metric. We haven't determined yet. He's already poisoning the
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: well and saying that she is part of some kind
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: of tyranny, probably patriarchal, let's face it, because it always
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: is patriarchal tyranny, all right.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and also again immediately goes to she must be
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: racist because this image is picked for a very specific reason.
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: He's trying to like he's trying to plaster her with
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: a label without overtly doing it, which is why he
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: even said, well, this could be maybe this is a
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: little hyperbolic. Maybe, but I'm gonna put it out there
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: anyway and let you with the audience, come to your
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: own conclusion. You see how he does that. It's very
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: it's very very feminine. I don't know how else to
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: describe it. It's very passive aggressive. It's very much like
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: I don't want to be held accountable for the allegations
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: I make. If you say, well, you know, I don't
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: know if it was rape, but I do know that
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: I didn't want it, and like I didn't like the
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: way I felt afterwards, and I don't remember much, and
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: you know, I don't think I should call the cops.
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: But maybe something should happen to this person in the future.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: I'm not saying something should happen, you know, and it's like,
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: what are you doing? Like it's that's what this is.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: Also, I just want to say, with regards to this
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: specific point he's trying to make, I think it's ridiculous
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: because let's look at the trucker protests. What's the difference
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: between the trucker protests in Canada and these Black Lives
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: Matter protests. I'll tell you what the difference was. The
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: trucker's got debanked, some of them got fined, arrested. There
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: were consequences of force coming from the government with these No,
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: there were no consequence. Nobody arrested Kobe Bryant, nobody arrested
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: Kyle Kaepernick. None of that happened. You know what happened.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: There were people that criticized the behavior because they said, well,
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: I think you guys are kneeling for the wrong things.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: I don't think that this is correct. I disagree with
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: you in terms of like what it is that you did.
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: I don't think you should be doing this. But nobody
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: said you're fired. Nobody said you're going to jail. Nobody
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: said you don't have access to your bank account anymore.
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: This is not even in the same sport. This is
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: like nothing alike. So when when you're the people you
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: like are criticized, not like penalized, not arrested, not fined,
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: just criticized by some people on the internet for reacting
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: to the you know, for doing whatever they do for protesting,
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: you think that that's the same as people being fined
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: and debanked. You don't care about the people who got debanged.
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: You probably thought they should have stayed in their homes
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: because you know, COVID, if it did anything, it revealed
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: how much people, how comfortable people were with state violence,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: with state force. So I'm not even gonna accept this.
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: I'm like, you know what, I don't care if you
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: have really awful opinions on this stuff, but I don't
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: want you going to jail for it. So that's that's
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: what I would say. So yeah, no, not at all
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: the same. And I know what you're trying to do again,
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: You're trying to make paint this woman as something that
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: she clearly isn't. In fact, she probably would have agreed
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: with all of this stuff, but you don't care about
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: that because you don't like that she has an opinion
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: on how villains should be written in fiction.
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not even sure how this individual became.
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: Right wing, but because she disagreed with him, that's it.
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: But anyway, he disagreed with her, because I don't think
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: there's any act like, I don't even know if she
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: really recognizes anyway.
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, continue, Okay, let's in either case, it seems a
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: person sees the behavior is inherently problematic and doesn't want
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: to admit that, so instead they just presume to tell
• 21:09
  Speaker 3: everybody else how they expect others to engage in it,
• 21:12
  Speaker 3: usually an arbitrary, vaguely expressed terms that leave them perpetually
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: subject to your approval and probably unable to ever win.
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: That sounds like a question, But.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: Again, this is all over her saying there may be
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: can we write villains better? Yeah, there may be a
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: way to write a villain, you know, well, who is
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: not really a villain. But I don't see that happening,
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: and we have we haven't even got like she is
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: pre judging. I think I recall not necessarily agreeing with her.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: But I'm pretty sure that all of this other stuff
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: is him. His him trying to inject baggage into her
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: opinion on something that is real, relatively innocuous. I mean,
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: I'm going to offer a much less innocuous opinion than hers,
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: I guarantee it. So why don't we continue?
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: All right?
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: If this seems like an overreaction, part of it might
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: be that I've seen this video to the end, and
• 22:15
  Speaker 3: maybe you'll catch up with me as we get there.
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: But I suspect you're already picking up on the same
• 22:20
  Speaker 3: vibe I am. Before reaching this final conclusion, she'd already
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: referred to the writing of fleshed out characters as a
• 22:26
  Speaker 3: strange evolution, suggesting that it's a new thing, which it's not,
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: and said that this is being done ostensibly in pursuit
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: of richer characters.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: Wait, let's go back to that.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: Wait. Wait, there's some scope creep happening here. Now he's
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: talking about her being against fleshed out characters. No, she
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: said she thinks that villains have become pathetic. All right,
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: but continue, Brian.
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, I just want to read this part. I
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: don't know if she's quoting, like this is him that
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: wrote this, but it says villains that it's to say
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: bad guys he's quoting her have been experiencing a strange
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: evolution in the past few decades, especially more recently, which
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: I don't think is untrue, but I think it's more
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: it's maybe been You could maybe argue it's been like
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: a slower process that's kind of like, you know, pumped
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: the gas a little bit. Recently. For one thing, they've
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: become less and less villainous. Taking it further, they become
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: less and less evil. Part of this is an effort
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: in modern and postmodern literature. Postmodern literature is interesting to
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: provide all aspects of a story with more multi dimensional realism. Naturally,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: a villain would be a human or a human adjacent,
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: so there ought to be more to him than just
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: being the bad guy. Maybe we ought to examine how
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: he became to be the bad guy, or whether or
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: not his goals might have some merit. All of this
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: ostensibly in the pursuit of richer characters, which is not
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: an unworthy pursuit. But let's tackle this issue one piece
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: at a time. All of this literary experimentation has its place,
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: I suppose, if you do it right, which as I said,
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: we'll get into in a bit here. So I think
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: that ultimately what it comes down to is she's saying
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: that if you can't write well, you won't write good villains.
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: Like I mean, ultimately, when she says, if you do
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: it right, it means that you have to be good
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: at writing these kinds of characters. And I think that
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: there's some truth to it, right, I mean, you should
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: be able to write them.
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: Well, yes, that's essentially what we're arguing, and we are
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: saying is apparently equivalent to what this guy considers to
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: be racism.
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, saying that we should write them better is
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: kind of like anti it's pro meritocracy, see, because if
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: you can't write well, then that means you're not.
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: Good at what meritocracy is. Yeah, it's it's patriarchy. Yes,
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: Grammar's patriarchy. Craft standards is patriarchy. Writing villains, Well, that's
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: the patriarchy right there.
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: Writing heroes, well yeah.
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, everything, Yeah, it's all patriarchy, and you gotta point.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: It all out exactly, all right, So uh let's see, Yeah,
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: let's give you a.
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: Range evolution suggesting that it's a new thing, which it's not,
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: and said that this is being done ostensibly in pursuit
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: of richer characters, I guess, meaning there's some other agenda
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: at play here. The whole thing is just obviously drenched
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: and condescending passive aggression, but something that reads.
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: What like not your video isn't drenched in that? But
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: but also like what but but but like what if
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: there is another agenda? Like can can I can? I
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: suspect that every time you tell a story about a
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: character that I know very well that's been around forever,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: and you subvert the everything about them that I can
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: assume that you're you're up to something like is that
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: like like in Rings of Power when they made Sourn
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: like a you know, like a bad boy like Chad.
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: I didn't watch it, but like they made him into
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: almost like a romantic interest character and the people were
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: all like, I can fix him. Do you think that?
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: I would think? Wait? Wait, Salaran is like the embodiment
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: of all evil in Middle Earth, and you're making him
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: into kind of like this dangerous, like you know, sexy
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: guy like and you could say, well, you know, evil
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: is sexy, sure, but you're kind of like this Isn't
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: you know? There is such a thing as in writing
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: there are characters that are just evil like they're elemental evils,
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: like they're pure evil. Those characters do exist, and when
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: you try to inject nuance into that, that's when I
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: become suspicious in other kinds of characters that have trauma
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: or you know, abuse in their history or something I
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: can I can understand that. What was it in you
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: ever read Treasure Island? Right long? John Silver was the
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: villain in the story, but he was also like, you know,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: there was some like there was a part of him
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: that was like that you wanted to like see heal
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: like that, like he wasn't just pure evil, but pure
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: evil is okay too. Like in Sleeping Beauty, the Disney
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: movie Maleficent, it's in her name, she's malevolent. She was
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: pure evil, like she was like a dark fairy that summoned,
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: you know, the fires of hell. And then they made
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: the movie with Angelina Jolie and they completely fucked it
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: up because they were like, oh, well, you know why
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: she's like that because some man did her done wrong,
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: and now it's okay for her to be evil. In fact,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: this is a girl Boss movie now. So like if
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: I saw that and I was like, well, this is
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: fucking fishy, Like am I the am I like some
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: far right bad guy now, because I think that's lazy writing,
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: because somebody wanted what the hell is these Wicked movies about?
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: You know, like this, I'm.
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: Gonna go I'm gonna go to bat for Wicked because
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: I actually really liked Laguire's book. I think it was well.
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: I never read the book, but I don't know much
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: about it. But I'm talking about the movie at least
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: the one with uh, I.
• 27:57
  Speaker 2: Don't even know that. For that one, I think it
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: was well done, all right. She it was more like
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: he was bringing like.
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: A more.
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: A contemporary politics, but it wasn't bad. Okay, I'm gonna
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: go to bat for that.
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: All right. Well, I never saw that, not for but
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: I do think that that characters that were evil, because
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: that was like the most important characteristic. I think that
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: when you redeem them, I think it's it's fair for
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: people to find it suspicious, like you're up to something.
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: So she was called the wicked Witch of the West.
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: Okay, all right, I agree now Having said that, well,
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: I think what he did was well done. I agree
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: that the tendency, yeah, that he started, which it's almost
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: like he started the whole revising fairy tales thing. Yeah,
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: it's very lazy, it's not as well done. And the
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: only reason why they're doing it is because they're, let's
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: face it, they're redeeming wicked women. So what they're doing
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: is they are removing the concept of evil, of recognizing
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: particular forms that evil take. It takes in women.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, and.
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: So I reconcite it. And again, what he did with
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: Wicked is that she was an extremist, she was motivated,
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: and you could see some simple like some sympathetic qualities
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: in her. But at the same time, there was stuff
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: that wasn't sympathetic, So it was it was a more
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: complicated character. But that's not what they're creating. They're not
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: creating more complicated characters. And this is maybe where she's
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: getting into. What they're doing is they're just saying patriarchy done,
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: did it? And they're take looking female evil female characters,
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: blaming men or blaming external circumstances, usually men, and saying
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: that they aren't responsible. That isn't creating a more complex character.
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: That is creating a less well, it's creating a less
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: complex story. Okay, and uh so maybe that's where yeah, well,
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: actually I don't.
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: I don't know if this guy goes through the whole video,
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: but let me let me see if I need to
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: get to the next time code. So, uh, it's a
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: little bit more in this in this clip.
• 30:38
  Speaker 4: As a society have apparently forgotten, is that most of
• 30:41
  Speaker 4: the time, a crucial factor in the villain's character is evil.
• 30:45
  Speaker 4: Of course, I don't mean that all characters need to
• 30:47
  Speaker 4: be Luciferus morning Star or even more goth, although huge, ugly,
• 30:52
  Speaker 4: powerful evil is actually a crucial aspect of fiction that
• 30:56
  Speaker 4: is currently all but extinct.
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: No, I don't share in her assessment that villains need
• 30:59
  Speaker 3: to be evil, but setting that aside and we will
• 31:02
  Speaker 3: get back to it real soon. It's just not true
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: that we don't have evil villains in fiction anymore, right,
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: I mean, just for obvious examples, think of The Joker with.
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: Them, they definitely have evil characters in fiction. They're called
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: white sis hetman.
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and he says, and then he brings up characters
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: that are like twenty years old. So he goes, oh, no,
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: we still have it. How about the Joker? When did
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: that movie come out? Packed to it real soon.
• 31:32
  Speaker 3: It's just not true that we don't have evil villains
• 31:36
  Speaker 3: in fiction anymore, right, I mean, just for obvious examples.
• 31:39
  Speaker 3: Think of the Joker, all.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: Right, So the Joker from the Dark Knight was more
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: an agent of chaos and evil. But I'll leave it be.
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: It's okay, I'll accept it. But that movie came out,
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: what like in two thousand something, I don't know, but
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: it's old. It's it's twenty years old probably, so that's
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: not recent. Now, r Emperor Palpatine is super old, so like,
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: and yeah, this guy is a very good example of
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: real evil. But saying Star Wars is a recent example
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: is kind of ridiculous. Thank you, Crowbar the Skull says
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. That was when Batman. That's almost
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: twenty years old. It's coming up. It's like eighteen years old. Okay,
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: you feel old yet the Dark Knight is eighteen years
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: old Star Wars?
• 32:29
  Speaker 3: Does it need to get more evil than that? Most
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: seasons of Fargo have a clearly evil character. Laurne Malvo
• 32:35
  Speaker 3: orieda mayflower? Hell? Is Roy Tillman not enough for you?
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: Does he? Not seeing evil in your eyes? We'll circle
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: back to our thoughts on that kind of care again.
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: Those are just like cherry picked examples. Many of them
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: are not old enough. Fargo the show, I think that's
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: pretty old as well. But she that doesn't really dispute
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: the trend, you know, and you have to wonder, like again,
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: why are we like do we want because I'm I
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: think we're very close to doing this, okay, do we
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: want Star Wars to make like a show about Emperor
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: Paul Patine's like childhood and we get like this story
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: about how he turned into Paupatine that we're supposed to
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: make him more sympathetic, Like that's what they would do.
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: Now.
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: They wouldn't do it Palpatine because he's got he's like
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: a cis white guy who's clearly straight because he had
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: like a daughter. But but like they would probably do
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: it for any number of other things. And so it
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: makes me think, well, do you just want the the
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: do you just want the concept of evil to lose meaning?
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: Because that's what he you know, when he says, well,
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: I don't think that evil is that important to being
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: a villain. It sounds like it's kind of central to
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: being the villain in the story. Fargo's Heason one was
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, so yeah, that's like twelve years old. That's
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. Fargo, the movie was nineteen ninety six.
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: He was talking about the TV series that came out later.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: Uh black, pat red Ed says, are we talking about
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: writing in film fiction or writing in book fiction? Yeah,
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: it's all writing period. These are vertical chat people.
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: I think welcome vertical chat people. Specialist lay it upon us. Okay,
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: Can I just point something out If you want to
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: talk about a force that opposes the protagonist that isn't villainous,
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: there is a word. It is called an antagonist. And
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: an antagonist does not have to be a villainous, but
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: a villain should probably be villainous. Just saying.
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: What, idiot, Yeah, antagonist is not villain Antagonists is just
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: it could be a rival, it could be the elements,
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: it could be you know, anything else.
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and character javert it's like a character who's upholding
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: the law, like.
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: In The Fugitive. Like in The Fugitive, it was like,
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: you know, Tommy Lee Jones was like the antagonist, but
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: he wasn't a bad guy.
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, No, he wasn't a bad guy. He was just
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: upholding the law while the main character was a fugitive
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: from the law through no fault of his own. So yeah,
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: that's uh, that is a that is an antagonist.
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: All right, I got a super child came in dark.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: Kiki Mora gives five dollars and says, off topic, but
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: do we have an update on the PM situation in
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: the discord? I don't know what that means.
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: There is nothing that I can do Discord. Pms are
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: a Discord feature, not a feature that I have any
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: control over or anyone in the discord.
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: Are you trying to send a private message to someone?
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: You just got to like put their name in Discord
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: and they have to accept the Yeah.
• 36:00
  Speaker 2: The other thing is, if you're having a problem with pms,
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: you can also at people in the discord. That's all
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: I can give you.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: Okay, all right, let's keep going.
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: Character and even a genre deconstruction like The Boys gives
• 36:15
  Speaker 3: us pure psychopathic nightmare fuel in the form of Homelander.
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I like how he brings up like actual subversive
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: content that exists specifically to undermine, like you know, the
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: sort of like let's say, the classical archetypes of good
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: and evil and then says, well, that's a good example,
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: though this is actually a good example. Well, I don't
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: think it's what she would argue, But it's what I
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: would argue about the subversion of everything, the inversion of everything.
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: So well, yeah, you're basically making the argument that I would.
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: I would say, yeah, this is what's happening, right, So
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: I guess. But I mean, The Boys is trash. Like
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: I watched one season. I thought it was garbage. I
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: didn't like it at all. I don't know why it's
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: I don't know how it's managed to stay on air, Like,
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: I don't know why people are impressed with it.
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: It's a subversion of the hero archetype.
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a subversion. Yeah, intentional subversion of hero archetypes.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: And he's like, this is a good example. No, you're
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: you're basically showing me your ass right now because you
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: seem to be in favor of the subversion of everything,
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: and then you're calling it normal. It's just normal writing, bro,
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: It's just postmodern writing. It's what we're doing now. But
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: you don't think that's evil, okay, Yeah, sure, Like there's
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: like if you took like a story like Star Wars
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: and you just made the Emperor good and Luke Skywalker evil,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: this guy would argue, well, there is still evil because look,
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: Luke Skywalker's evil, so we still have villains. And he
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: wouldn't like make the connection of that. Oh you just
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: took like you know, the two sides, didn't reverse them.
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: And now you're oh, yeah, you're saying it's like the success.
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: We still have villains. They're just like the straight white
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: Christians instead of like, you know, the demons. It's like
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: in the Exorcist, you know, the priests that come to
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: do the exorcism, and if they if they were made
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: into the villains and the and Pazzuzu who possessed a
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: little girl, if we found out Pazzuzu was actually a
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: good person that was just abused by his mom or
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: something you know, or had like no, not by his mom,
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: by his dad. Had to be his dad beaten by
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: his alcoholic father in the trailer park in the first
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: layer of Hell. And then he he had to run
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: away from home because he was so abused by his
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: abusive father. So he left hell and possessed a little
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: girl so he could feel safe. And then these big,
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: bad Catholic priests showed up and they exercised him like
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: if you if you said, hey, man, you're you're I
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: don't like the way you're painting it because you're making
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Pezzuzu out to be the good guy. He'd be like, yeah,
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: but the priests are the bad guy. You have bad guys.
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: We had bad guys in this story. They're just the
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: Catholic exorcists. That's all, you know, no foul.
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: I'll believe that they genuinely want to make villains complex
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: when they give Frolo from the Hunchback of Notre Damn
• 39:05
  Speaker 2: this treatment, Yeah, exactly, or the or the antagonist and Pocahontas.
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: Yes, savages, savages barely give it?
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: You do that? Yeah, Otherwise I smell the stink of
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: ideology apon.
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying that that's kind of like what
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: what bothers me about this is that this guy thinks
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: he's very smart by saying, look at this thing that
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: that is intentionally subversive as an example that counters your argument.
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: I don't even know that that the this channel the
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: second story, the lady, I don't even know that she
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: would necessarily disagree that this is an example, but it
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: and even then I think they go into some like
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: weird stuff and with like the villains of this story
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: in the boys to give them some nuanced backgrounds as well,
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: so even then they like still do they don't treat
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: them like just as you know, mustache trolling evil.
• 40:03
  Speaker 3: So but anyway, performances nuanced and shows us why he
• 40:08
  Speaker 3: is the way he is. But that just makes him
• 40:10
  Speaker 3: even scarier, right, And honestly, I just don't care to
• 40:13
  Speaker 3: spend a lot of time rebutting this assertion, especially since
• 40:17
  Speaker 3: Anthony Gramouglia did such a great job covering it himself.
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: It was interesting as a side note, I just happened
• 40:23
  Speaker 3: to run into her video and thought of it as
• 40:24
  Speaker 3: some random little thing only i'd seen, only to find
• 40:27
  Speaker 3: his rebuttal a few days later. I guess that's just
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: the way the algorithm works. But I'm more interested.
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So I was gonna say this woman, she's getting
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: a lot of shit from a lot of other book tubers.
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: Is that they call it book tube. She's getting a
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: lot of shit from a lot of other book tubers
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: because the majority of people on book tube are woke
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: as hell, and they don't like that. She's even like saying,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: you know, this stuff's a bit it's getting it's pretty bad.
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: Like she's like, you know, there's fan fiction and all
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: of it now now. And this isn't just in the books,
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: This isn't TV, this isn't film. You know, yeah, go ahead.
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know why this is happening. It's because book
• 41:09
  Speaker 2: talk and the publishing industry. Book talk is essentially astro
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: turfed by the publishing industry, and they don't want people
• 41:18
  Speaker 2: pointing out that their product is absolute shit. That's it.
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: This is just basically corporate malfeasance and not like not
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: like corporations, like a you know what business that wants
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: to put out a good product that the customer likes,
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: you know, the usual business ethics that we had like
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: fifty years ago. That's not what I'm talking about, m h.
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: This is a corporation that insists it knows what the
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: customer wants, and it doesn't, and it is engaging in
• 41:52
  Speaker 2: false practices in order to extract from customers financially. So
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: it's uh, it is or she's gonna get shit, and
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: this is exactly why she's getting ship. And there is
• 42:05
  Speaker 2: no point being nice to these people because the reason
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: why they use this rhetoric is to protect the shoddy product.
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: That's it. There are a bunch of con artists pretending
• 42:20
  Speaker 2: they have a product worth the damn forsting it on
• 42:23
  Speaker 2: people in ignorance through astroturfing campaigns. And they don't want
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: anybody puncturing their Ponzi scheme. That's it. And they'll use
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: any tactic, and of course we all know what tactics
• 42:38
  Speaker 2: they love most. You're a racist, you're transphobe, you're a misogynist,
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: you have internalized misogyny, you're a handmaid, and you're a pigmy.
• 42:48
  Speaker 2: You don't understand nuance. That's all. It's all it is
• 42:54
  Speaker 2: is a smoke screen and a shield for corporate malfeasons.
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: I don't know how the book industry is continuing to operate,
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: but they are a hollow, smoking crater. Well, actually I
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: do through fraud, through deceit, and through the fact that
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: they inherited a whole bunch of work that a whole
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: bunch of Cis white heat men did in the sixties, seventies,
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: eighties and start tapering off in the nineties. That's the backlist.
• 43:28
  Speaker 2: They live off the backlist. That's why they can engage
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: in this bullshit. And I'm gonna I am going to
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: detail all the bullshit that the publishing industry engages in
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: this guy probably maybe maybe he's too small, maybe he's
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: a true believer, gets a kickback to go attack a
• 43:44
  Speaker 2: woman for pointing out that the publishing industry is creating crap. Right,
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: this is all freakin' astroturfed. All right, let's keep going,
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: all right.
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going.
• 43:57
  Speaker 3: And is the fact that she can be so clearly, obviously,
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: factually incorrect and just wear that raight on her sleeve.
• 44:05
  Speaker 3: There's a level of sloppiness here that, to me anyway,
• 44:08
  Speaker 3: seems to indicate that she's just zeroed in on some
• 44:10
  Speaker 3: predetermined conclusion and is willing to blurt out anything that
• 44:13
  Speaker 3: will get her there. And she is this obviously sloppily
• 44:17
  Speaker 3: wrong a lot for fascinating reasons that we will see unfold.
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: As the hydeographer, I would say.
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: A lot of things about the second story, but sloppily
• 44:25
  Speaker 2: wrong is not one of them. Like I disagree with
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: almost all of her conclusions, I'm not on her side.
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: I don't mean on her side intellectually. I disagree with
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: a lot of the things that she says. I'm on
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: her side in terms of she doesn't deserve crap like this,
• 44:44
  Speaker 2: she doesn't deserve being ganged up on or experiencing the wagging,
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: circling or this dude and his aspersions on the quality
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: of her work, right, that's not deserved.
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, right, No, I agree. I mean, like, you know,
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: I don't. I I like, I haven't watched too many
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: of her videos. I like her content when I watch it.
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: I think that she's basing most of her work on
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: like kind of like you know, mythological archetypes and like
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: the literature of the past, like the way back, not
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: like you know, the fucking Stephen King, but going way back,
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: you know. And I appreciate that. I don't. I think
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: that she probably doesn't think that what she's engaging in
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: is political at all. I think that she's concerned with
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: the craft. But the problem is is that, again, like
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: I said at the beginning of the video, she has
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: she has made the terrible mistake of being critical of
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: the of the thing you can never criticize, which is
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: the fact that a lot of the people that are
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: in the industry are just not good at their job.
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: And that means that she cares about meritocracy. So but
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: can you.
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: Can you realize how absolutely perfect a narrative that meritocracy
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: is immoral and a function of toxic masculinity is to
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: people who don't want to own their failures, or con
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: artists or fraudsters or thieves, like it is the perfect narrative.
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: I don't have.
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: It's morally, I'm being moral by presenting a subpar product.
• 46:27
  Speaker 2: And if you have your merit, your desire for a
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: good product, that is patriarchy, that is privileged, that's entitlement.
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: So we're supposed to consume slop because it's self righteous
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: to be taken advantage of it. It's self righteous for
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: the con artists to take advantage of us because merit
• 46:51
  Speaker 2: is patriarchal.
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: Okay, all right, so I'm gonna keep going. But first
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: I just want to say, this guy thinks that he's
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: like scoring points, but he literally hasn't really made any
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: arguments yet. He just promised that she's about to like,
• 47:06
  Speaker 1: you know, completely collapse any second now, Like he keeps saying,
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: I'll prove it, I'll prove it, I'll prove it, but
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: he hasn't said anything other than the one time where
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: he said, well, yeah, there's plenty of villainous examples, brings
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: up shit from twenty years ago, claims it's recent. So anyway,
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: no arguments yet, just a lot of like veiled insults.
• 47:26
  Speaker 3: Like peeling back layers on an onion, I guess. And
• 47:29
  Speaker 3: speaking of sloppiness, just watch what comes next. It's weird.
• 47:34
  Speaker 4: What I mean is that the clear moral judgment and
• 47:37
  Speaker 4: acceptance that the villain character is morally bad in some
• 47:41
  Speaker 4: major significant way is a critical part of making a villain.
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: Now, obviously this isn't true. A villain does not need
• 47:49
  Speaker 3: to be evil. The audience does not need to be
• 47:52
  Speaker 3: able to judge it as morally bad in some major
• 47:54
  Speaker 3: significant way. The only only thing it needs to be
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: able to do is provide an obstacle for a protagonist.
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: What no villains should be wrong. Antagonists should be oppositional,
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: and in fact, a lot of times antagonists are wrong too.
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: They just they're not evil, per se.
• 48:13
  Speaker 2: What what is this like? You? No, you don't know words, sir,
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: these words, you don't know them. A villain is villainist.
• 48:25
  Speaker 2: That's why they're called a villain. The word you are
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: searching for is an antagonist. And she's not talking about
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: all antagonists needing to be villains. She's saying villains need
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: to be villains, because that is the essence of a villain.
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: That is why they are called a villain and not
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: an antagonist. Like what At this point, it's like, are
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: are we? This conversation is not possible with you, sir.
• 48:54
  Speaker 2: It's not like you are not willing to use a dictionary.
• 49:00
  Speaker 2: You are not willing to abide by fair rules of
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: engagement when it comes to arguments, like so where do
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: we go from here? Sir?
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: Where?
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: Because the land that you are arguing in is not
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: a land I recognize, it's a land where words mean
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: whatever he wants them to mean in order to win
• 49:21
  Speaker 2: an argument, and apparently something something all.
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: Right, yeah, basically yeah.
• 49:30
  Speaker 2: Okay, So right now, guys, we have to accept the
• 49:34
  Speaker 2: premise that they we can't distinguish between a villain, an antagonist,
• 49:40
  Speaker 2: and an antagonist, which is the first thing that she
• 49:44
  Speaker 2: talked about. I believe she said that there can be
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: villainous forces and antagonistic forces. Well, there can be villains
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: and antagonistic forces and antagonists, right yeah, And she'd made
• 49:57
  Speaker 2: the distinction. Now he is forcing the distinction to collapse,
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: and I'm like, no, this is a load bearing distinction, sir.
• 50:06
  Speaker 2: You cannot collapse this otherwise you are Now we are
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: now deviating from anything that she said, and we are
• 50:14
  Speaker 2: going into a very strange land, an upside down land,
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: if you if you will, mm hmm.
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: Black cat read Ed says he's confusing antagonist with villainy
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: I don't, I don't know that. I think you're being
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: really charitable. So if he's saying this, okay, So it
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: comes down to one of two things. Either he's stupid
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: and doesn't know the difference between a villain and an antagonist,
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: or he's being maliciously misleading and he is intentionally like
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: conflating the terms in order to make the person he
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: is criticizing a peer stupid. And I don't think that
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: he's that stupid. I think that he knows that an
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: antagonist is not the same as a villain, even though
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: he says villains don't have to be evil. I mean,
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: he may not have a moral foundation, Like if you
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: don't know that evil is real, if you don't think
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: there's any such thing as evil, and everything is postmodern
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: and everything is like, hey, bro, it's just your opinion.
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: Like in my opinion, I should be able to take
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: all your stuff, you know, because I was deprived of stuff,
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: like for some reason, I want your stuff, and that's
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: just my opinion. Bro, it doesn't make me evil. And
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: he might even say, oh, yeah, that makes sense. I
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: guess you want my stuff then, But the reality is
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: that that's evil and that should be based in something.
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: You know, Yeah, be like skeleton or don't be like Skeletory.
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: He's evil, but understand that that go ahead, Ali said,
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry she.
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: Started by defining this. Have we forgotten No.
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: She did. She said that there are antagonists that are villains,
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: and there are antagonists that are nate sure itself, you know,
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: like it could be like in Twister, the tornadoes were
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: not evil. They were just tornadoes. They were and they
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: were nature. You know. In The Revenant, the movie with
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: Leonardo DiCaprio, like the guy who left him, who left
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: him to his death, was evil because he was being
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: a cell even if he had like a reason for it.
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: It was an evil thing to do, you know. But
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: the bear that like mauled him was not evil. It
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: was just an antagonist. It was just like a temporary
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: antagonist because it was a mother defending her cubs and
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: didn't well, it wasn't concerned with whatever his plight was.
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: It was a bear you know.
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, regardless, she made very clear that what she
• 52:47
  Speaker 2: was talking about, and now she he has collapsed the
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: definition that she made very clear at the beginning of this. Therefore,
• 52:55
  Speaker 2: we are no longer discussing her video at all. Mm
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: hmm whatever he's saying after this point? What point? What minute?
• 53:02
  Speaker 2: Is this?
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: Now? About eight minutes in seven and a half.
• 53:06
  Speaker 2: Okay, so this is about an hour long, So fifty
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: two and a half minutes of this has absolutely nothing
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: to do with what the second story said.
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, his premise jumped the shark, and now it's free reign.
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: Now that he's created the new, let's say, baseline presumption,
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: he can like criticize that his heart's content based on
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: that initial presumption. So all right, oh.
• 53:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let's go.
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: As long as it does that, then bam, by definition,
• 53:41
  Speaker 3: it's an antagonist. And do you know who else thinks this?
• 53:45
  Speaker 3: She does, because she says as much earlier in the
• 53:49
  Speaker 3: video twice.
• 53:50
  Speaker 4: Basically, antagonist really only means that the hero or protagony.
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: So he puts a footnote at the bottom here where
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: it says she uses the words villain and antagonist interchange
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: and even identifies them as the synonyms earlier in the video. Well,
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: they can be like a villain is a kind of antagonist.
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: But again, you don't care about that, this is what
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: he claims. I think she's being pretty clear.
• 54:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, from what I remember, she was clear that, yes,
• 54:18
  Speaker 2: a villain can be an antagonist, but not all antagonists
• 54:22
  Speaker 2: or villains. That's the point that she's making in her argument,
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: and that of the sub type of antagonist that is
• 54:31
  Speaker 2: a villain, she considers them poorly written. Now we haven't
• 54:35
  Speaker 2: even gotten to why. I'm actually curious to remember what
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: it was she said.
• 54:40
  Speaker 4: Kay has to have some significant resistance to his ultimate
• 54:45
  Speaker 4: narrative goal. A villain is really just the opposition to
• 54:50
  Speaker 4: the Shiro's goal.
• 54:51
  Speaker 3: She also made it clear that there can be a
• 54:53
  Speaker 3: lot of variations.
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: Well wait, when that's not wrong though, So she and
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: the villain is of the opposition the hero's goal, but
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: an antagonist is also an obstacle. Well, it's an obstacle,
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: and that may not necessarily be opposition. So she's not
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: wrong unless you're just like nitpicking for the sake of kicking.
• 55:15
  Speaker 2: Take of it to support his argument that she apparently
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: considers villains an antagonists to be the same thing even
• 55:22
  Speaker 2: though she clearly states they're not. Yeah, he's just he's
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: just trying to rules lawyer this to death.
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Really, how the.
• 55:33
  Speaker 2: Frick do we have a conversation like this? But whatever?
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: Oh my god.
• 55:36
  Speaker 4: Anyway, what an antagonist is This can take a whole
• 55:39
  Speaker 4: assortment of forms.
• 55:40
  Speaker 3: And that the antagonist doesn't need to even be another person.
• 55:43
  Speaker 4: For that reason, you can get away with things like
• 55:46
  Speaker 4: the environment being the antagonist and disaster movies, or the
• 55:49
  Speaker 4: protagonist himself being his own worst enemy. And certain.
• 55:55
  Speaker 2: Are you arguing that she thinks that the environment is
• 55:58
  Speaker 2: a villain because that's what you that's what you're attributing
• 56:01
  Speaker 2: to her. Now, I swear to god, this is just deceitful. Yeah, okay, so.
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: Uh well, let me see I can jump ahead to
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: I think I want to get to the end of Okay,
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: let's get to the next bit. So let me see
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: literary criticism. Okay, ten, let's go like right here, it's
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: right here.
• 56:32
  Speaker 3: That'd be true at the same time, and I think
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: that is consequential. It's enough to at least start to
• 56:37
  Speaker 3: suggest to me anyway that there are not a lot
• 56:40
  Speaker 3: of precise concepts underpinning her discussion. That maybe even This
• 56:46
  Speaker 3: isn't literary analysis as much as an airing of Hazley
• 56:50
  Speaker 3: understood grievances. If you're a you'll probably get there.
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm just so intelligent. You guys are. You're
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: not there yet, but you will be.
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they love going here. Mm hmm.
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: She's obviously like a bigot of some kind. I just
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: need to show you all. It's like an.
• 57:07
  Speaker 3: Onion stick around. A lot of what follows, or at
• 57:11
  Speaker 3: least right after, this is just kind of a meandering
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: reiteration of her two main points that evil villains are
• 57:17
  Speaker 3: an important part of storytelling and that stories these days
• 57:20
  Speaker 3: just don't have them. So I don't think we need
• 57:22
  Speaker 3: to rehash all that along with her.
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: Right. Well, let me see, though, Alison, is that true?
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: And look, I'm not talking about Star Wars or some
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: shit from twenty years ago. I mean now now, like,
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: are there is there a let's say, a lack of
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: stories that actually have real villains in them, or at
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: least real conflict or stakes, because conflict is what I
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: think she's talking about, like in terms of oh yeah, yeah,
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: like the conflict, because I think that the problem with
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: modern stories and I don't read a lot of anything
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: new I've been reading, like Starship Troopers, like Heinlein, not
• 58:06
  Speaker 1: the movie, I've seen that many times. And but yeah,
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: like I think that most modern stories seem to be
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: more like soap operas, Like they have relational like it's
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: a it's like a relational web or something. Yeah, go ahead,
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: get into it.
• 58:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, my operational versus relational web modalities in my analysis
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: of literature. All right, I mean, I'm not going to
• 58:35
  Speaker 2: be here and be like concerned about necessarily having evil
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: villains because that's not really my thing. But conflict, Yeah,
• 58:46
  Speaker 2: modern fiction has a real problem with conflict the stories
• 58:52
  Speaker 2: and the and the reason why is they want it
• 58:54
  Speaker 2: to be female centered. They want the woman to ultimately
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: be vindicated and they do not want her to suffer.
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: So what I've been seeing is this interesting. Actually, it's
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: really obvious if they have like male characters, because the
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: male characters will suffer, they'll endure things, they'll be making
• 59:17
  Speaker 2: decisions with stakes, but they are categorically denied any position
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: in the climax because that is reserved for the women.
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: And at the climax, the solution is not any kind
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: of actual fight or conflict of any sort. It is
• 59:39
  Speaker 2: some kind of collaborative, communal thing that ultimately vindicates the
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: female characters. Even though it's the male characters that are
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: bringing the grit and the tone and the atmosphere of danger.
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: They don't get a place in the climax. And this
• 59:56
  Speaker 2: is actually terrible writing, because you don't don't want to
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 2: spend chapters with a character who's making decisions that you
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: care about, who is enduring suffering that you care about,
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: and injustice that you care about, and have that character
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 2: locked out of the climax. Why because you feel like
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 2: your time is wasted. You don't want to waste your
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 2: audience's time when you spend time on things. And this
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: is the closer you get to the beginning. The more
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: time you spend on something, the more it should be
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 2: at the climax, or somehow involved at the climax. That's
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 2: where Chekhov's gun comes from. You don't put something in
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 2: your story that doesn't actually do something for the ultimate
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 2: climax of your story. That's bad writing. So their lack
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: of being able to create a proper conflict with the
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 2: characters they want to focus on, which are female characters,
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: means that their stories are disjointed, they're poorly taste, they
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 2: have tonal problems. Their characters are bland and disinteresting, and
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 2: their climaxes are they're not. They just fall flat. It's
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: bad writing, and it's bad writing because it's pressured by
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: ideology to be something it isn't. Now, I don't think
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: that she would say stuff like this. I'm not sure
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: if she's done quite the level of analysis that I've done,
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 2: and she just wants more feisty villains. But like you
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: were saying, I think it's the conflict that needs to
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 2: be brought back. It is the main characters need to
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: suffer and sacrifice that the climax, so that the decision
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: they make and the sacrifices they make, and the ultimate
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 2: conclusion of your story means something. You haven't wasted everybody's
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: time getting to that point, and you don't have It
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 2: doesn't have to be like huge. Good writer can make
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: someone dropping a hanky be a huge climax because they've
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 2: set everything up to that point. They haven't wasted your time.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: They've clearly stated the stakes of someone dropping a handkerchief.
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: They can make it work. But because they have all
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 2: these ideological pressures on them, it basically distorts the story
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: into a pile of mush with no conflict or no
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 2: our conflict. That isn't satisfying. So that's what I would
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: say this is coming from. And she's identified a lack
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: of villains. I think it's deeper than that, because you
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: can still have conflict without having like evil villains. You
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 2: can have conflict with having evil villains that you can
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 2: understand their motives and yet they're still evil. Like there's
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: there's a whole wide range of things, and the problem
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 2: isn't necessarily the lack of villains. It's the fact that
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 2: they don't want to see consequences. Okay, all right, I.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: Got a super chat from sarahthus for one thousand puffs.
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: I don't know what that is, but it sounds like
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: Harry Potter money. And he says, speaking of conflict and villains,
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: my friend just finished her dark fantasy fairytale horror. Check
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: out fay Fire by lumin Moon on Royal Road. Well,
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: thank you, sarahis hopefully it has some conflicts and villains
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: or antagonists in it or something. I'm sure it's good.
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: I'm sure it's good. All right, so let's move on.
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 3: But there are a couple places where she just really
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 3: tilts her hand and shows the kind of literary analysis
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 3: she's up to. Like this, for.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 4: Example, the idea of evil as an important aspect of
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 4: a villain character has been shunned more and more by
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 4: the pseudo intellectual literary elite, who will tell you.
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: That, ooh, so she's throwing shade at the at I
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: think the same people that Allison is talking about. I
• 1:03:59
  Speaker 1: just want to look. Get these headlines the banality of
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: evil in fiction, just in case you don't feel like
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: reading this whole article. Let's get this out of the way.
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: Don't write a character who's evil because he has an
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: uncontrollable lust for power. That shit is boring, there's no
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: story in it. Okay, uh wait a second.
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 2: But you can propose that every single man has a
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 2: has a moment where the invisible patriarchy touches his brow
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 2: as he's a young sockling infant, and he is like
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 2: inculcated with the evil of oppressing women Like I don't know, dude,
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 2: I think your entire ideology has the most simplistic, one
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: dimensional understanding of evil in all of human history. And
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 2: you don't. You don't have no room to throw shade born.
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: By the pseudo intellectual the d demonization of evil, bainality,
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: aren't satra The problem of evil will be fundamental question
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: of post war intellectual life in Europe, as death became
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 1: a fundamental problem after the last war. Okay, so the
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: de demonization of evil, all.
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 4: Right, elite who will tell you that black cloak villainy
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 4: villains who are obviously very bad is childish and unrealistic.
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 3: This signals to me that she is not only out
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 3: of touch with the literary community, but totally uninterested in
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 3: engaging with it, because what she does here amounts to
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 3: taking a drive by shit on it.
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they do deserve it.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: Like what she doesn't have to engage in?
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: Why aren't they engaging with us? I don't know. Because
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 1: you just called her a fucking racist white supremacist in
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: like the first five minutes. It's obvious that you don't
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: really want to hear what she has to say. But okay, anyway,
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 1: I got a super child from Richard. Richard Pierre gives
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: us five dollars thank you and says, so the future
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: of writing is that Morning Glory Milking Farms is to
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: be an epic of the Lord of the Ring status.
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: Given that violence, quest for authentic Star Wars coffee is
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: right up there with Proto's quests to bring the One
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: Ring to Mount Doom, to destroy it, to free the
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: world from the greatest evil of that time, because apparently
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: it is a similar level of evil to have to
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: fill one Starbucks cup with gas station coffee.
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 2: Okay, So to explain this, the motivation of the character
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: in Morning Glory Milking Farm tongage with the the industrial
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 2: extraction process of Minotaur milking is that she can't afford
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 2: Starbucks coffee and she has to have convenience store coffee.
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: And that's literally in the story of the book of
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: this then selling romance novel that women are reading right now,
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: Morning Glory Milking Farm.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 2: Well, who knows if it's really best selling. I could
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 2: probably find out.
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: Actually, anybody, anybody that's writing about the fucking Lori Penny
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: is a New York Times bestseller. Anybody who basically writes
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: a book that says the right things will become a
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: New York Times It'll make the New York Times list.
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: So yeah, like I like we said, the industry itself
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: is cooked.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, there's the potentially this is just purchased. Uh,
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 2: it's entirely possible. I can actually tell you.
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 1: I can't.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 2: I think I can actually tell you how much Morning
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: Glory Making, Milking making Farm, milking farm really sold. But yeah,
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: it'll take a moment, So why don't we continue.
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: I'll just continue in the meantime.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 3: Pseudo intellectual literary elite, a term that in and of
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 3: itself might just tell us everything we need to know
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 3: about who she is and what she's up to here.
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: So there's again it's more of the like suggesting, suggesting, suggesting,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: like if I yeah, they are pseudo intellectual. So what
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 1: he's like, Oh, well, this says everything we need to
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: know about her? How many times take a drink every
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: time he says, this is telling us everything we didn't
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: know about what she really thinks without him actually saying
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: what he thinks she thinks because he can't say that
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: because he doesn't know what she actually thinks, because that's
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 1: mind reading and nobody can do that. So instead he
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: has to constantly imply, imply, imply, imply. It's so ill, dude,
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 1: I want to punch him in the face because he's
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: so indirect, he's so in minecraft. No I don't want to.
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 1: I don't want to hurt anybody, but I.
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 2: Could only in minecraft.
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 3: On top of that, she claims that they just don't
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 3: like the idea of an evil villain, or of evil
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: being an important part of a villain's character. And this
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 3: just seems dumb on its face, right, Like, the literary
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 3: community is not one monolithic voice. There are a lot
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 3: of different people who say a lot of different and.
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: Not all pseudo literal, pseudo intellectual elitist writers. Okay, bucco,
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: you just committed a fallacy. Looks like I win the argument.
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: You just made a generalization, even though she just said,
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: here's a whole bunch of examples.
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 3: Okay, And you know, a lot of times they disagree
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 3: with each other. So when somebody claims that an intellectual
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: or academic community is just one thing and it's one
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 3: thing you don't.
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: Like, it's she didn't claim that. Again, he's he's he's
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: arguing against somebody who isn't even there.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 2: He's kind of they don't disagree. They don't disagree on
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 2: who their enemy is.
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: No, that's true, they don't disagree on who the enemy is.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: But he's saying, oh, they're not a monolith. She she's
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: like plastering all of them. Know, she said, here are
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: several pseudo intellectual elites writing about this. He didn't say,
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: it's everybody that's like a ridiculous straw man and he
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: and he thinks that he just is a gotcha. And
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: again he still hasn't said anything of substance. I don't
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: know if you guys are paying attention. He doesn't say
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 1: anything of substance for an hour and fifteen.
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 3: Minutes intellectual rant. Right, maybe, I don't know. Seems a
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 3: little wrong to me. But on top of that, literary
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 3: critics and most modern storytellers seem to be pretty in
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 3: love with evil characters. I already gave some examples, right,
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 3: They just kind of prefer them to be fleshed out
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 3: and nuanced instead of one dimensional cartoon character.
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: No, this guy's not flushed out of nuance. I'm sorry
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 1: Homelander has given I don't even want to. It's only
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 1: gotten worse from what I heard that this guy dude
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: really okay?
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 3: Anyway, So what seems to be happening here is Lane
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 3: and that's her name. I don't know if I've mentioned
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 3: it yet. Lane is conflating two different ideas. First, the
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 3: idea of an evil character in general, which can be
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 3: done very well, and the concept of what she calls
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: black cloak villain, which will never clearly defined, evokes a
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: flat character who just does bad things because the story
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 3: needs bad things to happen. Now, who knows what exactly
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 3: she means.
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: Wait, are you saying that the Joker is like deep
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: and nuanced because I didn't watch, Like, I don't know
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: who these other characters are, but anyway, I'll just keep going.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: I think that's a stretch. The Joker is, he's actually pretty.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: You might be talking about the New Joker, like the
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 2: film that did really well.
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 1: No, no, no, the Images from the Dark Knight. Oh, okay,
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: so it's the it's the Dark Knight. It's the Heath
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: Ledger Joker, who is sort of a force of nature
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: in the movies, Like he doesn't you never learned anything
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 1: about him, He has no story, there is no history.
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 1: If Arthur Fleck Joker, which is the Joaquin Phoenix Joker,
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: that's basically the hero of that story. And it's actually
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 1: a pretty good examination of what I was saying when
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: I said that we are like the subversion is becoming inverted.
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: It goes from subversion to inversion. So you go from
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 1: seeing like if you look at the Joker as a
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: good example, you go from seeing like Caesar Romero's Joker
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: from the old nineteen sixties Batman show, and he's like,
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 1: I'm gonna rob banks and steal things, and I'm gonna
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: do it with like a theme. I'm gonna have a motif.
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: Everything's gonna be jokes and funny and oh look here's
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: my you know, here's the here's the I don't know,
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 1: the jack in the box with the punching glove inside
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: of it, you know, And and that was fun, but
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: like it was, it was a show for families, and
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 1: so you needed the Joker to be like just a
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 1: bad guy, but like in a playful way, you know,
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: but like still a bad guy like there was, you know,
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: he was, and he was never gonna be redeemed. He
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 1: was just gonna get out of the jail or the
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: arc of asylum and then go off to do more crimes.
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: And over time they made him more violent. You know,
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: when the Jack Nicholson one came out, and he was
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 1: like killing people and like you know, sprang their faces
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: with acid and then like time pass and they gave
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 1: us the Heath Ledger Joe, which was almost like a
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: complete like agent of chaos, almost like an avatar of something,
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 1: you know, beyond human because you don't learn anything about
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: him at all. I mean even the Jack Nicholson one
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: had a backstory, even though he was a bad guy
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: before that. But then you get like the Arthur Fleck one,
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: and it's a complete inversion. It's like, well, how do
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: we make him appealing and even sympathetic? And they did
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 1: that with the Joker movie, at least the first one.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: I didn't see the sequel. But he's not a hero,
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: but he's the protagonist. That's That's what I'm saying. He's
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: not a hero, but he is the he is the
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 1: person we follow in the story, right, He's the person
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: that is the most at least laid out to be
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: the most relatable, and he was like how many memes
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: from the.
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 5: Joker movie came out where people were like sympathizing with him,
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 5: where he says like you know what, like what was
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 5: the There was a few memes of him saying like
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 5: you know, I this is how I feel and I
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 5: don't care what you think about or something like that,
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 5: and he was complaining about like the system, and it
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 5: was like it was almost like a call to revolution
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 5: in the movie for like people that are like frustrated
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 5: and stuff. De Wood says that Joker movie is a
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 5: warning to society, to the to society to the dangers
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 5: of mistreating the average man.
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: But they didn't get the message at all. Yeah, but
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: I think even the director didn't like how people reacted
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: to his film, which is why the second one subverted
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: the first one. From what I heard, I didn't watch
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 1: the second one, but but it was like the director,
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: yeah for delou or whatever it was called, Yeah, he
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: didn't like that there were men that related to the story.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: So the director, he subverted his own story because he
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: didn't like the reaction. So but anyway, I'm getting into
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: the weeds. But I'm just looking at the evolution of
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: how the character you know, changed, And I mean, I
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: don't even know what they'll do with the next time
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: they adapt Choker.
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 3: But anyway, who just does bad things because the story
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 3: needs bad things to happen? Now, who knows what exactly
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 3: she means by either idea? You know, her use of
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 3: language is pretty loose and slippery up to this point.
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: But I have a feeling that this distinction really gets
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 3: to the heart of what the literary elites actually have
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 3: a problem with. It has more to do with a
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 3: flattening of antagonists into non characters than with antagonists being
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 3: evil in and of itself. But instead of addressing this
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 3: distinction and the nuance that can it probably does take
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 3: place in the literary community, she just says they all
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 3: don't like evil, and that's just so very stupid. In fact,
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 3: to see this disconnect between what they actually say and
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 3: what she says they say, all we have to do
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 3: is just take a little peek at the sources, she
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 3: flashes across the screen. She really likes to say that
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 3: she's into sources and likes to back her stuff up
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: with sources. But yeah, just watch One of them is
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: a pretty involved article about how we view the defendants
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 3: at Nuremberg, so not about literature at all, and just.
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 4: Kind of.
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 1: The deed even is I don't know if you've looked
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: at these papers, but me, yeah, like he's using these
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: as his reference. She was using him as a res Yeah, okay,
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: so one.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 3: Is right, all right, describing how we understand evil when
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 3: it manifests in real life. One kind of defies the
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 3: terms good and evil, but not saying that evil doesn't
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 3: exist as much as positive that those are inadequately broad labels. Honestly,
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 3: I wasn't a huge fan of this one anyway. One
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 3: was a full on book that, according to a synopsis, anyway,
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 3: seems to be about the semantics of evil and how
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 3: the term can obscure understanding of good and bad deeds
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 3: and demonize those we don't like. So kind of an
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 3: important thing to talk about, and I don't see that
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 3: as really claiming that evil doesn't exist.
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 1: Is well, I don't know what this book is about,
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: but like the Myth of Evil. It's called the Myth
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: of Evil Demonizing the Enemy by Philip Cole. Don't. I
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: don't know what this book is about, but I would
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: I would ask, would an evil person want you to
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: think that they were evil? Or would they make a
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: defense for their actions they like, not necessarily see them
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: as good, but make the defense for them as justified
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: even if they are evil actions. Do we take that
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: person's view of their own actions at its face or
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: do we measure it against some kind of objective standard
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: to determine if it's good or not, Like, how do
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: we know what good is? How do we know what
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: good is? I mean, I don't know if you know
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: what I'm saying, but like okay, I yeah.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 2: Going applied to the work that I'm doing. But I'm
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: gonna let you continue.
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: Well, I got an anecdote. So, like when the Black
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: Lives Matter protests were going on, and this was like
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, and I was still living in Chicago,
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 1: and everything was on fire in Chicago. They got to
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: a point where the bridge over the Chicago River, the
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: bridges were being raised because they didn't want people going
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: in there. It was like raising the drawbridge. I'm like
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: a fortress to prevent the loop from being burned. And
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: there was chaos in the streets. And I was talking
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: with someone about them that was sympathetic to the Black
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 1: Lives Matter riots, and I asked them, like, what why
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: do you think this is acceptable? Because like this is
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 1: going to innocent people are being affected, People's businesses are
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: being destroyed. People who had nothing to do with this,
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 1: like people boarded up. They got their their businesses windows
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: broken into, things were sent on fire and they had
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: to board up their windows and all of their entrances
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 1: and they spray painted we support Black Lives Matter, which
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: is the equivalent of putting goat's blood outside of your
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: door so that when God comes through Egypt, he doesn't
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: take your force firstborn child during passover. And I was like,
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: why do you think this is acceptable?
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 2: What?
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 1: Why? Like, why do you think it's okay for people
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: who have nothing to do with whatever the grievance is.
• 1:19:31
  Speaker 1: This is like setting aside the fact that you haven't
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: even considered whether or not this grievance is at all justified,
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 1: which is a whole other conversation that probably should have
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: taken place before we started burning everything down? But why
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: do you think this is okay? And they would say, well,
• 1:19:45
  Speaker 1: I think that it's like, uh, I think that it's
• 1:19:48
  Speaker 1: important that people get the message and that I hope
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: that what will happen, although they would say maybe what
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: will happen is that after everything is burned down, a new,
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: something new will rise from the ashes, like the phoenix.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: They literally said something like that. Right now, it's a
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 1: woman who said this, I'll say that much. But but
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: like if I said to her, you know, that's that's evil, right,
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 1: that's they wouldn't believe me, they wouldn't think of it
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 1: that way. So this is what I mean when I say, like,
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 1: how do we know what? Because I feel like when
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: these people had this conversation about writing about evil, in
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: order for you to write about evil or good for
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: that matter, you have to be able to objectively identify
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 1: what it is. And in order for you to identify
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: what it is, you have to be able to acknowledge
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: that it exists at all, like that there is such
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: a thing as good, and there is such a thing
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: as evil, and that these things can be objectively observed
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: and measured. Right, And anyone who says that none of
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: these things are real, they're not going to be able
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: to tell stories about these things because they don't see
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: them as real. So like you will have people justifying
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: destroying property and businesses and livelihoods because they feel like
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: it's important in order to get to something else that
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: they don't know what it looks like, but they think
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 1: it's better than where we are now. It's like utopian
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: people who have utopian thinking, which they think is going
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: to lead to some ultimate good, can do the most
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: horrendous things, but they won't acknowledge them as horrendous because
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: they don't know what evil even looks like because they
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 1: never considered it could be real. So that's why I
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: started by asking those questions, like if you ask the devil,
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 1: are you evil? Would the devil say yes? I don't
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: think you would, but go ahead.
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, I mean, it's just interesting what you're saying,
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 2: because from what I can see, they will say things like,
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 2: if you don't buy into my utopian dream, that makes
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 2: you evil or your intentions. You're completely defined by your intentions.
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 2: So if you the person with the most beautiful dream
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 2: of the world, no no way to actually enact that dream,
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 2: like he, the the person that you talked to, had
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 2: a beautiful dream about the world rising from the ashes
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 2: of this destruction, and that makes her good. And you saying, well,
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 2: look at all of the pain you're causing makes you
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: bad because you are not buying into the beautiful dream. Right.
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 2: Even even if even if the people who have the
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 2: beautiful dream do nothing practical to create it in the world, right,
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 2: the fact that they have it makes them more moral
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: than you. Their intentions make them like you don't like
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 2: the way that I'm seeing this. It's it's again, it's
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 2: that whole. It's not about the male. It's not about
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 2: the world or the actions in it, or whether or
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: not you're you know, torture murdering someone. It's about your intentions. Yeah, okay,
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 2: that's what matters. So your actions, as long as your
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 2: intentions are for the greatest utopia, the greatest good, any
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 2: actions that you take to get there are not evil. Right.
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 2: But if you say, hey, you know you're murdering kids
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 2: and throwing them into vats of acid in order to
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 2: get to your utopia, maybe you shouldn't do that, you
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 2: become evil because you don't have the same beautiful intentions.
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 2: So everything is about beautiful intentions, and you don't actually
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: have to do anything. You just have to intend it right,
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: and then see other people intending it, and together you
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 2: will intend it and somehow it will be and anybody
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 2: who doesn't agree with what you are willing to sue
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 2: in order to I don't even know the connection between
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 2: burning stores down and whatever utopia this woman was envisioning
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 2: and vagining. Oh God, that was accidental. I don't know
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 2: the connections. Apparently there is one, and I'm e evil
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: for pointing out that there may not be one.
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm using to point out that people like that
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 1: is evil, but like we have to be able to
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: recognize it as such. And even though she would probably
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: never really it wouldn't even click because there would just
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: be this utopian idea. It's like they measure the success
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: of their ideas not on the outcomes, but on their intentions.
• 1:24:52
  Speaker 1: It's like, oh, my intention is this. So if it
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 1: doesn't work, well, you know I didn't fail because I
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 1: still my intentions are the same. There's just something else
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 1: must have gone wrong somewhere along the way. The suffering.
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: You know, it's not what I meant to do. So anyway,
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 1: what I'm getting off my off base here, But but
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: I think ultimately what the second story. She probably could
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 1: benefit from asking the question because I think this would
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: break most of it open right off the bat if
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: you just say, okay, so do we believe evil exists
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 1: in the world? Is evil real? And if it is,
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: what does it look like like? Is it just a
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: mustache rolling guy that puts a woman on the train tracks?
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: Not all well sometimes, but it's also a guy stabbing
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 1: a woman randomly on the subway, a guy setting another
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 1: man on fire because he's asleep, and he just felt
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: like doing it. Pushing someone on the train tracks. That happens.
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 1: That's a real thing that happens. Can we call that evil?
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, could it be someone saying, you know what,
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: you're not allowed to protest this thing. I'm going to
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: take away. I'm gonna freeze your bank accounts. I'm going
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: to take your home from you. I'm going to allow
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: the squatters that have like taken up residence in your
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 1: home because you're away for the weekend. I'm gonna let
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: them stay there and you can't, like you can't have
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 1: your house back. Is that evil? Can we call it evil?
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 1: I would say yes, So, like then we know it's real.
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 1: So then if that's real, then good is real. You
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: know what what the governments did to people during COVID,
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 1: could you I would say that's evil? Why not the Yeah,
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: I just you know, I know, I know, but I'm
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 1: just saying, like that means that evil is real. You know,
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: like this thing that you've been hooked on, this you know,
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: this this corporatist, crony capitalist thing that's going on with
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: our government and or governments and corporations. I would say
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: that's evil. It's basically stealing the next generation or following
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: generations goes away from them. This generation.
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's capitalism. It's capitalism for billionaires. Yeah, I'm sorry,
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 2: communism for for the.
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 1: Wealth, communism for billionaires.
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 2: And capitalism for every well, well not capitalism, tax serfdom
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 2: for everyone else. That's the way communism works, by the way,
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 2: it's it's always it always ends at a certain a
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 2: certain per capita income or access to resources. Guys, Communism
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 2: is always on top and the labor exploitation is on
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 2: the bottom. And I that does like people will say
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 2: that sounds like capitalism. Actually know, when we were the
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 2: most capitalistic, the average income for this for CEOs, when
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 2: we had the most free market, the strongest free market,
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 2: the average income for CEOs was twenty to thirty times
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 2: the average worker. Now it's two hundred to three hundred,
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 2: six hundred times the average worker. And I would also
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 2: like to point out that the ESG and DEI and
• 1:28:07
  Speaker 2: feminist lingo has increased alongside that. So corporations have been
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 2: never more kind and compassionate and concerned than ever before,
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 2: and CEOs have never made more than the average worker.
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 2: So now there you go. Yeah, let's keep going, all right.
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 3: That's kind of how you weaponize it. The only one
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 3: that directly addressed fictional villains. You know, the topic of
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 3: this whole thing was actually about how to make super
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 3: evil villains interesting. I mean, it can sound like he
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 3: was anti evil villain. If you only read the first
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 3: few sentences, maybe that's what she did. But if you
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 3: go on, it becomes very obvious that that's not what
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 3: it's about. He actually seems to be a fan of
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 3: evil villains. Oh and by the way, just as an interjection,
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 3: Anthony did talk a lot more about her sources and
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 3: how they don't say what she says. They say. I
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 3: didn't want to rehash all that, but it's it's kind
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 3: of funny, so you can go watch his video.
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: What a surprise. We don't want to rehash the stuff
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 2: that probably contradicted what you're putting into her mouth.
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, again, not saying anything, like not saying anything. Okay,
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: So fourteen oh four, let me just uh wor's some
• 1:29:25
  Speaker 1: about postmodernism and.
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 3: Okay, seems pretty obvious to me that she just has
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 3: some kind of grudge against the literary elites or storytelling
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 3: these days, and she just kind of scraped the Internet
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 3: for sources that at a glance appear to validate it,
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 3: and she just wanted to make that specific point. She
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 3: wasn't exploring anything, She wasn't trying to refine her ideas
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 3: or even find out what the literary community thinks about anything.
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 3: She just needed some screenshots to put on and you know,
• 1:29:59
  Speaker 3: show herself and her audience that everything's just dumb these days,
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 3: I guess, and nobody likes evil villains. And whether this
• 1:30:06
  Speaker 3: resulted from her simply not reading those articles or she
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 3: read them and misrepresented them, because I think one of
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 3: those two things had to happen. It seems pretty clear
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 3: that she's operating in bad faith here, and she's just
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 3: using the literary community as this boogeyman. You know, that
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 3: she can villainize and talk about how bad things are
• 1:30:26
  Speaker 3: these days and how stupid everybody is, and how postmodern
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 3: culture is just so vapid, doesn't understand what bad guys are.
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 3: And if it weren't abundantly clear what she was saying
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 3: about their stance, you know, if we think that this
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 3: distinction between black cloak villains and villainy in general is
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 3: just a misunderstanding, because she's bad with words, she acknowledges
• 1:30:47
  Speaker 3: the distinction, and well, then just says this, there might
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 3: be a.
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 4: Case to be made for degrees of nuance depending on
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 4: this specific story being told. But this mindset isn't apparently
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 4: referring to degrees of nuance, but rather a complete overhauling
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 4: of our concept of bad.
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 3: So yes, her depiction of literary critics is as crass
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 3: as nonsensical as it seemed it might have been, and
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 3: we haven't even begun to see it yet bad yet,
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 3: because just watch what she says after that.
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 4: It's not difficult to analyze the progression of thought here.
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 4: People looked at human characters who weren't evil incarnate and
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 4: recognize that it was highly improbable for a person, even
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 4: a villain, to be pure evil, that is, one hundred
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 4: percent evil, which is actually true. Yes, But then their
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 4: conclusion was that evil must not exist, like at all.
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 4: I shouldn't have to explain how fallacious this logic is.
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 4: It's like saying, because mushrooms don't cover the entirety of
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 4: any surface on which they appear, mushrooms don't exist. It's silly.
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 3: Now, this is pretty crazy, right. This whole thing sounds
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 3: kind of stupid. And I'm going to go out and
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 3: a lemon suggests that she has never heard anybody use
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 3: this line of reasoning or anything close to it. But
• 1:31:58
  Speaker 3: then that's not even really what she's claiming. She says,
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 3: this is the reasoning she concluded they must have used.
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 3: In fact, she pretty explicitly says that this is how
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 3: she came up with the summation.
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 4: It's not difficult to analyze the progression of thought here.
• 1:32:12
  Speaker 3: So she started by somehow deciding that literary critics these
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 3: days don't think evil exists, and then assume that this
• 1:32:19
  Speaker 3: is the only reasoning they could have used to get
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 3: to the conclusion she decided that they had come to.
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 3: It's a pretty flimsy way of putting words into other
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 3: people's mouths. And if another person's reasoning seems this stupid
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 3: to you, if you can use an analogy, you know
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 3: that gets you to thinking mushrooms don't exist because they
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 3: can't cover all of something. If that's the credit you're
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 3: giving somebody, then maybe you just need to take a
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 3: step back.
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 2: And wait, wait, why, Okay, have you explained how her
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 2: example doesn't actually relate?
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 1: No?
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 2: No, okay, So he's just basically saying this is her motivation.
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 2: This is all he's been doing. Is like, oh, this
• 1:33:03
  Speaker 2: is her motivation. It's wrong. Yeah, this is like she
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 2: is examining all of this from pure relational web thinking.
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: He is, he is, Yeah, he is. Yeah, this is
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: kind of a lot of gobbledygook too.
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 2: You know, we'll move on to the next one if
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 2: you want to.
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna move on pattern. Yeah, So twenty minutes in, Uh,
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 1: that's like right about here. I think that's all about
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: Milton twenty forty five.
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 4: Devil to mirror the ways in which humans refused to
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 4: take responsibility for their own evil and villainy. I find
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 4: it very telling when people call him relatable, and.
• 1:33:55
  Speaker 3: I think this is starting to nudgest just a little.
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: All right, So, yeah, she's talking about let me see
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: Paradise lost, and that's the story of the Devil, right, Mephistophiles.
• 1:34:07
  Speaker 4: I think genius of Milton Satan was that he painted
• 1:34:10
  Speaker 4: the devil to mirror the ways in which humans refused
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 4: to take responsibility for their own evil and villainy.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 1: So Milton wrote Satan. Remember I said earlier, like if
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: you if you asked the devil whether or not he
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: was evil, would he say yes, and I use the
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 1: devil whether whether you're religious or not. The devil is
• 1:34:32
  Speaker 1: essentially like think of it symbolically as being evil incarnate,
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 1: like it's it doesn't know. The devil knows nothing else, right,
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 1: and so like what does that look like? It's an
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 1: interesting question to ask, you know, like when Jack Kirby
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: created Galactus for the Fantastic Four comics, he started from
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: the premise like what does God look like? That was
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: what he was thinking about when he created the character.
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 1: So it was like, as an artist starts from a
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 1: question that is extremely like big to think about. So
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: what I say the same thing about the devil. So
• 1:35:12
  Speaker 1: Milton wrote the Devil as an expression of all the
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: things that human beings don't take a like, essentially don't
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 1: take accountability for. Because one of the greatest sins that
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: we have as humans is the sin of pride, where
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 1: we are not able to see the limits of ourselves. Right,
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: Because the Devil is all about like he is the
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: personification of us, of the of the human desire to
• 1:35:41
  Speaker 1: see ourselves like gods, like like small gods, ourselves right,
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 1: like not a part of a larger story, but rather
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: the main characters of our own stories, which is Luciferian
• 1:35:53
  Speaker 1: in nature. I know that it's like a lot of
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: people are going to agree with that, but that's sort
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: of like how it is symbolically, how it exist. So
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 1: Milton Satan is that he's like an expression of the
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 1: dark side of humanity. Okay, I find.
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 4: It very telling when people call him relatable.
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: And I think this is so she says, when people
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: in the writing community see Satan and they say, oh,
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 1: that's relatable, she thinks it's telling because it means that
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: extremely prideful people, extremely arrogant, egotistical people that see themselves
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 1: as the main characters in their stories are the ones
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 1: that relate to this the most. And I think that
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: she's sort of like brushing against this reality, that this
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: lack of humility is like one of our largest obstacles
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 1: as human beings. And of course he is going to
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 1: completely miss that parting.
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 3: To nd just just a little closer to understanding Lane
• 1:36:52
  Speaker 3: and where she's coming from. Even in a story that
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 3: is ultimately meant to vindicate God and demonize Satan, can't
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 3: even get through the parts that are meant to make
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 3: Satan come off as compelling to set the whole thing
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 3: up without feeling just viscerally disgusted because you that guy
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 3: is being disobedient and won't take responsibility for his actions.
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 2: She even that's supposed to create this oral disgust.
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, what is what does obedience mean biblically? I'm just
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: asking the people watching, because if we're gonna talk about
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 1: Milton and is this paradise lost that we're talking about,
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 1: If we're gonna talk about that, we're gonna talk about
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: the story of Satan, then we have to like look
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 1: at it in those terms. So anyway, Yeah, something can
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 1: be like interesting without necessarily being relatable, you know, like
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 1: you know the character in here's another example of of
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 1: of evil, an evil character that's done well. Have you
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 1: guys ever seen The Mummy, the movie that came out
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety eight or nineteen ninety nine, It was
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight with Brendan Frasier The Mummy movie, okay,
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 1: And in the Mummy movie they bring back the Mummy
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: on accident Emo Tep, and Emo Tep is basically trying
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 1: to get all of his canopic jars back so that
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: he can become an immortal Mummy. And I guess, like
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: I think he was just gonna like rule the world
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 1: or something, and so like there was this exubstential threat
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: that was coming. But the Emotep character had like an
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: interesting little backstory where he was in love with this
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: woman that was like forbidden on Oksuna Moon. He couldn't
• 1:38:37
  Speaker 1: have her, and so he got caught with her and
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: that's how he got the Mummy's curse. But then he
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 1: came back and he you know, he like was going
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 1: to just like basically get his shit together. The Mummy
• 1:38:50
  Speaker 1: was evil, but he did have an interesting backstory, but
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 1: it wasn't necessarily the reason he was evil because what
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 1: he was doing was wrong. It was a dull tis right,
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: So he was an evil character that was a little
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: bit compelling because of that, and it was like the
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 1: thing that made it gave it a little bit more depth, right,
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 1: But ultimately the Mummy was evil, Like it was an
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: evil monster essentially a supernatural monster. So I'm just saying
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 1: like that, and it's a really good character that everyone
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 1: knows Emo Tap like, it's a great character. So it
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 1: worked for what it was. Again, that doesn't mean that
• 1:39:25
  Speaker 1: you're like, oh, I totally relate to that guy, because
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 1: ultimately he was a simp and that was what made
• 1:39:30
  Speaker 1: him to a monster. But it was a well, it
• 1:39:33
  Speaker 1: was a pretty good little character. So anyway, h black
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: Cat read it says, hell, yes, the Mummy is super fun. Yeah,
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: it's a good movie, The Mummy, not the Mmmy.
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 3: All right, anyway, dull, which is a pretty horrific insult
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 3: to Milton's writing if you have any idea of what
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 3: he was trying to accomplish or what kind of villain
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 3: the devil was supposed to be in that story. It's
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 3: not the takedown of modern critics that she seems to
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 3: think it is. It's an apparently unintentional takedown of Milton's poem.
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 3: Her commentary has just this feel and vocabulary of somebody
• 1:40:09
  Speaker 3: who needs everything in their stories to just be purely
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 3: didactic and needs to be straight on the nose, literal,
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 3: no sympathy for the bad guys, complete understanding that the
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 3: good guys are totally good, and it's meant to get
• 1:40:22
  Speaker 3: directly to a moral lesson.
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 1: And do you think that that's I don't know if
• 1:40:27
  Speaker 1: you heard this part, Allison, but do you think that
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 1: he's misrepresenting her?
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 2: Yes? Okay, and again this is I'm not somebody who
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 2: agrees with her on everything she says. I think her
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 2: diagnoses of the problem are not necessarily correct. And I
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 2: think that it's not just a lack of clearly evil villains.
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 2: It's a lack of proper conflict in these stories. That's
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 2: the real problem. And I would also argue that the
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 2: people who are doing this definitely have clear villains. In fact,
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 2: they are some of like I said, he says, they
• 1:41:07
  Speaker 2: all disagree, like all of these hoi poloia academics. You know,
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 2: they don't all agree, so they can't be lumped together. Well,
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 2: they sure as hell degree agree on the enemy.
• 1:41:18
  Speaker 1: Mm hmmm. That's true.
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 2: And it's really ironic because they would agree that the
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 2: enemy is white cis hetman or at least the emergent properties.
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 2: Have said. So, if you're white sis hessman man who
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 2: denies those emergent properties, I guess you can be provisionally
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 2: good or part of the social web. But they still
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 2: definitely have an enemy and an enemy class, you know,
• 1:41:49
  Speaker 2: So I don't know like you're you're essentially she's talking
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 2: about a villain as defined by their actions, you know,
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 2: And I yes, they don't like that, because villains should
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 2: be defined by having penises, m or wanting to have
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 2: a penis.
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: That's another thing too, is that evil isn't necessarily a person,
• 1:42:11
  Speaker 1: it's a behavior. So like you show a behavior that
• 1:42:15
  Speaker 1: that's actually the best way to add what you could
• 1:42:18
  Speaker 1: call nuance or death to something. You know, like some
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 1: evil can be like embodiments like smog and the dragon.
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: But but like you, the behavior is what you want
• 1:42:31
  Speaker 1: to show, Like someone who does something bad is like
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: what we're what we're supposed to be using as the evidence.
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 3: But anyway, everything at every step of the way needs
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 3: to reinforce that moral lesson. You can't even get the
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 3: feel of the bad guys being good, of the or
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 3: of there being any kind of nuance or appeal there.
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 3: And trust me, I used to work at a Christian
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 3: school that used a beca curriculum, and so I have
• 1:42:59
  Speaker 3: some sense of what is like. Oh oh, and if
• 1:43:01
  Speaker 3: you want another clue.
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 1: Again, he's doing this thing where she must be a Christian?
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 1: Now which are They're all? They're evil, there's another villain.
• 1:43:10
  Speaker 1: There's no nuance there.
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 3: Where she's coming from.
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 4: If you want someone else's opinion besides my own on
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 4: that one, you source maniac try C. S. Lewis's preface
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 4: to Paradise Lost.
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 3: That's pretty telling, right, And I don't mean that Lewis's
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 3: commentary on The Paradise Lost is no good, but the
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 3: fact that Lane seems just so entirely oblivious to the
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 3: entire history of discourse surrounding the poem, and then when
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 3: she comes up with a source, the one thing she
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 3: brings up is from a garbage Christian apologist. I find
• 1:43:42
  Speaker 3: that pretty wa.
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 2: Wait wait, wait wait wait, what was this? C. S.
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 1: Lewis is a garbage Christian apologist? You guys heard of C. S.
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 2: Lewis, but didn't he just contradict himself. How so we'll
• 1:43:57
  Speaker 2: go back like thirty seconds or fifteen I don't know,
• 1:44:02
  Speaker 2: like one sentence, basically.
• 1:44:05
  Speaker 3: When he began this entire history of discourse surrounding the poem,
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 3: and then when she comes up.
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: With a bit further.
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 4: My own on that one, you source maniac? Try C. S.
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 4: Lewis's preface to Paradise Lost.
• 1:44:20
  Speaker 3: That's pretty telling, right, And I don't mean that Lewis's
• 1:44:24
  Speaker 3: commentary on The Paradise Lost is no good, but the
• 1:44:27
  Speaker 3: fact that Lane seems just so intenseing is no good.
• 1:44:31
  Speaker 2: Like he's saying, I'm not saying that C. S. Lewis's
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: commentary on paradise Lets is no good. Continue, Brian, Yeah.
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 3: To the entire history of discourse surrounding the poem. And
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 3: then when she comes up with a source, the one
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 3: thing she brings up is from a garbage Christian apologist.
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 3: I find that pretty darn interesting.
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, did you notice that? Yes? Yes, he at once says,
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's like the this guy doesn't have
• 1:45:00
  Speaker 1: even gonna say, but he scratched.
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not no good. He's just a garbage person.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
• 1:45:10
  Speaker 2: Well, is that the extent of his long term I.
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 1: Wonder what's gonna Yeah, I wonder what's gonna happen when
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 1: Greta Gerwig's tales like Chronicles of Narnia comes out. Is
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: this guy gonna defend it? Probably? I know she's gonna
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 1: butcher it. So Lewis can be overbearing and myopic, but she, well,
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 1: you know what. C. S. Lewis will be remembered. This
• 1:45:38
  Speaker 1: guy will not. That's all I know. So, I mean, like,
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 1: you know, some people don't like HP Lovecraft's writing style,
• 1:45:48
  Speaker 1: but we still know who he is. Some people don't
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 1: like the way that Tolkien writes. Hell, I I love
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 1: those stories, but there, you know, I read the Silmarillion
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: and it was dense, very and I was like, I
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 1: don't know that I really got much out of it.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter what I think, because Tolkien is
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 1: his work is still it still exists. In fact, I
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 1: think that people remember Tolkien and Lewis and and uh
• 1:46:16
  Speaker 1: Dickens and you know, Kirkergard and and fucking others, and
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 1: that before they'll they'll remember him when Martin is gone.
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 1: When George R. Martin is gone, maybe JK. Rowling will
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 1: stick around. So but anyway, uh, let me jump ahead
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 1: to the next thing. So yeah, she's okay, So she's
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 1: defending garbage Christian apologists. He's like he's forming his arguments. Again.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker 1: I don't know what the second story actually believes. All
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 1: I know is that she is she cares about good writing,
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: and she cares about archetypal mythological writing, like she wants
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 1: to enchant the world. She wants to bring back good stories.
• 1:46:59
  Speaker 1: And I think that's a noble goal in and of itself.
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 1: So oh yeah, that's right. We're gonna get into uh
• 1:47:07
  Speaker 1: this thing, this is like twenty eight minutes in. I
• 1:47:09
  Speaker 1: don't want this to go for too long.
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 2: Oh, I know, I have a summation of all of
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 2: this that I can read.
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: All right, let's get into the next bit about ugliness,
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 1: jenn On.
• 1:47:22
  Speaker 3: She needs to keep everything extremely rigid. A villain needs
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 3: to be like this. If you're going to represent the
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 3: devil and God, that needs to be like this. It
• 1:47:30
  Speaker 3: has to be culturally kind of.
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 2: She's extremely rigid, guys, extremely rigid. Doesn't she know that
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 2: a villain needs to be a cis het white man
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 2: mm hmmm? Or or I mean, this is not rigid
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 2: at all. We can also identify black and minority men
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 2: as the cis het white men of whatever minority they're
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 2: a part of, and they could be evil.
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 1: Too, like that read ed, says C. S. Lewis's Christian
• 1:47:57
  Speaker 1: What are we doing? You know? When you think about it, though, guys,
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 1: most writers for most of history in the West were Christians,
• 1:48:07
  Speaker 1: like most of them. So like everyone that you liked, probably,
• 1:48:13
  Speaker 1: so do you think that that actually affected their writing?
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 1: Just something to think about, Okay, yeah, I mean, like
• 1:48:21
  Speaker 1: if you said, oh, well, you know, I like soljier Nitsen,
• 1:48:25
  Speaker 1: or I liked, you know, Charles Dickens. Guess what I mean.
• 1:48:31
  Speaker 1: It's with a few exceptions, with a few exceptions like
• 1:48:35
  Speaker 1: Mary Shelley or something. You know, a lot of these
• 1:48:37
  Speaker 1: guys they were Christians, like most of the people who
• 1:48:41
  Speaker 1: affected change throughout history in the West were Christians, the
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 1: Founding Fathers, et cetera. You know, So I'm not sure
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 1: that I'm just saying like saying, I'm not I'm saying,
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 1: and I don't think any one of the chats doing this,
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 1: but I'm saying that it's not necessarily a condemnation of
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 1: their merit. Fucking you know, Isaac Newton, Isaac Newton was
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 1: was like Christian. I think we have something to thank
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 1: him for.
• 1:49:10
  Speaker 2: But anyway, yeah, I just want to move on to
• 1:49:13
  Speaker 2: the next part because you know, yeah, yeah, it's.
• 1:49:17
  Speaker 3: And she doesn't like anything up ending it at all.
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 3: And I just find that pretty sad. And I find
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 3: this this whole discussion she's giving us pretty unserious. The
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 3: whole thing just gets just way off the rails with
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 3: her comment about Guermo del Toro, because remember what she
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 3: said about him. To refresh your memory, she said that he, uh,
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 3: let's see, rejects the idea of good and evil as
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 3: not existent because he insists that.
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 4: Monsters are the true heroes of all monster stories and
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 4: monster hunters are the real villains.
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 3: And this is pretty darn weird, right. Laine says that
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 3: del Toro rejects the idea of good and evil, but
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 3: then paraphrases him as saying that stories have true heroes
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 3: and real villains. But like, what's more indicative of believing
• 1:50:02
  Speaker 3: a good and evil than having true heroes and real
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 3: villains and your story. That's why, according to everything she
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 3: said so far, Lane can't get enough of stories with
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 3: clearly defined good guys.
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 1: And all right, so just real quick about Giamo del Toro.
• 1:50:15
  Speaker 1: This is interesting because it's a really good example of
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: what I'm saying about Homelander and all these other inversions,
• 1:50:22
  Speaker 1: or not even subversions anymore, they're inversions of stories. So
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 1: she I think that she made a mistake when she
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 1: said that del Toro, you know, like del Toro said,
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 1: she's quoting him when he says, I think monsters are
• 1:50:39
  Speaker 1: the real heroes and the hunters are the real villains.
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 1: I think that what she should have made the argument
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 1: for was that del Toro is engaging in an inversion
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 1: of these things, which is it can be fun to
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: play with, but it becomes the only thing that he does.
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: And I like del Toro's movies for the most part,
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 1: but there is a pattern of daddy issues and man
• 1:51:01
  Speaker 1: bad in a lot of his movies, even his last
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 1: frank Did you see the Frankenstein movie Allison that he
• 1:51:07
  Speaker 1: that del Toro made it was a recent one.
• 1:51:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I didn't. Actually I watched a few.
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 1: You know.
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 2: What happened is I thought his the color palettes he
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 2: was using were boring. Yeah, or no, I didn't. I
• 1:51:23
  Speaker 2: didn't find like I'm weird, all right, But if I'm
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 2: going to watch a movie, I want to have.
• 1:51:31
  Speaker 1: You know. I know, yes, you're weird.
• 1:51:34
  Speaker 2: In case you guys didn't know.
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 1: News flash, Alison is weird.
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 2: Okay, So if I it's weird because I'm okay with
• 1:51:43
  Speaker 2: noir and wir it's black and white. But if you're
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 2: gonna put color in your movie, we'd better be considered.
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 2: And I don't know. I like the the Frankenstein movies,
• 1:51:52
  Speaker 2: just felt like it was all over the damn place
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 2: and I got exhausted.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: It's just it's the same thing that he's done. It
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 1: was Pants, last, it was hell Boy, it was I
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 1: don't know about Shape of Water. I didn't watch that.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: That was just too much for me. And it was
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: the same thing. It's basically like, we're gonna take the monster,
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 1: whatever it is, we're gonna make it the hero, and
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: then we're gonna take the humans and make them the
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 1: real monsters. And that's basically what all of his movies
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 1: have been. And it's fine, like you know, once in
• 1:52:21
  Speaker 1: a while, but it's not really a new thing to
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: do that, and so I would. With Frankenstein, I was
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 1: actually kind of pissed off because he actually created a
• 1:52:31
  Speaker 1: backstory for Victor Frankenstein that wasn't in the book at all,
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 1: where he was adopted by this abusive dad that was
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 1: like shitty to him and potentially killed his mother like
• 1:52:43
  Speaker 1: early on, and so like Frick de Frankenstein's got mommy
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 1: issues and his dad is like he doesn't know his
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: biological father. But in the book, even fucking Mary Shelley,
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 1: who is a hardcore feminist by the way, the daughter
• 1:52:56
  Speaker 1: of Mary Wolstoncraft, the original one of the original feminists,
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 1: if not the original femae, even she wrote him, wrote
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 1: Victor Frankenstein's father as not just like sympathetic, but like
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 1: a pillar of his community that was like a really
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 1: good man, and that the story of Frankenstein was more like,
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 1: you know, it was like man playing god kind of
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 1: a thing, because Mary Shelley was like kind of like
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 1: into Orgi's and weird shit. But but like even that,
• 1:53:22
  Speaker 1: like del Toro was like, no, this isn't this isn't
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 1: anti mail enough for me, so he took it to
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 1: the next step. And that I mean, like, I thought
• 1:53:30
  Speaker 1: the Frankasti movie was well made and everything I don't
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 1: have an issue with that. I thought was fine, But
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 1: in terms of like the pattern of things that he does,
• 1:53:39
  Speaker 1: it's it's just a straight up inversion in everything. And look,
• 1:53:42
  Speaker 1: I don't think the Frankenstein Monster was meant to be evil.
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 1: No I'm not saying that, But the the truth is
• 1:53:49
  Speaker 1: that the way that the way that the book portrays
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 1: Victor Frankenstein and the monster, they're tragic figures. But the
• 1:53:59
  Speaker 1: monster does get violent, you know, it's but it's like
• 1:54:03
  Speaker 1: more product of circumstances. You know, He's like he's sort
• 1:54:07
  Speaker 1: it's sort of like man versus nature, except the monster
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 1: is unnatural. But it's not necessarily an evil monster, no,
• 1:54:14
  Speaker 1: but it is like it is like an antagonist too,
• 1:54:18
  Speaker 1: because Victor Frankstin is the main character in the book really.
• 1:54:21
  Speaker 1: But anyway, my thing is that is that del Toro
• 1:54:26
  Speaker 1: had to have a villain in his story, so he
• 1:54:29
  Speaker 1: does end up making Victor the villain, and it actually
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 1: makes him more of a worse person than he is
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 1: in the book because he needed to send that home.
• 1:54:38
  Speaker 1: So and the monster is like, is super noble and
• 1:54:41
  Speaker 1: forgives him and everything else. So like that that's just
• 1:54:44
  Speaker 1: kind of like what del Toro does all the time,
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 1: you know, and it's and it but it is like
• 1:54:48
  Speaker 1: an inversion that he's doing. H Frankestin Monslow was never
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 1: meant to be evil. Two dollars from Senior Sticks, Thank
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 1: you Man V. Nature v. Science. Yeah, yeah, he did
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 1: take Victor's backstory to left field. I know, I know,
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 1: if anyone was the villain, its Victor. Yeah, but that
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 1: would be for playing god, which would basically be the
• 1:55:09
  Speaker 1: thing that that created the monster to begin with. But
• 1:55:12
  Speaker 1: then they gave him like personality flaws in the movie
• 1:55:15
  Speaker 1: that were like he wasn't like that, so they took
• 1:55:18
  Speaker 1: it to it and then oh, and here's another thing
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 1: about the movie, Alison. You didn't see the Frankasti movie,
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 1: but the way they portrayed the woman in it, holy shit,
• 1:55:25
  Speaker 1: she is insufferable. She is like the worst character because
• 1:55:30
  Speaker 1: they had they made her a girl boss in the
• 1:55:32
  Speaker 1: Victorian days or whatever age. It was absolutely cringe. She
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 1: was so cringe. She was so noble anyway, you know,
• 1:55:41
  Speaker 1: I think, yeah, we can.
• 1:55:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm gonna say something that's a no, we could go.
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 2: We can go as long as you wish, just not no. No.
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 1: I don't want to go too much longer, though, I
• 1:55:56
  Speaker 1: do want to get into where she talks about how
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 1: we used to make villains look ugly and he hates that.
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 1: But I mean, I think it's you basically like saying,
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 1: why don't we have like these kind of archetypal you know,
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 1: villains like hags, like witches, things like that, and and
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 1: well where this guy goes with his counter arguments kind
• 1:56:19
  Speaker 1: of wild. But go ahead, Alice, what were you gonna say?
• 1:56:25
  Speaker 2: Well, what I was gonna say is I think, as
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 2: a woman, I can't fucking stand girl bosses, Like I
• 1:56:36
  Speaker 2: think I think you know that Marvel's Marvel the Marvels
• 1:56:40
  Speaker 2: had more of a male audience than female.
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 1: Yes, I know, even if horrifically and it was like
• 1:56:47
  Speaker 1: men were still sixty percent of the ticket sales.
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think that's even more than normal, like
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 2: a Marvel audiences. That was the thing that I thought
• 1:56:55
  Speaker 2: was interesting. I'm pretty sure that the Marvels had a
• 1:56:58
  Speaker 2: larger male audience than the female audien. And I think
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 2: I think it's underestimated how sick women are of the
• 1:57:07
  Speaker 2: ship and uh. And I'm like looking at all of
• 1:57:13
  Speaker 2: this and I'm like, yeah, I don't have the vast
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 2: oppression necessary to tolerate this crap. I just I want
• 1:57:21
  Speaker 2: to I want to slap the ship out of this
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 2: person in Minecraft. I'm not even gonna watch this.
• 1:57:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, I want to get so let me see is
• 1:57:36
  Speaker 1: it is it?
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 3: Here actually goes back and expounds on this idea of
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 3: uglyness being a sign.
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 4: Of evil that has a way of metastasizing into the
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 4: rest of your character. This used to be frequently depicted
• 1:57:50
  Speaker 4: in children's stories with ugly villains. It conveyed to children
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 4: that evil is a thing that poisons the entire person.
• 1:57:57
  Speaker 4: You can acknowledge that the person who became villain, began
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 4: often as a normal, regular person. But that acknowledgment cannot
• 1:58:05
  Speaker 4: negate the core of the villainy, which is that it
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 4: isn't bad.
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 3: Now, this is an incredibly weird and gross thing to do, right,
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 3: identifying ugliness as a sign that someone is evil. Now,
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 3: I know that she probably doesn't mean that all ugly
• 1:58:20
  Speaker 3: people are bad. In fact, if you break down the
• 1:58:22
  Speaker 3: text of what she said word for word, she never
• 1:58:25
  Speaker 3: even technically said that evil literally makes people ugly.
• 1:58:28
  Speaker 1: So she acknowledges, he acknowledges that she's not trying to
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 1: say that unattractive people are bad. But now he's going
• 1:58:37
  Speaker 1: to we're going to get the turn, right. The twist
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 1: I think the idea is with children's stories, though you
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 1: have to understand that you're telling stories to children, so
• 1:58:47
  Speaker 1: you want to give something of a simplistic impression, right,
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 1: And I like the idea of describing kind of like
• 1:58:57
  Speaker 1: mythological evil as ugly as well. In minut cases like
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 1: what are ogres and orcs and goblins and these other
• 1:59:04
  Speaker 1: like creatures that are kind of human but not in
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 1: witches and hags, they're supposed to be unattractive because that's
• 1:59:12
  Speaker 1: part of what makes them scary, so that children know
• 1:59:15
  Speaker 1: not to you know, So it's like letting them know
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 1: like this is bad. Also, bad people bad habits tend
• 1:59:24
  Speaker 1: to like degenerate themselves. People who keep their appearances up
• 1:59:28
  Speaker 1: by like living healthy lives might tend to look a
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 1: little bit better. So it's not like completely divorced from reality.
• 1:59:35
  Speaker 3: She just said that bad metastasizes into the rest of
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 3: your character, and that depicting villains as ugly helps convey
• 1:59:41
  Speaker 3: this to children. But I don't think this little technicality
• 1:59:44
  Speaker 3: gets her off the hook, because I'm sorry, expressing this
• 1:59:48
  Speaker 3: connection to children will have a negative effect on them.
• 1:59:51
  Speaker 3: Young people have all kinds of feelings about their appearance,
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 3: whether they're slow to learn grooming habits, grow through awkward stages,
• 1:59:59
  Speaker 3: or are actually received as more homely than that.
• 2:00:01
  Speaker 2: How young are talking about, because most young people don't
• 2:00:05
  Speaker 2: actually worry about their appearance appearance until they start hitting puberty.
• 2:00:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's interesting, isn't it.
• 2:00:13
  Speaker 3: Yeah, going to be self conscious about some aspect of
• 2:00:16
  Speaker 3: their appearance, too, many will experience some level of teasing
• 2:00:19
  Speaker 3: or even bullying about it, and that digs deep. So
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 3: why in the world would you make this worse by
• 2:00:24
  Speaker 3: projecting ugliness onto evil characters. Even if no child directly
• 2:00:29
  Speaker 3: thinks I'm unattractive, therefore I must be evil. This idea
• 2:00:33
  Speaker 3: can only exacerbate any feeling they have that something's wrong
• 2:00:35
  Speaker 3: with them because of their looks. Now look again. To
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 3: be fair, Lane never says that this connection between evil
• 2:00:43
  Speaker 3: and ugliness is real, nor that it should be literally
• 2:00:46
  Speaker 3: expounded upon as real and fiction. But that's the problem.
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 3: Metaphors work on the level of insinuation. So why keep
• 2:00:55
  Speaker 3: pumping insinuations about ugliness and being bad into the heads
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 3: of kids who are already experiencing a sense swhirling mess
• 2:01:01
  Speaker 3: of doubts about how they look?
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 2: Are you talking about? There are no this is just gobbledegook. Well,
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 2: you know that's the problem. She's not explicitly making That's
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 2: the big problem. It's the implicit. And also, these kids
• 2:01:18
  Speaker 2: may not be making these connections, but they still are
• 2:01:22
  Speaker 2: making these connections. Okay, all right, when you figure out
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 2: what it is you are actually proposing, sir, lay it on,
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 2: lay it on us until then, begone with your self
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 2: contradictory nonsense.
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 1: By that logic, does that mean that an attractive evil
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 1: person would make attractive people think they're evil.
• 2:01:44
  Speaker 2: Huh, you're right, what about attractiveness?
• 2:01:48
  Speaker 1: Well, we but we already do that now, don't we? Yeah?
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 1: Do that? Now? What is what Shrek? Who is the villain?
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 1: And Shrek, I mean our quad but he was supposed
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 1: to be like yeah, but I mean wasn't there like
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 1: a Prince Charming in there too?
• 2:02:06
  Speaker 2: There was a prince Charming, but he's more like an idiot.
• 2:02:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, So they were so they but they were inverting.
• 2:02:12
  Speaker 1: That was an inversion. Shrek was the ogre, but he
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 1: was the good guy. And of course because he was
• 2:02:17
  Speaker 1: a good guy, I think DreamWorks had to like make
• 2:02:19
  Speaker 1: it a little bit softer so it didn't look too ugly.
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 2: But well, but also he was a good guy because
• 2:02:25
  Speaker 2: he's because of his actions.
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 1: Yes, yes, of course, yeah, because he was.
• 2:02:30
  Speaker 2: Not well, he's.
• 2:02:34
  Speaker 1: Same thing.
• 2:02:35
  Speaker 2: Okay, So yeah, my dude, Yes, you're right, Like what
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 2: about making attractive people feel self conscious about their looks
• 2:02:48
  Speaker 2: by making attractive people evil? Right? I mean, I think
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 2: we've got we've pretty much covered all the bases with evil.
• 2:02:54
  Speaker 2: We have attractive evil, we have mundane evil, and we
• 2:02:59
  Speaker 2: have ug evil. So I don't know, like I think
• 2:03:04
  Speaker 2: I think evil is sufficiently diverse. This is a non starter.
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 1: I got another really good I gotta have another, really
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 1: a good comment. I think we can wrap it up here.
• 2:03:15
  Speaker 1: Where what they mentioned to finish this section? Oh yeah, no,
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 1: I know, I know. Okay, but somebody, somebody, okay, real quick,
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 1: somebody made a comment that I'm trying to find now.
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 1: But it was about Roll Dahl, the guy who wrote
• 2:03:30
  Speaker 1: Charlie the Chocolate Factory and Witches and stuff, and he
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 1: basically made he had a blip about the physiognomy of evil,
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 1: the rudiments of physiognomy. I found it, and he was
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 1: basically saying that ugly people that are really nice are
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 1: are less ugly because they smile more. Things like that.
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 1: So it was actually like, that's a really good point
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: as well. But I think that Role Dall's problematic. I
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 1: don't know if you guys heard, so you know, he's
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 1: not allowed to you can't. You can't. We can't cite
• 2:04:00
  Speaker 1: Roll Doll or doctor Seuss because they have said problematic things,
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 1: so they're no longer considered part of literary history anymore.
• 2:04:08
  Speaker 1: So yeah, sorry. C. S. Lewis too, he's been and
• 2:04:12
  Speaker 1: and Tolkien they're all they're all persona non grata. You
• 2:04:18
  Speaker 1: guys have to read a morning Glory milking Farm, now, everybody,
• 2:04:22
  Speaker 1: that's your homework, okay, alese and read your thing.
• 2:04:30
  Speaker 2: Are we done with the dude? Yeah?
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 1: I mean we can. We can do more of it
• 2:04:33
  Speaker 1: another time if you want. But this is mostly this
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 1: is his whole video is him going implying that she's
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 1: a terrible right wing conservative, Christian garbage person and that's
• 2:04:44
  Speaker 1: why she's criticizing the absolute state of literature right now,
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 1: so and she shouldn't and that's it. But anyway, go.
• 2:04:54
  Speaker 2: Ahead, Well, okay, all right, so I did like this
• 2:04:59
  Speaker 2: is my trained stochastic spreadsheet which I put things through.
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 2: All right. So Lane's core complaint Blaane I believe that's
• 2:05:10
  Speaker 2: her name, right, Lane, the second woman? Yeah, Lane. Her
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 2: core complaint is that modern fiction has lost the ability
• 2:05:20
  Speaker 2: to render genuine evil because the literary and storytelling establishment
• 2:05:25
  Speaker 2: has reclassified evil as a social construct rather than an
• 2:05:29
  Speaker 2: objective moral reality. Right, because we can't. Honestly, we're not
• 2:05:34
  Speaker 2: going to get anywhere with this dude's video one hour,
• 2:05:40
  Speaker 2: fifteen minutes that doesn't address any single one of her points.
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 2: He she identifies three permitted villain villain approaches make the
• 2:05:50
  Speaker 2: villain a victim of social forces, make the villain of
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 2: meditation on what's wrong with society, or make the villain
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 2: secretly right but using wrong methods. Are approaches share a
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 2: common feature. They dissolve moral judgment into social positioning. Hey, guys,
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 2: you know what the essence of this problem is. She
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 2: wants moral clarity, which is basically an operative position. There
• 2:06:17
  Speaker 2: is good and bad actions. They should be recognized. She
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 2: is being opposed by people who think relationally actions don't
• 2:06:28
  Speaker 2: actually have consequences. What matters is your relationship to the
• 2:06:32
  Speaker 2: social web. Okay, that dissolution maps directly onto relational modality
• 2:06:42
  Speaker 2: processing applied to morality. The operative modality processes moral questions
• 2:06:48
  Speaker 2: the way Worthur processes the suicide debate in your goth
• 2:06:52
  Speaker 2: Gothie analysis as cases to be examined, mechanisms to be diagnosed,
• 2:06:57
  Speaker 2: evidence to be weighed in this framework is a definable thing.
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 2: Privation of good, identifiable through choices in their consequences. The
• 2:07:07
  Speaker 2: speaker's examples of well constructed villain. That's Lane's examples. Commitus
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 2: is successive choices eroding good from his character doctor Whitley's
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 2: fatherly love warped by the absence of good. Souron is
• 2:07:21
  Speaker 2: a moral void. The character from twenty twenty one Killer
• 2:07:26
  Speaker 2: who literally has no identity because he's been emptied. Are
• 2:07:30
  Speaker 2: all operative diagnostic renderings of evil. They treat moral reality
• 2:07:36
  Speaker 2: as material to be worked on, understood through its mechanism. So,
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 2: in essence, the idea that there is good and evil
• 2:07:45
  Speaker 2: is basically a masculine ethical framing. Did you guys think
• 2:07:51
  Speaker 2: that I would end up there? Because we did? We
• 2:07:54
  Speaker 2: are here now. And I use the term operative operative framing.
• 2:07:59
  Speaker 2: It's the mentality that looks at the world as inputs
• 2:08:04
  Speaker 2: to the machine that create outputs, as operations on material reality.
• 2:08:10
  Speaker 2: So you're gonna people in that modality are gonna look
• 2:08:13
  Speaker 2: out of character's actions and say, that's where the morality lies. Okay.
• 2:08:19
  Speaker 2: The reading modality or sorry, the relational modality processes moral
• 2:08:23
  Speaker 2: questions through relational channels. What does this behavior mean in
• 2:08:27
  Speaker 2: the social web? Who is positioned where? What does society
• 2:08:30
  Speaker 2: say is wrong? When reading? Sorry, relational modality processing dominates
• 2:08:36
  Speaker 2: storytelling institutions. The output is exactly what Lade describes. Evil
• 2:08:42
  Speaker 2: becomes a social construct because everything is a social construct.
• 2:08:46
  Speaker 2: The villain becomes a representation of social forces. Moral judgment
• 2:08:49
  Speaker 2: becomes a matter of emotional response rather than diagnostic assessment.
• 2:08:56
  Speaker 2: Paul Specter is an evil. He's a meditation on toxic maskity.
• 2:09:00
  Speaker 2: Hannimal e Lecter isn't evil. He's a moral blank canvas
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 2: defined by other people's perceptions. Fenos isn't evil. He might
• 2:09:08
  Speaker 2: have a point. The connection to your frame, to my framework,
• 2:09:12
  Speaker 2: the modality framework, my institutional analysis from the relational modality
• 2:09:21
  Speaker 2: failure mode document. The progressive frame instills a self model
• 2:09:26
  Speaker 2: where the operative frame moral judgments get reclassified as simplistic
• 2:09:32
  Speaker 2: or regressive. So because men look at people's actions, that
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 2: is a simplistic and regressive analysis of people's morality based
• 2:09:45
  Speaker 2: on their actions. What you need to evaluate people based
• 2:09:49
  Speaker 2: on is their relationship to the social web and upholding
• 2:09:53
  Speaker 2: the social web. The speaker describes this or sorry, Lane
• 2:09:56
  Speaker 2: describes this exactly when she talks about the literary elite
• 2:10:00
  Speaker 2: dismissing black cloak villains as childish and unrealistic. That dismissal
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 2: is reading a relational modality processing doing what your framework predicts,
• 2:10:08
  Speaker 2: converting an operative diagnostic capability, the ability to identify and
• 2:10:13
  Speaker 2: render moral evil as a definable mechanism into a social position, unsophisticated,
• 2:10:19
  Speaker 2: lacking nuance, failure to understand complexity. And it's simply because
• 2:10:24
  Speaker 2: when people look at it, or when men in particular
• 2:10:27
  Speaker 2: or Lane looks at this and diagnoses evil, that doesn't
• 2:10:35
  Speaker 2: make sense to people who see the world in terms
• 2:10:38
  Speaker 2: of a relational web. The speaker's observation about emotions replacing
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 2: moral truth is particularly relevant. Lane Sorry. She notes that
• 2:10:50
  Speaker 2: Fuller used the emotional attachment between Hannibal and Will Graham
• 2:10:54
  Speaker 2: Graham Graham. Ah, Okay, that's a really stupid mispronunciation. I apologey, guys,
• 2:11:00
  Speaker 2: that's probably one of my worst. I know how to
• 2:11:02
  Speaker 2: prevent scraham Yeah, as a substitute for actual moral reasoning,
• 2:11:08
  Speaker 2: loneliness and sympathy become proxy for moral judgment. This okay.
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 2: This maps onto the modality frameworks identification of relational modality processing,
• 2:11:18
  Speaker 2: where emotions become the all serving stand in for both
• 2:11:21
  Speaker 2: character development and moral truth. If the audience feels sorry
• 2:11:26
  Speaker 2: for the villain, the villain is morally softened. The relational
• 2:11:30
  Speaker 2: modality has no channel for separating emotional response from moral
• 2:11:34
  Speaker 2: assessment because it processes both through the same relational apparatus.
• 2:11:40
  Speaker 2: The stigmatization angle works like this. The operative modalities approach
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 2: to morality, diagnosing evil as a mechanism, rendering it as
• 2:11:48
  Speaker 2: definable and objective, making clear moral judgments about characters based
• 2:11:53
  Speaker 2: on their choices and actions is the approach the literary
• 2:11:57
  Speaker 2: establishment has specifically pathologized. I think we're all shocked at
• 2:12:01
  Speaker 2: this moment that they have pathologized this because once again
• 2:12:05
  Speaker 2: masculinity is wrong. It's dismissed as simplistic binary, lacking nuance.
• 2:12:11
  Speaker 2: But what the speaker is describing, what Lane is describing,
• 2:12:14
  Speaker 2: is that the nuance being demanded is actually re relational
• 2:12:18
  Speaker 2: modality processing applied, where operational processing produces better results. The
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 2: nuanced villain, who is really a victim of social forces,
• 2:12:27
  Speaker 2: is not more complex than commitists or doctor Whittley. It's
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 2: less complex because it has dissolved the moral mechanism into
• 2:12:35
  Speaker 2: social signaling. Isn't that interesting? I think that we talked
• 2:12:38
  Speaker 2: about that. So instead of actually looking at evil, you
• 2:12:45
  Speaker 2: just look at the social signals of this person in
• 2:12:49
  Speaker 2: the relational web, So you're not actually looking at how
• 2:12:52
  Speaker 2: evil comes about, what it looks like, what its actions
• 2:12:56
  Speaker 2: are what choices are. You're looking at a relationship in
• 2:13:02
  Speaker 2: a web, a node in a web. The speaker's or
• 2:13:06
  Speaker 2: sorry Lane's. Best example, the twenty twenty one Japanese film
• 2:13:10
  Speaker 2: Character is about a good man, hard working, talented, responsible
• 2:13:16
  Speaker 2: who can't write believable villains because he can't comprehend evil.
• 2:13:20
  Speaker 2: He has to study good to understand what evil removes.
• 2:13:23
  Speaker 2: That's operative diagnostic morality. Evil is what you get when
• 2:13:27
  Speaker 2: you subract, subtract specific goods from a person, and the
• 2:13:31
  Speaker 2: specific goods that remain or are absent determine the character
• 2:13:35
  Speaker 2: of the evil. That's the same cognitive operation. That is
• 2:13:42
  Speaker 2: like when I look at all of the male things
• 2:13:45
  Speaker 2: that pete and all of the things written by men,
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 2: this is what we find invariably, except for Henry James
• 2:13:52
  Speaker 2: and Prows, all right, those are the two outliers, But
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 2: every other man does this cognitive function. The operational reader
• 2:14:03
  Speaker 2: who encounters a villain rendered as a social construct rather
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 2: than a definable moral mechanism, has nothing to engage with morally.
• 2:14:11
  Speaker 2: The villain isn't a problem to be a diagnosed. He's
• 2:14:13
  Speaker 2: a position in the web. That's a version of the
• 2:14:16
  Speaker 2: operative through line failure applied to okay. So it's basically
• 2:14:21
  Speaker 2: a when somebody who likes operative content encounters a villain
• 2:14:29
  Speaker 2: depicted by a social web, there's just no there there
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 2: right there just doesn't it just it feels flat, And
• 2:14:37
  Speaker 2: I'll try to explain further. So, and this is this
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 2: is on intentions and moral currency within the social web.
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 2: The reading modality processes the gap between interior and surface.
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 2: It's constantly tracking what someone really means underneath what they show.
• 2:14:56
  Speaker 2: If that interior is the primary object of attention, the
• 2:14:59
  Speaker 2: moral assessment naturally gravitates towards intention rather than output. A
• 2:15:04
  Speaker 2: person who meant well but for produced harm, it's fundamentally
• 2:15:09
  Speaker 2: different from a person who meant harm because the interior
• 2:15:12
  Speaker 2: is the real thing and the output is secondary. So
• 2:15:16
  Speaker 2: but this is even worse because if you intend to
• 2:15:18
  Speaker 2: do good but do so by producing harm, the harm
• 2:15:24
  Speaker 2: is okay, somehow, it's justified, it's righteous. The operative modality
• 2:15:31
  Speaker 2: process is the other direction. What did you do? What
• 2:15:34
  Speaker 2: did it produce? What does the pattern of choices reveal?
• 2:15:37
  Speaker 2: Intentions are data, but they don't override the mechanism. So
• 2:15:41
  Speaker 2: even if you intend to bring about a utopia, the
• 2:15:46
  Speaker 2: fact that you burnt down somebody's store to do it
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 2: not really that important to people who think in an
• 2:15:54
  Speaker 2: operative modality. You guys should of get the difference. Like
• 2:15:59
  Speaker 2: from Bryan's conversation, she was in a relational modality. She
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 2: judges these people by the fact that they all share
• 2:16:06
  Speaker 2: the beautiful dream dream that she shares. Therefore, if they
• 2:16:12
  Speaker 2: burn down a shop in the process or kill a
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 2: few people, well that's, uh, well, you got to judge
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 2: him by their intentions. And that makes absolutely no fucking
• 2:16:23
  Speaker 2: sense to you, Brian, because you're looking at that and saying,
• 2:16:27
  Speaker 2: but what about these horrific actions that they're taking not
• 2:16:32
  Speaker 2: relevant to her. It's their intentions. It's the beautiful dream commodus,
• 2:16:39
  Speaker 2: so what it produces. Intentions are data, but they don't
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 2: over as a mechanism commudists intended to earn his father's love.
• 2:16:47
  Speaker 2: That an intention is understandable, his choice is still eroded
• 2:16:50
  Speaker 2: the good from his character, and the operative assessment doesn't
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 2: let the intention rescue him. Right, So that's that's the
• 2:16:57
  Speaker 2: big disconnect. Brian. You were like, but they're burning down shops,
• 2:17:00
  Speaker 2: and she was saying, but their intentions are beautiful. Yep,
• 2:17:04
  Speaker 2: don't you understand that you evil Nazi bastard. Okay, So,
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 2: in season one of Hannibal Mad's Michelson's Lecter was rendered
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 2: with something close to operative moral clarity. He was actively
• 2:17:18
  Speaker 2: killing people. The evidence accumulated he was evil visible through
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 2: what he did. The mechanism was on display. The speaker
• 2:17:25
  Speaker 2: or the Lane describes Mickelson's performance as making Lecter into
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 2: something like a moral black hole, almost entirely devoid of good,
• 2:17:36
  Speaker 2: fascinating the way a king Cobra is fascinating. The audience
• 2:17:40
  Speaker 2: could see what he was through his actions. In later seasons,
• 2:17:44
  Speaker 2: Fuller shifted the moral processing channel. He stopped diagnosing Lecture
• 2:17:48
  Speaker 2: through what Lecter does and started processing him through how
• 2:17:51
  Speaker 2: other people feel about him. Lecter was lonely, Lector missed
• 2:17:55
  Speaker 2: Will Will missed Lecter. The audience felt sorry for both
• 2:17:59
  Speaker 2: of them. The emotional attachment between the two characters became
• 2:18:02
  Speaker 2: the moral content, not as a supplement to moral assessment,
• 2:18:06
  Speaker 2: but as a replacement for it. Fuller essentially argued that
• 2:18:10
  Speaker 2: because Will Graham emotionally accepted Hannibal, this constituted a kind
• 2:18:15
  Speaker 2: of moral acceptance. The feeling was the verdict. So do
• 2:18:20
  Speaker 2: you understand where like habristophilics come from now. If I
• 2:18:26
  Speaker 2: love him, he's no longer evil. This is the intentions
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 2: move applied at the narrative level. Fuller gave Hannibal legible
• 2:18:38
  Speaker 2: intentions He genuinely wanted connection or legible like desire for connection.
• 2:18:44
  Speaker 2: He genuinely saw something special and will. His interior contained
• 2:18:48
  Speaker 2: something that read his authentic loneliness. Right, the reading modality
• 2:18:52
  Speaker 2: system couldn't sustain the judgment this person is evil because
• 2:18:55
  Speaker 2: evil in that system lies in the intention, and Hannibal
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 2: wants to be connected to someone. A person who is
• 2:19:06
  Speaker 2: genuinely wants a friend, person who generally wants a friend
• 2:19:09
  Speaker 2: can't be fully evil, no matter how many people he's eaten,
• 2:19:14
  Speaker 2: because the interior has been revealed as containing a desire
• 2:19:17
  Speaker 2: to connect to the social web. Okay, yeah, Also, Fuller
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 2: doesn't have a doesn't have a coherent moral logic. Fuller
• 2:19:29
  Speaker 2: wasn't operating from a privation theory or from any defined
• 2:19:32
  Speaker 2: moral framework. Who's operating from emotional response? What makes the
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 2: audience feel uncomfortable, what makes them feel sympathy? What produces
• 2:19:39
  Speaker 2: the most interesting emotional texture? Emotional emotions replaced moral architecture
• 2:19:45
  Speaker 2: entirely that's reading modality process to a domain where it
• 2:19:50
  Speaker 2: produces incoherence. Because you know, he's writing about a cannibalistic
• 2:19:56
  Speaker 2: serial killer M who has systematically removed good from his character.
• 2:20:02
  Speaker 2: But he wants to have a friend. Guys, that means
• 2:20:06
  Speaker 2: he's he's good. Social readers don't lack moral capacity. They're capable, well,
• 2:20:13
  Speaker 2: I don't know if this is moral capacity. They're capable
• 2:20:15
  Speaker 2: of brutal absolute judgment through the web. The mechanism is
• 2:20:20
  Speaker 2: exclusion inclusion. You belong or you don't, And when the
• 2:20:23
  Speaker 2: web decides that you don't belong, the judgment is swift
• 2:20:25
  Speaker 2: and often permanent. No appeal process, no corrective system, no
• 2:20:29
  Speaker 2: diagnos diagnoses of what went wrong that could be fixed.
• 2:20:32
  Speaker 2: You're out. The difference is that social readers can't make
• 2:20:36
  Speaker 2: moral judgments. Well, yes, it's I would say they can't
• 2:20:41
  Speaker 2: make moral judgments. It's that their judgments run through a
• 2:20:45
  Speaker 2: different channel. The operative channel diagnoses here's what this person did.
• 2:20:48
  Speaker 2: Here's the mechanism by which their choice is produced evil.
• 2:20:51
  Speaker 2: Here's the specific moral architecture revealed by the pattern the
• 2:20:54
  Speaker 2: reading channel excesses position. Does this person belong in the web?
• 2:20:58
  Speaker 2: Are their intentions readable? As good do they occupy a
• 2:21:01
  Speaker 2: position the web recognizes as legitimate. This is why the
• 2:21:04
  Speaker 2: postmodern villain collapses. The reading modality moral system can absolutely
• 2:21:09
  Speaker 2: destroy a person, but it destroys them for failing to belong,
• 2:21:13
  Speaker 2: for having the wrong position, for being read is having
• 2:21:16
  Speaker 2: bad intentions, for being you know, one of the penis people.
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 2: It can destroy. It can't destroy a person for having
• 2:21:21
  Speaker 2: made choices that systematically removed good from their character, because
• 2:21:25
  Speaker 2: that's an operative diagnosis. You remember that. I think it
• 2:21:29
  Speaker 2: was Tildeer who brought up that experiment in which they
• 2:21:33
  Speaker 2: they had they were where there was a bunch of
• 2:21:36
  Speaker 2: people watching people play games, and the people oh yeah, no.
• 2:21:40
  Speaker 1: I talked about. It was a study where they had
• 2:21:45
  Speaker 1: they were they had a bunch of people watching people
• 2:21:48
  Speaker 1: play games, and there were people who were speeding, and
• 2:21:53
  Speaker 1: some of the people who were cheating were punished for
• 2:21:56
  Speaker 1: being for cheating in some way penalized. And what they
• 2:22:00
  Speaker 1: found was the women, I'm sorry, the men got more satisfaction.
• 2:22:08
  Speaker 1: There were people who were being punished unjustly and justly.
• 2:22:11
  Speaker 1: I think it was so some were unjustly punished and
• 2:22:14
  Speaker 1: some were not. Something like that. The men had more
• 2:22:18
  Speaker 1: the not not like they even less sympathy for the
• 2:22:22
  Speaker 1: people who are justly punished, And the women had more
• 2:22:26
  Speaker 1: sympathy for the people who were justly punished as well,
• 2:22:30
  Speaker 1: So they had more sympathy for them than even the
• 2:22:32
  Speaker 1: ones who were unjustly punished. M h something like that.
• 2:22:38
  Speaker 1: So women's sympathy or people is simply on the basis
• 2:22:45
  Speaker 1: that they're being punished, regardless of whether it is just
• 2:22:48
  Speaker 1: or unjust. Men are more likely to respond positively to
• 2:22:54
  Speaker 1: just punishment, like they like that.
• 2:22:57
  Speaker 2: So, yes, it's satisfying, and that's that's the vas oppress
• 2:23:02
  Speaker 2: and architecture. But here's the thing. If you showed those
• 2:23:07
  Speaker 2: women their political opponents being punished, they would be feeling pleasure.
• 2:23:15
  Speaker 2: Mm hmmm, because it's not for women. It's not behavior.
• 2:23:20
  Speaker 2: It's in group, out group.
• 2:23:22
  Speaker 1: We've already seen that assassinated.
• 2:23:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's in group, out group. So men will
• 2:23:31
  Speaker 2: will feel like it's justice when people who are bad
• 2:23:35
  Speaker 2: actors are punished. Women will feel vindicated when somebody who
• 2:23:40
  Speaker 2: they consider to be outside their social group and not
• 2:23:45
  Speaker 2: just punished. Just like outside their social group, you can
• 2:23:49
  Speaker 2: do whatever you want to them, like they'll they'll just
• 2:23:52
  Speaker 2: be walking down the street. You decapitate them, and women
• 2:23:55
  Speaker 2: will be like that. That hep. They deserve that if
• 2:23:59
  Speaker 2: they're outside, if they're genuinely outside their social group. And
• 2:24:02
  Speaker 2: that explains what happened with the Charlie Kirk assassination.
• 2:24:06
  Speaker 1: Mm hmm, all right.
• 2:24:10
  Speaker 2: So when reading modality processors write villains, they produce villains
• 2:24:14
  Speaker 2: who are excluded from the social web. Oh sorry, it
• 2:24:17
  Speaker 2: can't destroy person for having made choices. The reading modality
• 2:24:23
  Speaker 2: moral system can absolutely destroy a person, but destroys them
• 2:24:27
  Speaker 2: for failing to belong, for having the wrong position, for
• 2:24:30
  Speaker 2: being read as having bad intentions, like you don't share
• 2:24:34
  Speaker 2: the beautiful dream, You're the wrong person. You're just not
• 2:24:38
  Speaker 2: part of our group. It can destroy a person. It
• 2:24:41
  Speaker 2: can't destroy a person or punish a person. Really, let's
• 2:24:43
  Speaker 2: be honest for having made choices that systematically removed good
• 2:24:47
  Speaker 2: from their character, because that's an operative diagnosis. So when
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 2: a reading modality process or rights villain or a relational
• 2:24:55
  Speaker 2: modality process or rights villains, they produce villains who are
• 2:24:58
  Speaker 2: excluded from the social web, representations of social evil, victims
• 2:25:02
  Speaker 2: of society, symbols of what's wrong, rather than villains who
• 2:25:06
  Speaker 2: have made definable moral choices that produce definable moral consequences.
• 2:25:13
  Speaker 2: And also they write, you know, completely flat one dimensional
• 2:25:18
  Speaker 2: villains that are representation of sis white head men generally.
• 2:25:23
  Speaker 2: The exclusion system also explains the speaker the Lane's observation
• 2:25:27
  Speaker 2: about moral cowardice. She notes that writers couldn't commit to
• 2:25:31
  Speaker 2: saying Thanos was morally wrong, because that would require an
• 2:25:34
  Speaker 2: objective moral judgment, an operative assessment. What they could do
• 2:25:39
  Speaker 2: and did, is to offtened his exclusion from the web
• 2:25:42
  Speaker 2: by giving him readable intentions. He loves his daughters, he
• 2:25:45
  Speaker 2: wants to save the universe. Once the intentions are visible,
• 2:25:49
  Speaker 2: the web based moral system can't fully exclude him because
• 2:25:52
  Speaker 2: exclusion requires reading the interior is bad, and his interior
• 2:25:57
  Speaker 2: has been rendered as desiring connection. The operative system doesn't
• 2:26:02
  Speaker 2: have this problem. Thanos's intentions are irrelevant to the diagnosis.
• 2:26:06
  Speaker 2: His choices produce maths death, mass death. The mechanism is clear.
• 2:26:10
  Speaker 2: The moral assessment follows from the mechanism, not from the interior. Okay,
• 2:26:16
  Speaker 2: so the reading the relational modality moral system doesn't actually
• 2:26:20
  Speaker 2: scan the interior for moral goods, so this is a correction.
• 2:26:23
  Speaker 2: It scans for attachment. Hannibal is lonely, Hannibal misses Will.
• 2:26:27
  Speaker 2: These are attachment signals Thanos loves his daughter attachment signal.
• 2:26:31
  Speaker 2: The reading modality processor detects attachment and converts it into
• 2:26:36
  Speaker 2: moral weight, because in the web, attachment is the moral
• 2:26:39
  Speaker 2: currency being connected to someone, being orientated towards someone wanting
• 2:26:43
  Speaker 2: to be in a relationship with someone. That's what the
• 2:26:45
  Speaker 2: web tracks, and it's what classifies as the morally relevant interior. Ah,
• 2:26:52
  Speaker 2: that's why intentions function the way they do. I meant
• 2:26:54
  Speaker 2: well isn't really a moral claim in the operative sense.
• 2:26:57
  Speaker 2: It's a relational claim. I was orientated towards you. I
• 2:27:01
  Speaker 2: was attached to the outcome. The reading modality system can't
• 2:27:04
  Speaker 2: distinguish between relational orientation and moral quality because in this
• 2:27:09
  Speaker 2: when it's processing, they are the same object. Attachment equals good,
• 2:27:13
  Speaker 2: interior equals not fully excludible. Fuller didn't give Hannibal moral good.
• 2:27:19
  Speaker 2: He gave him attachment. Hannibal's loneliness, his desire for Will's friendship,
• 2:27:23
  Speaker 2: his capacity for emotional connection sadistic. Okay, anyway, and I said, okay,
• 2:27:32
  Speaker 2: let's look at reading modality and what a relational modality
• 2:27:35
  Speaker 2: and what its logic actually is. Because, let's face it,
• 2:27:39
  Speaker 2: progressives exclude half the human race from moral consideration. And
• 2:27:43
  Speaker 2: this is the point where the system's internal logic reveals itself.
• 2:27:46
  Speaker 2: The reading the relational modality system claims it can't make
• 2:27:50
  Speaker 2: objective moral judgments. Evil as a social constructs, villains are
• 2:27:53
  Speaker 2: products of circumstance. Everyone deserves compassion and contextual understanding. But
• 2:27:57
  Speaker 2: it simultaneously operates one of the most efficient gegorical exclusion
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 2: systems ever built. The contradiction isn't a bug. It's a
• 2:28:04
  Speaker 2: system working exactly as designed, just not as advertised. The
• 2:28:09
  Speaker 2: relational modality system doesn't actually run on compassion. It runs
• 2:28:13
  Speaker 2: on attachment to the web. The question isn't is this
• 2:28:16
  Speaker 2: personal moral person morally good? It's is this person attached
• 2:28:20
  Speaker 2: to our web? Fictional Hannibal displays attachment, the web can't
• 2:28:25
  Speaker 2: fully exclude him. Real world demographic category preclassified is detached
• 2:28:29
  Speaker 2: from the progressive web excludible without contradiction. That means, you know,
• 2:28:34
  Speaker 2: cishet white men are never really part of anything. Because
• 2:28:39
  Speaker 2: the exclusion isn't a moral judgment. The system says it
• 2:28:41
  Speaker 2: doesn't make those it's a relational assessment. These people are
• 2:28:44
  Speaker 2: not orientated towards us, not attempt attached to our values,
• 2:28:48
  Speaker 2: not connected to our web. And in the relational modality system,
• 2:28:52
  Speaker 2: the absence of attachment to the web is the moral problem.
• 2:28:55
  Speaker 2: It's the only moral problem that the system can actually detect.
• 2:29:00
  Speaker 2: If you're not part of the web, we will we
• 2:29:03
  Speaker 2: will persecute you. This is why the system can extend
• 2:29:09
  Speaker 2: can extend infinite compassion to a fictional cannibal while categorically
• 2:29:14
  Speaker 2: excluding real men who have done nothing wrong. The cannibal
• 2:29:17
  Speaker 2: displayed attachment, the men didn't, or more precisely, their category
• 2:29:20
  Speaker 2: membership pre signals non attachment to the web before any
• 2:29:24
  Speaker 2: individual assessment can occur. The compassion isn't compassion, it's attachment detection.
• 2:29:30
  Speaker 2: And the exclusion isn't moral judgment. It's the same attachment
• 2:29:34
  Speaker 2: detection running in reverse. No attachment signal detected, excluded the
• 2:29:40
  Speaker 2: second mister Zod. The second videos responded, So now I'm
• 2:29:44
  Speaker 2: going to do the conclusion on mister Zod. Guys actually
• 2:29:49
  Speaker 2: demonstrates Okay, this is going to surprise everyone. The reading
• 2:29:55
  Speaker 2: modality system, the relational modality system encountering lanes operative style
• 2:30:01
  Speaker 2: moral claims and doing exactly what my system predicts mister
• 2:30:08
  Speaker 2: Zod doesn't engage with Lane's moral arguments on their merits.
• 2:30:12
  Speaker 2: This is a freaking stochastic spreadsheet, just going through each
• 2:30:16
  Speaker 2: of these two people's arguments and seeing what comes out
• 2:30:21
  Speaker 2: when it pattern matches to them. This is like a
• 2:30:24
  Speaker 2: neutral assessment, I thought, as neutral as he gets. Mister
• 2:30:28
  Speaker 2: Zod doesn't engage with Lane's moral arguments on their merits.
• 2:30:32
  Speaker 2: Mister Zod reads Lane her aesthetic, her sources, her cultural markers,
• 2:30:39
  Speaker 2: her probable religious background, and classifies her within the web
• 2:30:44
  Speaker 2: well outside of his web, of course, Christian apologetics, adjacent, fundamentalist,
• 2:30:50
  Speaker 2: bubble regressive, incurious. The content of her moral claims never
• 2:30:54
  Speaker 2: gets evaluated because the source has been placed in a
• 2:30:57
  Speaker 2: web position that prequalifies the input outside of his web.
• 2:31:01
  Speaker 2: You see, that was what his entire his entire activity
• 2:31:06
  Speaker 2: was in that entire video, was to place this woman
• 2:31:08
  Speaker 2: outside of his web so he could dismiss everything she
• 2:31:13
  Speaker 2: said mm hmmm without engaging in any edit. And this
• 2:31:18
  Speaker 2: is exactly what the modality framework would predict someone like
• 2:31:21
  Speaker 2: him would do the content of her moral claims never
• 2:31:27
  Speaker 2: gets evaluated because the source has been placed in a
• 2:31:29
  Speaker 2: web position that pre qualifies the input this is the
• 2:31:32
  Speaker 2: institutional kill switch if if if you have any Okay,
• 2:31:38
  Speaker 2: well what what what this means is that, for example,
• 2:31:40
  Speaker 2: in the publishing industry, because relational our modality thinkers cannot
• 2:31:48
  Speaker 2: process operative content, they cannot actually improve on any metric,
• 2:31:57
  Speaker 2: like any any metric, including a moral is pre categorized
• 2:32:02
  Speaker 2: as illegitimate. What's notable is that Lane's actual argument, the
• 2:32:08
  Speaker 2: evil is definable, that villain characters need to be rendered
• 2:32:10
  Speaker 2: as genuinely bad through their choices, that moral clarity in
• 2:32:14
  Speaker 2: storytelling matters is an operative diagnostic claim about how fiction works.
• 2:32:21
  Speaker 2: Mister Zod can engage with it operatively because the response,
• 2:32:25
  Speaker 2: because mister Zod doesn't process moral morality operatively. Instead, mister
• 2:32:33
  Speaker 2: Zod processes Lane's position relationally. What does it mean that
• 2:32:38
  Speaker 2: this person holds these views? What is her true motivation?
• 2:32:43
  Speaker 2: And how does your true motivation make it? Make it
• 2:32:47
  Speaker 2: so that I don't even have to engage with the
• 2:32:48
  Speaker 2: things that she's saying? What web does she belong to?
• 2:32:52
  Speaker 2: What category does holding these views place her in? The answer? Conservative? Traditional, rigid,
• 2:32:57
  Speaker 2: probably Christian is the assessment the argument was never evaluated. Okay,
• 2:33:04
  Speaker 2: who said AI can't think? No I'm just kidding. I
• 2:33:10
  Speaker 2: can't think, but it can pattern match, and it pattern matched.
• 2:33:13
  Speaker 2: Mister Zod to a relational thinker that encountered operative content
• 2:33:19
  Speaker 2: classified it relationally as irrelevant and also probably you know,
• 2:33:28
  Speaker 2: it wouldn't be He probably thinks that the world would
• 2:33:30
  Speaker 2: be better off if someone like Lane was put into
• 2:33:36
  Speaker 2: a gas chamber in Minecraft. Yeah, just saying, okay, because
• 2:33:43
  Speaker 2: the relational web and that people in it are so compassionate.
• 2:33:47
  Speaker 2: Mm hmm, okay, all right, So anyway, that's done. That's
• 2:33:50
  Speaker 2: my analysis. Hope you guys found it edifying. You probably
• 2:33:54
  Speaker 2: found it boring, but I'm really interested in this stuff.
• 2:34:00
  Speaker 1: Stuff. No, I think that's it. I think it's useful
• 2:34:02
  Speaker 1: stuff to understand, like where this is coming from.
• 2:34:06
  Speaker 2: You know.
• 2:34:07
  Speaker 1: So I did get a bunch of super chats and
• 2:34:10
  Speaker 1: I think we can like you know, sure, all right,
• 2:34:14
  Speaker 1: So Nova fan twenty one gave us a rumble rant
• 2:34:17
  Speaker 1: and said, sorry if this was all there was a dollar.
• 2:34:19
  Speaker 1: Sorry if this is already addressed before, but I thought
• 2:34:22
  Speaker 1: i'd share this from a different video. Apparently romance books
• 2:34:25
  Speaker 1: are cooked because the boyfriend has to be a yes man.
• 2:34:31
  Speaker 1: I don't know want do.
• 2:34:33
  Speaker 2: You want me to answer that, yeah, go ahead, okay,
• 2:34:38
  Speaker 2: romance that men, that sort of romance that women actually buy.
• 2:34:42
  Speaker 2: No romance that the publishing industry, well, first of all,
• 2:34:47
  Speaker 2: isn't romance. It's actually vindication narratives that the publishing industry
• 2:34:53
  Speaker 2: is falsely presenting as romance. Yes, but women don't buy those.
• 2:34:59
  Speaker 2: And I've actually found a heuristic that pretty much pretty
• 2:35:06
  Speaker 2: much predicts, at least in the few examples that I've
• 2:35:10
  Speaker 2: managed to scrape up, because in order to run my analyzes,
• 2:35:16
  Speaker 2: I would have to have like two thousand dollars to
• 2:35:20
  Speaker 2: get access to the full data sets. But what I've
• 2:35:24
  Speaker 2: found my predictions have held. So I basically have a
• 2:35:27
  Speaker 2: heuristic that explains which romance novels do better than other
• 2:35:32
  Speaker 2: romance novels. And it is one percent not what the
• 2:35:37
  Speaker 2: people who are creating these romance imprints would predict or
• 2:35:42
  Speaker 2: want it to be. And basically the reason why is
• 2:35:45
  Speaker 2: because they're enforcing ideology onto a medium that is actually
• 2:35:52
  Speaker 2: the exact opposite. Like I also is going to sound strange,
• 2:35:56
  Speaker 2: but romance is possibly the least feminist thing, at least
• 2:36:04
  Speaker 2: the kind of romance that women actually like and the
• 2:36:08
  Speaker 2: reasons why they like it, and what it's actually doing.
• 2:36:13
  Speaker 2: And the reason why I say that is because feminism
• 2:36:17
  Speaker 2: proposes that the relationship between men and women is one
• 2:36:20
  Speaker 2: in which which the site of well, basically, let's put
• 2:36:24
  Speaker 2: it this way, heterosexuality is the site of women's oppression
• 2:36:27
  Speaker 2: by men, Okay, And romance is basically presenting that, and
• 2:36:34
  Speaker 2: it is one of the things that women buy the most,
• 2:36:38
  Speaker 2: and it's not that so it is it is completely
• 2:36:42
  Speaker 2: antithetical to feminism in a fundamental way. But the problem
• 2:36:47
  Speaker 2: is that the lot of the romance that's coming out,
• 2:36:50
  Speaker 2: including the romanticy that that publishers are pushing everywhere. Now,
• 2:37:00
  Speaker 2: first of all, they're doing it from an ideological basis
• 2:37:03
  Speaker 2: that actually doesn't recognize what's being sold in romance, and
• 2:37:10
  Speaker 2: they are not like they're failing, Like all of this
• 2:37:15
  Speaker 2: stuff is not being bought by women. And in fact,
• 2:37:22
  Speaker 2: the rating rates of women is are declared declining now
• 2:37:26
  Speaker 2: substantially too. Like when I said in the towards the
• 2:37:31
  Speaker 2: beginning that the publishing industry is a smoking crater, I
• 2:37:35
  Speaker 2: am not exaggerating. And the reason why is because the
• 2:37:40
  Speaker 2: people who are publishing books now are public are not
• 2:37:44
  Speaker 2: publishing books for men. They are not publishing books for women.
• 2:37:48
  Speaker 2: They are publishing vindication fantasies for feminists, and nobody wants
• 2:37:54
  Speaker 2: to read that. So their numbers now are like five
• 2:37:58
  Speaker 2: hundred one thousand books sold if they're lucky, mm hmm.
• 2:38:04
  Speaker 2: And yeah. So it's it's a it's a cratering industry.
• 2:38:08
  Speaker 2: And in part and a huge part of the reason
• 2:38:11
  Speaker 2: is because relational readers, relational modality thinkers cannot iterate on improvements.
• 2:38:21
  Speaker 2: So I don't know if you guys want to hear this,
• 2:38:23
  Speaker 2: this is like a okay, I will too much.
• 2:38:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah we're yeah, I got two more super childs to read,
• 2:38:31
  Speaker 1: so okay, all right. So Nova Fan gives another one
• 2:38:35
  Speaker 1: follow up, and he says for a dollar, apparently, if
• 2:38:38
  Speaker 1: the boyfriend has flaws and romancing him means tolerating toxic masculinity,
• 2:38:42
  Speaker 1: so him being a sanitized and perfectly safe is now
• 2:38:45
  Speaker 1: what a lot of female readers want. Oh dear Alison
• 2:38:48
  Speaker 1: basically responds to that already women don't read that, That's
• 2:38:51
  Speaker 1: just what the publishing industry puts out. Uh. Beard Master
• 2:38:55
  Speaker 1: sixty two oh eight gives us five dollars Canadian and says,
• 2:38:59
  Speaker 1: if evil doesn't exist, wouldn't that mean, Trump is just misunderstood.
• 2:39:02
  Speaker 1: I know they would never think that, but it's funny
• 2:39:04
  Speaker 1: to think about, well, no, they believe that evil exists,
• 2:39:07
  Speaker 1: but it's about inversion, not necessarily erasure. It just depends
• 2:39:11
  Speaker 1: on like what we're doing. So like, but yeah, no
• 2:39:15
  Speaker 1: evil exists. It's as Penis people, it's men, it's white people,
• 2:39:18
  Speaker 1: it's Christians, it's capitalism, it's but like, how do you
• 2:39:21
  Speaker 1: get there? Is first you have to like convince people
• 2:39:24
  Speaker 1: that there is no truth, and then you start creating
• 2:39:28
  Speaker 1: a new truth, and then you normalize that new truth.
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 1: And that's where on the we're on the destroyed truth
• 2:39:34
  Speaker 1: phase right now of ideological subversion or active measures. So
• 2:39:40
  Speaker 1: all right, that's all the super chats. Let me just
• 2:39:42
  Speaker 1: see if there's any super chows. I already read that.
• 2:39:46
  Speaker 1: So do you have anything in the Yeah, go ahead?
• 2:39:49
  Speaker 2: Can I just okay? So I'm just an example of
• 2:39:53
  Speaker 2: the relational web not being able to update. So there's
• 2:39:58
  Speaker 2: an imprint I think tor I guess tour Bramble. It's
• 2:40:04
  Speaker 2: basically a romanticy imprint, and it's being headed by, of course,
• 2:40:10
  Speaker 2: a female acquisitions and acquisitions editor, and she has been
• 2:40:16
  Speaker 2: acquiring things based on conversations on BookTalk. So beta heroes,
• 2:40:24
  Speaker 2: Oh no, sorry, cinnamon roll heroes. Those would be the
• 2:40:27
  Speaker 2: yes men heroes you were talking about, and lesbian heroes
• 2:40:32
  Speaker 2: and cozy's and she acquires them, does gigantic print print
• 2:40:39
  Speaker 2: runs for them, so like the thing she started at
• 2:40:41
  Speaker 2: one hundred thousand and sells about maybe six six thousand.
• 2:40:49
  Speaker 2: And then instead of saying asking herself, maybe maybe where
• 2:40:54
  Speaker 2: I'm going for information on the market, These these women
• 2:40:56
  Speaker 2: are actually not telling me what they want want. They're
• 2:41:01
  Speaker 2: telling each other what they want to hear, like they're
• 2:41:04
  Speaker 2: relationally signaling the correct attitudes, like oh, yes, I don't
• 2:41:10
  Speaker 2: like a strong man, I want one who just sucks,
• 2:41:14
  Speaker 2: like it's like he's just tached to me like a
• 2:41:16
  Speaker 2: parasite and does everything I want. And then and then
• 2:41:20
  Speaker 2: these this editor acquires said property and finds out that
• 2:41:25
  Speaker 2: no woman wants to buy it, and she doesn't make
• 2:41:28
  Speaker 2: the conclusion, oh, hey, maybe these women are lying because
• 2:41:32
  Speaker 2: what they're talking about is social signaling, not actual appetite. No,
• 2:41:37
  Speaker 2: she goes back to the social signals, reads them again,
• 2:41:41
  Speaker 2: and acquires a cozy lesbian feminist romance and then Prince
• 2:41:50
  Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty thousand copies of that. So we've
• 2:41:54
  Speaker 2: gone from one hundred thousand of copies selling six to
• 2:41:57
  Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty thousand copies. I guess what's that
• 2:42:00
  Speaker 2: cells ten thousand, And then she's like, oh, well, I
• 2:42:04
  Speaker 2: guess I didn't read the signals, right, I'll go back,
• 2:42:08
  Speaker 2: And then she finds out that I don't know these women.
• 2:42:12
  Speaker 2: They think that the next big thing is romance stories
• 2:42:17
  Speaker 2: between geometric objects. And she goes and acquires one of
• 2:42:21
  Speaker 2: those half a million prints, and we're we're at that
• 2:42:26
  Speaker 2: stage like Brambles is that stage they put money towards
• 2:42:29
  Speaker 2: half a million books, right, and now we're gonna see
• 2:42:34
  Speaker 2: if that bet pays out for them. But each time,
• 2:42:37
  Speaker 2: instead of thinking, hey, wait, maybe these women aren't actually
• 2:42:42
  Speaker 2: signaling what they want. They're just playing social you know,
• 2:42:46
  Speaker 2: social games, she just bets larger and larger, and I'm like,
• 2:42:50
  Speaker 2: looking at this, I'm like, at what point does this
• 2:42:55
  Speaker 2: does this nonsense hit a man's desk and he looks
• 2:42:59
  Speaker 2: at this and says, what the fuck are you doing?
• 2:43:02
  Speaker 2: But it's not yet. I guess it'll be like two million,
• 2:43:05
  Speaker 2: ten million prints with like five sold. That's so funny
• 2:43:12
  Speaker 2: to watch, but anyway, This is the kind of crap
• 2:43:14
  Speaker 2: that's happening in the publishing industry. They absolutely have no
• 2:43:18
  Speaker 2: idea what the fuck they're doing. It's it is hilarious,
• 2:43:21
  Speaker 2: and they have no ability to course correct because they
• 2:43:26
  Speaker 2: don't understand that the product isn't what's wanted. They think
• 2:43:30
  Speaker 2: it's the positioning, like, oh, we did we didn't time
• 2:43:34
  Speaker 2: the market right. Oh we didn't position this right, we didn't.
• 2:43:36
  Speaker 2: We didn't get this into the hands of the astro
• 2:43:39
  Speaker 2: turf book talk influencers that we have access to. Ah wow,
• 2:43:44
  Speaker 2: we didn't do this. We didn't properly figure out the
• 2:43:47
  Speaker 2: relational web before we release this without realizing. They are
• 2:43:52
  Speaker 2: putting money behind something nobody wants. And the reason why
• 2:43:57
  Speaker 2: they're putting money behind nobody wants is because these women
• 2:44:00
  Speaker 2: are not telling them what they want. They're lying and
• 2:44:05
  Speaker 2: saying what they think they should want.
• 2:44:08
  Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
• 2:44:09
  Speaker 2: Okay, I'm just I'm just putting it out there. This
• 2:44:11
  Speaker 2: is the kind of nonsense you can say, all right,
• 2:44:14
  Speaker 2: I'm done, fair, all right, okay.
• 2:44:18
  Speaker 1: Okay, that's all the super child's and super.
• 2:44:20
  Speaker 2: Child all right, Okay, So if you want to send
• 2:44:23
  Speaker 2: us a message anytime after the show is over. If
• 2:44:25
  Speaker 2: you like anything we discussed talked about, you can do so.
• 2:44:30
  Speaker 2: If you yeah ranted about like I okay, I have
• 2:44:33
  Speaker 2: a lot to say about the publishing industry. I apologize.
• 2:44:36
  Speaker 2: I could say a lot more, but it is. It
• 2:44:38
  Speaker 2: is absolutely a disaster. And I'm not kidding when I
• 2:44:42
  Speaker 2: say a lot of this is fraud. But anyway, if
• 2:44:45
  Speaker 2: you have any I have any commentary on this, feed
• 2:44:47
  Speaker 2: the Badger dot Com slash just the tip very much appreciated.
• 2:44:51
  Speaker 2: Whatever funds you send, we get the full benefit of
• 2:44:55
  Speaker 2: and you get the benefit of sending to your comment
• 2:44:56
  Speaker 2: through something that I am doesn't enhance in a relational way.
• 2:45:04
  Speaker 2: And if you would like to support the show, feed
• 2:45:06
  Speaker 2: the Badger dot Com slash support if you enjoy this
• 2:45:08
  Speaker 2: analysis and commentary understanding where these people are coming from
• 2:45:13
  Speaker 2: and why they're so incomprehensible, and if you want to
• 2:45:18
  Speaker 2: join our community Badger Nation. Donna line so I'll hand
• 2:45:20
  Speaker 2: it back to you, Brian.
• 2:45:22
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, if you guys like this video, please
• 2:45:25
  Speaker 1: hit like subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the oh.
• 2:45:28
  Speaker 1: I was gonna say something one last thing about this
• 2:45:31
  Speaker 1: where I think this mister Zod video could be coming
• 2:45:34
  Speaker 1: from too is also a little bit of hater aid.
• 2:45:37
  Speaker 1: He might be a little bit of hater aid because
• 2:45:39
  Speaker 1: he has thirteen thousand subscribers and Second Story has one
• 2:45:44
  Speaker 1: hundred and thirty two thousand subscribers. So maybe maybe it's
• 2:45:49
  Speaker 1: because she's making headway on her arguments and he doesn't
• 2:45:53
  Speaker 1: like that. But that's just me speculating. I'm I'm betting
• 2:45:58
  Speaker 1: that a lot of the people who are trying to
• 2:46:00
  Speaker 1: refute her are probably not doing as well as she is.
• 2:46:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, because there's a lot of ship yeah that's
• 2:46:11
  Speaker 2: being put out by the publishing industry and people are
• 2:46:13
  Speaker 2: tired of it. Yeah, And unfortunately, like people like Lane
• 2:46:19
  Speaker 2: in the Second Story, they don't even know the half
• 2:46:21
  Speaker 2: of it.
• 2:46:22
  Speaker 1: No, I'm sure that she's not even yeah, like she
• 2:46:24
  Speaker 1: doesn't have the whole story. But it doesn't matter. She's
• 2:46:27
  Speaker 1: even like even reaching in the direction possibly of getting
• 2:46:31
  Speaker 1: there is going to be enough for this for the
• 2:46:34
  Speaker 1: elitist midwin writing community to dog pile on her. Remember,
• 2:46:39
  Speaker 1: these people probably all came out of Tinder. So is
• 2:46:43
  Speaker 1: it Tinder? What was it? No? Tumblr? It was tumblr
• 2:46:46
  Speaker 1: tumblr and tender but tumblr tumblr. Yeah, so remember just
• 2:46:50
  Speaker 1: think about that they might be.
• 2:46:53
  Speaker 2: Like actual mammals.
• 2:46:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know, I don't think any anybody.
• 2:46:59
  Speaker 2: No, nobody comes out tinder, all right.
• 2:47:02
  Speaker 1: But tumbler is what I was trying to say, all
• 2:47:05
  Speaker 1: right anyway, so uh yeah, I like, share, subscribe, comment,
• 2:47:08
  Speaker 1: all that good stuff. Thanks guys for coming on the show,
• 2:47:10
  Speaker 1: and I'll see you guys in the next one. Have
• 2:47:13
  Speaker 1: a good weekend. Everybody. Men's right activists are machines, dude. Okay,
• 2:47:18
  Speaker 1: they are literal machines. They are talking point machines. They
• 2:47:22
  Speaker 1: are impossible to deal with, especially if you have, like
• 2:47:25
  Speaker 1: especially if you have like a couple of dudes who
• 2:47:27
  Speaker 1: have good memory. On top of that, too, holy shit,
• 2:47:30
  Speaker 1: you're fucked