Brandon on Fireside chats with Colin Moriarty



  • @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.



  • @Claus-Grimhildyr Just because it's a joke, doesn't mean it can't be offensive. I've defended Colin more than most when discussing him recently with friends but let's not pretend he didn't know exactly what he was doing with that tweet, and further along when he decided to frame it.

    You're not helping yourself by generalising GAF/ERA. If you have nothing but digs to offer, than it's probably not worth posting.



  • You have every right to be offended, but he also has every right to offend you. Just ignore him instead of trying to wipe him from existence



  • @JamboHyland95 We're an internet forum not the secret police, no one's wiping anything from existance.



  • @Haru17 doesn't seem that way by the shock and horror people display at the mention of his name.



  • @JamboHyland95 Who is getting offended by who's speech here?



  • @Haru17 both sides are, hence the problem.



  • This has been going for long enough, but there's one thing I want to add.

    Colin mentioned he has a Mexican friend who jokes with him about what's happened in the past, saying "I didn't know you were a racist". That's cool and all, but just because he doesn't get offended doesn't mean others won't. Generalizing is a big step to being an "-ist". Just as Haru said, one woman does not speak for all of them.

    You can have your opinion and your own way to view the world, but don't pretend for a second that your actions won't have an effect on other people, especially in this day and age where internet has made communication so easy and accessible. You don't live in a bubble, you're not alone. That goes for everyone.



  • shrek



  • @Haru17 The biggest problem with that joke was that he had the opportunity to give his female peers and friends a bit of a boost. For someone who claims he's so very much on their side, he CHOSE to make a shitty joke instead of highlighting their necessity and value in this industry.

    When people highlighted that, he went with the "Humorless shitbag" defense. Which was more telling of who he is as a person that the original joke.