CC by Twitter user and loyal fan @arineticc.
Once upon a time, Buzzfeed made a few videos
in which women asked questions to men and
black people asked questions to white people.
Some people had an issue with this for some reason,
and unleashed their wrath onto Buzzfeed for all to see.
Shortly thereafter, a meeting of some other people,
henceforth called The Rationals™, was called by
TJ Kirk - 'The Amazing Atheist' himself -
to petition Buzzfeed and the larger "gynosphere"
for a redress of grievances which they called
"Questions White Men Have for SJWs".
This video is, as I said, a meeting of several of Youtube's
most popular anti-feminists and anti-SJWs,
Standing firmly together in their 'white-ness' and their...
...'man-ness'?
Uh - joining TJ in his finest fedora, no less,
is Undoomed, or what happens when Slenderman meets a horror movie trailer voiceover,
Armoured Skeptic, someone who's a bit newer to the anti-SJW Youtube scene,
but has undoubtedly made a mark,
[through clenched teeth] Anthony Fantano of theneedledrop...
[clears throat] Uh - excuse me,
Atheism-Is-Unstoppable, everyone's favourite militantly anti-theist kangaroo,
Sargon of Akkad,
[close to the mic] because of COURSE,
Dusty Smith, the resident country-boy of the crew,
Chris Ray Gun and Kraut and Tea, two people
whose content I've not actually watched before,
but who I believe I can infer a few things about
by virtue of them agreeing to be in this collaboration,
aaaand Mr. Repzion.
Not much to say, it's Mr. Repzion.
Well shit, guys, this is a pretty stacked roster we have here.
My only complaint is that they seem to be lacking
in the department of people with fursonas and Ph.Ds.
Do you even CARE about diversity!?
I'm not going to take the time to give
every question in this video its own unique answer,
there's only so much time of the day and
if I gave this video the same treatment I gave
the RESIST Supercut, it would just get really redundant after awhile.
Also, a lot of these questions aren't really meant to be answered,
a lot of them are rhetorical,
just like in Buzzfeed's original videos,
and a lot of them are just jokes.
Really... painful... jokes...
[Anthony Fantano]: "Have you guys tried drinkin' this shit?
It's great."
[Thom]: Instead, I'll be looking at the unifying themes
of a lot of these questions, and I'll arrive at
what I think are some pretty interesting conclusions.
Links to any websites I mention as well as a few
Youtube videos will be down there,
if you wanna check 'em out.
One of the fundamental issues I take with
a lot of Youtubers who are against feminism is that
they treat feminism as a monolith.
This is a concept that a few people have mentioned before,
but I think it becomes very apparent throughout
this Questions video.
Feminism, much like any other large social or
political movement, contains a wide variety of
differing schools of thought.
Feminists can be liberal, social democratic,
atheist, socialist, religious,
marxist, anarchist, individualist, radical,
or even... c-conservative?
Yeah, conservative.
And, feminists belonging to these different groups
will all approach their feminism differently.
Yet, in the questions these guys have for feminists,
they conflate various feminisms with one another.
For instance, in  Mr. Repzion's only contribution to this video,
he asks:
[Mr. Repzion]: "Why do you think every cis, white male is born racist?"
[Thom]: This is probably referring to Milo Stewart's video
from a few months ago where he does, indeed, make
the claim that all white people are racist.
This strikes me as a more radical version of the more
popular feminist idea that white people are more likely
to be racially biased, whether implicitly or explicitly.
This concept sound much more valid to me,
and a lot of more mainstream feminists, than just saying
point-blank that all white people are racist.
However, Mr. Repzion seems not to notice this,
and tars all 'SJW's with the same brush.
Just a heads-up: Uh, when we talk about white people being racist or bigoted,
we're only referring to racist and bigoted white people.
Not every criticism of a shitty white person is an attack on YOU.
How about we take TJ's very first question as another example.
[TJ]: "Why do you claim to speak for LGBT people,
women and ethnic minorities, but when LGBT people,
women and ethnic minorities disagree with you, you harass them?"
[Thom]: TJ assigns this behaviour, again, to 'SJW's,
which is a term that's basically lost all meaning and
devolved into a synonym for feminists.
The behaviour TJ mentions is something I've noticed on
"woke" Twitter quite often,
and I'm not sure I can really get behind it.
The whole "it's not my job to educate you," "delete this,"
"delete your account," "shut up becky" attitude
that these sorts of people take to their feminism
never struck me as being productive for either party.
If we want people to get behind our ideas, maybe we could
help them... understand them a bit better?
...it's just a thought...
...enough of me digressing. Again, TJ's treated feminism as a monolith.
[Mocking TJ] "These certain feminists act a certain way, so all feminists must act this way!"
"Blargh, bleh, blah, fallacy of composition."
For one last example, let's take this question from Undoomed.
[Undoomed]: "How do you reconcile your opinion that gender doesn't
matter or even exist with your need to invent new genders each day?"
[Thom]: This is probably my favourite question
of the ones I've mentioned to deconstruct,
because it conflates different sorts of feminism VERY clearly.
Feminists who hold the opinion that gender doesn't matter
are pretty easy to come across.
I'm one of them myself... I don't give a shit what gender
anybody [garbled unintelligible voice] (identifies as)
Although, with that said, you're not an attack helicopter
and your efforts to make fun of non-binary people are...
pretty fuckin' weak.
However, feminists who don't believe gender EXISTS
are much harder to come across.
Undoomed could be referring to gender-abolitionists here,
who tend to be WAY radical to the point of transphobia.
"TERFs" and "Womyn-born-womyn" type of people.
Clearly, these are not the sort of people who would
go about "inventing new genders each day".
If you want something of an answer to this question, here's the best I've got:
Gender is a spectrum.
It's not so much that people are inventing new genders,
they're just finding ways of describing their place on the spectrum,
You know. I'm not non-binary, myself,
If anybody wants to correct my understanding of that,
then please, by all means, do so.
Treating feminism as a monolith is, like I said before,
a fallacy of composition,
which anti-SJWs rely on for their criticisms to be seen as valid.
This allows them to point to slam-poetry,
people who are loud or look funny to them,
no-name vloggers, or movies about busting ghosts,
and extrapolate that ALL of feminism is bad
because these things or these people are deemed bad.
They'll point to anything other than feminist ideas themselves
in their efforts to "destroy" feminism.
Well, to be fair, sometimes they DO try and mount attacks on feminist theory,
but -
[Chris Ray Gun]: "If feminism and egalitarianism are both 'for equal rights,'
then why does one start with a gendered prefix,
while the other one is entirely gender-neutral?"
[Thom]: Chris has just now demonstrated another point I'd like to bring up
about the anti-SJW approach to criticizing
feminism at its roots.
It is INESCAPABLY reductionist.
Here's an outline of Chris's line of reasoning here,
which is a pretty common objection to feminism.
1. Feminism claims to be for gender equality,
but starts with the prefix "fem-", clearly referring to women.
2. Egalitarianism also claims to be for gender equality,
but is a gender-neutral term.
3. Because egalitarianism is a gender neutral term,
it must fight for the rights of people of all genders.
Additionally, because feminism uses a gendered prefix,
it must only be concerned with the rights of women.
4. Therefore, egalitarianism is superior to feminism.
The problem with this approach is that you can't
determine what an activist movement claims to be
for and against by looking at the conventions of its NAME.
You have to take a closer look at key figures in a movement
and what their stated goals are.
...It's time for a history lesson.
From its inception, feminism was concerned with women's rights,
and so the name feminism just made sense.
Feminists of the first wave demanded that women be granted the right to an education,
the right to vote, and the right to have a job outside the house.
Later, this activism expanded to equal pay,
and equal employment opportunity.
You'll have to forgive me for putting a fan on in the background, but, uh...
It's really hot.
Summer.
Of course, this was the first and second wave,
by the time the second wave wrapped up,
men and women were pretty much equal in law.
So, third wave feminists swooped in to try and
focus on not just women's legal rights,
but their treatment in society.
Additionally, the decision was made not to just focus on
the treatment of women, but also to collaborate with other movements,
and focus on the treatment of people of colour, LGBTQ people,
[Zizek]: "And so on and so on."
[Thom]: and they decided to focus on how the treatment
of these different groups might overlap with each other.
and how these different oppressions could possibly amplify one another.
For example, what sorts of discrimination would a
white, cis, straight woman face,
versus a black, queer, trans woman.
This principle of modern feminism is called intersectionality [airhorn noises]
and it is by far the most inclusive form of feminism
that has existed in the movement's entire history.
...Was that a bit of an... info-dump?
I'm sorry, but I think it was necessary to illustrate that
feminism's been around for a LONG time,
and that the activism and academia surrounding it
have gotten pretty complex.
Yet, here come The Rationals™ and their Critical Thinking Skills,
which are often applied fairly well when it comes to
debunking creationists and flat-earthers,
after all, their arguments are pretty easy to pick apart,
but are often lost when approaching feminism for some reason.
Listen to an anti-SJW give their definition of patriarchy
and you'll see what I mean.
[Sargon of Akkad]: "So when a feminist says to the uninitiated
that 'we live in a patriarchy,'
they're thinking that a patriarchy is a form of social organization
in which the father is the supreme authority
in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned
in the male line, with the children belonging
to the father's clan or tribe.
And, by the second definition,
this produces a society, community, or country based
on this social organization.
This is going to sound quite counter-intuitive
to anyone who lives in the western world,
and they'll probably take to Google to see
if they can find any sort of evidence to corroborate
the feminist assertion that we live in a patriarchy."
[Thom]: And read as his fans further demonstrate their
reductionist thinking on this subject, and you'll continue to see what I mean.
Because when I think rational, I think of defining
the feminist concept of patriarchy with the layman's
definition of patriarchy, and then concluding it doesnt exist
based on the wrong sense of the word.
Have a Golf Clap.
[Golf Clapping]
Let's look at one more example of reductionism,
this time from Atheist Roo.
[Athetism-Is-Unstoppable]: "Here's a question.
Are you aware that the present is not the past?
I'm not kidding. Are you familiar with the concept of linear time?
Because you seem INCREDIBLY comfortable traveling back through time
to talk about how bad things were for women.
Or black people, or whoever.
And then by using some form of SJW magic,
you then claim or imply that those problems in the past exist today.
Are you aware that this trick that you're doing is not working?
Why do you think that would work?"
[Thom]: This is a very "Racism Is Over" argument
to be making here, for one thing.
Uh, but for another thing, it demonstrates Roo's lack of...
...nuance when discussing other "SJW" talking points.
Feminists and other activists will often say that
things like slavery and racial segregation
[Zizek]: AND SO ON AND SO ON
have had long lasting effects that
are still felt in society today.
This is something I tend to agree with.
There's still racism even though the Civil Rights Act
was signed into law in the 60's,
and there's still discrimination against women
even though, as I said before,
they're pretty much equal IN LAW with men.
Outside of abortion rights, for one thing.
however, Roo builds a strawman by saying that
"SJWs" are claiming that the oppression of women and slavery
are still having effects the way they did 200 years ago, today.
And he knocks it down by wondering whether they
understand... the concept of linear time?
as I've said before, it's pretty easy to disagree with somebody
when you deliberately try to not understand their ideas.
[Anthony Fantano]: "What are you afraid will happen
when you leave your safe space."
[AIU]: "Your continued attempts to silence all opposition
only serves to insulate your bubble even more.
and maintain your echo chamber."
[Anthony]: "What is your favourite song to sing
really loud when you're confronted with a different point of view.
ROW ROW ROW YOUR BOAT
GENTLY DOWN THE STREEAAAA-"
[Thom]: Have you ever been told to
"go back to your safe space" before?
This has always been an interesting talking point for anti-feminists.
I personally don't claim membership to any safe spaces,
but I think the idea behind them is pretty solid.
The idea of a "safe space" is that it's a space,
often on a college campus,
for people to be able to express themselves without being antagonized,
and come together in unity and solidarity
in some shared experience.
LGBTQ safe spaces are unified by
their members' experiences with homophobia
and transphobia, among other bigotries,
Safe spaces for people of colour are unified
by their members' experiences with racism,
you get the idea.
This concept has been subject to that same
reductionist thinking I was talking about just before.
To many anti-SJWs, safe spaces are places
where people can go so that they don't have to have
their preconceived notions of the world challenged.
And they can collaborate with other like-minded "regressives"
to form an "echo chamber,"
where their supposedly shitty ideas can live on forever,
and destroy western society from the inside.
Well... that might be a bit of a leap in logic,
but by the way The Rationals™ talk about them,
safe spaces sound like a pretty big deal...
It does sound kinda scary to me, actually.
The idea that a group of people would
congregate together over a set of faulty beliefs
to form a hivemind, or a mob,
and go around telling people they're wrong,
and being all condescending, and using fallacious arguments
to convince people they're right,
and VIRTUE SIGNAL about how RIGHT they are all the time,
and anyone who disagrees with them is a
cuck or a regressive le- uh, wait a minute.
I'm not talking about the same people Carl is, am I.
The anti-SJW community believes that
a safe space is little more than a glorified echo chamber.
[AIU, sped up]: "Maintain your echo chamber."
The problem with this is that if you define a safe space in this way,
you start to see safe spaces everywhere.
However, I've decided to not give any merit to that
definition of safe space,
So here, we're going to be looking at a lot of
echo chambers right here, on Youtube.
These are "safe spaces", only in the way that
/r/TheRedPill or conspiracy theorist [garbled voice] (forums) are.
First of all, let's take a look at some low-hanging fruit.
White nationalists.
David Duke, Black Pigeon Speaks, and Varg Vikernes
have all amassed a pretty decent following on Youtube,
based entirely around being fucking neo-nazis.
This sort of outright racist rhetoric is usually
roundly criticized by all manner of politicians and activists,
and yet, here it is! It's found a home, on Youtube.
Just take a look at these comments on Black Pigeon Speaks's video
about why he believes Black Lives Matter defends "criminals" and "thugs".
Varg's a bit more obvious than Black Pigeon Speaks, though.
I mean, he - he's a fucking murderer,
and a survivalist, and a pro-european,
and he hasn't made good music since 1996.
And even more obvious than Varg is David Duke.
Once a member of the American Nazi Party,
once a grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan,
and always a consistent white nationalist,
holocaust-denier and anti-semite.
Everyone from Ronald Reagan to Stephen Colbert
has openly condemned or mocked this guy,
so you'd think there's be an internet hate-mob up his ass on Youtube, right?
WROOOONNNGGG
Duke's videos on this website have amassed a following of over
70,000 people, most of whom actively foam at the mouth
with similar propagandas to that of
[shouted from a distance] GODWIN'S LAW.
Also, he's running for senate, now,
and he's definitely got a few people on his side at the minimum.
If these 3 people and the community they've helped to foster
don't constitute an "echo chamber",
I don't know what does.
Why do I bring this up?
Well, for one thing, I think it's necessary to demonstrate
that echo chambers exist far outside of "SJWs",
or "the left", or "third-wave feminism"
or, whatever you decide to call it today.
White nationalism is something that I HOPE many of The Rationals™
would be quick to call out,
and maybe they'd agree with me that the community centered around these three guys
are fitting of the label of "echo chamber."
However, I think we'll probably start disagreeing in just a few moments.
This might be the one thing that I want anybody
who watches this video to come away from it realizing,
or knowing, or having heard.
So, please stick around,
even though I've probably gone on for way too long.
I'm not about to say that the people in this video
are supporting white nationalism,
or that their politics come even CLOSE to white nationalism,
or anything like that.
What I am about to say, is that the way
these guys and their channels operate has struck me as...
Intriguing, to say the least.
About 5 years ago, The Amazing Atheist was the
top dog on the anti-feminism scene.
I don't even think the term "SJW" existed around this time.
However, he usually balanced this out
with a regular stream of more...
...progressive... content? If you can call it that?
...Calling Papa John a piece of shit for being a shit guild to his workers,
or defending the rights of trans kids,
and otherwise being pro-LGBT, and socially liberal.
...Outside of repeatedly calling women bitches and cunts.
Sometime later, newer people popped up in the anti-feminism scene
with slightly different leanings.
Minarchists, classical liberals, and conservatives
began to dominate the scene.
All of this is to not even mention the rise of the men's rights movement,
a group which has had a noticable influence on anti-feminist discourse,
whether some anti-feminists wish to admit it or not.
Now, liberals like TJ have not always held a good
track record of dealing with these sorts of people.
He's made his fair share of videos against Donald Trump,
Free market libertarians and the G.O.P.
However, he's put these differences aside in recent years
to make connections with people he might have been
less kind to in his early days.
This is a theme I've noticed on a lot of anti-SJW Youtube,
and even in modern politics.
Refusing to call people out on their bullshit
because you have some shared common interest you don't wanna stomp on.
I believe TJ's dont this sort of thing for the sake of
preserving a truly colossal anti-feminist echo chamber
right here on Youtube- yuuuup, here we fuckin' go,
her- here-
[very close to mic] here comes the disagreement.
The nature of anti-feminism on Youtube is such
that it breeds a hive-mind mentality by necessity.
No matter how many anti-feminist channels pop up on Youtube,
their rhetoric seems to be largely the same.
I bet I could probably sum up the view of every person in this video
just by describing one set of beliefs.
With that said, here's one set of beliefs I think
could probably be applied to every person in this video:
[Voice pitched down] "Feminism used to fight for TRUE gender equality,
but now, thanks to the third wave of feminism,
it's been hijacked by female supremacists.
Feminists nowadays believe that all white, heterosexual cisgender men
are privileged, racist, sexist pigs.
They perpetuate a constant victim mentality in the minds of women.
Their social justice identity politics rely on tactics
such as censorship and defamation
and are in direct conflict with values such as free speech.
They're too busy inventing new genders and sexualities
to realize that no one is taking them seriously outside of
their little special snowflake club.
They are impervious to reason, and are busy self-congratulating in their echo chambers,
and do not have any grasp on... Wait."
[from far away] Dammit, that was Sargon's tweet again, wasn't it -
...I should hope that's fairly accurate.
That paragraph probably reflects a lot of
my own anti-feminist views from a few years ago fairly well.
And I can definitely spot a lot of these themes
running through the videos of all 10 collaborators on this video.
However, that leads me to ask something.
If the way these 10 guys view feminism can be described in less than 30 seconds,
then why do there have to be TEN of them,
or even more outside of them,
to convince people of why feminism is bad.
To paraphrase Albert Einstein,
and HBomberguy on ask.fm- imsosorrYPLEASEFORGIVEME
"If feminism was this poisonous,
you'd only need 1 person to disprove it."
A lot of the questions these men had for people like me
have been asked before by other members of this same video.
Chris Ray Gun's dilemma about feminism vs. egalitarianism,
TJ asking what the deal is with All Lives Matter,
Undoomed wondering why feminists don't acknowledge
that Islam is "true rape culture,"
and "the world's most misogynistic ideology,"
and Armoured Skeptic's "do you want women to be equal or a protected class" thing?
I've seen these sorts of questions intermingling across
the borders of the content of all 10 of these guys,
and they seem pretty uniform in their agreement on the answers.
Not only are all these guys in agreement about feminism,
but so are their audiences.
If someone is subscribed to 1 of these channels,
they're most likely subscribed to maybe at least 2 or 3 more of them.
The like bars are excellent,
the comment sections are uniform in their disdain for the "regressive left",
everyone pats each other on the back for not believing in patriarchy,
and believing that feminists are the true sexists,
and the cogs in the machine keep turning.
However, on the other side of things,
However, feminist videos that come under the scrutiny of an anti-SJW's lens
are often destined to dog-piling and harassment.
The dislikes flood in,
and comments fill with ad hominem attacks,
bigoted trolling,
and suggestions of suicide.
This kind of response has caused some feminist content creators
to disable their comments,
at which point their detractors ask why they can't take
the criticism they were never receiving in the first place.
Or even delete their videos,
or shut down their channels entirely.
This doesn't strike me as the behaviour of
rational, free-thinking skeptics who are open to different points of view.
This strikes me as the behaviour of people who
all think more or less the same thing,
and want everyone else to tow their line at any cost.
"My opinion, or no opinion at all."
Opposing arguments are either shrugged off or ignored entirely,
as they're all viewed as being part of some plot
to undermine the values of "free thought."
Not only do they not understand their opposition,
but sometimes they don't WANT to understand their opposition.
[real burp]
They are impervious to reason, and are busy self-congratula-
- no that was Sargon's tweet again god DAMMI-
Now that you've had your meat and potatoes,
it's time for some dessert.
Here's some points I'd like to bring up just because I...
...felt like they needed bringing up and I felt like I could comment on them.
[Undoomed]: "What do you hope to gain by bringing back racial segregation?"
[Thom]: Well, Undoomed, I can only assume you're
referring to black-only safe spaces here...
These have been promoted by certain Black Lives Matter branches,
like in UCLA, which have called for
the creation of spaces where black people can express themselves.
However, calling this "segregation" is a pretty disingenuous move.
I'm paraphrasing The1Janitor here,
but these sorts of spaces are really only "segregation"
in the way a women's health centre not allowing men
to use its services is "segregation".
...You're only using the term "segregation" because,
for one thing, it sounds scarier than it is.
And, for another thing, you're trying to make it seem like
you're on the side of the Civil Rights Movement,
which opposes racial segregation,
but people who shared your EXACT politics in the 1960s
were TRIPPING over themselves to defend it.
Chris, you're up next.
[Chris]: "So if a drunk man sleeps with a drunk woman,
the woman is incapable of giving consent.
But the man... is?"
[Thom]: I haven't been able to find a discussion of consent
where it was claimed that only drunk WOMEN
are incapable of consenting to sex.
On almost every website where I could find any discussion of sexual consent,
something along the lines of the phrase:
"An intoxicated individual is incapable of giving consent"
has been used.
"Individual."
Not "woman."
So, to answer your question, no.
Here's one from Skeptic:
[Armoured Skeptic]: "In your version of equality,
will white men EVER have a voice in society,
or will white men ALWAYS be too privileged to participate in discussion?"
[Thom]: Well, white men certainly have a lot of voice in society right now.
D-Do you mean to say that they don't?
Or that there's a large group of people who say they shouldn't?
I believe white men should...
...certainly participate in discussion if they feel like they have something noteworthy to say,
I'm a white man in a discussion about feminism right now.
Strangely enough, I have some disagreements with
the way some feminists use the concept of privilege
as a way of keeping people who look like me out of their discussions.
Like I said before, if we want people to understand where we're coming from,
maybe we could start by letting them in more openly.
However, privilege is still an important thing to deal with.
It can shape the way certain white men approach
conversations about social issues, and sometimes their opinions... are...
...less than welcome.
To be more direct about your point, though,
If the goal of feminism is the end of patriarchy,
then that would also mean that the goal of feminism is the end of male privilege.
So, at some point in a post-patriarchal society,
I expect that men, white or otherwise,
would part ways with the privilege they currently hold,
and would become not "too privileged to participate in discussions."
[Sargon of Akkad]: "Do you really think you can spent your entire life
in a state of perpetual emotional immaturity.
Do you actually imagine
that you will be able to stretch out your adolescence
for your entire existence."
[Thom]: Dusty Smith.
[Dusty]: There are 13% more women in college right now than men.
So if the whole goal of feminism is 'equality,'
shouldn't we have some men-only scholarships in order to equal everything out?"
[Thom]: Oh, I can think of a few.
You could go the Milo route on this and look at the Privilege Grant,
but there's a much simpler answer to this.
And it's every men's sports scholarship under the sun.
There's also the Lax Scholarship Fund for Gay Men,
The scholarships afforded to Eagle Scouts by the National Eagle Scout Association,
and plenty of others that are easy to find through some simple Google searching.
LOGIC.
TJ.
[TJ]: "Why do you feel entitled to control what artists
and entertainers are allowed to express?
Why do you think your sensibilities
should be placed above the sensibilities of
ACTUAL creators."
[Thom]: It's not so much that we feel entitled "control"
the content of media,
we just wish that some comedians and writers and artists
would keep in mind the fact that SOMETIMES,
jokes can be marginalizing,
and can feed stereotypes that serve to ostracize
people by misrepresenting them.
Also, I love your use of the term "...actual creators,"
as if feminists are somehow LESSER in the grand scheme of creators.
Alright, if I keep responding to these we'll be here all day,
so... one more.
Eenie, meenie, minie...
Kraut and Tea.
[Kraut and Tea]: "What makes you think
that the power of censorship,
that you are so desperately trying to establish now,
will at no point be used against YOU."
[Thom]: The charge that social justice politics constitutes censorship
has always... puzzled me.
This came up awhile ago when 2 Literally-Who's went to the UN
and talked about how harassment of women online has
ramped up quite a bit lately.
Anti-SJWs everywhere cried that they were trying to
"censor the internet..."
...by getting rid of sexist trolls?
It also came up when Milo Yiannopulous was banned from Twitter
for inciting the mass harassment of Leslie Jones.
He claimed that Twitter was "violating free speech"
and "starting a war on conservative points of view,"
and... the same shit he says every other day.
...As if it were Twitter's fault he violated their Terms of Service?
Anyways, it seems like in most cases where SJWs are trying to "censor things,"
it's just a mountain being made out of a molehill
by "rational free-thinking skeptics,"
who all tend to think pretty... similar... things.
So much for free thought.
Personally, they're not fooling me, considering one of their most popular spokesmen
made a petition that basically constituted censorship of a whole field of academia.
...Really starting a dialogue there, aren't we.
Really crusading against CENSORSHIP, aren't we?
So.
What DID these Questions for SJWs teach me about Youtube antifeminism, anyway?
Well, honestly, not a lot that I didn't already know.
A lot of these questions aren't very new,
and some of them were just kinda baffling.
[Dusty]: "When I'm singing along with rap music,
is it ok if I say the word 'n*gga?'"
[Thom]: I didn't really want to provide too many straight-forward answers,
since my goal was really to just talk about the nature
of anti-SJW talking points.
This collaboration just worked out well as a framing mechanism for this topic,
which is one I've wanted to talk about since I started making these videos a few months ago.
Consider this my most definitive work up 'til now, I suppose.
Here's my big takeaway:
If these questions for SJWs taught me ANYTHING,
it's that we who are in support of social justice
need to do a much better job of presenting our cause to them.
It's my belief that anti-feminism hasn't had
too much intellectual criticism levied against it,
and that's something that it SORELY needs.
A lot of Youtube feminists speak using the jargon of their own,
which possibly contributes to the amount of times they seem to get "rekt."
However, there are people on this platform that are extending
an olive branch of sorts to the other side.
People like Garrett, hbomberguy, Chrisiousity,
Kristi Winters, ContraPoints, The Skeptic Feminist,
Michael Rowlands, demotivator, Captain Andy,
and so many others I could mention are beginning to approach
dealing with anti-feminism in a more level-headed way.
Even if they can be jokesters.
They speak clearly and rationally about their beliefs, and you can find yourself easily convinced by them,
even though they all approach feminism in slightly different ways.
It's come with some pushback,
but I think they've definitely planted the seeds for more
rational discussions about social justice down the line.
And maybe I can join in that shift as well.
So... thanks, you privileged, white, cishet male scum.
You've enlightened me in ways you probably didn't have in mind.
Thanks very much to all of you who stuck around for this entire video,
I know it probably went on for a long time.
I haven't finished editing it, but I'm gonna assume it's...
...20 minutes, or so.
Editing Thom, put whatever time this went onscreen right now.
Um, if you feel a certain way about anything I said,
you can leave a comment below,
I implore you to keep it civil,
sorry, Garrett, I just stole your-
- stole your damn catchphra-
If you enjoyed this video and you want to see more,
you can feel free to subscribe,
because this won't be the last video I do.
I'll leave you with some links to my other videos,
um, onscreen somewhere right now should be my playlist for
An Anarchist Response to the RESIST Supercut,
which are some older video I made, but I think are still...
...halfway decent.
And somewhere else onscreen will be my
ongoing playlist of my Buzzwords From The Right series.
I do- I don't know where it's going [laughs]
I've given you enough things to click on, and do,
and comment, and this video's gone on for far too long now,
so I'll just, uh- I'll leave you now.
My name's Thom, and until next time,
Agitate, Educate, Organize.
