Still not sure if that was the actual Jason Pullara, a.k.a. LordKaT from That Guy with the Glass and Until We Win (which I used to watch) or just an impersonator. However, since Pullara has put himself on the side of GG it wouldn't be too far fetched. Not sure why he would just show up here though but he fucked off rather quickly too.
It was him. I had some conversations with him (unrelated to all this: for a convention), and he joined the forum around that time. I didn't know who he was before we started our email exchange, but as soon as the GG stuff came out I dropped the thread.
He left shortly after people started arguing against gamergate here, and even tweeted about how angry he was about the level of discourse in a certain unnamed forum.
So are all the people from That Guy With Glasses proGG? I never got into that section of fandom. It seems from random reading of posts, that their content and fandom is something I probably wouldn't want to get into.
So are all the people from That Guy With Glasses proGG? I never got into that section of fandom. It seems from random reading of posts, that their content and fandom is something I probably wouldn't want to get into.
As someone who was in the "inside" trust me, you don't. I have never interacted with a group of high school level "it table" as them and many have lied to get where they are, the Z list.
In short Jason got booted from Twitter by having one of the women report on him sending lamp pictures because troll. He is now on Facebook and works as a stream engineer in NYC.
I feel bad for the guy since knowing him that he is a really cool dude who bettered himself after bad situations with the TGWTG site and it's fans, because he in genually someone who cares about the people he is with. However the views he talks about are so off base it's hard to work with.
It's a shame because there ARE nice people that were on the site but the shit they stood around for and said nothing about makes me sick being associated with them.
My two cents on the matter, hope that clears a few things up.
Not as far as I'm aware. At the very least, Gators seem to think he's a, quote, "Pandering SJW fuck", so I doubt it. At worst, he's made no real statement on the issue, but I'm not exactly looking hard.
Still not sure if that was the actual Jason Pullara, a.k.a. LordKaT from That Guy with the Glass and Until We Win (which I used to watch) or just an impersonator. However, since Pullara has put himself on the side of GG it wouldn't be too far fetched. Not sure why he would just show up here though but he fucked off rather quickly too.
It was him. I had some conversations with him (unrelated to all this: for a convention), and he joined the forum around that time. I didn't know who he was before we started our email exchange, but as soon as the GG stuff came out I dropped the thread.
He left shortly after people started arguing against gamergate here, and even tweeted about how angry he was about the level of discourse in a certain unnamed forum.
Yeah, maybe that was just me being in denial. I really loved Until We Win and that guy going to the dark side was really disappointing.
I've ducked out of a few of Walker's recent reviews when he starts playing the "both sides" narrative, i.e. hardcore MRA types and Tumblr SJWs are indistinguishable. While I understand the distaste for Tumblr's SJWs, there's a big difference between teens learning how to be liberal through failure, and pick-up artists who are absolute scum.
So, tl;dr, it doesn't seem like he's at all pro-Gamergate, but he also seems like a "comedy is making fun of everyone equally" kind of guy, which just isn't really my taste these days.
I would assume he would have a "Both sides are stupid and dumb" type of mentality or a "what's this Gamergate-thingy", complete unawareness and naivete like James Rolfe.
But if I recall, most former big Channel Awesome people are antiGG and liberal from their opinions on Twitter since the event. Even when Angry Joe tried to touch on the subject neutrally in a list video, he got crapped on it for not being pro-Gamergate completely. (Since GGers tend to do that)
Not as far as I'm aware. At the very least, Gators seem to think he's a, quote, "Pandering SJW fuck", so I doubt it. At worst, he's made no real statement on the issue, but I'm not exactly looking hard.
It's best to customize him as ignorant on these matters, for as much of a presence he has he knows NOTHING about online culture.
I'm against anyone bringing online shit flinging to meatspace, period. So yeah, doxing and personal harassment/threats from either side is a big no. However, in a completely anecdotal view of the situation, I've seen most tumblr doxers and shit flingers to be spontaneous groups and/or individuals. This is unlike the gator's organized "operations".
It's best to customize him as ignorant on these matters, for as much of a presence he has he knows NOTHING about online culture.
People like him or Rolfe worry me, as it's almost impossible to be that ignorant of a widely discussed topic, in your space, for years. To even hint that there are "two sides" to this reeks of sympathy for one particular side.
With Rolfe, sure, he just doesn't know things. But then he comes out with his odd "I won't review Ghostbusters" thing. In a vacuum, yes, it's possible to have a strong opinion on that specific movie's provenance in relation to the original movie. But it's highly suspect to have that specific opinion when it's primarily the "anti-SJW" and MRA crowd that expresses said opinion.
One highly suspect opinion, in a vacuum, means nothing. One pointed silence on a particular issue, in a vacuum, means nothing. But all those little things, in aggregate, can paint a picture, put their words and actions in a place verymuch outside a vacuum.
At best, they know, but keep quiet because their fans are horrible. At worst, they know and sympathize. I'm highly suspect of any claims to ignorance.
Claims of ignorance are highly suspect. However, Rolfe has always been ignorant. Except on the topic of horror movies, he is extremely lacking in knowledge. Even about old video games, his primary focus, he often knows less than I do.
He is a person who does no research, and reads barely any Internet. All of his videos contain at least one, often several, gaps in knowledge that will infuriate every nerd who knows how wrong he is. He also seems to have an anti-intellectual attitude. He actively doesn't want to learn things, or adapt newer better ways of doing things.
Still, even he must know of the existence of GamerGate. The problem is that, like many people, he has a very anti-confrontational attitude. They see a shit-storm and they just stay away. They see any shit-storm as a bad thing in and of itself, regardless of content. They then see anyone involved in that storm as a bad actor since they are riling things up. The people who are not fighting are by default, the good reasonable people.
What they don't realize is that decrying all shit-storms and avoiding all conflict without taking sides is a defacto defense of the status quo. You can't not be on a side. Because such people actively avoid learning or involving themselves in anything, they don't even know they have taken a side.
Ignorance is only an excuse when it isn't willful ignorance, and AVGN is without question one of the most willfully ignorant geek celebrities I have ever known of.
Ignorance is only an excuse when it isn't willful ignorance...
Even then, what constitutes "willful ignorance?" If a person is vaguely aware of a given subject and has the means and opportunities to learn about said subject but chooses not to due to lack of interest, do they get a pass? To my mind, this is somewhat passive willful ignorance, but it is willful nonetheless because a choice was made.
Ignorance is only an excuse when it isn't willful ignorance...
Even then, what constitutes "willful ignorance?" If a person is vaguely aware of a given subject and has the means and opportunities to learn about said subject but chooses not to due to lack of interest, do they get a pass? To my mind, this is somewhat passive willful ignorance, but it is willful nonetheless because a choice was made.
Willful ignorance is when you reasonably could have and should have known something, but didn't because you chose not to learn. Doesn't matter if it's laziness or lack of caring.
Non-willful ignorance is when you didn't know something because information was kept hidden/secret, or because you didn't have the capability to learn it easily enough despite trying.
Let me think of an example...
At an amusement park there is a line for a roller coaster. You must be this tall to ride. A short person is at the front of the line after waiting an hour. The ride attendant doesn't allow them to ride.
First scenario, there was clear signage at the back of the line so you can see it before you wait. It wasn't hidden. They just didn't read it. Someone even tried to warn them while they were waiting, but they brushed them off because they couldn't be bothered. They suffered because of their refusal to learn and/or listen. That's willful ignorance.
Next scenario. The sign was non-existent. Hidden. Faded. Maybe it was at the front of the line instead of the back. They read the brochure and web site, and there was no mention of such rules. They were ignorant, but it's not their fault. They put in a reasonable effort to learn, but the information was kept from them. They have a right to be pissed off.
Ok, same deal, except the person is illiterate, or maybe they are from a foreign country and don't speak or read the local language well enough. Where they are from, there aren't such safety rules. They were permitted to ride many roller coasters without incident. The thought they wouldn't be allowed on doesn't even cross their mind. This is ignorance, but it's not willful. Nobody is at fault. It's just a sad situation for both parties.
Especially in the age of Internet, and especially for people who have easy access to the Internet, ignorance is less of an excuse than ever. I hold people responsible for not knowing things they should know that they could have known with a reasonable effort.
Your example has too many grey areas. This, like almost everything in meatspace is a spectrum and you haven't even drawn a line other than the word reasonable. How anyone would go about drawing a line is a question unto itself.
TMartin's defense was that the fact he owned that bs scaming website was public knowledge and anyone could have gone to the city hall of the place he incorperated it and seen his name on the document, or if they have a website could have easily searched for that document there.
Obviously you can just say: well that's not reasonable. But now who gets to say what is and isn't reasonable amounts of effort to have your ignorance be excusable? You? That answer differs from person to person and case to case.
Like what about the average person's ignorance of how computers work and how to troubleshoot the simplest of simple problems? Are they responsible for that and as such should we nerds let them wallow in their own ignorance as it's their own fault for not being the kind of person who's first instinct is to google everything?
Your example has too many grey areas. This, like almost everything in meatspace is a spectrum and you haven't even drawn a line other than the word reasonable. How anyone would go about drawing a line is a question unto itself.
TMartin's defense was that the fact he owned that bs scaming website was public knowledge and anyone could have gone to the city hall of the place he incorperated it and seen his name on the document, or if they have a website could have easily searched for that document there.
Obviously you can just say: well that's not reasonable. But now who gets to say what is and isn't reasonable amounts of effort to have your ignorance be excusable? You? That answer differs from person to person and case to case.
Like what about the average person's ignorance of how computers work and how to troubleshoot the simplest of simple problems? Are they responsible for that and as such should we nerds let them wallow in their own ignorance as it's their own fault for not being the kind of person who's first instinct is to google everything?
I think my "could and should" requirement sufficiently sharpens the gray area for most situations.
Let's use your computer knowledge example.
Could a person learn? Did they have access to computers and computer education? Were they not born long before PCs were commonplace? Were they born in a place without computers? Were they born disadvantaged in some way that they learning computers was not possible for them?
Should they learn? Are they going to be in a situation where they have to use computers? Did they apply for some computer-using job? Are they engaging with society in such a way that computer usage is necessary? Did they buy a computer and try to use it? Or are they living a nice life in the woods truly without any need to ever touch a computer?
If someone could and should know something, I hold them responsible to some degree if they do not know.
Rolfe's ignorance on Internet culture sticks out the more I hear stories on the guy. Apparently he and Mike Mattei didn't know about Twitch until last year. But even doing the barest amount of research on Ghostbusters would have brought up the anti-feminist commentary. He made the video not wanting to think about that issue, just talk about how much of a Ghostbusters purest he was. I mean, he is growing connections within the Screenwave Media that funds him and Team Four Star and Super Best Friends, so he can't be 100% geek illiterate.
I think he could have gotten away from being completely ignorant...if he didn't have neoreactionary game whiner AlphaOmegaSin in some his house touring videos. That is the same level of ignorance like when ThatGuyWithTheGlasses hired TheAmazingAtheist for a while. And everyone went "Why is this guy here? He doesn't fit in the model of this website! Don't you know what he does?!" Instances like those make you question willful ignorance like mad. Being in the Internet Celebrity game for so long...you have to understand what kind of impact you make.
I have to also honestly say that my personal perspective is also skewed by the sheer amount of Internet that I read. I read almost everything. I spend most of my day at work reading Internet, and I read it way way faster and more efficiently than anyone I've ever met.
Obviously I can't expect that from other people. If you are a member of the geek community, you must read Internet. Yet, how do I measure? If someone reads a moderate amount, instead of the complete insane amount that I read, how much will they know? If someone checks RSS feeds and Twitter just once a day instead of 100, what can I expect from them?
How do I tell if someone is willfully ignorant and knows nothing, or if they are reading a moderate amount and just don't know a few particular things? In an extreme case like AVGN it's easy to see. But in a normal case, it is not so simple.
Comments
He left shortly after people started arguing against gamergate here, and even tweeted about how angry he was about the level of discourse in a certain unnamed forum.
Good day sir.
In short Jason got booted from Twitter by having one of the women report on him sending lamp pictures because troll. He is now on Facebook and works as a stream engineer in NYC.
I feel bad for the guy since knowing him that he is a really cool dude who bettered himself after bad situations with the TGWTG site and it's fans, because he in genually someone who cares about the people he is with. However the views he talks about are so off base it's hard to work with.
It's a shame because there ARE nice people that were on the site but the shit they stood around for and said nothing about makes me sick being associated with them.
My two cents on the matter, hope that clears a few things up.
So, tl;dr, it doesn't seem like he's at all pro-Gamergate, but he also seems like a "comedy is making fun of everyone equally" kind of guy, which just isn't really my taste these days.
But if I recall, most former big Channel Awesome people are antiGG and liberal from their opinions on Twitter since the event. Even when Angry Joe tried to touch on the subject neutrally in a list video, he got crapped on it for not being pro-Gamergate completely. (Since GGers tend to do that)
With Rolfe, sure, he just doesn't know things. But then he comes out with his odd "I won't review Ghostbusters" thing. In a vacuum, yes, it's possible to have a strong opinion on that specific movie's provenance in relation to the original movie. But it's highly suspect to have that specific opinion when it's primarily the "anti-SJW" and MRA crowd that expresses said opinion.
One highly suspect opinion, in a vacuum, means nothing. One pointed silence on a particular issue, in a vacuum, means nothing. But all those little things, in aggregate, can paint a picture, put their words and actions in a place verymuch outside a vacuum.
At best, they know, but keep quiet because their fans are horrible. At worst, they know and sympathize. I'm highly suspect of any claims to ignorance.
He is a person who does no research, and reads barely any Internet. All of his videos contain at least one, often several, gaps in knowledge that will infuriate every nerd who knows how wrong he is. He also seems to have an anti-intellectual attitude. He actively doesn't want to learn things, or adapt newer better ways of doing things.
Still, even he must know of the existence of GamerGate. The problem is that, like many people, he has a very anti-confrontational attitude. They see a shit-storm and they just stay away. They see any shit-storm as a bad thing in and of itself, regardless of content. They then see anyone involved in that storm as a bad actor since they are riling things up. The people who are not fighting are by default, the good reasonable people.
What they don't realize is that decrying all shit-storms and avoiding all conflict without taking sides is a defacto defense of the status quo. You can't not be on a side. Because such people actively avoid learning or involving themselves in anything, they don't even know they have taken a side.
Ignorance is only an excuse when it isn't willful ignorance, and AVGN is without question one of the most willfully ignorant geek celebrities I have ever known of.
Non-willful ignorance is when you didn't know something because information was kept hidden/secret, or because you didn't have the capability to learn it easily enough despite trying.
Let me think of an example...
At an amusement park there is a line for a roller coaster. You must be this tall to ride. A short person is at the front of the line after waiting an hour. The ride attendant doesn't allow them to ride.
First scenario, there was clear signage at the back of the line so you can see it before you wait. It wasn't hidden. They just didn't read it. Someone even tried to warn them while they were waiting, but they brushed them off because they couldn't be bothered. They suffered because of their refusal to learn and/or listen. That's willful ignorance.
Next scenario. The sign was non-existent. Hidden. Faded. Maybe it was at the front of the line instead of the back. They read the brochure and web site, and there was no mention of such rules. They were ignorant, but it's not their fault. They put in a reasonable effort to learn, but the information was kept from them. They have a right to be pissed off.
Ok, same deal, except the person is illiterate, or maybe they are from a foreign country and don't speak or read the local language well enough. Where they are from, there aren't such safety rules. They were permitted to ride many roller coasters without incident. The thought they wouldn't be allowed on doesn't even cross their mind. This is ignorance, but it's not willful. Nobody is at fault. It's just a sad situation for both parties.
Especially in the age of Internet, and especially for people who have easy access to the Internet, ignorance is less of an excuse than ever. I hold people responsible for not knowing things they should know that they could have known with a reasonable effort.
TMartin's defense was that the fact he owned that bs scaming website was public knowledge and anyone could have gone to the city hall of the place he incorperated it and seen his name on the document, or if they have a website could have easily searched for that document there.
Obviously you can just say: well that's not reasonable. But now who gets to say what is and isn't reasonable amounts of effort to have your ignorance be excusable? You? That answer differs from person to person and case to case.
Like what about the average person's ignorance of how computers work and how to troubleshoot the simplest of simple problems? Are they responsible for that and as such should we nerds let them wallow in their own ignorance as it's their own fault for not being the kind of person who's first instinct is to google everything?
Let's use your computer knowledge example.
Could a person learn? Did they have access to computers and computer education? Were they not born long before PCs were commonplace? Were they born in a place without computers? Were they born disadvantaged in some way that they learning computers was not possible for them?
Should they learn? Are they going to be in a situation where they have to use computers? Did they apply for some computer-using job? Are they engaging with society in such a way that computer usage is necessary? Did they buy a computer and try to use it? Or are they living a nice life in the woods truly without any need to ever touch a computer?
If someone could and should know something, I hold them responsible to some degree if they do not know.
I would generally distrust their opinions, would avoid any prolonged conversation with them, etc...
I think he could have gotten away from being completely ignorant...if he didn't have neoreactionary game whiner AlphaOmegaSin in some his house touring videos. That is the same level of ignorance like when ThatGuyWithTheGlasses hired TheAmazingAtheist for a while. And everyone went "Why is this guy here? He doesn't fit in the model of this website! Don't you know what he does?!" Instances like those make you question willful ignorance like mad. Being in the Internet Celebrity game for so long...you have to understand what kind of impact you make.
Obviously I can't expect that from other people. If you are a member of the geek community, you must read Internet. Yet, how do I measure? If someone reads a moderate amount, instead of the complete insane amount that I read, how much will they know? If someone checks RSS feeds and Twitter just once a day instead of 100, what can I expect from them?
How do I tell if someone is willfully ignorant and knows nothing, or if they are reading a moderate amount and just don't know a few particular things? In an extreme case like AVGN it's easy to see. But in a normal case, it is not so simple.