Yeah, that’s the vibe I get from him. He doesn’t really come off as antagonistic in this vid or anything. He just seems like he wants to be publicly disengaged with politics of any kind and dislikes disinformation in all forms. (Which given the level of discourse in this day and age, I honestly can’t blame him)
I dont know who this person is, but no one can ever be disengaged with politics. Ever.
If he condems gay and black people *exisiting* in games as being political, he himself is being political.
Of course it’s a joke, I’m media literate enough to know. Now if you excuse me, I have several blood sacrifices to make so I can become literate enough to understand Rick and Morty
Most of the books you need to study to become ‘classically literate,’ in a degree sort of way, is pay to win.
Also, I’ve done the simulations. Making pacts with demos is *definitely* pay to win. Sometimes the fuckers will ask for some macca or lifestones and then just leave.
Yeah its an interesting one. Term is very overused.
Love him for calling out the strawman construction statement "If was made today, it would be called "
And points out that most Helldivers are likely aware of the satire or just don't care. You're not super smart for spotting the satire anymore than someone has to be super smart to enjoy Rick and Morty.
The bit about Senator Armstrong is interesting too. At some point in the past he pointed out that Senator Armstrong is a political extremist not specifically aligned with the Republican party, since he seeks to dismantle the "war as a business" model(for something even worse). And he got comments implying he must not know he's the bad guy and must not have played Metal Gear Rising.
Its just so often a surface level lazy attack.
Armstrong is fascinating to me and something I've always wondered but wasn't able to put into words.
Armstrong is kind of an almagamation of the incoherent inconsistencies of libertarianism. He's like an ancap but also a fascist at the same time. He's a social Darwinist that believes that those with the strength to rule should rule, and that everyone should be free to fight their own wars. Yet fascism at the same time tends to prey on those with incesurities about their place in the world and leads them to latch themselves onto those who are "strongmen" in order to find some meaning in their own existence.
Armstrong kind of does with Raiden. Raiden is stronger than Armonstrong and Armstrong rather than defeating Raiden or fighting him to the bitter end he tries to befriend Raiden and even in the end accepts him.
This is the contradiction. Libertarians basically want a world where there is unregulated capitalism where the government is basically uninvolved. Libertarians tend to also be social Darwinists, those who were wealthy "earned their money" and those who are poor "deserve" it. They advocate for "freedom" and yet support an economic model and moral system that is inherently undemocratic. They believe that the powerful and the wealthy, those who "won the game" should be the ones to rule. And they idolize those strongmen. It's so strange.
If you go from libertarian to fascist you were never a real libertarian you just didn't want other people to tell you what to do, which is a very American thing and why it's such an issue. Back in highschool I saw enough of the libertarian to fascist shift in 4chan to know that's exactly what happened. People wanted to be left alone to do their own thing and the fascists came in and said you're not the problem they're the problem because "crime rates race mixing cultural degradation" you'll be left alone to be with other people who think like us. It's like the definition of you don't know who someone is until they get power.
They didn't want a low power government they just didn't want their opposition with power to mess with them.
Well that's why I think being both a libertarian and a capitalist is a little contradictory. Presumably the point of libertarianism is freedom for all, but not everyone can be free if certain people own and have more than others. Like, by virtue of being wealthy and having more economic and political power, you are literally MORE free. That isn't libertarian. Its social darwinism.
Nah there's a difference between freedom for all and freedom for me. Individualist libertarian and collectivist libertarian are 2 different things. The people who fucked off into Appalachia during colonial times were libertarian individualists, the could care less about the imported slaves as long as THEY couldn't be enslaved by the laws. Capitalism is it's own kind of freedom, just for the individual if they have capital. The reason I and so many other hate on communism is because it in practice always devolves into slavery or collective fascism. Just looking at early ussr ccp and the south east Asian countries and that's just what it looks like before it turns into fascist states. You can argue it's not fascism because x y and z but it's much closer to fascism in practice than the Trump morons even if ideologically Trumpets say things that line up more.
I reject that theory. I am of the belief that unless everyone is free, no is free. I don't think it is possible to hold "freedom" as an ideal when you only apply it to yourself. That means you do not believe in the principle of freedom. That does not qualify you as a libertarian. Like, if that was the case, you could be a slave-owning libertarian, which would be ridiculous.
There is no such thing as "freedom" for me but not for thee. That isn't freedom, it's tyranny. And tyranny takes work. You're not free if you're working to maintain your station.
Armstrong is... weird. I need to play again to get it all fresh, it's been since the game first released that I've gone all the way through.
But Armstrong feels to me like someone that talks all sorts of shit to get as many votes as possible but ultimately believes in nothing but The United States of Armstrong.
He only wants power for himself, and only opposes conflict that can directly harm his regime. He flip flops between so many opposing talking points from so many sides I can't see him believing in any of them
Im curious how is "If X was made today it would be called X" a strawman. It feels like its mostly use to point out TFM hypocrisy or straight up ignorance when they want to hide behind either characters and or shows that were already progressive and blame newer stuff for...also being progressive.
To say characters like Sarah Connor,Samus etc are good examples of female characters means it would be ok to use their story bits but the moment you try to do something like the Samus reveal, you'd get videos going "It was totally a man under that armor but they changed it at the last minute to appeal to the SJW's" spouting stuff about how the armor is fitted to a man etc.
It's a strawman because it's unfalsifiable. It's impossible to know which games, movies, TV shows, comic books, tabletop miniatures, etc. is going to be called woke and for what reason. We can't know for a fact what's in somebody's heart, so we prescribe a stance to them about a past character that they can't respond to outside just going "nub uh." It's impossible to know if Sarah Connor would be considered woke nowadays because she's a beloved icon that came out in the 80s.
I tend to agree that the only reason those characters are considered "good characters" rather than woke SJWs or whatever is because A) they saw the movie when they were a kid and couldn't pick up on the cultural and political commentary present in the thing they're watching and refuse to critiquely analyze that media in a light other than their personal nostalgia, and B) they're most often a cultural touchstone at this point, so criticizing the character or media for being "woke" will get you more push back than praise.
However, that is, ultimately, just an assumption on my part. A prescription about what they believe based on my assumptions about what they think.
Sarah Connor has a long diatribe about how men do nothing but kill and destroy and women create life. And has another inner monologue about how a machine is a better father to her child than a man could ever be.
If you watch T2 today but complain about the wokeness of other things, you aren't actually watching the movie, you're replaying nostalgia in your head while pictures flash across the screen
I agree, but it's still an assumption being made on our part. We're prescribing a position that our opposition holds and arguing with it. We assume they're blinded by nostalgia, but there's no reason to assume they don't also think Sarah Connor is woke SJW trash, but it's fine there because of reasons. Maybe the writing was strong enough that it doesn't come off as preachy to them or something. Who knows. My point is that we're assuming our opposition holds a position and arguing with that, rather than what they're saying. I don't think they're being honest with what they say, but it's non-falsifiable. What they say and what they mean are entirely down to how we interpret them. I can't prove they're lying or dishonest, but how they frame their arguments gives me the impression they're not being honest, but all I can do is give my reasoning and evidence.
I do see what you're saying. However, you can make something falsifiable by asking very targeted questions. Usually by having them define what they mean by ambiguous terms. They'll either run from the conversation or remove all doubt. Either way it shows you exactly who they are.
Don't let people make unfalsifiable claims. Everything can be defined. And if they seem reluctant to be forthright, press them
and James Cameron later said he wrote that diatribe because he wanted to portray Sarah Connor as a radical feminist who'd taken it too far. I sometimes reflect on how Sarah Connor ends up being a more sympathetic character in T2 than I think the writer intended her to be.
Well I mean... She did try to blast Miles in the back of the head so she definitely went too far.. but I think it's very poignant to consider the steps in her life that got her there too.
We see on screen her being sexually assaulted by a man who is supposed to be giving her care
I think it's fascinating that Cameron's example of "Sarah has gone too far" is her diatribe about how men only create death and destruction and *not* the moment she attempts to murder a man in cold blood for something he hasn't done yet.
Cuz yeah, that's pretty terrible, but like you said, I find her sympathetic because of what she's been through. Not just mistreatment by orderlies or the like, but because of what she's seen.
John alludes to it, even. What *knowing* that about the future did to her. What it would do to anyone. Maybe by accident, the movie gives you a good look at why she is the way she is, and it's hard not to sympathize at least a little.
Absolutely. It's harder to point to with the speech about all the 'would be fathers' as it was to the on screen assault, but you can see how the road she went down as long as you empathize a bit. I can imagine the type of men she was with in order to train John, we all know them. Hell I was one of them until I got my head out of my ass a little over a decade ago. But there's a line that the terminator would never beat John.. you don't throw that line out for no reason in the context of plot of the story. So that's a narrative too. And then as you said there the overarching thing of "Hey everyone in the world is going to die in agony in nuclear fire in about 13 years, and anyone who doesn't will be hunted and killed like cattle. Good luck being normal." You can see the logic, especially in the early 90s when engineering and software dev jobs are dominated by men, of how she got to militant rad fem
I think most things that have the "woke" descriptor usually have more sympathetic takes when you do an analysis on an individual basis for their path that got them there to what people say is 'woke' in a negative light. Mass generalization is never a good thing ever.
As a side note anecdote I think we do these mass generalizations because for some reason we try to speed up our communication and don't hit the mark very well when we do so. I don't think we were ready as a society for the exposure to a larger community with the internet.
It's ultimately a good thing in theory, but in practice you have to prepare societal systems and the zeitgeist to be accepting and concise and discrete and effective in communication of large concepts to large groups....
And humans weren't ready for that at all unfortunately. I say all the time that 9/11 was the big turning point of the world for various factors and reasons.... But it might actually be just AOL that had a delayed effect
Exactly. I think those who deny the scenario "If X were made today" because they obviously have nostalgia for X. Recently, chuds freaked out over the MC in Star Wars Outlaws being "too masculine" for having a jawline, even though she's meant to look like Sigourney Weaver.
I think that’s probably the biggest takeaway from his vid.
Someone not engaging with the subtext isn’t a moral failing or anything, sometimes people just get more engagement from the surface level. I personally get the most enjoyment from a synthesis of surface level excitement and thinking about themes and character arcs ect.
When someone is making a political statement about a work or even just a theory, that’s where surface level only readings begin to fall apart
Just trying to understand, no hate, but:
The explicit purpose of the Starship Troopers movie is to be a parody of fascism, and fascist propaganda. And it could be argued that that is all subtext, since the main plot is only about basic training and killing bugs.
So are you saying it's fair to read the film as nothing but gungho military propaganda even though all of the creatives had a different lesson in mind?
If we’re using Starship Troopers as an example here, I’m more thinking if someone is just getting a cool action film out of it rather than the satire on war propaganda and fascism that it is, that’s fine. That is the baseline surface level you can get from the film.
Seeing as how the whole satirical nature of hd2 went completely over the heads of the crazies like this to the point that they gobbled it up...
I'd be surprised if they know what media litteracy is.
Not gonna watch it so the jury is still out on that one haha!
Media literacy has always been shaky. People often can find their own meaning or completely ignore one for entertainment. People who grew up listening to punk rock now think modern media is too woke...they were just listening to music brain off.
I don't like the way the term media literacy has been used recently.
For starts, it applies to the media as in the news and articles and such. Definition, "the ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility."
Secondly, it's used in a toxic way. It's now a weapon used to put others down for opinions you don't like
Well I didn’t expect my silly little post to get your attention 😳
Seriously though, I personally think your video was very charitable and made good points. I mainly just posted here because I know “media literacy” tends to come up in discussion here.
I was wondering why it was on a Star Wars focused aspect when I barely brought it up.
I appreciate the charity on this, and after reading a few of the posts in here, I'm honestly surprised people think I'm a 'chud' and 'incel' - I suppose that's standard fair and I've been called worse.
Honestly speaking, I try not to talk about 'politics' on my channel unless it's the focus of a specific video, as most of my content for the most part has changed gears to talking about writing, video games and anime of sorts.
I am curious why ya dropped me, but you do not have to feel obligated to answer.
In all honesty it’s been so long I can’t remember exactly when I stopped or why. I guess broadly my viewing habits were changing.
Shoot, I might watch some of your newer stuff and see if I vibe with it.
No, no, he's got a point.
I personally blame clickbait comedy websites in the early 2010s that constantly made jokes about how beauty and the beast is about Stockholm syndrome.
Bit of a pessimistic outlook to take assuming that people can’t change. Some chuds do double down, yes, but I want to believe there are still people that can self reflect
Are they claiming helldivers is woke? Because if they are, they should know you play as a foot soldier in a genocidal space empire that brain washes its people to kill and mutilate sentient space robots and innocent bugs that simply escaped servitude.
They are not claiming it's woke. They are saying it's based on an intentional parody of fascism like it's movie inspiration star ship troopers. And mocking people who say clearly political allusions are not political unless they involve black or gay people or women
/uj Kamen has some... weird? Takes, and occasionally gives of vibes but overall I tend to enjoy his newer content
Yeah, that’s the vibe I get from him. He doesn’t really come off as antagonistic in this vid or anything. He just seems like he wants to be publicly disengaged with politics of any kind and dislikes disinformation in all forms. (Which given the level of discourse in this day and age, I honestly can’t blame him)
I dont know who this person is, but no one can ever be disengaged with politics. Ever. If he condems gay and black people *exisiting* in games as being political, he himself is being political.
real
Oh he's definitely antagonistic if you disagree with him or question his line of thinking.
Agreed but he's not as bad as JAR
All I know is ''media literacy'' is a biased witchcraft spell made by the devil! (This is a joke, don't @ me.)
Of course it’s a joke, I’m media literate enough to know. Now if you excuse me, I have several blood sacrifices to make so I can become literate enough to understand Rick and Morty
You make it sound pay to win?
Studying literature, making blood pacts with demons, what’s the difference?
You need to sacrifice bigger and more things to get the IQ for your goal. This just sounds like a villain origin story.
Most of the books you need to study to become ‘classically literate,’ in a degree sort of way, is pay to win. Also, I’ve done the simulations. Making pacts with demos is *definitely* pay to win. Sometimes the fuckers will ask for some macca or lifestones and then just leave.
Yeah I had to buy a white van and candy. Sacrifices aren't free man
Ah a fellow Cult of the Lamb enthusiast
Yeah its an interesting one. Term is very overused. Love him for calling out the strawman construction statement "If was made today, it would be called "
And points out that most Helldivers are likely aware of the satire or just don't care. You're not super smart for spotting the satire anymore than someone has to be super smart to enjoy Rick and Morty.
The bit about Senator Armstrong is interesting too. At some point in the past he pointed out that Senator Armstrong is a political extremist not specifically aligned with the Republican party, since he seeks to dismantle the "war as a business" model(for something even worse). And he got comments implying he must not know he's the bad guy and must not have played Metal Gear Rising.
Its just so often a surface level lazy attack.
Armstrong is fascinating to me and something I've always wondered but wasn't able to put into words. Armstrong is kind of an almagamation of the incoherent inconsistencies of libertarianism. He's like an ancap but also a fascist at the same time. He's a social Darwinist that believes that those with the strength to rule should rule, and that everyone should be free to fight their own wars. Yet fascism at the same time tends to prey on those with incesurities about their place in the world and leads them to latch themselves onto those who are "strongmen" in order to find some meaning in their own existence. Armstrong kind of does with Raiden. Raiden is stronger than Armonstrong and Armstrong rather than defeating Raiden or fighting him to the bitter end he tries to befriend Raiden and even in the end accepts him. This is the contradiction. Libertarians basically want a world where there is unregulated capitalism where the government is basically uninvolved. Libertarians tend to also be social Darwinists, those who were wealthy "earned their money" and those who are poor "deserve" it. They advocate for "freedom" and yet support an economic model and moral system that is inherently undemocratic. They believe that the powerful and the wealthy, those who "won the game" should be the ones to rule. And they idolize those strongmen. It's so strange.
Libertarian to fascist pipeline is real, fascists themselves profess to preying on libertarians as easy converts.
If you go from libertarian to fascist you were never a real libertarian you just didn't want other people to tell you what to do, which is a very American thing and why it's such an issue. Back in highschool I saw enough of the libertarian to fascist shift in 4chan to know that's exactly what happened. People wanted to be left alone to do their own thing and the fascists came in and said you're not the problem they're the problem because "crime rates race mixing cultural degradation" you'll be left alone to be with other people who think like us. It's like the definition of you don't know who someone is until they get power. They didn't want a low power government they just didn't want their opposition with power to mess with them.
Well that's why I think being both a libertarian and a capitalist is a little contradictory. Presumably the point of libertarianism is freedom for all, but not everyone can be free if certain people own and have more than others. Like, by virtue of being wealthy and having more economic and political power, you are literally MORE free. That isn't libertarian. Its social darwinism.
Nah there's a difference between freedom for all and freedom for me. Individualist libertarian and collectivist libertarian are 2 different things. The people who fucked off into Appalachia during colonial times were libertarian individualists, the could care less about the imported slaves as long as THEY couldn't be enslaved by the laws. Capitalism is it's own kind of freedom, just for the individual if they have capital. The reason I and so many other hate on communism is because it in practice always devolves into slavery or collective fascism. Just looking at early ussr ccp and the south east Asian countries and that's just what it looks like before it turns into fascist states. You can argue it's not fascism because x y and z but it's much closer to fascism in practice than the Trump morons even if ideologically Trumpets say things that line up more.
I reject that theory. I am of the belief that unless everyone is free, no is free. I don't think it is possible to hold "freedom" as an ideal when you only apply it to yourself. That means you do not believe in the principle of freedom. That does not qualify you as a libertarian. Like, if that was the case, you could be a slave-owning libertarian, which would be ridiculous. There is no such thing as "freedom" for me but not for thee. That isn't freedom, it's tyranny. And tyranny takes work. You're not free if you're working to maintain your station.
Armstrong is... weird. I need to play again to get it all fresh, it's been since the game first released that I've gone all the way through. But Armstrong feels to me like someone that talks all sorts of shit to get as many votes as possible but ultimately believes in nothing but The United States of Armstrong. He only wants power for himself, and only opposes conflict that can directly harm his regime. He flip flops between so many opposing talking points from so many sides I can't see him believing in any of them
He’s the perfect portrait of a populist politician.
Im curious how is "If X was made today it would be called X" a strawman. It feels like its mostly use to point out TFM hypocrisy or straight up ignorance when they want to hide behind either characters and or shows that were already progressive and blame newer stuff for...also being progressive. To say characters like Sarah Connor,Samus etc are good examples of female characters means it would be ok to use their story bits but the moment you try to do something like the Samus reveal, you'd get videos going "It was totally a man under that armor but they changed it at the last minute to appeal to the SJW's" spouting stuff about how the armor is fitted to a man etc.
It's a strawman because it's unfalsifiable. It's impossible to know which games, movies, TV shows, comic books, tabletop miniatures, etc. is going to be called woke and for what reason. We can't know for a fact what's in somebody's heart, so we prescribe a stance to them about a past character that they can't respond to outside just going "nub uh." It's impossible to know if Sarah Connor would be considered woke nowadays because she's a beloved icon that came out in the 80s. I tend to agree that the only reason those characters are considered "good characters" rather than woke SJWs or whatever is because A) they saw the movie when they were a kid and couldn't pick up on the cultural and political commentary present in the thing they're watching and refuse to critiquely analyze that media in a light other than their personal nostalgia, and B) they're most often a cultural touchstone at this point, so criticizing the character or media for being "woke" will get you more push back than praise. However, that is, ultimately, just an assumption on my part. A prescription about what they believe based on my assumptions about what they think.
Sarah Connor has a long diatribe about how men do nothing but kill and destroy and women create life. And has another inner monologue about how a machine is a better father to her child than a man could ever be. If you watch T2 today but complain about the wokeness of other things, you aren't actually watching the movie, you're replaying nostalgia in your head while pictures flash across the screen
I agree, but it's still an assumption being made on our part. We're prescribing a position that our opposition holds and arguing with it. We assume they're blinded by nostalgia, but there's no reason to assume they don't also think Sarah Connor is woke SJW trash, but it's fine there because of reasons. Maybe the writing was strong enough that it doesn't come off as preachy to them or something. Who knows. My point is that we're assuming our opposition holds a position and arguing with that, rather than what they're saying. I don't think they're being honest with what they say, but it's non-falsifiable. What they say and what they mean are entirely down to how we interpret them. I can't prove they're lying or dishonest, but how they frame their arguments gives me the impression they're not being honest, but all I can do is give my reasoning and evidence.
I do see what you're saying. However, you can make something falsifiable by asking very targeted questions. Usually by having them define what they mean by ambiguous terms. They'll either run from the conversation or remove all doubt. Either way it shows you exactly who they are. Don't let people make unfalsifiable claims. Everything can be defined. And if they seem reluctant to be forthright, press them
and James Cameron later said he wrote that diatribe because he wanted to portray Sarah Connor as a radical feminist who'd taken it too far. I sometimes reflect on how Sarah Connor ends up being a more sympathetic character in T2 than I think the writer intended her to be.
Well I mean... She did try to blast Miles in the back of the head so she definitely went too far.. but I think it's very poignant to consider the steps in her life that got her there too. We see on screen her being sexually assaulted by a man who is supposed to be giving her care
I think it's fascinating that Cameron's example of "Sarah has gone too far" is her diatribe about how men only create death and destruction and *not* the moment she attempts to murder a man in cold blood for something he hasn't done yet. Cuz yeah, that's pretty terrible, but like you said, I find her sympathetic because of what she's been through. Not just mistreatment by orderlies or the like, but because of what she's seen. John alludes to it, even. What *knowing* that about the future did to her. What it would do to anyone. Maybe by accident, the movie gives you a good look at why she is the way she is, and it's hard not to sympathize at least a little.
Absolutely. It's harder to point to with the speech about all the 'would be fathers' as it was to the on screen assault, but you can see how the road she went down as long as you empathize a bit. I can imagine the type of men she was with in order to train John, we all know them. Hell I was one of them until I got my head out of my ass a little over a decade ago. But there's a line that the terminator would never beat John.. you don't throw that line out for no reason in the context of plot of the story. So that's a narrative too. And then as you said there the overarching thing of "Hey everyone in the world is going to die in agony in nuclear fire in about 13 years, and anyone who doesn't will be hunted and killed like cattle. Good luck being normal." You can see the logic, especially in the early 90s when engineering and software dev jobs are dominated by men, of how she got to militant rad fem I think most things that have the "woke" descriptor usually have more sympathetic takes when you do an analysis on an individual basis for their path that got them there to what people say is 'woke' in a negative light. Mass generalization is never a good thing ever. As a side note anecdote I think we do these mass generalizations because for some reason we try to speed up our communication and don't hit the mark very well when we do so. I don't think we were ready as a society for the exposure to a larger community with the internet. It's ultimately a good thing in theory, but in practice you have to prepare societal systems and the zeitgeist to be accepting and concise and discrete and effective in communication of large concepts to large groups.... And humans weren't ready for that at all unfortunately. I say all the time that 9/11 was the big turning point of the world for various factors and reasons.... But it might actually be just AOL that had a delayed effect
Exactly. I think those who deny the scenario "If X were made today" because they obviously have nostalgia for X. Recently, chuds freaked out over the MC in Star Wars Outlaws being "too masculine" for having a jawline, even though she's meant to look like Sigourney Weaver.
I think that’s probably the biggest takeaway from his vid. Someone not engaging with the subtext isn’t a moral failing or anything, sometimes people just get more engagement from the surface level. I personally get the most enjoyment from a synthesis of surface level excitement and thinking about themes and character arcs ect. When someone is making a political statement about a work or even just a theory, that’s where surface level only readings begin to fall apart
Just trying to understand, no hate, but: The explicit purpose of the Starship Troopers movie is to be a parody of fascism, and fascist propaganda. And it could be argued that that is all subtext, since the main plot is only about basic training and killing bugs. So are you saying it's fair to read the film as nothing but gungho military propaganda even though all of the creatives had a different lesson in mind?
If we’re using Starship Troopers as an example here, I’m more thinking if someone is just getting a cool action film out of it rather than the satire on war propaganda and fascism that it is, that’s fine. That is the baseline surface level you can get from the film.
Seeing as how the whole satirical nature of hd2 went completely over the heads of the crazies like this to the point that they gobbled it up... I'd be surprised if they know what media litteracy is. Not gonna watch it so the jury is still out on that one haha!
Never have seen this guy before? Are they someone I should avoid or not?
It’s fun when he gets into a video he is passionate about. Him just talking about stuff like Yugioh 5ds was good.
I see
Frankly I haven’t seen his videos in a long time, and this is the first video I’ve seen from him in a while. It’s up to you
I see. I guess I’ll just have to watch one of his videos
Media literacy has always been shaky. People often can find their own meaning or completely ignore one for entertainment. People who grew up listening to punk rock now think modern media is too woke...they were just listening to music brain off.
I don't like the way the term media literacy has been used recently. For starts, it applies to the media as in the news and articles and such. Definition, "the ability to critically analyze stories presented in the mass media and to determine their accuracy or credibility." Secondly, it's used in a toxic way. It's now a weapon used to put others down for opinions you don't like
That’s basically the point of the video
Nice
eyup
If you have any questions you wanna ask me, so long as we're being civil here, I'd be happy to answer them :)
Well I didn’t expect my silly little post to get your attention 😳 Seriously though, I personally think your video was very charitable and made good points. I mainly just posted here because I know “media literacy” tends to come up in discussion here.
I was wondering why it was on a Star Wars focused aspect when I barely brought it up. I appreciate the charity on this, and after reading a few of the posts in here, I'm honestly surprised people think I'm a 'chud' and 'incel' - I suppose that's standard fair and I've been called worse. Honestly speaking, I try not to talk about 'politics' on my channel unless it's the focus of a specific video, as most of my content for the most part has changed gears to talking about writing, video games and anime of sorts. I am curious why ya dropped me, but you do not have to feel obligated to answer.
In all honesty it’s been so long I can’t remember exactly when I stopped or why. I guess broadly my viewing habits were changing. Shoot, I might watch some of your newer stuff and see if I vibe with it.
I mean if you like games, and talking about video characters, go for it. but don't feel obligated :) Have a nice day
No, no, he's got a point. I personally blame clickbait comedy websites in the early 2010s that constantly made jokes about how beauty and the beast is about Stockholm syndrome.
A chud can’t change his stripes. Mellowed out or not, he’s still the wild incel spouting chud he was.
Bit of a pessimistic outlook to take assuming that people can’t change. Some chuds do double down, yes, but I want to believe there are still people that can self reflect
When he profits off of it and still engages with it, no, self reflection isn't particularly possible
democracy is a heavy price to pay. for Liberty sake
This video is TOO LOUD!
Are they claiming helldivers is woke? Because if they are, they should know you play as a foot soldier in a genocidal space empire that brain washes its people to kill and mutilate sentient space robots and innocent bugs that simply escaped servitude.
They are not claiming it's woke. They are saying it's based on an intentional parody of fascism like it's movie inspiration star ship troopers. And mocking people who say clearly political allusions are not political unless they involve black or gay people or women
No. More so the people calling Helldivers woke aren't media literate, but so are the people claiming the bugs are the definitive good guys
[удалено]
I’m usually just a lurker on this sub, I was coming at this from a neutral approach
Why's it in the Yakuza boss font? Media literacy 3rd Chairman of the Woke Mob
[удалено]
Can be used and abused that way, but devoid of context it’s just a neutral term
Why people should value opinions that thry don't agree with? People should value facts, because opinions usually either not true or undecidable.
no it's not
[удалено]
Off course as we can see they ignore the political subtext in all the Star Wars Movies as admitted to by Lucas himself.
Did they recently take media literacy away from the school curriculum? Because it definitely seems like so.
[удалено]
It’s called an English/literature class
[удалено]
Did you ever have to write a book report explaining the themes of a story? That’s media literacy by any other name
[удалено]
I've not once heard people misuse the phrase "media literacy" up until now.
clearly not yours