Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty



  • @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.



  • When Shawn Layden's left hand and right hand touches, this community will be united by counting the seconds and all this will be forgotten.



  • @JamboHyland95 Your opinion may not have been entirely neutral, but your framing was. You didn't attack, just expressed confusion and concern. It was a good way to open the discussion for this particular case.

    I get where both sides are coming from, really. On the one hand, people don't want to feel like the Allies are being stifled from doing what they want to do and on the other they fear that teaming up with a controversial figure will have negative effects. Both are valid feelings, in my opinion.

    I may personally think Colin is a jerk who seems to delight in creating controversy, or at the very least being a lightning rod for it, but I'm not going to go after anyone for enjoying his work or being his friend. I just choose to avoid his content and move on with my life. I have plenty of other stuff I enjoy and not enough time to consume it already.

    I think people are getting the impression that I was super involved or vocal in this but I actually chose not to weigh in on the original CoJ thread or Twitter. I figured it was ultimately up to Jones to decide and I knew he was capable of doing that without me adding my two cents. Since it wasn't an official EZA collab, it didn't really need to be brought to the community for discussion, but Jones did and now here we are. I hope now that Jones opened up about it the community can try to work past it without holding grudges.



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

    @JamboHyland95 Your opinion may not have been entirely neutral, but your framing was. You didn't attack, just expressed confusion and concern. It was a good way to open the discussion for this particular case.

    I get where both sides are coming from, really. On the one hand, people don't want to feel like the Allies are being stifled from doing what they want to do and on the other they fear that teaming up with a controversial figure will have negative effects. Both are valid feelings, in my opinion.

    I may personally think Colin is a jerk who seems to delight in creating controversy, or at the very least being a lightning rod for it, but I'm not going to go after anyone for enjoying his work or being his friend. I just choose to avoid his content and move on with my life. I have plenty of other stuff I enjoy and not enough time to consume it already.

    I think people are getting the impression that I was super involved or vocal in this but I actually chose not to weigh in on the original CoJ thread or Twitter. I figured it was ultimately up to Jones to decide and I knew he was capable of doing that without me adding my two cents. Since it wasn't an official EZA collab, it didn't really need to be brought to the community for discussion, but Jones did and now here we are. I hope now that Jones opened up about it the community can try to work past it without holding grudges.

    And I think it is hard to say you are absolutely wrong about how Colin presents himself. I generally like him and his content, but I also see why people see him as arrogant and taking advantage of his tweet incident. He has a lot of pride and wears it on his sleeve, so it can be aggravating when there is nobody to counterbalance his strong opinions. Perhaps I don't mind as much because I oftentimes agree with him and hold some form of confirmation bias!

    I myself had issues listening to his old content when topics came up that I felt he was insanely wrong about and actively avoided those Kinda Funny episodes -- purely because I knew what he was going to say and knew there was very little discussion value among the other hosts who are not as interested or well-read on those respective topics. I imagine those disagreeing with him now have five times as many issues of disagreement than I ever had.

    And I am glad we totally agree on that last point you made. I don't want a community purge, exodus, or grand schism.



  • @Haru17 Lol, a "true sexist". It was a joke - one his wife laughed at. It was hardly meant to be serious. It was blatantly obvious that it was meant as a joke if you did any research about Moriarty before immediately getting offended.



  • @Claus-Grimhildyr "If a girl said it was okay is can't be sexist. Everyone knows there are no sexist girls."



  • @Haru17 Continue that imagined sleight and taking things wildly out of context to further your own narrative bias. You would fit right in with the GAF/ERA crowd.



  • @Claus-Grimhildyr You're right, it would be much more logical to take the word of a single woman — the subject's family member — above outside observers because she's a woman and that's what sexism is about.



  • @Claus-Grimhildyr said in Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty:

    You would fit right in with the GAF/ERA crowd.

    Don't do this please. Many of "That crowd" are allies, including many people on this forum.