What bothers me about the Fates situation is that people will throw temper tantrums over the subject of a video game, and not just any video game or whatever (I mean, it is a billion dollar industry and I'm a huge gamer so I get being invested in it), but over what I consider a really insignificant issue in the grand scheme of things.
For the record, I never said they aren't being idiots. I'd probably get pissed if I actually bothered to watch ScrewAttack's video too...but I don't. I mean I have to go out of my way to listen to something at their pace with a voice I probably don't want to hear + imagery that I don't want to see. I can't be assed to do that, it's not like I'd have a response they would want to read either and they already set up the thing into becoming a matter of "watch our video" rather than "let's talk" so...
But at the same time it feels like you're taking some frustration directed at people doing this in general out on me.
In any situation where someone is doing X, like the people who do X, there's no reason for them to not be part of group of people who do X as far as no other conditions are necessary. That said, personal attacks are less useful when it comes to re-reading stuff I say to see if I can find insight in my own words, and it's rare that I ever have a problem with a certain person's action but not another who does the same thing, so there's usually little purpose in directing it towards a particular individual.
if you're referring to ScrewAttack censoring themselves by changing the title, yes, I think that's kind of lame. I also sympathize with them though in the sense that ideally, the fans wouldn't have pressured them to do that. In other words, it may not be the best course of action or the one I would take but I can understand why they did it.
It's easy for me to understand why they would do it, it's just that in matters where criticism should be left out in the open for educational purposes (like for people such as kirant) the one that straight up censors it is obviously the one doing the most damage for that purpose. ScrewAttack did not consider such a goal to be valuable enough to bother with letting the consequences continue as-is, so they took a certain course of action to avoid as much damage to their reputation or something of the like.
Which is also to say, ScrewAttack doesn't care enough about expressing things the way they want to to keep it that way in spite of whiners.
I think that can be done in a way that doesn't make a fool out of themselves. For me, if I want people to actually listen to what I have to say, I say it in a mature and convincing manner without being insulting or condescending.
The whiners probably don't want to expend the effort that goes into doing that anyway. Especially when they have the power of the group backing them (and also, the lack of control over what the group has to say and who is in it obviously provides an excuse to go ham.)
It's also likely that they just know better than to try doing that, because to some level, it will make them humble themselves before the other. If they are going to say something to someone who is already criticizing them before they even say anything about it, who is to say they would respect them enough to even listen if they had gone through the effort to be polite about it?
This is the reason people will usually tell you to ignore a troll, any form of attention toward them will probably get them to attempt further provocation. (Of course, usually just saying that you should ignore the troll in itself is pointing them out, meaning they have lost either way.) If you're going to get pissed over someone like that, might as well get it out the easy way.
As someone who tried too hard to be polite and detailed in my responses out of anger in the past, I know too well how much easier it is to effectively go "fuck you, asshole." (although, I still make walls of text regardless of which I decide to go with.)
Though again, some things are worth getting upset for. Just... a Fates opinion video, is not worth getting that upset over.
I do not understand such matters simply because my feelings are not under control. They are entirely reaction-based. They are not decisions, only consequences.
----
but even so, it's difficult to discuss this kind of topic without a specific situation or the like that we can both refer to: some common ground, basically.
You can probably get half of the necessary context behind why I get agitated over matters of what someone should be, particularly when maturity is involved, by recalling how Nagisa's mother thinks of her son, prior to when his meal is spiked so that he is transported to his school to burn it down.
It's clear that whatever Nagisa's mother says is really so she can exercise control over someone else to be her successor- everything is just an excuse to reduce Nagisa into something she wants him to be. But they are all common excuses said so that one takes a higher position, to look like the "bigger person", to be justified. These are all things adults say to children to belittle them, and yet they demand respect for their age and the resources they use for those below them, even if those children may have never asked for it.
It's no wonder children are not likely to behave in a pleasant manner for them, there is little reason they can perceive for such beings to be worth respecting.
(Nagisa himself is actually an exception to this in that for whatever reason he is still thankful to his mother and respects her.)
And of course, in this discussion, those that are behaving in the manner you find them undesirable is likened to that of children.
Where have these commentators found enough reason to treat ScrewAttack with respect, and why would they want to oblige to your wish that they behave differently? Of course, it is not as though you are communicating with them in an attempt to make it that they do, but this is more just so you have something to say without having to deal with a shitstorm. It's very likely that they really can't find a worthy reason to bother being civilized about the matter.
Then, there is the other half of the context you probably need for why I say the things I do.
Why is someone revered for offering mercy to sinners?
This is a question that I had to review several times in my life, because I personally never wanted who I found disgusting to have anything nice in their lives.
For all the judgment we pass, heightening or lowering people for the quality of their morality, for some reason, humans have come to a conclusion where the one that does not ostracize another when they believe it is warranted is above them.
At first I had thought that this was primarily related to the notion that just because you don't bother to take action against something, you are better for it, "bigger", "mature." Consider how many stories there are out there that denounce going through with one's revenge. Even if whatever they are seeking revenge for remains entirely legitimate, they will still be looked down on as people who are engulfed in their feelings, and others will elevate themselves for not engaging in such petty matters, yet again, with justification.
But there are plenty of people who do not take action on others, typically more out of cowardice or lack of motivation than anything, who can still find themselves respecting the one that offers kindness toward criminals, sinners in the form of the unacceptable.
The famous example, is of course Jesus, who tells the crowd that the one who has not sinned, should be the first to throw a stone. But more important than his declaration is that the audience actually listened to him, at least, as far as my observation and experience can tell. There was not one to believe that they were without fault, in spite of how popular it is for many to say they have done no wrong.
It's not enough to simply say, that we are all human, and thus flawed. This is simply the excuse we take when we stray from our principles, and wish to forgive ourselves.
The ones before Jesus had not left the woman alone instead of throwing stones at her for the sake of preserving their status as mature beings, but rather, out of guilt and revelation.
I think that what the Bible itself is trying to say is simply that only the sinless is allowed to punish sinners, but that takes away from why the individuals in the crowd made their own decision.
It's not likely that they did so simply because they believed that was the right thing to do, but rather, because they could not bring themselves to throw stones when they knew they were guilty themselves, that they are sinners. It may be to say that they throwing the stones at her would be tantamount to throwing the stones at a reflection of themselves, broadly speaking given how shallow the situation at hand was to begin with.
Those people of the crowd are portrayed very ideally, or at least, Jesus is portrayed ideally for managing to convince them so easily.
Because humans of our age and before us are far more blind to others, may not realize their blindness, and even when they do, will remain blind to another.
Then, it is to say that someone who does not look away for their convenience and someone with sufficient wisdom to understand sinners, must be seen as beyond themselves, who may not be able to admit it, but know that they are further ignorant than they. It is a point where they recognize that it turns out they were not suitable for the role that is higher than the sinner they wish to ostracize after all.
In other words, the one who exercises their authority by virtue of their age is on nothing but a power trip that blinds them to the one they perceive as being below them. They do not try or want to respect children, and yet demand respect in return. They do not understand that children are persons as they are themselves, to the point of which it seems as if they do not even remember when they were in the same position.
Once someone tells another to grow up, they have reduced that person into what they perceive to be a child. A status that means little but
"I am better than you. Get on my level before you think you're worth anything."
They have ceased to understand and have blinded themselves.
I resent and never wish to be the one who will refuse to understand, in favor of projecting what one want them to be for their or anyone else's benefit.
(Even when I was very young, I had never thought of fixing someone else to what I'd want them to be, I would rather that anyone I hate go die in a fire or be killed in some other painful manner. For those I loved and knew, what I found the most painful were not flaws that I wanted them to change, but rather fear of them changing from my influence. I have never emotionally understood justice, the excuse most often used toward children for why elders act as they do, and have only ever used it for creating pretenses for smoother social interaction.)
I don't want to be an adult, so obviously, I hate maturity, the value that they most often demand out of others and use to elevate their positions, typically used as whatever definition would suit them depending on the situation.
But I have only found the willingness to understand valuable on my own terms, do not find it to be worthy of reverence, and do not earn the supposed wisdom that comes with it which will turn you into "the bigger man".
Because I am completely fine with condemning others out of disgust and impatience, these feelings of mine do not invalidate themselves simply from learning more information about the other.
The vast majority of the time my hatred applies to something or someone, other details about it that lead me to greater understanding of them do not actually interfere. It is never that I hate a human for being less than human after all, it is because they include elements of humanity that I despise. So as long as that factor remains true, there is no change in opinion that will overtake those feelings.
I have these strong feelings, which do not falter and unleash themselves whenever there is a provocation they have to answer.
I understand those with strong feelings, which they will refuse to bring to submission for the sake of upholding a status perceived as being above them.
It's no matter if they are being petty, haters gonna hate. That is what I understand, and I do not believe it is for their own good that is taken away from them unless they feel that way themselves.
Are the ones making a fuss being petty? Are they being foolish? Are they annoying? Are they a shame to believe they even enjoy the same hobby that you do?
I have no issue with anyone seeing them that way. But coming up with a pretense that says they should be correcting themselves (by saying they should grow "thicker skin") when this is no more than their natural reaction? You have blinded yourself, and ceased to understand.
I of course, do not understand many either. I made that topic named "Likes : Serious Business?" after all. But I have no problem accepting that it is indeed, serious business, there is simply dissonance due to my lack of empathy. There are questions to be asked over demands to be made, there are answers to accept rather than expectations to be met.
This is of course, all a matter of the goal we are aiming for. When pretenses are discarded, and it comes down to what we really want, I've little concern over what happens, understanding or not. Because at this point, I've grown thicker skin, and thus cannot give enough of a shit for all kinds of happenings that may occur around me. That is how I have evolved from looking further into human's vulgarity rather than evading it, after all.
(I feel that I have lost something as a result, and the regret that followed defeated any pretense I had of being above another. Perhaps part of why I had written out this much on the subject is because I actually don't want to think about more people ending up like me, I don't want to think about the inured in favor of the ones who feel more freely, and thus, go against its promotion.)