He also platforms people like Alex Jones to cater to his drama-reactionary irony-laden fanbase.
I never heard of this guy until this week when he had some really terribad tweet or something that I saw people replying to and shooting down. I forget exactly what it was. Now I see him again of course being banned from Twitch and E3.
Discovered a dude’s existence because he was bad. The second time I ever hear about him, he’s even worse. Good riddance.
I discovered him with Freddie Wong’s brother made a video responding to some racist nonsense he did a while back. This is my second time. Good riddance.
These dudebros keep popping out of nowhere with like 2 million followers. It’s such shadowed area of the internet for me.
But really, with a handle like Dr. Disrespect I’m surprised anyone expected anything else.
He has come up on the forum before, though only for similar reasons. I watched about half of one of his videos, and he defined “toxic” so precisely that I’m surprised anyone thinks it’s just an act or a character, which seems to be the typical excuse.
I remember first hearing about him when PUBG started getting big. Saw one clip and got the same vibes that Luke got, so ignored him. Then he did pop up again for stuff he said, but I can’t remember if it was racist or homophobic, probably both. So yeah, not surprised that he continues to make dumb decisions and his fans continue to not care. Good on Twitch and E3 to kick him out though.
I only heard of him from other streamers I watch mentioning he cheated on his wife and went on hiatus to “reflect on his actions” awhile back so I just assumed he was no good. *cue eyeroll of surprise that hes done another shitty thing *
1 Like
In the last two days some twitter beef has gone down between Dan Olson and Jeremy Hambly. Admittedly I will give a biased description here. Dan Olson is also known as FoldableHuman is probably a very familiar to people in this forum. Nevertheless, for the people who don’t know, he does videos on the internet analysis pop media in particular in regard to the narrative value and technical aspects of movies etc. He is also part of “left tube” and has left-leaning ideals and in particular became known for his opposition to Gomergate.
Hambly on the other hand we discussed last year when his incessant harassment drove a popular female cosplayer out of the MtG community. He has since gone full YouTube bullshit merchant, rebranding his channel again as “The Quartering” and is particularly notorious for posting 20+ videos bitching about Brie Larson and Captain Marvel.
Anyway, Olson made an offhanded twitter remark about how so many hardcore gamers get offended about games lacking combat, forgetting that combat-less games being as old as combat-oriented games with plenty of classic in that field. His prime example is SimCity. Hambly inserts himself into the discussion asking to be shown “all those offended gamers”, apparently completely unaware of his own YouTube channel. A bit of back and forth ensues, Hambly says that he’ll donate $500 to charity of Olson debates him (on what exactly is not known), Olson agrees if he can host, with a follow-up tweet explaining that he suspects Hambly just trying to milk the exposure for clicks and ad revenue. Nevertheless, Hambly agreed.
Of course all of this is tainted by Hambly’s followers making all sorts of derogatory remarks about Olson.
I also strongly disagree with debating Hambly, as he has absolutely nothing of value to offer.
That does seem like a really uncharacteristic response on Olson’s part. In almost all cases these “debates” are just moots where two opposing sides use their diplomatic representatives as justification to scream at each other. I’m cautiously optimistic that Olson has something up his sleeve beyond giving in to the leftist dream of destroying people they disagree with with reasonable arguments.
I don’t know these characters and don’t want to bother attempting to know them, but I think we’ve culturally lost track of what a debate is supposed to be. Everything seems to be rhetorical now.
In retrospect he’s kinda a pompus ass but this was a talking point of Cristopher Hitchens. When he was growing up in like I dunno 70s England, debates had a quality that they don’t have anymore.
Someone won and someone lost. Not in like the eye of the viewer. Like formally. The way someone may win or lose in sports. I’m not sure how they managed to actually have winners and losers but they did.
I’d like to have formal winners and losers at debates.
The problem with formal debates with winners and losers is that the winners are usually people who are better at the sport of debating. How right or wrong, or good or bad, someone is has no bearing on whether they win or lose. Someone skilled at the game of debating could win a debate. Then immediately cross the stage and win again while taking the exact opposite position.
Debates are useful when we have a situation where people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about disagree and, in good faith, want to learn from each other’s opposing views.
What we have in our society is not this situation. We have people who don’t know jack shit trying to spread blatantly wrong ideas. Debate for them is simply a free platform with which to spread their wrong ideas. They do not come in good faith, and should not be given the time of day.
2 Likes
“Debate me” is today’s incarnation of “fite me irl”
I suppose you have to answer this question. Which is better, the system we have now where people who don’t know jack shit spread blatantly wrong ideas and have a platform called debate where they do that?
Or the exact same thing but with a formal winner and loser?
False dichotomy. Deplatform the nazis. End of story.
1 Like
I’m all for deplatforming nazis. I’m talking about like more formal debates. Things like primary debates or presidential debates.
Even slightly less formal ones where two people from opposing sides meet on MSNBC or CNN and debate.
In youtube wars, yeah deplatform nazis, end of story.
Still no for several reasons. People at home will be arguing over the rules of the debate rather than the merits of the candidates and the issues. The politicians already fight over the debate rules. Formal winning/losing will only sew greater distrust in the media.
The primary purpose of a televised political debate is to help the populace learn about the candidates directly. If the candidates are focusing on trying to win the sport of debate rather than appealing to the populace, that is in direct contradiction to the purpose of the debate itself. If a candidate just ignores the rules, they might end up appealing to the audience and then the paper the next day says they “lost.” This will create all sorts of problems, including that greater distrust in the media.
Official winning and losing is just increasing the reality show nature of politics in media, which plays directly into the hands of our reality show president.
1 Like
I was briefly on the varsity debate team in high school. Briefly. I competed JV, saw what it was like to be in that world, and hard noped. The topic has nothing to do with victory whatsoever.
My team had a giant box of folders with talking points and citations. They were all in the context of “X good” or “X bad.” Clinton Good, Clinton Bad, Gun Rights Good, Gun Rights Bad, etc…
So, if we were debating a topic, and the other side cited anything even remotely related to Bill Clinton in their argument, I’d pull out the “Clinton Bad” folder and find what I needed to refute them. If they didn’t bring him up, or brought him up in a negative light, I’d pull out the “Clinton Good” folder to prove how wrong they are about Bill Clinton.
The points were scored basically on how many points “made it through” opposition and were in the end un-refuted.
There were time limits for each segment of a debate. So on the affirmative side, my job was literally to read, out loud, as fast as possible, all the possible citations we were planning to use in our core debate. The faster one person who did this role could talk, the more ammo you could bring to the table. I can talk incredibly fast, as you are all well aware.
1 Like
Horrid as highschool formal debate sounds, I don’t think that’s what Hitch was talking about when he said someone won and someone lost.
I don’t even remember which of his books I read this in, but it seemed it was a cultural thing, rather than a formal scoring system. So while there was a winner in the same way as there’s a winner in sports, unlike sports there was no formal scoring system.
Somehow despite this seeming contradiction it worked to his mind.
No one goes on someone else’s youtube channel to debate them with the mutual goal of discovering and agreeing upon truth.
A racist/redpill/incel/sexist/transphobe/whatever demands that a reasonable person come on their youtube channel to “debate” them solely to get more clicks and spread their “side” of the “argument” with a broader audience.
Never debate someone who’s acting in bad faith. Ever. Just block them. They’re using “debate” as a tool to steal your time, effort, and audience.
1 Like