Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty



  • @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.



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

    @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.

    I have to disagree with your premise and conclusion regarding politics and art for a few reasons.

    1. Art does not necessarily have to be political or controversial. Perhaps you mean something along the lines of "all art has some sort of values", but I think the discussion is more about addressing controversial values -- not just the nature of holding values.

    2. Even if games/art are sometimes political, it does not mean the commentators of games need to base their commentary, channels, personalities, or criticisms largely around the controversies. Let me give an example and get a little too descriptive.

    A popular dog channel makes money and draws an audience around posting cute puppy pictures and debates the cutest breeds amongst two lovable hosts. The community comes and views the videos for the debate, funny hosts, and the inherent cuteness. However, it is undeniable that there are huge political/social dilemmas underlying the sale of pure breeds, puppy mills, animal abuse, etc. This does not necessitate the channel dedicating itself to a position and consistently presenting said position if that is not what the channel dedicates itself to. They could do this for several reasons. Perhaps sad messages about animal abuse simply don't work well with the cheeriness of the videos. Or maybe they don't want jaded, cynical fans in their comments.

    In the same way, Easy Allies and its community could very easily define itself by far more than politics. It could base its values on a fun-loving community that just loves to play games and have silly betting specials around the hobby. The channel has never actively promoted hard stances on political topics and have generally allowed the 9 hosts to each talk about whatever they choose and have a conversation about it. They may or may not value a community that isn't angrily split over the latest gender theory or controversy -- especially since the topic is hardly necessitated by 99.99% of the games released in a given year.

    1. Now, I have a problem with the equivocation of "talking about politics appearing in games" and "taking stances on controversial issues". There is a clear difference between a hypothetical Kyle Bosman talking about Watch Dogs 2's description of a police state and a video game-dedicated Youtube channel deciding its members must conform to one ideology's prevailing thoughts on gender dysphoria and never associate as individuals with people with different opinions.

    After all, there is a difference between saying "I think Wolfenstein 2 shows a dark side of America that exists in some form" and just saying "Well F*** Donald Drumpf, amirite?"

    The Allies have to look at it from two directions:

    1. How they want to present themselves as people.

    2. How it affects their community + interaction and engagement

    3. How everything affects business.

    And I see no reason to think a hard swerve towards talking politics can help any of their goals in the categories.



  • @JamboHyland95 Don't get me started on the complex politics surrounding the monarchy in Katamari Damacy :P

    Don't feel bad about making the thread. If you hadn't, someone else would have eventually. I personally appreciate that you came at the situation in a more neutral way than most would have and from a point of trying to understand what was going on. Honestly, this thread has stayed a lot more tame than in other portions of the community.



  • @logic__error Thanks, man, I'm not even neutral, as I said I really enjoy colins work and EZA. I just don't understand how people lose their minds over something so trivial, and the worst part is, the podcast was an hour long of Colin praising this community and EZA in general, and this is what happens. It's kinda embarrassing. Although I think you have every right to hate him and not like his content or whatever, just think you shouldn't demand that the content not be made at all. It's all so silly.