Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty



  • If I'm completely honest I think this whole thing is beyond silly. Brandon should be allowed to talk to whoever he wants. Even if the person you're talking too is pretty extreme that still isn't a reason to tell someone not to talk to them. Discussing things is what helps us grow as people.
    Telling someone that they should not be speaking to someone you don't approve of is extreme close-minded behaviour. It just remings of things like how an extremist muslim family didn't allow their daughter to speak to non-muslim boys her age.

    Because despite all the shittalking back and forth, the core problem is with the people telling Brandon not to speak to Colin. Especially the ones resorting to threats like removing their patreon support if he talks to Colin.
    I'm not talking about the people that thought the videogame related discussion wouldn't be interesting here, because that's actually relevant. But then it'd still be up to Brandon. Even if you got upset by Brandon talking to Colin that'd be fine (even if I think you really should sort those emotions out) so long as you didn't try and tell Brandon what to do.

    @Dario said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    Basically "if my intention wasn't to offend you, then it's your problem if you're offended". Wow, really? What kind of adult says shit like that? Do you know what empathy is? And now that I'm learning more about the stuff he's said and done, I can't really say much for him.

    While I don't really agree with what he said there (if I'm taking it literally and out of context and assuming he worded it precisely as he intended) I think he has a point.

    Someone else worded it well, so I'm gonna copypaste their words:
    Neurolinguist Robert Anton Wilson gave a lecture wherein he address content vs context.
    Basically, how people can say hateful/stupid things, but if they avoid offensive words, they get away with it, while someone else could have a neutral/friendly comment, but use the wrong word, and it becomes offensive. He used the example: "San Francisco has become a Mecca for homosexual migration" vs "San Francisco is full of fags".

    The first has no bad words, but implies homosexuals are migratory creatures, and links them with Islam- a link neither group would appreciate. The second uses the wrong word, but is otherwise just factual. I've heard other great examples of this concept, and a recent was one "As a CIS white male, I believe our gender-normative relationships deserve more consideration than others, as we are able to procreate" vs "Let fags marry; what's the problem?
    Are you afraid that you might be queer, and its too much temptation?" The first is actually against gay marriage, but avoids buzz words that are deemed offensive, and actually goes out of the way to use the "appropriate" words. The second again uses bad words, but is actually in support of gay marriage. The particular words do not make it hatespeech in my mind- it is the context/meaning behind the words.
    Living in the South, I know a few open-minded red-necks, who use words now deemed offensive, but are generally supportive of the groups that those words are meant to target.
    They might call Obama "colored", but in the context of praising him. They might say "queer", but they genuinely support gay equality. I get what they are trying to say, even if they are not quite as eloquent as others. And all too often, those who are good with language use it to disguise their hateful intent. Context over content, people- don't be fooled.

    In other words, if someone didn't intend to offend someone and possibly worded it in a certain way then people should take that into consideration before lashing out. People tend to fixate too much on how people say something over what they say. So you should question if said person actually intended to be offensive before you accuse someone of being a racist, misogynist or whatever and attack them for it.
    So while you should sometimes take an extra moment yourself to consider what you're saying in a given situation (containing certain kinds of people), it's also up to the "offended" party to consider if the "offender" actually intended to be offensive. Too many people make kneejerk reactions and jump to conclusions.

    Of course I could be wrong and he could very well have meant that he should be allowed to say whatever he wants and fuck the people that get upset by what he says. But even so he still has a point. He is free to say whatever he wants... but he also needs to accept the consequences of his words.

    Beyond what I've said I really don't feel that there is anything more to say on the matter, because really at this point what should be done? In my mind you should just bury it and move on.



  • For better or worse there was nothing wrong with the show, I think Colin had many valid points. Like him or not a lot of what people complained about in the past week would not have happened if people had taken a step back and instead of lashing out at brandon about Colin saying the things that they were saying it wouldn't have behooved him to defend his reputation. Regardless of how you see his reputation.

    I don't care in the slightest, I wanted to hear what brandon had to discuss. But back to a point Colin had made there's a pretty big difference in HOW people say things versus WHAT they said on top of the nomenclature that was applied to it.

    How many examples have we had in just the last few months where Brandon didn't intend to make anyone upset and it happened anyway? This is mostly why I advocate not getting involved in sensitive subjects because there will ALWAYS be an offended party, whether that was the intent or not. It's not worth inviting the problem to have a place to roost in the first place.

    If you really expect anyone to be perfect with everything they say at all times....you're dreaming, even as I write this I fully expect someone to say something negative in response, there's virtually no way to please everyone. Which in turn is a lesson I suppose EZA needs to learn as well.

    If we were to judge every person based off their past mistakes we would likely all be monsters to some degree, in fact that's why stereotypes are so dangerous when applied to specific races or genders, or whatever, because you're trying to apply those misconceptions on others for the mistakes of a few. I'm not saying that excuses anyone's actions, but how long do you expect a person to be defamed, harassed, etc for a negative off hand comment or poorly worded/timed Joke? Even when they haven't done anything wrong presently?

    I don't mean that in just the context of Colin either, I mean ANYONE. Take the 90s or early 2000s for an example, sexist jokes, racist jokes, sexual orientation jokes were everywhere, in our culture, in the media, on merchandise. Does that mean the enjoyment or indifference to this means that everyone past a certain age from those time periods are now Sexist and Racist?

    Like in current year I don't think it's right to ruin someone's career for a racial epithet they used 20-30 years ago, that's a ridiculous notion. There's no burden of proof, let's just harass them to hell and back purely on the accusation. Are they the person that used that word now? How do you even know?

    I don't pretend to know what sort of person Colin is, and I don't care. But this whole thought process people have had is quite toxic and unproductive, how long till an ally makes such a mistake? Are you going to turn on them the same way? If that's all it takes to change your opinion of someone...why are you even here? Nobody is perfect, expecting it out of someone never works out.

    That's all I personally have to say about it, I'll be glad when the topic is dead and buried. You can dislike someone all you want, but sometimes you really should keep it to yourself. Brandon even admitted as such if you were listening. If you don't like someone, don't engage them. You could easily tell Brandon you're not ok with him working with Colin, but again context vs content you didn't need to turn it into a confrontation publicly and then somehow expect nobody to respond or defend themselves in response.

    It was Brandon's fault asking for feedback in response to the idea of working with Colin in any capacity, and that's what happened. But the way people went about it was clearly NOT ok and you're (The EZA community) the bearer of the results that came from it, not Colin or his community.

    Take it how you will, I really don't care anymore. I'm really exhausted by most of this, nothing feels very love and respecty. You don't have to love everyone but for all the people who keep throwing the word "Empathy" around I'm not seeing very much of it from them either.

    I'm glad Brandon went through with it even if nothing ever comes from it, he should feel like it's ok to try and grow the EZA brand and this community however he wants. Just as you're free to leave in response to any of his actions.

    • Footnote- Since people regularly get hung up on this I'll make it clear now that when I say "You" it's largely in the collective sense, since I don't have a specific person in mind.


  • "The giant ball of hate from The Fifth Element can say whatever he wants and you can't say you don't like him because that would be mean. That's written in first amendment: 'You the people can say what you want, but you can't be mean if it's a celebrity I like.' "



  • @Haru17 said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    "The giant ball of hate from The Fifth Element can say whatever he wants and you can't say you don't like him because that would be mean. That's written in first amendment: 'You the people can say what you want, but you can't be mean if it's a celebrity I like.' "

    Not sure who that's directed at, but to spear that ahead of time I don't like Colin. Period. I've made that clear everywhere I've been.

    So if it's indeed directed at me I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, treat people who you seek to be treated. It doesn't matter what he does, the minute you stoop to his level you lose all moral superiority and sympathy from me, it doesn't matter if you think you're right or not.

    If you mean someone else, well.....my point still stands. I'm sick of people thinking their vendettas are justified if someone else said something nasty first. It's wrong, always. Defend yourself when the situation calls for it, but this whole drama does not qualify as self-defense.

    At this point it'd be the same as me having a tweet about anybody from this community but as long as I'm not tagging you in it then "I'm not hurting or attacking them". That logic is flawed so seriously I actually worry about people who feel that way.



  • @ZyloWolfBane said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    At this point it'd be the same as me having a tweet about anybody from this community but as long as I'm not tagging you in it then "I'm not hurting or attacking them". That logic is flawed so seriously I actually worry about people who feel that way.

    That first sentence is so flawed I can't even understand it after reading it five times. But really, if you're talking about gaps in logic then we have some reviewing to do. In your post you argued;

    • Systemic racism/sexism is not racism/sexism and is permissible.

    • People don't have the "right to ruin someone's career," whatever that means.

    • People shouldn't criticize things or people even if they're harmful.

    I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that either I misunderstood or was mislead by your post in some ways, as apparently that defense of Colin was not meant in support of him. Whatever. Still, it makes no sense to go around telling people to pipe down when they're criticizing public personalities for things they've gone on the record and said.

    People like Colin have elected to shape their public lives toward entertainment. As we've establish people have a right to expression and a right to define for themselves what they find entertaining or objectionable. People do not have such a right that says they cannot be criticized for their expression.

    So, while at a basic level it's your right to reprimand the community, you're doing it because they spoke up: taking issue with the same right you're exercising to even type those words. You also seem to be under the impression that the community committed some grave unspoken wrongdoing. Please explain how everyone calling Colin out was any different from your own objections. Otherwise, I have no other way to see your objections than as simple hypocrisy.



  • @Haru17 said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    @ZyloWolfBane said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    At this point it'd be the same as me having a tweet about anybody from this community but as long as I'm not tagging you in it then "I'm not hurting or attacking them". That logic is flawed so seriously I actually worry about people who feel that way.

    That first sentence is so flawed I can't even understand it after reading it five times. But really, if you're talking about gaps in logic then we have some reviewing to do. In your post you argued;

    • Systemic racism/sexism is not racism/sexism and is permissible.

    • People don't have the "right to ruin someone's career," whatever that means.

    • People shouldn't criticize things or people even if they're harmful.

    I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that either I misunderstood or was mislead by your post in some ways, as apparently that defense of Colin was not meant in support of him. Whatever. Still, it makes no sense to go around telling people to pipe down when they're criticizing public personalities for things they've gone on the record and said.

    People like Colin have elected to shape their public lives toward entertainment. As we've establish people have a right to expression and a right to define for themselves what they find entertaining or objectionable. People do not have such a right that says they cannot be criticized for their expression.

    So, while at a basic level it's your right to reprimand the community, you're doing it because they spoke up: taking issue with the same right you're exercising to even type those words. You also seem to be under the impression that the community committed some grave unspoken wrongdoing. Please explain how everyone calling Colin out was any different from your own objections. Otherwise, I have no other way to see your objections than as simple hypocrisy.

    You're putting words in my mouth, and I'll only ask once that you stop.

    First- There has been no racism, sexism, etc associated with his interaction with Brandon Jones, the confrontation that sprang from their potential collaboration was baseless. Pure and simple.

    People were quick to attack him on twitter unprovoked, so being angry that he reacted later makes zero sense. I don't care about his past actions, his involvement with THIS community thus far hasn't been brought to the level everyone accuses him of.

    Second- People are using the same logic with Colin as they do Hulk Hogan or Paula Deen, where they said one offensive thing in their past, and it somehow gets to be brought up decades later only to slander them when deemed appropriate, which is precisely what people have been doing to Colin for years.

    Even as a bystander who dislikes him I can't help but notice that.

    Third- I didn't say you shouldn't criticize, there's a difference between criticism and spewing vitriol and accusations. I'm not going to keep bringing up every bad thing a person has done, it serves no purpose. So I don't see why people have such a personal grudge against someone they don't ever intend to interact with.

    Jones choosing to be on his show hurt nobody, period. People's unfounded fear of his community co-mingling with the rest of us makes no sense, those same people were already here due to involvement with KF and the overlap via many of their connections to EZA.

    I did say go ahead at voice concerns at Jones about this, which is what people did. But again I also said if you're going to disparage that person at the same time...then don't be so naive to assume that they aren't going to respond.

    Other people are in my eyes acting worse than he is just based on notions they don't even know are true, and can't even back it up when challenged, only parrot posts they can cherry pick from other sources and interpret it like a bible passage in whatever way they can smith it to suit their argument.

    He's a pompous jerk, and he doesn't pull punches with what he says. I can see where that would offend people, but I've seen no concrete proof that his involvement with EZA could in any way be negative any more than him simply existing as he has. People are going to discover EZA with or without him, and you can't dictate who has a right to be a patron, none of us have that right.

    I'm not saying the community is wrong for calling him out, I'm saying people's behavior in doing so was wrong. And makes you (Again, collective use of the word "You") equally as wrong as him. And also opens you up for equal treatment from him or his community.

    I don't care for Hypocrisy, end of story. I don't know what reality you're living in, but feel free to disagree with me. I'm not indulging you past this point.

    If people don't like Colin, don't support him. You're mad Jones supports him? Don't support EZA, it's your choice to make.



  • @ZyloWolfBane I'm not trying to misrepresent you, only recanting how your post read. On a similar note, I did not say that there had been racism involved with the thing with Brandon, only that you wrote some weird logic about racism from last century being a write off.

    The issue with slurs is never that they're isolated incidents, but that they're one of probably a string of hate speech so common that this piece of it got picked up on camera. That it's probably indicative of a world view that sees certain groups of people as lesser. But that was never the issue here. Colin didn't have one particular slip of the tongue, the sexist tweet that got him ousted from Kinda Funny was something he intentionally put out there. And there are dozens of podcasts where he insults women, younger generations, progressives, etc with intellectually demeaning straw men so that he can aggrandize himself. The fool literally had a show called 'Colin was Right' with accompanying swag.

    So, if allies really harassed him on social media in a manner that put them on a level with all of that, then I'd really like to see it. I'm not even sure how they would manage do that, racism against Italian Americans doesn't seem that prevalent anymore (could be, I'm just not aware of it). Did someone tell Colin to kill himself or something horrible like that? The only tweets I could find were just people telling Brandon that he should absolutely not go on the guy's show and guy who Colin started arguing with but maintained himself respectfully despite Colin's characteristic harshness.

    We both agree that arguments based on rumor have no merit, and that evidence is necessary to condemn someone's actions. So what abusive tweets did allies write?



  • Something Colin said during the chat, that I thought was pretty insightful about Brandon was, calling him a diplomat. He knows involving Colin with something EZA does might ruffle some feathers, so he asks for feedback. After having read a ton of it myself, in lots of different places, the response pretty heavily leaned toward either positive or neutral involving collaboration with Colin.

    Jones being the people pleaser that he is, probably decided the best course of action would be to give up on the idea of involving Colin with something that EZA does, but to accept the invite to appear on Colin's thing instead. This way, EZA isn't seen as giving Colin a platform, but still giving Jones a chance to talk with someone who has done good by him in the past.

    Personally, I feel it's a bit absurd to get upset about Brandon, personally, going to speak with Colin on something he was invited to. Jones is still an individual human being before being a member of EZA, and he's well within his rights to go talk with whoever the hell he wants.

    Either way, I think it's admirable how Jones has made it so that he takes the brunt of all the hate directed his way, while the rest of EZA remains relatively unscathed by the whole situation.



  • @Minamik said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    Something Colin said during the chat, that I thought was pretty insightful about Brandon was, calling him a diplomat. He knows involving Colin with something EZA does might ruffle some feathers, so he asks for feedback. After having read a ton of it myself, in lots of different places, the response pretty heavily leaned toward either positive or neutral involving collaboration with Colin.

    Jones being the people pleaser that he is, probably decided the best course of action would be to give up on the idea of involving Colin with something that EZA does, but to accept the invite to appear on Colin's thing instead. This way, EZA isn't seen as giving Colin a platform, but still giving Jones a chance to talk with someone who has done good by him in the past.

    Personally, I feel it's a bit absurd to get upset about Brandon, personally, going to speak with Colin on something he was invited to. Jones is still an individual human being before being a member of EZA, and he's well within his rights to go talk with whoever the hell he wants.

    Either way, I think it's admirable how Jones has made it so that he takes the brunt of all the hate directed his way, while the rest of EZA remains relatively unscathed by the whole situation.

    Not only did he handle himself well, he also defended the intentions of those who were mad. Even though he had good reason to be a little put-off by the louder fans, he defended them.



  • I've never been a fan of Colin and not even Kinda Funny, I gave them a chance back in the days but it didn't hook me. So I knew even less about what Moriarty has said in Twitter, but because of the backlash I looked into it.

    I absolutely understand why people don't like him, he comes of as a asshole to me too. Listening the Fireside Chat he also basically also admits that. He's attitude does bother me a lot. But personally I'm not ready to attach all these labels to him what people seem to do. I also understand why people do that, because he has come off like that many times and doesn't want to explain and clarify Nor even apologize. But going bit deeper than just the questionable tweets also show that it's not that simple.

    And for the Brandon's appearance, I'm proud of him. I think he did good job expressing L&R in what he talked and even challenged Moriarty on it just a little bit. I think it's good for Moriarty and his fans to hear something like this and maybe considering taking it to heart. And ofcourse many of Colin's fans already show love and respect to others. I don't mean to paint his fanbase on a broad brush, many of us are fans of both.

    I'm not angry at Jones for going to the chat. I'm just saddened that it has caused some divide in the community and that some people don't feel welcomed anymore. But I'm not gonna attack and blame those people either. I haven't ever been the butt of Colin's joke. He has never disrespected me or people like me. But he has done it to others, so I can't just pretend that it hasn't happened.



  • Has anyone read this? Jones has like 8 tweets concerning the Colin thing. Nothing very specific, though he does say he's going to listen to critics in some amorphous respect.



  • @Haru17 At least it's a start. I'm glad he has addressed both his silence and the frustration over it. It's understandable to be worried about saying the wrong thing and make it worse, so I get why he's been quiet. Saying something off the cuff and without some reflection could have made things worse but I'm glad he's trying to talk about it now.



  • @Haru17 said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    Has anyone read this? Jones has like 8 tweets concerning the Colin thing. Nothing very specific, though he does say he's going to listen to critics in some amorphous respect.

    I think the vaguery is absolutely a good thing. He is listening, reading the comments, and discussing with the Allies about what to do. Much better than silence and much better than taking a specific side. Now, my only fear is an overcorrection from the team with some form of hardline stance. If they say "we do not endorse [insert viewpoint or group}", there will only be more of an outcry and rift in their community.

    We saw this over at Kinda Funny where they seemingly threw Colin to the wolves on his harmless tweet. Their respectful separation helped a good many of the fans come to terms and calm down, but a lot of people who liked Colin followed him or otherwise lost some love of KF as they saw the uncomfortable departure over such a mundane aspect. It looked like KF bending the knee to an outrage culture, and the outrage received from listening to the prior outrage was demonstrably worse.

    The only reasonable band-aid, in my opinion, is to keep to vaguery and get beyond the problem. Maybe come up with a general stance of staying civil and respectful no matter where the Allies are or who is guest-starring. Anything more hardline and it'll never stop. It will be accusations of being "SJWs" or accusations of being "-phobic" depending on the side they would pick.



  • @logic__error

    Right. Silence was probably the only poor decision here.



  • Well they live in L.A., I don't think it's hard to imagine the side most of the Allies would pick.

    Anyway, there's only one thing behind Jones' vagueness: the deathly fear of getting caught up in the ongoing culture war. The Allies have settled upon trying to appear 'apolitical,' a stance about as possible as an objective review, a kaiju, or a moderate Republican. That gets them their fragile little bubble that so many gamers — even politically active ones — pretend to live in, with the added bonus of offending the least amount of people who might be inclined to pay them.



  • @Haru17 It shouldn't be about picking sides.. that's what started this nonsense in the first place.

    I don't see whats so bad about trying to be apolitical.. they're a gaming outlet, if you want politics watch the news. Also... moderate republicans.. seriously? Not to derail the thread, but that kind of all or nothing attitude is what has lead us to the current situation.. it achieves nothing



  • I like fun. I play video games because they're fun. I watch anime and build silly little model kits because I think they're fun. I'm a patron of EZA because they're fun. It couldn't be more simple than that.



  • @Faaip If you're against the idea of choosing sides then maybe @ the person who brought it up. And if you must know my very, very old and tame political joke refers mostly to elected Republicans.

    The reason I'm mocking gamers' delusion of living in a bubble, isolated from the rest of the world is because games are art and art is political. Whether or not it's trying to be — silence is as much of a statement as being for this or critiquing that. I mean even the Gamergate miscreants (who I'm assuming we're not apart of) thought they were being 'apolitical' when they targeted harassment at Anita Sarkeesian for making videos with feminist critiques of 'just for fun' video games. But what they identified as didn't matter — any armchair political scientist could tell you they held conservative views.

    The same concepts apply to the Allies. It's been a longstanding critique of journalism that objective reporting is impossible because of things like gatekeeping and agenda setting. An alternate approach is disclosing your background and personal motivations so that your audience can understand the perspective with which you write or commentate. And beyond just that motivation, not having banned words or unspeakable subjects promotes a richer discussion of games. When I last checked, there are plenty of political themes in games between titles like Far Cry 5, The Last of Us 2, Infamous, Watch Dogs, etc.



  • @Haru17 Alright, if its a joke then I apologize (though my point still stands).. and I don't really disagree about elected officials.. I think net neutrality and the tax vote pretty much prove that to be true.

    I also don't disagree that games can be or are political, but I think its up to the group to decide which angles to critique/discuss games from. They've brought politics into the discussion when its been relevant, but I don't think it should be held against them if they don't want to do it all the time or don't want to take a stance.. there are plenty of other commentators that are willing to do that or make it their focus.



  • @Haru17 I don't think all art is political, Rocket league is a fun game about car soccer, Katamari Damacy is a game about a little alien rolling up items on a ball maybe if I talked to some humanitarian college students about it that I might be wrong. However, there are games that do take a more political stance, as the games you mentioned above.

    I think there's a very fine line between discussing the politics of a game, its narrative, its characters and its cultural context and then the stuff we're seeing from both sides where people's beliefs on identity politics and what is or isn't a joke or hate speech and the like tend to bleed into the conversation and things get hostile quickly and people are just barking at each other. I don't think Easy Allies is about those debates. If you want that layered political talk go listen to WayPoint Radio, it's a great podcast for discussing that stuff, I personally don't agree with some of the stuff said on those podcasts, but I love it all the same. I come to Easy Allies for hype, for bets, for group streams. I feel like Easy Allies has a very child-like glee to its content, good vibes love and respect are plentiful and I'd like to see it stay that way to be brutally honest with you.

    I'm kinda bummed out I ever made this post, to be honest, I didn't think we were all so divided. Obviously, my naivety is to blame for that, but I honestly felt like we could all check that baggage at the door when we engaged with the content and the community.