Bro finding out today people can have different preferences than him and not be stupid. Some of us did that around the kindergarten but I'm glad you've joined us in this experience!
To be fair, in the case of the D&D OGL scandal, a bunch of D&D youtubers campaigned for everyone to boycott Hasbro/WotC and cancel their D&D Beyond subscriptions, and apparently the cancellations hurt WotC's bottom line to the point that it's the reason they backpedalled so hard and even put the basic rules out under Creative Commons. So in this case, collective outrage actually translated into collective action and worked. Not that that's how collective outrage usually works, or that Josh should have been involved, just wanted to point out that everyone forgave WotC not because they got bored and switched to the next shiny thing, but because WotC actually reversed their unpopular policy under pressure.
But also to be fair, what happened in the D&D OGL scandal is rare in today's landscape, where people actually turned their anger into useful action to get things done. I mean, how often does that happen? I'm pretty sure we've seen our fair share of outrage where literally nothing changed. Personally, if everybody who got angry at a thing, turned their anger into useful work, we could solve so many problems.
@@Masterlikers It happened again with Helldivers 2, it happened even with WOW, now has blizzard reversed course on everything no, they have improved wow. It can work but it needs a unified effort from a % of the playerbase. Otherwise its just raging at the darkness.
Same with Helldivers 2, I think. I don't think the PSN requirement would be reverted if not for the public outcry. It's hard to make difference between being reasonably distant from all the dramas and being complaisant.
@@tenaciousgamer6892 Considering the state that WoW was in... it would be hard *not* to improve things. When you're nearly at rock bottom, just about anything you do is going to be an improvement.
@@nickt2822 I actually disagree. People are incredibly rational, we work within a framework of values and morals and we are quite consistent in that. The issue arises when those values and morals clash.
@@SilentNyite are those values and morals based on rational conclusions? Do people actually have those values and morals or do they just engage with them performatively?
Everyone moved on from the DnD thing in part because Hasbro reverted their decision, so there was no more need for public outcry. People are also moving on from being angry about Helldivers 2 because the Sony decision was reverted. If you know that people only have 6 months of interest in something and you think it matters to address the issue, you have to address it now. Sometimes being critical of a game has more value in the immediate, because that's when you have more of a chance to get a company to listen to you. It's not about joining the mob in anger for prestige, it's about getting decision makers to listen when it matters.
This is why I somewhat agree and disagree with Josh in this video. There's a big difference between "Rap Beef" drama, CEO vs. CEO personal drama, and drama about business decisions that hurt consumers. If a company that makes products I love is making drastic changes to their business model, outrage is good! You're right. I can enjoy the games they've already made, but I might not be able to enjoy their new ones in the future. That's the "forest for the trees" picture for me.
While I understand what Josh is saying, I don't agree with his follow up solution/suggestion. The example he gave was about the D&D OGL contreversy that happened, and how he decided to just give it six months and everyone will just move on and that's why he didn't get mad or say anything about it (hope I am not misrepresenting what he said in this video). If everyone reacts to most things like he did, then why should we even care about any shady/bad practices that happen, the drama will die down in 6 months anyway. We should just let companies revoke access to games we paid for when they feel like it, since most people don't care anyway so we are just shouting to the void. Microtransactions? why should we complain about them and other predatory practices like lootboxes. We should have just let Sony impose its PSN restriction because most people don't care anyway. The Sony Helldiver situation in particular is why I disagree with his way of thinking. If everyone followed his suggestion, they would think no one cares and therefore they just keep quiet, and then everyone else who cares also would have thought no cares so would also be quiet. So basically a bunch of people who care would just keep quiet since they assume no one cares.
That's absolutely true for these things and even more so for really important issues like politics (although that's another topic I don't want to talk about here). I agree with your point as much as Josh's. But I think Josh's point was more like this: You can't give a damn every time something goes wrong. Because if you do, it hurts your psyche in the long run. And that doesn't help anyone. So maybe you shouldn't react too strongly to at least some things, even if they were done on purpose. And if you can't do that, you could distance yourself from the media so that you don't see every bad thing. You could spin it further by saying, “Yeah, but that's the point. To get people to the point where they just can't be angry anymore and now they're doing the really questionable and problematic things." Maybe you still have the energy to care if you had enough distance from some of the things that went wrong, maybe it wouldn't have gotten to that point at all if you or other people had cared sooner. But you just can't know.
I know what you mean, if no one makes a noise, then nothing gets done. But i'll be honest when I was younger I always got heated about every big world event. Now, I dont let it get to me as much and im much happier. So i'll let whoever wants to protest protest. I'm not gonna get involved tho. Too much for me. I think in the gaming scene the biggest thing is voting with our wallets. Personally I dont buy any new games. I've got too much of a backlog and im trying to get through it lol. But if people are buying games with awful practices in them, the company takes that as a win. No matter how much people are upset about it on twitter or whatever. Money talks louder
Frankly, if it continued to get worse as you say, then people just won't buy the games anymore and the company will wonder why the bottom line is getting screwed. It'll come out in the wash one way or another.
Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. Josh's point wasnt that we should just shut up and accept things for how they are. But that if you feel strongly, engage in discussion with those that care and dont be aggressive about it. Beating someone over the head has never led them to conclude you are correct, just bred resentment. The waiting is also just vetting what is an actual problem vs a temporary uproar. There are internet dramas that are akin to highschool kids bullying each other or gossiping - that's hardly worth the time and will die out in a couple weeks. The important things people will remember and will be a point of contention down the road. To give an example: The helldivers situation was reversed because of a co-ordinated effort on Sony's bottom line with their steam review scores as well as widespread disapproval. This is basically unheard of for so many gamers to come together on such a scale with no dissenting opinions. This was not achieved by spewing vitriol and hatred towards the company/disagreeing opinions, but a collective effort that directly affected the company's performance. Actions speak louder than words, especially with companies.
"You can't beat someone into agreeing with you" is the most true statement that nobody seems to understand. Believe what you believe, and fight for what you believe in if you genuinely think it's worth it. But don't attack others for not immediately agreeing with you. In fact, that's one of the best ways to get someone to dig in their heels about the very opinion you want to change. This is why over-Activism ends up ruining the genuine points of a movement. Seek to learn and understand, ask someone why they think the way they do, and honestly attempt to examine each piece within the context of their experience. Then, when you build that rapport of trying to understand them, they will be more willing to understand you when you slowly share your own thoughts and feelings and reasons. We change each other's minds slowly, by reason and understanding and empathy, not by "winning" arguments. You can sometimes change immediate action with harshness, but you do so at the cost of sometimes permanent future distaste for your opinion.
I find I have the most productive conversations when I agree with them on some things and I give ground on my own arguments. From there, it no longer feels like a debate but a discussion and the person I'm talking to lowers their defenses are therefore, more receptive to my argument
It's not that they don't understand, it's that that isn't the point. It's about feeling addictive, righteous rage. It's not about convincing people you're right, it's about feeling good about hating other people.
I forget which study it was, I used to be able to cite the year, the name of the Study, and the 3 orgs it involved... But fuck it. Several years ago a study was conducted (I wanna say 2016) showing a control group of people absolutely verified 100 percent facts, from all sources. Snopes, Politico, Fox, NPR, CNN, BBC, and MANY unnamed sources. The vast majority of them (over 70 percent) disavowed absolutely anything coming from a source they deemed illegitimate, and were wholly open to the unnamed sources. (unnamed sources would be revealed as Facebook and Reddit posts) A second control group (smaller than the first) was then sat with an expert in certain fields. (Sociology, statisticians, people who literally run numbers and data for a living) And the rate in which the second control group vehemently denied numerical based facts showed what the study was investigating: The concept that there IS LARGELY ZERO change of mind to be had in the modern day with modern information technology, given verified information from any source you could conceivably want. ...that fucking sucks.
Worth noting that it depends on the discussion but very often it's not about convincing the person you're arguing with, it's about convincing the audience. Just gotta read the room and play to what people are likely to respond well to.
@@thunderbagel3886 Truth. Even if I 100% don't agree with an argument, finding common ground is the best basis for a start of a conversation. But, from my experience, there's still lots of people that tend to not want to have conversations but would much rather want their opinion to be the right one. But also I feel like having a conversation face to face would be a lot more understanding/productive than one online. That same person that just wants their opinion to be right would probably be a lot more willing to have a conversation if it were face to face. Tend to be less aggressive as well.
I'm wedged in that weird place where I don't participate in that drama (never really cared to), but I consume the content around it like candy, despite audibly telling myself often man I really don't care, I should stop. The brain is fickle, I really need a heavy social media detox.
I love watching drama cause most of the time I find it so funny. Usually if you take a step back most drama is just absurd. Recently I have been watching a lot of Final Fantasy 14 Online drama, and it’s great. Just a bunch of weird people arguing over the littlest things. Like you said it’s just candy.
This has been me and the whole Illuminati lawsuit drama. I really don't care, I rarely watched anything she put out because her niche wasn't my corner of the internet, but I'm finding a ton of humor in watching her flail around pretending her situation is the fault of literally anyone but herself. I also sometimes listen to The Right Opinion's hour+ videos about the rise and fall of RUclipsrs not because I care at all, but because it's entertaining in some weird way. I'd actually be kinda interested in learning why brains do this kind of thing.
That's the same with me and most drama, only stuff the past year I stuck around for was the sssniperwolf stuff, the iilluminaughtii stuff and a few other things, but that's because I care for the people involved. I've been watching Jacksfilms for nearly half my 30 something life, and I enjoyed Oz's, Clicks and OneTopic's content since the start of the reddit wave, so why wouldn't I? Everything else is like candy, but I don't begrudge people for not caring about the real people involved, there's more than 7 billion people here, we can't care about everyone.
i love watching it too from the sides, as some noise in the background in a video when i do something. There is imo nothing wrong with enjoying other people tearing apart. The issue is in the people arguing against each other, trying to convince their side is the correct one. Idk really why it is so much fun to watch drama stuff, but watching and participating are two different pair of shoes. :)
I have found that people get really confused when you don't have a discussion to win an argument but to form or reassess your own opinion. To many, "I have a different opinion from yours and we can leave it at that" is not a valid outcome. Some get angry when you agree with them too early without getting angry at them. They want to be right, they want to fight, they want to get a certain feeling but they don't care about the topic at hand.
Aggression works in the world. I was in business for years and always went to work swinging, no one got in the way of my competitiveness in the IT industry, made to MD. Also, when I was in the military and a Prison Officer violence was often the solution over being clever, most times we did both at once. Too clever = dumb, clever = often being ignored. I think there is a case for being, clever and aggressive, it all depends on the context. Don't mess with those that have power, they will come out swinging in a flash. You appear to like to argue with complete dumbf*cks, my advice is don't. lol
It's especially "fun" when you have enough of an understanding of the issue to see the complexities with the solutions the person is pushing for even when you agree
The crazy part is that, the average gamer is not only not following gaming news, they are also not playing said games with all the drama happening. All these insane "big" games we talk about, and all these super big hit indies like helldivers 2 and palworld, are like barely in the 10% of the entire gaming market compared to every person who plays a video game of some kind. Ask any gamer who casually opens their ps4 or switch to play the same game for a year they still haven't finished, which is probably from a very popular franchise like zelda or GTA, and I bet you they will have no idea of 90% of the games you mention that "the entire internet knows".
so true I'm in my late 30s I played Helldivers for a few days had a blast got to level 10 and havn't touched it since still haven't had a chance to play palworld mostly because I'm still working my way through bg3 from last year I keep restarting and trying new characters and play options only made it to chapter 3 once, but I see all this drama and just ignore it since I got real drama in my life that is way more important then a game selling some skins or requiring to make an account somewhere to play it, yeah it sucks for the people that are now region locked but I don't have the time to be upset when I'm dealing with health issues and making sure the bills are paid and praying my car doesn't break down randomly
Me everytime ttrpg drama comes up. The _entire_ ttrpg playerbase is estimated (and this is almost certainly an overestimate), ~40 million, with a fraction of that being concurrently active. There are individual video games with larger active playerbases than the entire active ttrpg playerbase, which is a major factor in the difficulty of finding people to play anything other than D&D. For as much as it has grown in recent years, it is still pretty niche.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 if that's your way of saying that I made it up, then I didn't. All I said was an abridged version of what I heard in the "Dropped frames" podcast. Who pulled this from real statistics done by actual data analysts. If you want to debunk someone, better fact check it first.
Every single time I've changed my mind on something, or became open to a new idea, it was because the person expressing the idea was being respectful and just calmly talking about what they believed, not yelling or trying to "win", or coming up with the most epic clapback of all time.
@@mariannarasauce I used to be like that too, but eventually you get sick of getting in shouting matches with people, and you learn to disregard idiots while supporting what you believe in and forging the better life that you strive for. Not getting into arguments doesn't mean you give in or concede to someone doing harm. It just means you don't waste time or energy getting into useless arguments.
"People don't necessarily want to agree with facts, they want to agree with feelings." Something I remember realising was that whenever someone said something upsetting to me, explaining why it upset me was way more successful than telling them not to say that. It does rely on the other person having the empathy to do that, but if they don't then you at least know where you stand with them.
“They want to agree with you because they like you” Awwww “This is how cults work” Oh… oh no Still absolutely lovely way to approach this though, and definitely helps me out. Thank you for your Wisdom Josh
Ive seen a lot of channels that just exist to get angry at shit that either is not that bad, or blown out of proportion. Like those guys whos whole channel is pretending that [current game] is being under attack. when actually its like 3 twitter accounts and 6 rage bait articles and most people dont care. they invent an enemy.
That just most social media today, tate, ben shabino, crowder. They all make up ghosts for loney white dudes to swing at. Its no diffirent with stuff like this. People monitize others hatred.
@@cyanmage1 I do, and I think it's awful. But yeah, Sony pushed that into the background hard with their demand for PC players to sign up to a PSN account. lol
There is a lot of streamers who use outrage just for the sake of farming views. Not everything needs to have a visceral emotional response and it seems there's an intense focus to find that angle in every game that comes out now... "what can we be upset about in this one?" mentality is getting old man.
I remember the day I stopped trying to get wrapped up in drama. I was part of the bandwagon that turned against ProJared back when the accusations against him came out. When he came back months later with the proof of his innocence and the lies the other people spread against him, it woke me up to how scummy it had been to just... Immediately pick a side. With everything going on with The Completionist, I completely avoided getting wrapped up in it. Everything with the D&D update I tried to avoid. The only times I pay attention to 'drama' are the rare times they actually directly affect me. Like, I don't know if this is drama, but the StopKillingGames campaign is something I'll gladly wave the flag for, because multiple games I loved are unplayable now. I don't know. I hate that it took me directly facing consequences to realize how much I'd been being an idiot. But I'm glad that I did figure it out before I went too far down that rabbit hole.
Some people don't like drama, or wading neck-deep in it. Plenty of others can and will do that job, so there's no reason for *everyone* to get into it.
I do think there are rare exceptions to this with big controversies like awful business practices that are anti consumer we should push back against, the Escape From Tarkov fiasco is a great example but with most drama we should all just take a step back and chill out.
There is reasonable and unreasonable outcry. It's often hard to tell them apart when you're not in the loop, but in these cases it was reasonable and the outcry stopped once the people got what they demanded.
I agree with your take for the most part, but actually, the D&D OGL drama was actually resolved due to the backlash. Hasbro released the SRD to Creative Commons. They did that shortly before the movie's release. Unfortunately, a lot of people were still angry and the movie suffered. Hasbro/WotC has done other things since then.
Yeah, thats kinda the thing, people especially online, dont care. Heck, majority of people even dropped real world problems, like russia invading Ukraine, which is still going on to this day. Everyone went from screaming that they care, to just ignoring it. The Hogwarts legacy drama is another, while there still are people who harass others for just saying jk Rowlings real name, majority of the people who screamed for the boycott has just..... Stopped caring. And it just goes on like this. Over and over.
Virtue signalling is out of control. People just want others to perceive them as hyper-empathetic and standing against social injustice when really they don't care at all. They only care about fitting in and recieving affirmation from other members of their cult. I've found that most people who act this way are actually the opposite of what they're trying to convey - they love putting people down and making themselves feel superior.
well its hard to care about something happening on the other side of the world to people you don't know will never know when you have problems around you that you can actually deal with, what I'm a supposed to do about a global super power if I can't even get my insurance company to cover a medical bill that is putting me in debt or how can I stop thousands of years of built of hate when I'm barely hold my own life together and this is why I don't care its so far beyond my ability to fix its not worth the effort to even begin yes its horrible but what is getting upset going to do
No shit they stopped caring, do you understand how boycotts work? Do you think people are just going to go out and say "dont buy the 2023 harry potter game" every day for the rest of their lives? A boycott is a temporary thing. Just because people stopped talking about it doesnt mean they like went back and bought the game anyway lmao 🤣
I feel like i outgrew most of my internet friends watching them upset about everything while I'm just vibing because I just can't be asked with drama anymore. Its a bit of a somber feeling evolving into a gamer boomer but liberating tbh
I find myself moving in that direction because I have less time for drama than I used to. But at the same time, like with protestors for legitimately important causes, I have to celebrate the battles won by people raising their voices. If a game company that makes my favorite games ends their plans to do something exploitative to consumers because of the "online warriors", I owe them my gratitude even if I don't have the time to join them.
@@MachFiveFalcon I've had a similar reaction, but more in the other direction. I have _no_ trust left for the big names anymore, and can't be assed to turn my brain off and enjoy a game if I'm always wondering in the back of my head if I'll even have access to it further down the line for whatever of about eight different technical reasons, or God forbid it's a live service model that ends up making sweeping, even _more_ exploitative changes to how it functions. In either scenario a game I once enjoyed is simply no more. GTA 6 isn't even on my radar because the Rockstar Social Club is such a mindblowingly awful POS that it prevented me from ever being able to launch RDR2, and retroactively broke GTA 5. I don't even have the patience left to give Nintendo anymore and can't think of a company that has more outward disdain for its own fanbase, let alone their insistence on putting their own legacy to torch and the flame with their war on emulation. Thank God the indie scene is alive and well.
@@MediaMunkee Maybe what you're describing is what I meant originally - I'm still trying to figure it out lol. I'm done with drama, but I don't have any trust left either. I buy physical copies of Nintendo games because I still have some semblance of ownership, and I love indies as well. Good Old Games is the last bastion for AAA games without the DRM BS for me.
I find that the really important things are outside the world of drama. Even when there is drama involved in an important political issue it tends to be the least important part.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 Ya - and with games, interpersonal/Twitter drama with publishers isn't important, but changes in game development that lead to unnecessary studio closures and exploitation of consumers is important.
Not that Josh is wrong entirely here, but I think a thing he's missing is that when it comes to inane internet drama, the combatants usually aren't trying to convince each other; if they're committed enough to a position to be looking to argue about it with strangers, odds are good that their opinion is pretty calcified and unable to be changed (at least, not by someone they're talking with on the internet). They're looking to "win" in the eyes of those who are undecided and may come across the argument without a formed opinion. Which is why so often it's not about a comprehensive, well-thought-out critique, but rather about just getting that mic-drop moment of dunking on someone in a way that can be clipped or screen-shotted. Now, is it likely that a person without a formed opinion would come across these arguments? Probably not. But that's a more likely scenario than convincing the person on the other side of the argument. I also think that we have to be careful about what we put in the category of "inane internet drama" to begin with. Some controversies, even if they are being propped up by culture war outrage merchants, are nevertheless legitimate issues that meaningfully impact people's lives. The idea that people don't want you to complicate their feelgood is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that we should refrain from doing it in situations that warrant it. The issue is that everyone has a different idea of what warrants it, and people's politics and levels of privilege impact what critiques they view as legitimate. So yes, while there are absolutely outrage merchants who push these issues to foam up resentment in others (and money for themselves), they're only able to do that because of these existing differences of opinion, which are the natural result of people's differing experiences. We can loathe the people who hustle controversy for profit while still treating the underlying dispute as legitimate.
i guess that's why i don't look back and cringe at my old opinions. i tend to only care about what i care about and if i cared about it 10 years ago i still feel the same way about it now.
90% of my frustration when discussing sensitive topics with people is just this. People judging my opinions instead of just asking me why i think that way
Overwhelming majority of people prefer their own short term entertainment over long term change. They will get outraged and then celebrate at the first "positive" response they get from their "oposition" and then completely forget everything and go on their marry way doing everything they did before with little to no change. I do not like DRM, microtransactions, third party accounts and such, and so i do not buy games with such features in them because i do not wish to see this practices in games. If a studio acts scummy i will simply not buy games from them ever again, you break trust with your customer? bad news, there is hundred other studios who dont. but 99% of people simply want to clock in, get their entertainment and clock out, without any form of care in the world for anything else than their own entertainment. Most people do not care because they are not hobbyists, they re not invested in almost anything, they simply go on their day to day and want to have some fun. and that is directly used by corporations to make things worse for everyone involved, because the avarage person is not gonnna research the games they buy, they see a trailer, they get hyped, hop on the hype train, pre-order and are done. same with movies, music and any other modern entertainment. Most people do not care what will happen if they do X, they only care that doing X will make them entertained.
This is more or less my feelings on stuff as well. A lot of people in RUclips comments and the like will always say "Vote with your wallet to stop this kind of thing!" while failing to realize that the percentage of people that consume all the public outrage content is relatively tiny. As a collective whole, the "gaming" community *HAS* voted with their wallets... and that is exactly the reason why we have so much monetization in modern games, and why it is getting rarer all the time to have great games like Baldur's Gate 3 being released, etc. People can be outraged all they want online, but that typically has a small effect on things overall, which is what Josh was getting at. The vast, overwhelming majority of people simply don't care. When we *do* see changes happening, it's usually not because of the outrage itself, it's because whatever is being talked about is *also* heavily affecting that huge group of people that don't consume online content, and *those* people are actually affecting the companies.
@@AeriFyreinThere is the added layer that most modern games studios do not make their real money from sales so much as stocks and investors. While sales revenue is not irrelevant, it accounts for far less of their business model, especially outside of driving hype to convince investors to purchase their stocks, than often assumed. Many games now emphasize business strategies targeting whales as well. Games voting with their wallets was never going to work since games are not their real target demographic in the first place. Contrast the Budlite boycott, which was actually pretty successful, as their business model relied much more on commodity sales revenue.
@@AeriFyrein i wouldn't personally even call it a community. the overwhelming majority aren't part of it, they just consume for entertainment and move on. But thats me just being pedantic, we agree and there is nothing we can really do about the state of things besides flocking to niche things that are not popular lol.
@ravenseeker8267 Then what can we do? What can we do to make these corps change their mind on monetization? Go to the government? But you guys do not want that either. Unfair monetization is killing games, but you guys just want to keep consuming which is unfortunate. What can we do? We can't destroy the base of the corporation, we can't make these mindless consumers feel guilty about their purchase. What, should we just force the stoppage of games then? So they can be free of the escape addiction? Maybe that is the only one left since you guys cannot help yourselves.
@@nevisysbryd7450 That kind of depends. If the majority of people never played many of the mobile games and such where a lot of the awful monetization practices started, then those games wouldn't be making money for investors to receive returns on. While whales do make up a disproportionate amount of revenue for those games, those whales tend to need all of the F2P/low-spending playerbase in order to feel superior to. If a game only got a few hundred players, instead of hundreds of thousands or millions, most of those whales wouldn't bother with the games, which means no revenue for the companies, which means no returns for investors. And that's really the crux of the matter: you might have a few thousand people who will watch RUclips videos on how awful all that monetization is, and refuse to play/pay for those games. But those people don't really matter when you have tens of millions of people who just download Random Mobile Game XYZ and spend way more than $60-70. So, yes, many game companies these days definitely pander way more to investors than they used to. However, they only do so because of the 95%+ of the gaming market has, effectively, voted with their wallet and said "Yeah, I'm okay with spending tons of money on these microtransactions."
one of the more annoying things about online drama for games, is if you point out someone is being hyperbolic, you get instantly jumped on and called a dick-rider or fuckboy or something. Just because you don't find the need to overhate a game just because certain streamers do.
"A Man Convinced Against His Will, is Of the Same Opinion Still" - "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie The hardest thing for internet people to do is to realize you HAVE to care about your opponent if you want to change your mind. Most people online want you care about another group of people, but don't care about you as an individual. That's why a lot of discourse goes nowhere.
It is perfectly fine to be upset if it is something you care deeply about. But it is not fine to expect others to also be upset and take them not being upset as a basis to accuse them of ignorance or indifference.
The thing is drama is mostly inane. Serious issues are often not actually part of it because it's hard to get a constant viewer base about say intellectual property law whereas talking about how Nintendo do bad thing (even if it was pretty reasonable compared to any media company outside of gaming (this is a personal frustration)) gets lots of views.
I find there is a sweet spot in the level of focus i have on an issue where i can be productive. A lot of the time the drama around things is so extreme that it causes me to check out instead
(6:30) Well no it wasn't because the movie did well. They walked all of it back. Nobody "moved on". The battle was just over. I agree with your argument big picture wise but that was just an incorrect example.
I'm bad for dipping into drama when I'm not feeling mentally great, then I remember a few days later and hate myself while trying to remember where I left basic-ass comments that should have stayed in my head. Some channels you just need to leave that at the door and enjoy watching. If you hear something you really don't like, just tell youtube not to recommend the channel and carry on. It's boring but better for you.
It's thanks to people that are outraged about terrible/bad stuff and take a stand that things have a chance to change, spur things into action. Most people will, however, only be temporarily outraged, then move on and they don't really care. It doesn't mean, under any circumstances, that that is a good thing, it's an unfortunate reality, but it is not a good thing. But I get it, it is draining, very draining, and I've grown tired of being outraged, however I will vote with my wallet every single time I can and care.
1:38 Man I felt that, I lost a friend group because I was the ONLY person who disagreed on a very niché currently top-topic. Was effectively told "Either agree or get out"
I absolutely love these moments on Josh's stream and I do agree with him here. I find life so much more enjoyable not engaging in all the drama and debates on social media. I generally follow the news and developments on a low-key level but I never really interact in online discussions. I form my own opinion about things and if it concerns a game, I'll decide for myself whether I want to buy it or not. I've known people from my direct environment who are so angry about many things all the time and it makes me think that they must be so tired and unhappy all the time.
1) The show he's talking about is Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister, I think the scene he talked about is titled "Sir Humphrey explains the role of a civil servant" on RUclips. It's 1 min long. 2) I still care about the things I was angry about a year or two or three ago, I just know I have literally 0 influence on the situation so I just push it down and try not to think about it until someone brings it to my attention, which is when the anger boils up again. I try not to argue, usually, because I think it's pointless waste of time. 3) I agree that being aggressive to people with wrong opinions will not bring them to your side and that you should try to get then to your side with good arguments and by being pleasant and likable. 4) That said, allowing people to not care and to enjoy their time with a product that is made or earns money using immoral methods means tacitly approving of those immoral methods. Not to mention that a person can enjoy things that are bad for them or downright self destructive, in which case you should stop that person from "enjoying" themselves if you care about them.
6:10 That's why I really like the work of many RUclipsrs like Gamers Nexus how can keep a Story alive as long as it isn't resolved like the Asus RMA problems.
From the outset I wanna kinda outline that this is fully intended as respectful, impassioned disagreement, and not intended to be personal or hurtful to Josh or anyone else, but to talk about what I disagree with and why I think that. I completely agree with the sentiment of trying to make people question what they believe, and that's the sentiment I'm riding with here in an attempt to make Josh or anyone else just consider my opinion or those that might be more directly affected by some of these topics. I think the things said here (more so at the top of the video) are dangerously dismissive. I don't even disagree with everything. The Kony topic - spot on, do people engage in performative social politics? Absolutely. Is this always the case though? Not at all. We've seen recently with the Helldivers incident that mass playerbase coming together and taking a stand actually does hold a lot of power. To my knowledge (feel free to correct), contractually Arrowhead had to have the whole PSN thing happen and would always have had to do that, and the backlash and subsequent Steam bombing applied so much pressure that Sony let a contractual obligation slide. This is what happens when collective outrage is organised. It inspires change. It works. It's an immense privilege to be able to 'step back' as Josh talks about here. To take another popular example, briefly, JK Rowling and the Hogwarts Legacy boycott - it's one thing to talk about perpetual outrage wearing you down. He's right. But that IS part of the issue, and I can explain why. Trans folk don't GET to sit out of that, not if they want to defend their existence when talking about or to those giving an IP money that directly goes to someone that is harming them and their fellows (JK funds anti-trans groups that directly negatively effects a trans person's freedom, not to mention JK's social power which translates to real change in hearts and minds just because of who she is, which DOES have wide-spread harmful affect). To say that perpetual outrage is unsustainable and to talk about it in the video as such misrepresents this outrage (I'll clarify in a sec). Speaking as a cis person, I'm glad that people have the choice as to whether to feel outraged, but doesn't it bother anyone that you have the privilege of that choice and others don't on some matters? THAT'S the point. Trans people didn't and do not get a rest or a breather from this outrage. They can't, the issue is baked into their existence and the fact that you can choose is why you SHOULD take a stand and help them fight. They ARE exhausted which is why we should help them. Wearisome it might be, wear you down at times it might, (it can, I get it), that doesn't mean it isn't worthy or valid, and a lot of what Josh says here goes towards dissuading people that you SHOULD be outraged. Let me be clear, I know that Josh says this, says that people are allowed to be angry etc, but the way his words flow and are directed at the beginning of the video really go a lot of the way to reversing (I think) the intent of the words he actually uses later in the video when he talks about people being allowed to be angry. I don't think everyone should be held to 'caring about everything' by the way. I also think that this is an unsustainable way of being, but existing in a gaming space as Josh is and not being informed and taking a stance on something does demonstrate apathy, which people are fully allowed to judge him for. I am sorry about this, because I know it doesn't feel good when people judge you that way, but this is the truth of it. The maintaining of outrage/anger I think is also sort of misrepresented in the way Josh talks here, I feel, and actually comes across as an opinion of someone who spends too much time online. I get it and all. If you spend time online it seems like people are CONSTANTLY angry about some of these issues (whether rightfully or not), but to suggest an image of these people akin to them pacing in their homes maintaining that level of anger AT ALL TIMES is...weird? Of course they're not. Josh says it's not possible and he's right. So why are we assuming this is what's happening? Human beings channel these strong emotions and find ways to deal with it, whether it's rest and relaxation, generally just having space to take our minds off the things that bother us in our lives and the world in general through hobbies or whatever else. To suggest that people that care about these sorts of issues (say that's okay and they're allowed to do that), but then talk about how their level of empathy (manifesting itself in anger) on a subject, and portraying it as unsustainable in the way that Josh does here is dismissive and misrepresentative. As I've said, this isn't what's happening (speaking from experience). All that this kind of talk does is persuade those that DON'T care about this sort of thing that they SHOULDN'T care about this sort of thing, which is dangerous, motivates (like I say) apathy, and means that any behaviour or practises that are genuinely harmful go largely unaddressed as a result. And by the way, I don't think this is intended by Josh by any means, but talking about it this way does trivialise those that DO care, that don't give up on something once 6 months have passed - because they do exist, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. I think it's worth talking about online spheres and echo chambers (as Josh himself brought up), because it does honestly seem to me that Josh has come to some of these conclusions because he's not in the right spheres? Who knows, hard to tell, and honestly that wouldn't be his fault at all but it is harmful to not be mindful of this. Mentioning echo chambers later after you've said the thing still means that you've said the thing and done whatever harm has been done by saying the thing. All this goes to say that Josh is obviously allowed to have his say, but with such a high subscriber and follower count, and whether he likes it or not, spreading this kind of rhetoric to so many people who are influenced by his words IS harmful, if only in the sense that it teaches those listening to trivialise those that care, and persuades them to not care themselves. This concept is reinforced when Josh talks about the 'average gamer' who doesn't care. Whether intended or not, framing the topic this way sends the message 'it won't matter anyway so you SHOULDN'T care', and again this is just dangerous. If we automatically assume before fighting for something that we're not going to win then you've defeated yourselves without giving anyone a chance to fight. This ties into the danger I mentioned early on that is a throughline in the way Josh frames what he says. This kind of thing needs to be talked about more carefully or it's further justification for those listening to not care. All of this together really paints a picture of evidence that acts towards 'hey, you shouldn't care, and those that do are angry and unreasonable'. Whether this is the intent by Josh or not (and I don't think it is, I honestly think from my limited knowledge of Josh from his content that he's an empathetic and nice person), this is what is achieved by talking about this subject this way. I wanna take a moment to clarify here because I absolutely realise there's a lot you could assume from this kinda comment so to give a more specific example - I have trans friends that I'm very close to, I care a lot about this particular topic and so I was one of the ones to take a stand against HL. Did I berate people angrily online? No. Have I spoken about it in my own videos and explained my reasoning? Yes. If I meet someone in real life and they go 'oh I played Hogwarts Legacy', I'm not going to answer 'oh let me tell you why you're wrong to do that *pulls out powerpoint presentation*', but that DOES give me an indication of where they are on the topic and how informed they are on a matter, and though I'm not going to be nasty to them or treat them any differently, if it comes up naturally or they ask 'did you play it?' I would answer honestly. If conversation goes that way it goes that way. I agree with Josh on this - if you're looking to persuade someone, there's a way to go about it and if you antagonise them immediately oh boy that ain't happening. Not everyone is looking to have a shouting match, and like I say this kind of rhetoric really makes it seem that way. At the same time and as a side note, if a game was literally harming my existence I think I'd be completely within my right to be angry at people for endorsing something like that, whether they were doing that unknowingly or not. There's a way to approach it if you want to change someone's mind, sure, but to represent people as unreasonable because they're angry at others for this IS taking a side, at least in the way you're talking if not in your intent when you say these things. I should say at this point that this is my ultimate point, really. Is it fair that people like Josh have to care about this stuff? No. But they should, and I accept that this is also a harsh truth, but content creators in general and large content creators especially need to be mindful that speaking in the way that Josh does here is harmful considering the immense reach they have and how many are going to take these words and use them to reinforce apathy or anger towards those that are the subject of this video.
One of the most fun experiences and memories I have is when a friend brought his Xbox 360 over and we played this super shitty, absolute garbage Sonic game in Co-op, but we had fun with it because there was no drama, no people telling us how bad it was and how we shouldn't enjoy it, how awful the developers are, how tone-deaf they are, who killed their cat when they were 8, why their stepfather is an alcoholic... it was just the two of us having a blast with a shitty Sonic game. And the thing is, we can still have that. Everyone can. But I do suspect that a lot of people rather have the drama, it's not about the game and enjoyment any longer, it's the social drama. It's rather cringe. Everyone wants to feel good and be happy but I swear a lot of people forget what that means and they parrot it because of course they do. But it's like saying "I wish I wasn't fat" without being willing to put in the effort. Then it's not real. You are hoping somebody hands it to you, but you're not wanting put in the effort, earn it, and I don't believe people know what they really want in that case. I'm not saying they are pleased with their lives or situation in life - and that's exactly it. The wishful thinking isn't what would make them happy, it's just a signal that they are displeased with their current position in life. And that negativity can be addicting, honestly. Misery loves company, after all.
The 18:20 situation is something that happened to be with forager, apparently the owner stole a bunch of art and didn’t pay some devs and the whole thing got messy.
Two questions: 1) What do you say about things that go BEYOND six months? 2) Do you think it lasts "4 to 6 months" because for most people, that's simply their level of attention they can give the same thing? In other words, do you think the standard is set enough to where it isn't that people don't care, they can just only care for 6 months? Don't expect an actual response, but I've heard you say this quite a many times and have always kind of wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes🐇
The Helldivers 2 thing made me quit most social media, I was there for the memes and good vibes of the subreddit and then about a month or so back people showed up who were just attacking the devs for literally everything they did, and if there was nothing they would straight up make things up, then this whole account linking thing happened and it all went into overdrive (Complete with a metric ton of misinformation). Once that drama ended they quickly picked up on a new one again, so I quit. I've honestly felt just so much better since then, I sleep better, my mental health is better, I've been way more productive, I've been more social with IRL friends, it's been a real revelation to me of how damaging social media really is.
I've had plenty of people annoyed at my lack of interest in drama of all kinds. To be fair to them, I don't stand for, or believe in much of anything at all, so I can understand the frustration. I try to live my life as contentedly as possible, and blissful ignorance and general apathy works perfectly well for me.
They changed the DnD license based on public outcry though, that's why the outcry stopped. People were mad at blizzard because of the sexual allegations and the games being bad, and they had to fire tons of abusive people and improve the games (dragonflight and classic stuff) before people came back.
I think the issue is often misunderstood in terms of people looking too much into things and others just wanting to ignore things. But I don't think that is where the problem lies in my opinion. I feel its far more suitable to look at this problem with the lens of reactionary responses, and more analytical responses. This has nothing directly to do with your political compass per se! Knowing more is almost always good, wanting to dissect media, look into it, learn from it, etc. is IMO the best way to interact with media. What you do with your knowledge is where problems can start to happen. some people will act in reactionary fashion, where being upset is enough reason for action, depending on your stance this can be beneficial sometimes, but its never the best course of action. Try to see when hurt people are just reacting and let them be, they will grow out of it eventually. The best you can do is AVOID being anti-intellectual. Consume media how you like, but don't act like media doesn't have any meaning or consequences, because that is just ignorance. All in all, enjoy doing and learning, and hate less.
This reminds me of one of the best pieces of advice I ever got given. "Listen to what people mean not what they say" if someone says something because they are uncomfortable about some aspects of a game that is very different from if they do it because they want an excuse to be a bully even if the words are the same. It's also why I am incredibly cautious of drama channels because they remove the original context which allows you to make those judgements.
I'd like to comment on the dungeons and dragons thing. Wizards of the Coast rescinded that and that also played into the outrage ending. The SRD 5.1 in now creative commons, and OGL License 1.0a is staying. So D&D changed their mind and fixed the issue they did that January of last year, there is no need to be angry at them if they fixed their mistake, right?
I think this is an interesting take, "gamers don't want to listen to drama, they just want to sit down and have fun playing a game." but... a LOT of this recent drama is specifically about that very issue. Billion dollar companies keep trying to pull stunts that get between gamers and "just having fun playing a game" Sony saying "you need a PSN account to play Helldivers 2"? That gets in the way of people just sitting down and playing their game for fun - instead they sit down and find they can't play the game they paid for any more. Hasbro pulling the OGL? That would have directly prevented people's favourite creators from making more supplements and content for the game. --- I'm not saying anyone has to "invest" in these fights, but I'm very happy that people DID, because they helped turn those decisions around and keep those games fun for me.
The irony is that Baldur's Gate 3 is a game I love that I can absolutely tear to pieces. While it went form like a 10/10 to a 8-9/10 as my understanding of the full game matured in my mind its still fantastic. Just slightly scuffed. I hold it about in the same respect as Wasteland 3, Tyranny, or Shadowrun Returns. Albeit it has higher production values by far than all its competition.
Dragons Dogma 2 was a game I had an absolute blast playing on launch day, go online and see everyone is shitting on it saying it's awful Helldivers 2 has the same issue with weapons. Every new weapon warbond reddit/twitter will say some of the weapons are un usable garbage but when I try them out they usually perform just fine even on difficulties 7-9
I've played "bad" games plenty of times, even revisited my older games, that I hated when younger, and enjoyed the moment, even if was just a short while, it was a nice and fun experienced. If someone dislikes a game, that's their preference, I can still enjoy it, got some of those games, where friends doesn't want to play games for various reasons, meanwhile I can still enjoy it, and get a fun experience. Distance oneself from drama of games, and enjoy it, unless of course it's something bad like Ubisoft treats their players, or other big company tries to walk over their costumers
11:02 This is exactly it. One's level of enjoyment with something has nothing to do with my reasons for being critical of it. People have told me "I know you hate AI, but look at this" and no, I don't hate AI or the people who use it. I hate how it is weaponized to exploit people. Similar to your example with gacha games. Someone enjoying it is entirely separate from being critical of it.
correct. thats why i cancled my sub of a lof ot youtuber/twich streamers. drama over drama over drama. its getting annoying and boring. same with reddit. every sub of a game ends the same. its exhausting
I've noticed this a lot. I used to get deeply into the drama around games. Now I try to stay informed, but I don't immerse myself in the drama and just try to enjoy the game. As a kid, one of the reasons I enjoyed Oblivion and Halo, and WoW was because I wasn't aware of all of the drama around it. Not to say it's not important to make sure that you're not supporting a game that is not ethical and it doesn't mean we shouldn't demand that games aren't terrible, but I used to spend more time being apart of game drama than actually playing games.
I don't entirely agree with this. Blizzard drama is exactly the reason why I stopped with Blizzard products. I was outraged, that outrage turned into action, and now I don't play Blizzard games. Sony is effectively self-destructing because of Helldivers 2 and now Ghost of Tsushima. I'm never going to buy another Sony product again. They've proven untrustworthy and would rather urinate on customer's than actually provide decent things. It's been about a decade since I've played an EA game. Just because outrage goes away doesn't mean that damage hasn't been done.
That's a shocking amount of wisdom, coming from a guy, who ordered, and then also ate, a chocolate pizza
😂
🤣
😂
Don't diss the dessert pizzas dude, they're amazing.
Bro finding out today people can have different preferences than him and not be stupid. Some of us did that around the kindergarten but I'm glad you've joined us in this experience!
To be fair, in the case of the D&D OGL scandal, a bunch of D&D youtubers campaigned for everyone to boycott Hasbro/WotC and cancel their D&D Beyond subscriptions, and apparently the cancellations hurt WotC's bottom line to the point that it's the reason they backpedalled so hard and even put the basic rules out under Creative Commons. So in this case, collective outrage actually translated into collective action and worked. Not that that's how collective outrage usually works, or that Josh should have been involved, just wanted to point out that everyone forgave WotC not because they got bored and switched to the next shiny thing, but because WotC actually reversed their unpopular policy under pressure.
But also to be fair, what happened in the D&D OGL scandal is rare in today's landscape, where people actually turned their anger into useful action to get things done. I mean, how often does that happen? I'm pretty sure we've seen our fair share of outrage where literally nothing changed.
Personally, if everybody who got angry at a thing, turned their anger into useful work, we could solve so many problems.
@@Masterlikers It happened again with Helldivers 2, it happened even with WOW, now has blizzard reversed course on everything no, they have improved wow. It can work but it needs a unified effort from a % of the playerbase. Otherwise its just raging at the darkness.
Same with Helldivers 2, I think. I don't think the PSN requirement would be reverted if not for the public outcry. It's hard to make difference between being reasonably distant from all the dramas and being complaisant.
@@tenaciousgamer6892 Improved WoW? Hah, hilarious.
@@tenaciousgamer6892 Considering the state that WoW was in... it would be hard *not* to improve things. When you're nearly at rock bottom, just about anything you do is going to be an improvement.
"People don't necessarily want to agree with facts, they want to agree with feelings."
And that's basically every discourse ever. Holy hell...
thats the sad reality. people are not rational beings.
@@nickt2822 I actually disagree. People are incredibly rational, we work within a framework of values and morals and we are quite consistent in that. The issue arises when those values and morals clash.
@@SilentNyite are those values and morals based on rational conclusions? Do people actually have those values and morals or do they just engage with them performatively?
@@SilentNyite btw I'm talking about the vast majority because as with every rule there will be some exception.
@@nickt2822That depends, how do "YOU" define "rational" morals?
Everyone moved on from the DnD thing in part because Hasbro reverted their decision, so there was no more need for public outcry. People are also moving on from being angry about Helldivers 2 because the Sony decision was reverted. If you know that people only have 6 months of interest in something and you think it matters to address the issue, you have to address it now. Sometimes being critical of a game has more value in the immediate, because that's when you have more of a chance to get a company to listen to you. It's not about joining the mob in anger for prestige, it's about getting decision makers to listen when it matters.
This is why I somewhat agree and disagree with Josh in this video. There's a big difference between "Rap Beef" drama, CEO vs. CEO personal drama, and drama about business decisions that hurt consumers. If a company that makes products I love is making drastic changes to their business model, outrage is good! You're right. I can enjoy the games they've already made, but I might not be able to enjoy their new ones in the future. That's the "forest for the trees" picture for me.
While I understand what Josh is saying, I don't agree with his follow up solution/suggestion. The example he gave was about the D&D OGL contreversy that happened, and how he decided to just give it six months and everyone will just move on and that's why he didn't get mad or say anything about it (hope I am not misrepresenting what he said in this video). If everyone reacts to most things like he did, then why should we even care about any shady/bad practices that happen, the drama will die down in 6 months anyway. We should just let companies revoke access to games we paid for when they feel like it, since most people don't care anyway so we are just shouting to the void. Microtransactions? why should we complain about them and other predatory practices like lootboxes. We should have just let Sony impose its PSN restriction because most people don't care anyway.
The Sony Helldiver situation in particular is why I disagree with his way of thinking. If everyone followed his suggestion, they would think no one cares and therefore they just keep quiet, and then everyone else who cares also would have thought no cares so would also be quiet. So basically a bunch of people who care would just keep quiet since they assume no one cares.
That's absolutely true for these things and even more so for really important issues like politics (although that's another topic I don't want to talk about here).
I agree with your point as much as Josh's.
But I think Josh's point was more like this: You can't give a damn every time something goes wrong. Because if you do, it hurts your psyche in the long run. And that doesn't help anyone.
So maybe you shouldn't react too strongly to at least some things, even if they were done on purpose. And if you can't do that, you could distance yourself from the media so that you don't see every bad thing.
You could spin it further by saying, “Yeah, but that's the point. To get people to the point where they just can't be angry anymore and now they're doing the really questionable and problematic things."
Maybe you still have the energy to care if you had enough distance from some of the things that went wrong, maybe it wouldn't have gotten to that point at all if you or other people had cared sooner. But you just can't know.
I know what you mean, if no one makes a noise, then nothing gets done. But i'll be honest when I was younger I always got heated about every big world event. Now, I dont let it get to me as much and im much happier. So i'll let whoever wants to protest protest. I'm not gonna get involved tho. Too much for me. I think in the gaming scene the biggest thing is voting with our wallets. Personally I dont buy any new games. I've got too much of a backlog and im trying to get through it lol. But if people are buying games with awful practices in them, the company takes that as a win. No matter how much people are upset about it on twitter or whatever. Money talks louder
@@buildinasentry1046 "Voting with your wallet is like voting in an election."
Frankly, if it continued to get worse as you say, then people just won't buy the games anymore and the company will wonder why the bottom line is getting screwed. It'll come out in the wash one way or another.
Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.
Josh's point wasnt that we should just shut up and accept things for how they are.
But that if you feel strongly, engage in discussion with those that care and dont be aggressive about it.
Beating someone over the head has never led them to conclude you are correct, just bred resentment.
The waiting is also just vetting what is an actual problem vs a temporary uproar.
There are internet dramas that are akin to highschool kids bullying each other or gossiping - that's hardly worth the time and will die out in a couple weeks.
The important things people will remember and will be a point of contention down the road.
To give an example: The helldivers situation was reversed because of a co-ordinated effort on Sony's bottom line with their steam review scores as well as widespread disapproval.
This is basically unheard of for so many gamers to come together on such a scale with no dissenting opinions.
This was not achieved by spewing vitriol and hatred towards the company/disagreeing opinions, but a collective effort that directly affected the company's performance.
Actions speak louder than words, especially with companies.
"You can't beat someone into agreeing with you" is the most true statement that nobody seems to understand.
Believe what you believe, and fight for what you believe in if you genuinely think it's worth it. But don't attack others for not immediately agreeing with you. In fact, that's one of the best ways to get someone to dig in their heels about the very opinion you want to change. This is why over-Activism ends up ruining the genuine points of a movement.
Seek to learn and understand, ask someone why they think the way they do, and honestly attempt to examine each piece within the context of their experience. Then, when you build that rapport of trying to understand them, they will be more willing to understand you when you slowly share your own thoughts and feelings and reasons.
We change each other's minds slowly, by reason and understanding and empathy, not by "winning" arguments. You can sometimes change immediate action with harshness, but you do so at the cost of sometimes permanent future distaste for your opinion.
I find I have the most productive conversations when I agree with them on some things and I give ground on my own arguments. From there, it no longer feels like a debate but a discussion and the person I'm talking to lowers their defenses are therefore, more receptive to my argument
It's not that they don't understand, it's that that isn't the point. It's about feeling addictive, righteous rage. It's not about convincing people you're right, it's about feeling good about hating other people.
I forget which study it was, I used to be able to cite the year, the name of the Study, and the 3 orgs it involved... But fuck it. Several years ago a study was conducted (I wanna say 2016) showing a control group of people absolutely verified 100 percent facts, from all sources. Snopes, Politico, Fox, NPR, CNN, BBC, and MANY unnamed sources. The vast majority of them (over 70 percent) disavowed absolutely anything coming from a source they deemed illegitimate, and were wholly open to the unnamed sources. (unnamed sources would be revealed as Facebook and Reddit posts) A second control group (smaller than the first) was then sat with an expert in certain fields. (Sociology, statisticians, people who literally run numbers and data for a living) And the rate in which the second control group vehemently denied numerical based facts showed what the study was investigating: The concept that there IS LARGELY ZERO change of mind to be had in the modern day with modern information technology, given verified information from any source you could conceivably want.
...that fucking sucks.
Worth noting that it depends on the discussion but very often it's not about convincing the person you're arguing with, it's about convincing the audience. Just gotta read the room and play to what people are likely to respond well to.
@@thunderbagel3886 Truth. Even if I 100% don't agree with an argument, finding common ground is the best basis for a start of a conversation. But, from my experience, there's still lots of people that tend to not want to have conversations but would much rather want their opinion to be the right one. But also I feel like having a conversation face to face would be a lot more understanding/productive than one online. That same person that just wants their opinion to be right would probably be a lot more willing to have a conversation if it were face to face. Tend to be less aggressive as well.
I'm wedged in that weird place where I don't participate in that drama (never really cared to), but I consume the content around it like candy, despite audibly telling myself often man I really don't care, I should stop. The brain is fickle, I really need a heavy social media detox.
I love watching drama cause most of the time I find it so funny. Usually if you take a step back most drama is just absurd. Recently I have been watching a lot of Final Fantasy 14 Online drama, and it’s great. Just a bunch of weird people arguing over the littlest things. Like you said it’s just candy.
This has been me and the whole Illuminati lawsuit drama. I really don't care, I rarely watched anything she put out because her niche wasn't my corner of the internet, but I'm finding a ton of humor in watching her flail around pretending her situation is the fault of literally anyone but herself. I also sometimes listen to The Right Opinion's hour+ videos about the rise and fall of RUclipsrs not because I care at all, but because it's entertaining in some weird way. I'd actually be kinda interested in learning why brains do this kind of thing.
I kind of like it as background noise while I do other stuff, personally. It's the new Jerry Springer for me
That's the same with me and most drama, only stuff the past year I stuck around for was the sssniperwolf stuff, the iilluminaughtii stuff and a few other things, but that's because I care for the people involved. I've been watching Jacksfilms for nearly half my 30 something life, and I enjoyed Oz's, Clicks and OneTopic's content since the start of the reddit wave, so why wouldn't I? Everything else is like candy, but I don't begrudge people for not caring about the real people involved, there's more than 7 billion people here, we can't care about everyone.
i love watching it too from the sides, as some noise in the background in a video when i do something. There is imo nothing wrong with enjoying other people tearing apart. The issue is in the people arguing against each other, trying to convince their side is the correct one.
Idk really why it is so much fun to watch drama stuff, but watching and participating are two different pair of shoes. :)
I have found that people get really confused when you don't have a discussion to win an argument but to form or reassess your own opinion. To many, "I have a different opinion from yours and we can leave it at that" is not a valid outcome. Some get angry when you agree with them too early without getting angry at them. They want to be right, they want to fight, they want to get a certain feeling but they don't care about the topic at hand.
Aggression works in the world. I was in business for years and always went to work swinging, no one got in the way of my competitiveness in the IT industry, made to MD. Also, when I was in the military and a Prison Officer violence was often the solution over being clever, most times we did both at once. Too clever = dumb, clever = often being ignored. I think there is a case for being, clever and aggressive, it all depends on the context. Don't mess with those that have power, they will come out swinging in a flash. You appear to like to argue with complete dumbf*cks, my advice is don't. lol
It's especially "fun" when you have enough of an understanding of the issue to see the complexities with the solutions the person is pushing for even when you agree
The crazy part is that, the average gamer is not only not following gaming news, they are also not playing said games with all the drama happening.
All these insane "big" games we talk about, and all these super big hit indies like helldivers 2 and palworld, are like barely in the 10% of the entire gaming market compared to every person who plays a video game of some kind.
Ask any gamer who casually opens their ps4 or switch to play the same game for a year they still haven't finished, which is probably from a very popular franchise like zelda or GTA, and I bet you they will have no idea of 90% of the games you mention that "the entire internet knows".
so true I'm in my late 30s I played Helldivers for a few days had a blast got to level 10 and havn't touched it since still haven't had a chance to play palworld mostly because I'm still working my way through bg3 from last year I keep restarting and trying new characters and play options only made it to chapter 3 once, but I see all this drama and just ignore it since I got real drama in my life that is way more important then a game selling some skins or requiring to make an account somewhere to play it, yeah it sucks for the people that are now region locked but I don't have the time to be upset when I'm dealing with health issues and making sure the bills are paid and praying my car doesn't break down randomly
Yeah people forget the internet is deceptively small
Me everytime ttrpg drama comes up. The _entire_ ttrpg playerbase is estimated (and this is almost certainly an overestimate), ~40 million, with a fraction of that being concurrently active.
There are individual video games with larger active playerbases than the entire active ttrpg playerbase, which is a major factor in the difficulty of finding people to play anything other than D&D. For as much as it has grown in recent years, it is still pretty niche.
"my counter to your assumed statistics is to make up my own!"
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 if that's your way of saying that I made it up, then I didn't. All I said was an abridged version of what I heard in the "Dropped frames" podcast. Who pulled this from real statistics done by actual data analysts. If you want to debunk someone, better fact check it first.
Every single time I've changed my mind on something, or became open to a new idea, it was because the person expressing the idea was being respectful and just calmly talking about what they believed, not yelling or trying to "win", or coming up with the most epic clapback of all time.
When you're being personally affected by the idea you're fighting against, its hard to be calm and respectful all the time.
@@mariannarasauce I used to be like that too, but eventually you get sick of getting in shouting matches with people, and you learn to disregard idiots while supporting what you believe in and forging the better life that you strive for. Not getting into arguments doesn't mean you give in or concede to someone doing harm. It just means you don't waste time or energy getting into useless arguments.
"People don't necessarily want to agree with facts, they want to agree with feelings."
Something I remember realising was that whenever someone said something upsetting to me, explaining why it upset me was way more successful than telling them not to say that. It does rely on the other person having the empathy to do that, but if they don't then you at least know where you stand with them.
“They want to agree with you because they like you”
Awwww
“This is how cults work”
Oh… oh no
Still absolutely lovely way to approach this though, and definitely helps me out. Thank you for your Wisdom Josh
I mean sympathy in general is something positive. But a psychopath knows to weaponize it.
So using emotional manipulation and deception is more effective than facts and data to make people agree with you more, great lesson!
@@Metamorphical117 If your objective is to make people agree with you, then you have the wrong priorities though.
Casino Greeter: I dunno guys, this cat is talking some real deep jive. I kinda dig it.
I'm still upset about Ubisoft executives for not stopping management from abusing employees. That was years ago.
You have to low key be the most under appreciated streamer ever. Fantastic monologue.
He has a good audience.
@jeancarvalho3930 But not a big enough one yet. We need to get this sage wisdom out there.
@@seifer447 I agree. He deserves even more.
Ive seen a lot of channels that just exist to get angry at shit that either is not that bad, or blown out of proportion.
Like those guys whos whole channel is pretending that [current game] is being under attack. when actually its like 3 twitter accounts and 6 rage bait articles and most people dont care. they invent an enemy.
That just most social media today, tate, ben shabino, crowder. They all make up ghosts for loney white dudes to swing at. Its no diffirent with stuff like this. People monitize others hatred.
"Give it six months, there will be some other drama that kicks off in the gaming sphere" It'd be surprised if it takes 6 days.
remember the escape from tarkov drama from 2 weeks ago... no one does lol
With his example, Helldivers 2 it was literally about 6 days
Yeah, six months maybe for a massively huge drama, 2 weeks for a medium drama, and "six days" for a storm in a teacup. lol
@@cyanmage1 I do, and I think it's awful. But yeah, Sony pushed that into the background hard with their demand for PC players to sign up to a PSN account. lol
@@Gwyn1stborn Only because Sony caved in, otherwise it would still be news. Sony silenced everyone by caving, for now.
There is a lot of streamers who use outrage just for the sake of farming views. Not everything needs to have a visceral emotional response and it seems there's an intense focus to find that angle in every game that comes out now... "what can we be upset about in this one?" mentality is getting old man.
I remember the day I stopped trying to get wrapped up in drama. I was part of the bandwagon that turned against ProJared back when the accusations against him came out. When he came back months later with the proof of his innocence and the lies the other people spread against him, it woke me up to how scummy it had been to just... Immediately pick a side. With everything going on with The Completionist, I completely avoided getting wrapped up in it. Everything with the D&D update I tried to avoid. The only times I pay attention to 'drama' are the rare times they actually directly affect me. Like, I don't know if this is drama, but the StopKillingGames campaign is something I'll gladly wave the flag for, because multiple games I loved are unplayable now.
I don't know. I hate that it took me directly facing consequences to realize how much I'd been being an idiot. But I'm glad that I did figure it out before I went too far down that rabbit hole.
You're one of the sanest and most grounded people on the internet. We need more Joshes
To quote American History X "Lifes to short to be pissed off all the time"
It took until I hit my 40s before I truly understood this.
I forgot but was that before or after he curb stomped the guy? I’m being rhetorical. Good movie
Some people don't like drama, or wading neck-deep in it. Plenty of others can and will do that job, so there's no reason for *everyone* to get into it.
i don’t have ass in my pfp but i like the vids too fwiw
This doesn't mean as much as comments from them but thank you.
You know, you could fix that.
Go on. Be the change you want to see in the world.
@@JoshStrifeSays Savage. Brutal. Rekt.
Thigh supremacy
I do think there are rare exceptions to this with big controversies like awful business practices that are anti consumer we should push back against, the Escape From Tarkov fiasco is a great example but with most drama we should all just take a step back and chill out.
There is reasonable and unreasonable outcry. It's often hard to tell them apart when you're not in the loop, but in these cases it was reasonable and the outcry stopped once the people got what they demanded.
I agree with your take for the most part, but actually, the D&D OGL drama was actually resolved due to the backlash. Hasbro released the SRD to Creative Commons. They did that shortly before the movie's release. Unfortunately, a lot of people were still angry and the movie suffered.
Hasbro/WotC has done other things since then.
Yeah, thats kinda the thing, people especially online, dont care.
Heck, majority of people even dropped real world problems, like russia invading Ukraine, which is still going on to this day. Everyone went from screaming that they care, to just ignoring it.
The Hogwarts legacy drama is another, while there still are people who harass others for just saying jk Rowlings real name, majority of the people who screamed for the boycott has just..... Stopped caring.
And it just goes on like this. Over and over.
Virtue signalling is out of control. People just want others to perceive them as hyper-empathetic and standing against social injustice when really they don't care at all. They only care about fitting in and recieving affirmation from other members of their cult.
I've found that most people who act this way are actually the opposite of what they're trying to convey - they love putting people down and making themselves feel superior.
well its hard to care about something happening on the other side of the world to people you don't know will never know when you have problems around you that you can actually deal with, what I'm a supposed to do about a global super power if I can't even get my insurance company to cover a medical bill that is putting me in debt or how can I stop thousands of years of built of hate when I'm barely hold my own life together and this is why I don't care its so far beyond my ability to fix its not worth the effort to even begin yes its horrible but what is getting upset going to do
Haven't stopped caring. JK Rowling is a terrible person who still needs to be forgotten forever. Either she has to go, or HP has to go.
No shit they stopped caring, do you understand how boycotts work? Do you think people are just going to go out and say "dont buy the 2023 harry potter game" every day for the rest of their lives? A boycott is a temporary thing. Just because people stopped talking about it doesnt mean they like went back and bought the game anyway lmao 🤣
@@mariannarasauce never going to happen
I feel like i outgrew most of my internet friends watching them upset about everything while I'm just vibing because I just can't be asked with drama anymore. Its a bit of a somber feeling evolving into a gamer boomer but liberating tbh
I find myself moving in that direction because I have less time for drama than I used to. But at the same time, like with protestors for legitimately important causes, I have to celebrate the battles won by people raising their voices. If a game company that makes my favorite games ends their plans to do something exploitative to consumers because of the "online warriors", I owe them my gratitude even if I don't have the time to join them.
@@MachFiveFalcon I've had a similar reaction, but more in the other direction. I have _no_ trust left for the big names anymore, and can't be assed to turn my brain off and enjoy a game if I'm always wondering in the back of my head if I'll even have access to it further down the line for whatever of about eight different technical reasons, or God forbid it's a live service model that ends up making sweeping, even _more_ exploitative changes to how it functions. In either scenario a game I once enjoyed is simply no more. GTA 6 isn't even on my radar because the Rockstar Social Club is such a mindblowingly awful POS that it prevented me from ever being able to launch RDR2, and retroactively broke GTA 5.
I don't even have the patience left to give Nintendo anymore and can't think of a company that has more outward disdain for its own fanbase, let alone their insistence on putting their own legacy to torch and the flame with their war on emulation.
Thank God the indie scene is alive and well.
@@MediaMunkee Maybe what you're describing is what I meant originally - I'm still trying to figure it out lol. I'm done with drama, but I don't have any trust left either.
I buy physical copies of Nintendo games because I still have some semblance of ownership, and I love indies as well. Good Old Games is the last bastion for AAA games without the DRM BS for me.
I find that the really important things are outside the world of drama. Even when there is drama involved in an important political issue it tends to be the least important part.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 Ya - and with games, interpersonal/Twitter drama with publishers isn't important, but changes in game development that lead to unnecessary studio closures and exploitation of consumers is important.
Not that Josh is wrong entirely here, but I think a thing he's missing is that when it comes to inane internet drama, the combatants usually aren't trying to convince each other; if they're committed enough to a position to be looking to argue about it with strangers, odds are good that their opinion is pretty calcified and unable to be changed (at least, not by someone they're talking with on the internet). They're looking to "win" in the eyes of those who are undecided and may come across the argument without a formed opinion. Which is why so often it's not about a comprehensive, well-thought-out critique, but rather about just getting that mic-drop moment of dunking on someone in a way that can be clipped or screen-shotted.
Now, is it likely that a person without a formed opinion would come across these arguments? Probably not. But that's a more likely scenario than convincing the person on the other side of the argument.
I also think that we have to be careful about what we put in the category of "inane internet drama" to begin with. Some controversies, even if they are being propped up by culture war outrage merchants, are nevertheless legitimate issues that meaningfully impact people's lives. The idea that people don't want you to complicate their feelgood is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that we should refrain from doing it in situations that warrant it. The issue is that everyone has a different idea of what warrants it, and people's politics and levels of privilege impact what critiques they view as legitimate. So yes, while there are absolutely outrage merchants who push these issues to foam up resentment in others (and money for themselves), they're only able to do that because of these existing differences of opinion, which are the natural result of people's differing experiences. We can loathe the people who hustle controversy for profit while still treating the underlying dispute as legitimate.
And that’s why I like watching your stuff.
i guess that's why i don't look back and cringe at my old opinions. i tend to only care about what i care about and if i cared about it 10 years ago i still feel the same way about it now.
Kony 2012 and the ice bucket challenge were two really good examples
Some people don’t neccessarily care for the cause, they care for the social credit
Yep.
You have the rare talent of saying complex things very succinctly... And then rambling endlessly about it. 😋
If there was less musing on a topic, there wouldn't be a stream. Just dead air
finally, someone with more than a single cell in the grey
Especially for games, I rather enjoy it while I can rather than hate it whenever I can.
Simple concept really.
Tribal fear and aggression. If you aren't fighting on their tribe's side, then you are the enemy.
90% of my frustration when discussing sensitive topics with people is just this. People judging my opinions instead of just asking me why i think that way
Overwhelming majority of people prefer their own short term entertainment over long term change. They will get outraged and then celebrate at the first "positive" response they get from their "oposition" and then completely forget everything and go on their marry way doing everything they did before with little to no change.
I do not like DRM, microtransactions, third party accounts and such, and so i do not buy games with such features in them because i do not wish to see this practices in games.
If a studio acts scummy i will simply not buy games from them ever again, you break trust with your customer? bad news, there is hundred other studios who dont.
but 99% of people simply want to clock in, get their entertainment and clock out, without any form of care in the world for anything else than their own entertainment. Most people do not care because they are not hobbyists, they re not invested in almost anything, they simply go on their day to day and want to have some fun. and that is directly used by corporations to make things worse for everyone involved, because the avarage person is not gonnna research the games they buy, they see a trailer, they get hyped, hop on the hype train, pre-order and are done.
same with movies, music and any other modern entertainment. Most people do not care what will happen if they do X, they only care that doing X will make them entertained.
This is more or less my feelings on stuff as well.
A lot of people in RUclips comments and the like will always say "Vote with your wallet to stop this kind of thing!" while failing to realize that the percentage of people that consume all the public outrage content is relatively tiny. As a collective whole, the "gaming" community *HAS* voted with their wallets... and that is exactly the reason why we have so much monetization in modern games, and why it is getting rarer all the time to have great games like Baldur's Gate 3 being released, etc.
People can be outraged all they want online, but that typically has a small effect on things overall, which is what Josh was getting at. The vast, overwhelming majority of people simply don't care. When we *do* see changes happening, it's usually not because of the outrage itself, it's because whatever is being talked about is *also* heavily affecting that huge group of people that don't consume online content, and *those* people are actually affecting the companies.
@@AeriFyreinThere is the added layer that most modern games studios do not make their real money from sales so much as stocks and investors. While sales revenue is not irrelevant, it accounts for far less of their business model, especially outside of driving hype to convince investors to purchase their stocks, than often assumed. Many games now emphasize business strategies targeting whales as well. Games voting with their wallets was never going to work since games are not their real target demographic in the first place. Contrast the Budlite boycott, which was actually pretty successful, as their business model relied much more on commodity sales revenue.
@@AeriFyrein i wouldn't personally even call it a community. the overwhelming majority aren't part of it, they just consume for entertainment and move on.
But thats me just being pedantic, we agree and there is nothing we can really do about the state of things besides flocking to niche things that are not popular lol.
@ravenseeker8267
Then what can we do? What can we do to make these corps change their mind on monetization?
Go to the government? But you guys do not want that either.
Unfair monetization is killing games, but you guys just want to keep consuming which is unfortunate.
What can we do? We can't destroy the base of the corporation, we can't make these mindless consumers feel guilty about their purchase.
What, should we just force the stoppage of games then? So they can be free of the escape addiction? Maybe that is the only one left since you guys cannot help yourselves.
@@nevisysbryd7450 That kind of depends. If the majority of people never played many of the mobile games and such where a lot of the awful monetization practices started, then those games wouldn't be making money for investors to receive returns on.
While whales do make up a disproportionate amount of revenue for those games, those whales tend to need all of the F2P/low-spending playerbase in order to feel superior to. If a game only got a few hundred players, instead of hundreds of thousands or millions, most of those whales wouldn't bother with the games, which means no revenue for the companies, which means no returns for investors.
And that's really the crux of the matter: you might have a few thousand people who will watch RUclips videos on how awful all that monetization is, and refuse to play/pay for those games. But those people don't really matter when you have tens of millions of people who just download Random Mobile Game XYZ and spend way more than $60-70.
So, yes, many game companies these days definitely pander way more to investors than they used to. However, they only do so because of the 95%+ of the gaming market has, effectively, voted with their wallet and said "Yeah, I'm okay with spending tons of money on these microtransactions."
one of the more annoying things about online drama for games, is if you point out someone is being hyperbolic, you get instantly jumped on and called a dick-rider or fuckboy or something. Just because you don't find the need to overhate a game just because certain streamers do.
"A Man Convinced Against His Will, is Of the Same Opinion Still" - "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie
The hardest thing for internet people to do is to realize you HAVE to care about your opponent if you want to change your mind. Most people online want you care about another group of people, but don't care about you as an individual. That's why a lot of discourse goes nowhere.
This is advice and perspective I could have used much earlier in life., but thankfully learned eventually. Sage wisdom well said.
"Sir, this a casino. Can you please just hand me your weapons already."
videogame drama just reminds me of the screenshot of the modern warfare boycot group. everyone was playing mw in that group.
JSH speaking motivational stuff meanwhile Chairman Greeter from Omertas Gommorah Casino, asking the player to hand over your weapons.
However, indifference is not a solution, it is perfectly fine to get upset about things. That just shows that you care.
It is perfectly fine to be upset if it is something you care deeply about. But it is not fine to expect others to also be upset and take them not being upset as a basis to accuse them of ignorance or indifference.
@@xXLordYggdrasillXx You are right.
The thing is drama is mostly inane. Serious issues are often not actually part of it because it's hard to get a constant viewer base about say intellectual property law whereas talking about how Nintendo do bad thing (even if it was pretty reasonable compared to any media company outside of gaming (this is a personal frustration)) gets lots of views.
@@xXLordYggdrasillXx depends.
we should in fact expect everyone to care about the assault going on in triple a studios.
a good healthy mindset josh shows here, thanks for being the voice of reason on the 2nd monitor :D
I find there is a sweet spot in the level of focus i have on an issue where i can be productive. A lot of the time the drama around things is so extreme that it causes me to check out instead
(6:30) Well no it wasn't because the movie did well. They walked all of it back. Nobody "moved on". The battle was just over.
I agree with your argument big picture wise but that was just an incorrect example.
I love Josh's perfpective of the world and how to deal with it. Thanks josh and Thanks Visa for such lovely clips
Love these short videos!
"You do not beat someone into submission and have them agree with you". Can't believe this came from a British
I'm bad for dipping into drama when I'm not feeling mentally great, then I remember a few days later and hate myself while trying to remember where I left basic-ass comments that should have stayed in my head.
Some channels you just need to leave that at the door and enjoy watching. If you hear something you really don't like, just tell youtube not to recommend the channel and carry on. It's boring but better for you.
It's thanks to people that are outraged about terrible/bad stuff and take a stand that things have a chance to change, spur things into action.
Most people will, however, only be temporarily outraged, then move on and they don't really care.
It doesn't mean, under any circumstances, that that is a good thing, it's an unfortunate reality, but it is not a good thing.
But I get it, it is draining, very draining, and I've grown tired of being outraged, however I will vote with my wallet every single time I can and care.
1:38 Man I felt that, I lost a friend group because I was the ONLY person who disagreed on a very niché currently top-topic. Was effectively told "Either agree or get out"
„This too shall pass“
Yes Minister might be the most clever comedy ever made.
Sir Humphrey was quite the eloquent, but sometimes long-winded man, yeah. I really need to watch more than just the clips of that show!
I've gotten so tired of being invested in things that I cant even listen to people I agree on talk about things I would be invested in.
Every bit of my working class being wants me to hate this guy
But he’s giving the best advice
In need a waistcoat
I absolutely love these moments on Josh's stream and I do agree with him here. I find life so much more enjoyable not engaging in all the drama and debates on social media. I generally follow the news and developments on a low-key level but I never really interact in online discussions. I form my own opinion about things and if it concerns a game, I'll decide for myself whether I want to buy it or not. I've known people from my direct environment who are so angry about many things all the time and it makes me think that they must be so tired and unhappy all the time.
1) The show he's talking about is Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister, I think the scene he talked about is titled "Sir Humphrey explains the role of a civil servant" on RUclips. It's 1 min long.
2) I still care about the things I was angry about a year or two or three ago, I just know I have literally 0 influence on the situation so I just push it down and try not to think about it until someone brings it to my attention, which is when the anger boils up again. I try not to argue, usually, because I think it's pointless waste of time.
3) I agree that being aggressive to people with wrong opinions will not bring them to your side and that you should try to get then to your side with good arguments and by being pleasant and likable.
4) That said, allowing people to not care and to enjoy their time with a product that is made or earns money using immoral methods means tacitly approving of those immoral methods. Not to mention that a person can enjoy things that are bad for them or downright self destructive, in which case you should stop that person from "enjoying" themselves if you care about them.
"Tribalism feels good, but it is not effective at getting people to join your tribe."
Wonderfully put.
6:10 That's why I really like the work of many RUclipsrs like Gamers Nexus how can keep a Story alive as long as it isn't resolved like the Asus RMA problems.
I enjoy that Josh goes off on tangents. You can get gameplay anywhere. I watch for Josh.
From the outset I wanna kinda outline that this is fully intended as respectful, impassioned disagreement, and not intended to be personal or hurtful to Josh or anyone else, but to talk about what I disagree with and why I think that. I completely agree with the sentiment of trying to make people question what they believe, and that's the sentiment I'm riding with here in an attempt to make Josh or anyone else just consider my opinion or those that might be more directly affected by some of these topics.
I think the things said here (more so at the top of the video) are dangerously dismissive. I don't even disagree with everything. The Kony topic - spot on, do people engage in performative social politics? Absolutely. Is this always the case though? Not at all. We've seen recently with the Helldivers incident that mass playerbase coming together and taking a stand actually does hold a lot of power. To my knowledge (feel free to correct), contractually Arrowhead had to have the whole PSN thing happen and would always have had to do that, and the backlash and subsequent Steam bombing applied so much pressure that Sony let a contractual obligation slide. This is what happens when collective outrage is organised. It inspires change. It works.
It's an immense privilege to be able to 'step back' as Josh talks about here. To take another popular example, briefly, JK Rowling and the Hogwarts Legacy boycott - it's one thing to talk about perpetual outrage wearing you down. He's right. But that IS part of the issue, and I can explain why. Trans folk don't GET to sit out of that, not if they want to defend their existence when talking about or to those giving an IP money that directly goes to someone that is harming them and their fellows (JK funds anti-trans groups that directly negatively effects a trans person's freedom, not to mention JK's social power which translates to real change in hearts and minds just because of who she is, which DOES have wide-spread harmful affect). To say that perpetual outrage is unsustainable and to talk about it in the video as such misrepresents this outrage (I'll clarify in a sec). Speaking as a cis person, I'm glad that people have the choice as to whether to feel outraged, but doesn't it bother anyone that you have the privilege of that choice and others don't on some matters? THAT'S the point. Trans people didn't and do not get a rest or a breather from this outrage. They can't, the issue is baked into their existence and the fact that you can choose is why you SHOULD take a stand and help them fight. They ARE exhausted which is why we should help them. Wearisome it might be, wear you down at times it might, (it can, I get it), that doesn't mean it isn't worthy or valid, and a lot of what Josh says here goes towards dissuading people that you SHOULD be outraged.
Let me be clear, I know that Josh says this, says that people are allowed to be angry etc, but the way his words flow and are directed at the beginning of the video really go a lot of the way to reversing (I think) the intent of the words he actually uses later in the video when he talks about people being allowed to be angry. I don't think everyone should be held to 'caring about everything' by the way. I also think that this is an unsustainable way of being, but existing in a gaming space as Josh is and not being informed and taking a stance on something does demonstrate apathy, which people are fully allowed to judge him for. I am sorry about this, because I know it doesn't feel good when people judge you that way, but this is the truth of it.
The maintaining of outrage/anger I think is also sort of misrepresented in the way Josh talks here, I feel, and actually comes across as an opinion of someone who spends too much time online. I get it and all. If you spend time online it seems like people are CONSTANTLY angry about some of these issues (whether rightfully or not), but to suggest an image of these people akin to them pacing in their homes maintaining that level of anger AT ALL TIMES is...weird? Of course they're not. Josh says it's not possible and he's right. So why are we assuming this is what's happening? Human beings channel these strong emotions and find ways to deal with it, whether it's rest and relaxation, generally just having space to take our minds off the things that bother us in our lives and the world in general through hobbies or whatever else. To suggest that people that care about these sorts of issues (say that's okay and they're allowed to do that), but then talk about how their level of empathy (manifesting itself in anger) on a subject, and portraying it as unsustainable in the way that Josh does here is dismissive and misrepresentative. As I've said, this isn't what's happening (speaking from experience). All that this kind of talk does is persuade those that DON'T care about this sort of thing that they SHOULDN'T care about this sort of thing, which is dangerous, motivates (like I say) apathy, and means that any behaviour or practises that are genuinely harmful go largely unaddressed as a result.
And by the way, I don't think this is intended by Josh by any means, but talking about it this way does trivialise those that DO care, that don't give up on something once 6 months have passed - because they do exist, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. I think it's worth talking about online spheres and echo chambers (as Josh himself brought up), because it does honestly seem to me that Josh has come to some of these conclusions because he's not in the right spheres? Who knows, hard to tell, and honestly that wouldn't be his fault at all but it is harmful to not be mindful of this. Mentioning echo chambers later after you've said the thing still means that you've said the thing and done whatever harm has been done by saying the thing.
All this goes to say that Josh is obviously allowed to have his say, but with such a high subscriber and follower count, and whether he likes it or not, spreading this kind of rhetoric to so many people who are influenced by his words IS harmful, if only in the sense that it teaches those listening to trivialise those that care, and persuades them to not care themselves. This concept is reinforced when Josh talks about the 'average gamer' who doesn't care. Whether intended or not, framing the topic this way sends the message 'it won't matter anyway so you SHOULDN'T care', and again this is just dangerous. If we automatically assume before fighting for something that we're not going to win then you've defeated yourselves without giving anyone a chance to fight. This ties into the danger I mentioned early on that is a throughline in the way Josh frames what he says. This kind of thing needs to be talked about more carefully or it's further justification for those listening to not care. All of this together really paints a picture of evidence that acts towards 'hey, you shouldn't care, and those that do are angry and unreasonable'. Whether this is the intent by Josh or not (and I don't think it is, I honestly think from my limited knowledge of Josh from his content that he's an empathetic and nice person), this is what is achieved by talking about this subject this way.
I wanna take a moment to clarify here because I absolutely realise there's a lot you could assume from this kinda comment so to give a more specific example - I have trans friends that I'm very close to, I care a lot about this particular topic and so I was one of the ones to take a stand against HL. Did I berate people angrily online? No. Have I spoken about it in my own videos and explained my reasoning? Yes. If I meet someone in real life and they go 'oh I played Hogwarts Legacy', I'm not going to answer 'oh let me tell you why you're wrong to do that *pulls out powerpoint presentation*', but that DOES give me an indication of where they are on the topic and how informed they are on a matter, and though I'm not going to be nasty to them or treat them any differently, if it comes up naturally or they ask 'did you play it?' I would answer honestly. If conversation goes that way it goes that way. I agree with Josh on this - if you're looking to persuade someone, there's a way to go about it and if you antagonise them immediately oh boy that ain't happening. Not everyone is looking to have a shouting match, and like I say this kind of rhetoric really makes it seem that way. At the same time and as a side note, if a game was literally harming my existence I think I'd be completely within my right to be angry at people for endorsing something like that, whether they were doing that unknowingly or not. There's a way to approach it if you want to change someone's mind, sure, but to represent people as unreasonable because they're angry at others for this IS taking a side, at least in the way you're talking if not in your intent when you say these things.
I should say at this point that this is my ultimate point, really. Is it fair that people like Josh have to care about this stuff? No. But they should, and I accept that this is also a harsh truth, but content creators in general and large content creators especially need to be mindful that speaking in the way that Josh does here is harmful considering the immense reach they have and how many are going to take these words and use them to reinforce apathy or anger towards those that are the subject of this video.
That's the truth that would send the Twitter mob to shock.
One of the most fun experiences and memories I have is when a friend brought his Xbox 360 over and we played this super shitty, absolute garbage Sonic game in Co-op, but we had fun with it because there was no drama, no people telling us how bad it was and how we shouldn't enjoy it, how awful the developers are, how tone-deaf they are, who killed their cat when they were 8, why their stepfather is an alcoholic... it was just the two of us having a blast with a shitty Sonic game. And the thing is, we can still have that. Everyone can. But I do suspect that a lot of people rather have the drama, it's not about the game and enjoyment any longer, it's the social drama. It's rather cringe.
Everyone wants to feel good and be happy but I swear a lot of people forget what that means and they parrot it because of course they do. But it's like saying "I wish I wasn't fat" without being willing to put in the effort. Then it's not real. You are hoping somebody hands it to you, but you're not wanting put in the effort, earn it, and I don't believe people know what they really want in that case. I'm not saying they are pleased with their lives or situation in life - and that's exactly it. The wishful thinking isn't what would make them happy, it's just a signal that they are displeased with their current position in life. And that negativity can be addicting, honestly. Misery loves company, after all.
The 18:20 situation is something that happened to be with forager, apparently the owner stole a bunch of art and didn’t pay some devs and the whole thing got messy.
Two questions:
1) What do you say about things that go BEYOND six months?
2) Do you think it lasts "4 to 6 months" because for most people, that's simply their level of attention they can give the same thing? In other words, do you think the standard is set enough to where it isn't that people don't care, they can just only care for 6 months?
Don't expect an actual response, but I've heard you say this quite a many times and have always kind of wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes🐇
"like making a psn account" lmao
Perfect Josh- Agree 100% and is an approach I am going for alot of times.
Most people dont argue to change someone else's opinion, but to affirm their own
A certain amount of apathy can be incredibly good for ones mental health, who wouldve guessed
The Helldivers 2 thing made me quit most social media, I was there for the memes and good vibes of the subreddit and then about a month or so back people showed up who were just attacking the devs for literally everything they did, and if there was nothing they would straight up make things up, then this whole account linking thing happened and it all went into overdrive (Complete with a metric ton of misinformation). Once that drama ended they quickly picked up on a new one again, so I quit.
I've honestly felt just so much better since then, I sleep better, my mental health is better, I've been way more productive, I've been more social with IRL friends, it's been a real revelation to me of how damaging social media really is.
I've had plenty of people annoyed at my lack of interest in drama of all kinds. To be fair to them, I don't stand for, or believe in much of anything at all, so I can understand the frustration. I try to live my life as contentedly as possible, and blissful ignorance and general apathy works perfectly well for me.
I already liked the video because of the thumbnail and the headline because I support these statements 100%.
They changed the DnD license based on public outcry though, that's why the outcry stopped.
People were mad at blizzard because of the sexual allegations and the games being bad, and they had to fire tons of abusive people and improve the games (dragonflight and classic stuff) before people came back.
I think the issue is often misunderstood in terms of people looking too much into things and others just wanting to ignore things. But I don't think that is where the problem lies in my opinion. I feel its far more suitable to look at this problem with the lens of reactionary responses, and more analytical responses. This has nothing directly to do with your political compass per se!
Knowing more is almost always good, wanting to dissect media, look into it, learn from it, etc. is IMO the best way to interact with media. What you do with your knowledge is where problems can start to happen. some people will act in reactionary fashion, where being upset is enough reason for action, depending on your stance this can be beneficial sometimes, but its never the best course of action.
Try to see when hurt people are just reacting and let them be, they will grow out of it eventually.
The best you can do is AVOID being anti-intellectual. Consume media how you like, but don't act like media doesn't have any meaning or consequences, because that is just ignorance.
All in all, enjoy doing and learning, and hate less.
This reminds me of one of the best pieces of advice I ever got given. "Listen to what people mean not what they say" if someone says something because they are uncomfortable about some aspects of a game that is very different from if they do it because they want an excuse to be a bully even if the words are the same. It's also why I am incredibly cautious of drama channels because they remove the original context which allows you to make those judgements.
@@andrewgreenwood9068 This is very good advice.
I love these sessions of *_Life Lessons with Papa Josh_*
I'd like to comment on the dungeons and dragons thing. Wizards of the Coast rescinded that and that also played into the outrage ending. The SRD 5.1 in now creative commons, and OGL License 1.0a is staying. So D&D changed their mind and fixed the issue they did that January of last year, there is no need to be angry at them if they fixed their mistake, right?
I think this is an interesting take, "gamers don't want to listen to drama, they just want to sit down and have fun playing a game." but... a LOT of this recent drama is specifically about that very issue. Billion dollar companies keep trying to pull stunts that get between gamers and "just having fun playing a game"
Sony saying "you need a PSN account to play Helldivers 2"? That gets in the way of people just sitting down and playing their game for fun - instead they sit down and find they can't play the game they paid for any more.
Hasbro pulling the OGL? That would have directly prevented people's favourite creators from making more supplements and content for the game.
---
I'm not saying anyone has to "invest" in these fights, but I'm very happy that people DID, because they helped turn those decisions around and keep those games fun for me.
How the hell did someone this mature and well-adjusted end up becoming a streamer?
The irony is that Baldur's Gate 3 is a game I love that I can absolutely tear to pieces. While it went form like a 10/10 to a 8-9/10 as my understanding of the full game matured in my mind its still fantastic. Just slightly scuffed. I hold it about in the same respect as Wasteland 3, Tyranny, or Shadowrun Returns. Albeit it has higher production values by far than all its competition.
Dragons Dogma 2 was a game I had an absolute blast playing on launch day, go online and see everyone is shitting on it saying it's awful
Helldivers 2 has the same issue with weapons. Every new weapon warbond reddit/twitter will say some of the weapons are un usable garbage but when I try them out they usually perform just fine even on difficulties 7-9
I've played "bad" games plenty of times, even revisited my older games, that I hated when younger, and enjoyed the moment, even if was just a short while, it was a nice and fun experienced. If someone dislikes a game, that's their preference, I can still enjoy it, got some of those games, where friends doesn't want to play games for various reasons, meanwhile I can still enjoy it, and get a fun experience.
Distance oneself from drama of games, and enjoy it, unless of course it's something bad like Ubisoft treats their players, or other big company tries to walk over their costumers
11:02 This is exactly it. One's level of enjoyment with something has nothing to do with my reasons for being critical of it. People have told me "I know you hate AI, but look at this" and no, I don't hate AI or the people who use it. I hate how it is weaponized to exploit people. Similar to your example with gacha games. Someone enjoying it is entirely separate from being critical of it.
correct. thats why i cancled my sub of a lof ot youtuber/twich streamers. drama over drama over drama. its getting annoying and boring.
same with reddit. every sub of a game ends the same. its exhausting
When Retweets/Likes/Comments can be translated into financial gain, all discussion has lost its merit.
Public outcry lasting 6 months feels like it's giving us too much credit.
I've noticed this a lot. I used to get deeply into the drama around games. Now I try to stay informed, but I don't immerse myself in the drama and just try to enjoy the game. As a kid, one of the reasons I enjoyed Oblivion and Halo, and WoW was because I wasn't aware of all of the drama around it. Not to say it's not important to make sure that you're not supporting a game that is not ethical and it doesn't mean we shouldn't demand that games aren't terrible, but I used to spend more time being apart of game drama than actually playing games.
If only more people in the world were this reasonable and wise.
The dialogue from mgs2 is prophetic
I don't entirely agree with this. Blizzard drama is exactly the reason why I stopped with Blizzard products. I was outraged, that outrage turned into action, and now I don't play Blizzard games. Sony is effectively self-destructing because of Helldivers 2 and now Ghost of Tsushima. I'm never going to buy another Sony product again. They've proven untrustworthy and would rather urinate on customer's than actually provide decent things. It's been about a decade since I've played an EA game.
Just because outrage goes away doesn't mean that damage hasn't been done.
The most horrifying thing I heard for a long time is that some people don´t have an opinion the thought never struck me and it´s horrifyíng
Great take, very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
use a deep cut question to find out if someone's honest or lying, then talk or dogwalk them respectively. Works all the time
It’s also more refreshing. Just being about games and fun. You know, like back in the good days.
14:18 the good old Socratic method.
Josh Strife Says Says:
That's blackmail. It's ridiculous.
12:09 i feel this so hard.