I agree with what he has to say entirely. It's annoying that people judge you based on a belief or think that you are imposing it on them in some way just because you have the belief and are keeping quiet about it.

For instance, I have never really drank much in my life. In my 18-24 age range my doctors told me not to drink because of something weird with my body (it's complicated). Okay, I'll do that or I'll die, sounds pretty straightforward and not that hard. People would ask me at parties if I wanted a drink, and they'd come back with hate towards me and avoid me like the plague like I was judging them. I wasn't, I had a legitimate health condition.

That being said, the reason people feel this way is that there ARE people like this:

(replace gluten with whatever, alcohol drinking, veganism, atheism, christianity, whatever)

So yes there are people who are quietly trying to live their life the way they want, and get judged when asked about it. But likely, it's because people just assume you are in that "group" of those other people that pester the shit out of them for what they do. For instance, I eventually got asked a bit more by a couple of people why I didn't drink, told them it was because of a specific health condition, and they ended up becoming friends of mine. I later found out that they, even though they would drink maybe 1-2 beers a week, were getting constantly judged by their parents about "alcohol is bad, you should never drink alcohol!", and likely it's true for most people like that.

I also have known people who preach their gluten intolerance at every chance they get the same way as in that video, vegans who scream bloody murder when you eat meat around them, etc.

The problem isn't that one side is bad and one side is good, it's that people identify people in terms of their groups. Either themselves (I'm an american! I'm black! Sister solidarity! Go Red Sox! etc), or others (he's vegan, he's black, she's a woman, he's a muslim). So everything anything that people do who are a part of that group gets tagged as something the whole group likely does (which is where racial/religion intolerance comes from, and why muslims are hated by a lot of westerners because they group ISIL/al-Qaeda with the Koran).

It's just a way to filter out large amounts of information/people because there is just SO FREAKING MUCH OF IT now. With the internet we have access to so many ideas, and the population is really ridiculously high. How does the human brain account for that? Filtering by group.

The problem is that people don't realize this is happening, it's mostly subconscious, and they don't reflect on themselves. So when a christian hates all muslims, they don't think about the chrisitian neo-nazis trying to murder all black people, they think of themselves as a full representation of their cause.

And the rest of the people who don't think this way end up just blind followers, and fall into the groupthink. So a massive ego will lead a cause, spell out a course of hatred toward another group, then all of his followers just fall in line.

there's this thing called transactional analysis. It was bigger in the 70's but fell out of style, but some of the core concepts are neat.

It breaks us into three ego states - the parent, the child and the adult. When we interact with other people, we each take on one of these ego states. In rational conversation we might both take on adult, in play we might both take on child, in learning one person might take on child while another takes on parent. These are learned states that help us quickly determine the power structure of an interaction.

I think that when people are in these situations where someone say no, they don't do that thing, it subtly changes the dynamic of the conversation. The first person, the one who offered the thing, sees the transaction as adult to adult. Once the other person says no from a moral standpoint, they are seen as taking a parent role. Now we're in what's called a cross transaction, where one party was expecting a certain ego state but got another.

There are really only two reactions to this crossed transaction. The first party could hold fast in their adult ego state and say, "cool", drop the perceived slight and move on. The other option, the option chosen by the loudest of the internet, is to make the transaction even again. They respond to the parent ego state by taking on a child ego state and by throwing a digital temper tantrum. They see the morality of the other person as a characteristic of an adult state and finish the game by taking on a child state.

The theory is that this is a remnant of childhood learning. The folks who lash out were, as children, subjugated to moral authority from the parents in their lives (maybe not literal parents, but people who played the role). Once that stance is taken again in their adult lives, they slide from their stance into a child state. I think this is even easier online because the people who yell and fuss use the internet as a playground for their child state, so the transition isn't a state change, but a change of mood for the state they are already in.

I think this comment by kleinbl00 is relevant. Although it doesn't really explain the point in part one where Anita Sarkeesian is threatened on a daily basis

Here's a very good video about Phil Fish that's also by him. I think this video series is the Anita Sarkeesian video that he was planning on doing for a while.

And as for the actual video itself, I'm not sure if this explanation is as accurate or prevalent as the video suggests. Take his example of the drinker getting butthurt about the sober person at the party. If his conjecture is correct, then there should be a different in reaction between the sober person being sober because it was a lifestyle choice and the sober person being sober because they lived a sheltered life and wasn't exposed to alcohol. Let's say they had strict religious parents. Then, shouldn't the drinker be far less offended by the sheltered person? Same thing with the vegan example. A white vegan would provoke outrage while an Indian vegan wouldn't? I'm not sure if I fully buy his explanation, and it seems like this video is going to support whatever thesis he's trying to push in his video series.

I've found that this also applies to anybody who gave any sort of negative opinion on Mad Max: Fury Road.

Anita Sarkeesian was one of those people. A lot of people turned on her for it, even people who had supported her during the GamerGate debacle.

"Oh no, somebody I support thought this wasn't as feministic as everybody says it was. Does that mean that there might be actual problems with the movie? But then I'm a bad person for falsely touting it as feminist and liking something that's meta-problematic! I shouldn't be having this internal debate! I'm a normal person! Everybody except for these few losers thought Fury Road was awesome! I'm angry at Sarkeesian for even daring to question that!"

What's funny is that she has both sides of the GamerGate argument arguing against her for that now - both the MRAs and Feminists thought it was an exemplar of feministic filmmaking.

Plenty of people challenge our opinions online, and while they receive angry comments, very few have stirred up the fury that Sarkeesian has. I agree with this attitude being an issue in how we judge each other in general, but I don't think it relates to women in gaming or Sarkeesian any more then any other issue.

I'm curious what his point will eventually play out to over why women in gaming in particular creates such anger and controversy.

Yeah I've seen this problem a lot. I completely agree with this person - we (and I still do it sometimes) tend to put words between the lines that aren't there. But honestly, I think the most prominent issue about this is the fear of invalidation - we were all raised to think that being wrong, failure and such were negative things. And so, subconsciously, we start trying to find any way anyone could hint that these negative things apply to us. Which is exacerbated by people who use heavy sarcasm or other techniques to mean one thing while saying another (which can much too easily become subtle enough to go over people's heads, which makes it so that when they LEARN about it it instils paranoia.

People need to be less sensitive and less afraid of not being optimal...

booped to watch later. will edit with thoughts.