Why Are You So Angry? Part 2: Angry Jack

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

HippoCrit : this is pretty cathartic, i never really think about why i get angry. Seeing it put into words is nice, i feel like i understand myself a little better. I mean personally i don't agree with Anitas videos but i also don't get angry at them either. If i were to meet her in person i'd probably just tell her i'm not particularly a fan, or not mention it at all.

InnerPartisan : Reiterating my praise: This is incredible. Can't wait for the next parts.

Westernden : The Amazing Atheist is about as likable as ebola.

Maxime Lebled - 3D animator : Amazing video, very articulate and informative. Keep up the good work!

THRILLHO : This video touches on a much, much broader subject than just the Sarkeesian/Gamergate clusterfuck. It's kind of a shame it's relegated to being part 2 in a series like this. It asks enough worthwhile questions to be its own series. Either way, excellent work. Emphatic subscribe.

WizeOaldOwl : I've gotten quite a few looks from people when I tell them I don't drink alcohol, I guess because they think I'm judging them for doing so. Never mind the fact that I've often gone out with friends who were drinking because I wanted to hang out with them and have repeatedly offered to give rides home when they're a bit too drunk to drive safely. Nope, I'm just a judgmental prude who doesn't know how to "have a good time."

GigaBoost : "The atheist probably wasn't born an Atheist". Uh, I'm sure you must mean "wasn't RAISED an atheist", because literally everyone is born an atheist.

SheezyBites : I always find it weird when Americans talk about atheism as weird... in the UK the polar opposite is true and saying 'I'm Christian' gets much the same 'am I a bad person' response.

Alex Krasny : Love it. Very well said. (I am vegan and atheist)

Fal : I love the analogies you drew here. For me, it became a lot easier to rationalize being a feminist and liking problematic media when you simply take a step back and realize that no one is judging as long as you acknowledge that the stuff you like has problems. I play GTA V constantly. Does it gross me out? Yeah, all the time, but it's also pretty fucking fun. I hope the work of people like Sarkeesian, which, like you said, is just Feminism 101, encourages developers to better choices. If not, unless they do something that really offends me, I'll just keep buying their games and doing my best to call out what I think they could be doing better.

Genessa : Contrapoints noticed you!! Woooot!! Everyone watch thisss

An Abra : What athiest doesent celebrate christmas? Maybe like some hardcore athiest pluser but i shure as hell do its just culture and tradition the same way we celebrate valentines day or april fools

casersatz : Sargon clones in 5,4,3,2,1...

Jesse Kwast : the amazing atheïst makes us all look bad

Asher Scott : when people see someone else doing something good, PROVING that we all can too, people try to drag them down to their level

Freenix : Fantastic episode, well done. Just thought I'd get this out here before the Anti-Feminists show up.

3kbote : I dunno, it sounds really self absorbed for someone's first reaction when they face someone with alternative lifestyle decision to react with this anger. None of that decision has anything to do with you. It's their personal choice, not something they decided to do to spite you. Like when someone says, "No thanks on the sandwich, I don't eat meat," how the heck does that trigger some kind of existential questioning of yourself to the point you forgot to say, "Oh, my bad, they got veggie burgers too if you want."

James Mason : I've had a so many neruotypical people attack me because I asked someone else not to use ableist language (Such as Herp and Derp or S*ciopath and Psych*path and mental age stuff.) So this video connects to me on a fundamental level.

Sarah Clegg : Oh my goodness oh my gosh I think we've gone full mcintosh

trolleyman : This was... great. Amazing. It explains so well why people hold their entranched beliefs.

Vernaculis : Your analogy about Anita Sarkeesian being that woman at the party who simply denied a beverage on the basis of "she doesn't drink," is flawed in one very extreme way. Allow me to correct your analogy. Anita Sarkeesian arrived at the party and told everyone there that they were alcoholics and terrible people for enjoying drinking. Then the people at the party said, "Screw you Anita, we'll drink if we want to." Then after that response Anita goes on to say how everyone at the party was an asshole to her, thus proving her hypothesis that they are terrible people correct. Now that I've sorted that out for you I hope you won't keep claiming that all Anita did was make lowly non-introspective peasants question their moral framework. It's ignoring what actually occurred and attempting (subtly) to make Anita seem like someone who was criticized for no reason other than "questioning."

Rosie : This video is excellent. Thank you so much for taking the time to create it.

AgeMarkus : Yooooo, this did not disappoint! I think you hit the nail on the head regarding this unspoken attitude and reaction that's surprisingly prevalent online.

Red_Marmotte_stuff : I'm glad I found this channel with the Phil Fish video, I really admire how well written and clever these videos are. I guess I'm a little less dumber now, so thank you for that.

Tyler Haddad : I've actually been pondering the question of why people get so angry over little things lately. (One reason being the comment replies I got on the last video you put out) I also really like how you kept this video more general and then applied it to Anita. Helps the situation with her make more sense. Really great thoughts, and makes a lot of sense. Keep it up!

Alex Dunn : Man, dude. You smart. A+

The Justicar : This video is an excellent display of what one can do whenever he feels entirely free to imagine for other people why they do and don't do things. Anyone who watches it will notice a complete absence of any empirical reason to suppose that much of what is said in this video is true. The reason that no such empirical evidence is shown is simply because it's beyond this man to get it since it doesn't exist. But the attempted mind-reading is nevertheless mildly entertaining.

Daniel Feldspar : 2:51 Strictly speaking, everyone is born atheist.

ThatOneGuy : Please don't judge all atheists like you would TAA. Steve Shives and AronRa are more representative of some atheists, in my opinion.

Drprophetius : But Anita does believe in toxic masculinity and that video games make people misagonists. Also if you dont believe that, you are even more likely affected by it. I dunno, I like your presentation but this feels like a multipart strawman.

Kamodomon : I'm so happy I'm subbed to you!

BetterLateThanNever : I watch this video at least every few months and I have done for a year now, just to remind myself of how Jack works. I anticipate doing so again for the foreseeable future. Thank you for crystallizing this incredibly important thought process.

TBathory : You seem to forget a very big point in your argument on why people get upset when someone states they are vegan, or don't wear fur, or won't use a car etc. its the attacks from very vocal groups that accuse that if you eat meat, you murder, that if you wear fur you torture animales, that if you use a car you are responsible for destroying the enviroment. There is a media soundbox for each side of issues that condemns. All Athesists are trying to ruin christmas, All christians are trying to force creationism down your throat. Your argument is in a vacum that does not take into account this very large varible. I have not problem with vegans but I have met too many (and some that were not) that are self-righteous ass and the first words out their mouth when they find you eat meat is to berate my support of a corporate murder machine. There are valid reasons people react with predetermined ideas about another group, because rightly or wrongly there has been direct or indirect experiences when dealing with said group. You are also dissmissive and do not explore the these reasons, instead lableing other's "assholes" without looking at their argument and demonstrating what is it in their argument makes them such. I have read on both sides of the issue of Anita, there is so much wrong on both sides but to suggest she is blameless and that those with arguments about her research and conclusions are just "angry jacks" is not only dismissive but show a bias and that you are doing the same thing just in a more eloquent way.

Sardonicus : I feel like this idea you have that people get angry from simply wondering if they are wrong falls apart once it's reversed. When someone says something racist are you angry because you secretly wonder if racism is correct and that they are looking down on you? Or is it because you feel sickened that someone can even believe this thing? That they think of you as less than a person? That these people exist in the world. I know that when I'm dealing with a christian that freaks out that I'm an atheist I don't assume it's because they're wondering if they're wrong. Of course they don't think they're wrong no more than I think I'm wrong by being in their presence. It's because my worldview is so radically different than there's that it makes them uncomfortable, and that's okay. They wonder how can I believe this thing, when it's so obviously false in their eyes? Don't I know this means I'm going to the hell I don't believe in? Why am I not afraid of this like they are afraid? I must just want to sin right? Maybe I'm just a bad person? And the pondering continues from there because it's coming from their own view of the world without really grasping the other side. That's what people do to people when their beliefs differ radically. It makes them uncomfortable because of confirmation bias. People get angry when they feel their values are being undermined by another persons values, and people generally don't like to be around people who's views are vastly different. I think it's a huge stretch to assume that any time a person gets angry about an opinion they necessarily question if it's truth. Most people lack the self reflection to wonder these things because they're too stuck in their own worldview so they stay the same.

Vahr Kalla : Being someone who used to be fervently opposed to Sarkeesian for the dogma that you outlined, I found this video very eye opening. Good work! I've been here since 'blood is compulsory', looking forward to more

LogosSteve : You just cherry picked. Saying "a lot of prominent atheists are assholes" and only showing, to my knowledge, the only popular "angry" Youtube atheist on Youtube (not to mention him saying a statement that is highly debatable and not necessarily wrong) shows me you don't seem to be taking this seriously, and you have a biased position which you're glossing over.

DigitalZ : The problem with the big argument of this video, is that you're saying that Anita's detractors are criticizing/harassing her because she's a woman. People dislike and oppose Anita for plenty of actually valid and well thought through opinions. We could be having an immensely important discussion about Anita's *ideas*, but instead you chose to make it about who *Anita is as a woman*. It surprises me that you haven't actually viewed any meaningful criticism of her ideas. If all of her detractors were just people calling her a bitch and giving her rape threats, then yes, you'd have a point. The issue here is that rape threats are not criticism. Rape threats are not a conversation. People are trying to discuss her (potentially dangerous) ideas. Arguments like "She's only receiving hate because she's a woman, I'm allowed to say this because I'm a man." are conversation killers. Instead of talking like "white male capitalist patriarchy" is a given, let's try to discover if it even *exists.* We don't "let you say" shit like this because you're a man. We let you because you're intelligent. Because unlike Anita, you don't make anything up, you don't lie, and you don't make money from doing so. Not all arguments boil down to "She's a woman so criticism is sexist." Let's have a real conversation.

Mitchell Warr : Normally when people think that others are judging them: they are actually judging themselves, projecting that idea onto the other person. Person A has a complete idea of how they Want to look and what that entails. So when they think someone is judging them, it's actually them thinking "What does this person think of me" or more importantly "Do I come across how I think, or need to, come across". This in and of itself is fine I guess, especially of you are aware that it's your judgement; however, denial means you shift that blame to person B. The big problem, the catalyst escalator, is that in our brains exists a belief system. It says stuff like "Do X and you die" and "Do Y and you will prosper". Either you prosper or you die, fear or love is the two driving emotions in life; most everything else is a mixture of context and those two things. So if someones belief says "Come across in social situations as Z or you will die", and they think they are not coming across as Z: it literally becomes a question of life and death. After shifting blame from themselves to person B, person A now thinks person B is saying "You are behaving wrongly, you will die". Boy howdy, if person A's idea of person B is correct, then person A is dead. Can't be having that, gotta switch to the defensive and make sure person B is wrong somehow

Andrew Sheneman : But Anita Sarkeesian isnt just saying "I'm a vegan' she waving pictures of dead animals while yelling about how we are murders.   She isnt just saying "I'm an atheist" shes calling us ignorant bigots while explaining how the Nativity was stolen from Mithras.   I have no problem with people who dont like games, or even who dont like AAA action games.  Thats their opinion.  But if you are going out of your way to insult people, or things they enjoy, while misrepresenting facts, then yea you're going to piss some people off, and should expect a response.   Yea some people went too far(death threats are NOT cool), but it takes a LOT of willful ignorance to think that gamers shouldnt be annoyed with what Anita is saying.

battlelon133 : I'm gonna say it. This video has many flaws. It doesn't come down to the actual points themselves just what they stand on. The biggest point throughout this is that gamer fear that Anita may be right and so they panic and knee jerk from the idea. The problem with that is that it's a false narrative. People got angry that Anita was misrepresenting games as a whole. Anita in her videos often take problem and blow parts out of proportion while never taking a moment to realise that video games have come just as far as other medias. Anita often targeted problems that either where already complained about by critics, not progressive of the rest of video games or didn't really matter to her arguments. The two golden arguments of this were the Arkham City cape debacle and the mannerisms of gendered characters. These two arguments show all three of the top problems. When it came to Arkham City she is correct in saying that Catwomen is oversexualised. The catch being that she then try to paint all characters like that which was wrong #LauraCroft , The source material and movies also depicted her similarly and critics like NerdCubed already complained about it. Had the same problem with walk cycles despite that Women Walk With A Sway IRL. Gamers didn't lash out (At First) because she knew to much but instead to little. The sexism in games to me come down to marketing alone so calling video games women signalization's simulators when movie are almost as bad (AClockWorkOrange?) Doesn't acheive anything. Plus when Video games are always such a targeted medium fan boys have become more religious and so are frankly tired. Love ya man but more research required.

RagnarRox : I can confirm from experience that telling somebody "I don't eat meat" alienates you often times, because this dissonance in perception over the core meaning of your statement is suddenly in the room. You just informed others about you not eating meat. But they feel judged by you and start defending themselves even if you are not in the slightest bit interested in their defense. You just don't want that fucking burger. And then the next hour everyone talks about this topic with lots of people getting really angry at the implication that there's suddenly, how you put it, a fork in their road when they actually just want to sit tight. You really brought that one home. And the amount of downvotes on this video (and the first one) completely prove how full of over-sensitive people the internet is. The mention of they keyword "Anita Sarkeesian", no matter the content of the video, leading to instant downvotes and hatred.

HaveGliderWillTravel : What is obnoxious about "that guy" at the party who doesn't drink, or the vegetarian at the table who doesn't eat meat, or that environmentalist who refuses to buy anything in Styrofoam, isn't the fact that they say "no thanks" when offered a beer or a hamburger on a foam plate, but rather they say "no thanks, I'm an X." For no reason at all they have to interject their opinions into the conversation when all they were asked was a simple yes or no question. There is no reason to do this other than to spark a discussion or to advertise your personal ideologies. It would be equally awkward if the person said, "sure I'll have a beer because I'm an atheist." The natural response is "ummm...oook?" It isn't that they are challenging your personal beliefs that you are attempting to ignore because you are afraid of the answer, but rather it is an awkward response outside the norm of typical social interaction.

Sporkaganza : I kinda felt like this episode was a kind of awkward and not-totally-applicable comparison to establish something I already knew, but I guess for people who aren't as aware of social justice thought, this episode is a little necessary.

DOYLERULES69X : So the no impact MAN gets horrible hate and death threats on the internet.  So the WOMAN that critiques video games gets horrible hate and death threats on the internet. Congrats Feminists you've reached EQUALITY!!!!!

Alexander Sludskiy : >Criticizes people for over-generalizing others. >Over-generalizes others Danning-Krueger Syndrome in action, ladies and gentlemen.

Chris : A superb articulation of complex and uncomfortable social circumstances from a self-aware, humble and compassionate perspective. This is a great series.

Ole Gerko : Why being mad at Jack Thompson is ok, but at Anita is not? I defended gaming my whole life - first to ignorant old people, now to biased feminists. What's the difference? (ofc by "being mad" i don't reffer to threats, but a couple of swear words i think is ok). Can't you use the same arguments against people who was mad at Jack Thompson? "oooh - you just mad because deep inside you know that he's right and violent game will make you violent!"

AFGNCAAP the great : I have many friends. Some of whom are vegans and some of whom eat mostly animal products; some of whom are feminists and some of whom lean toward MRA and gamergate; some of whom are religious and some of whom are total anti-theists. I identify as none of these things (although I am an athiest and I do eat animal products) and find, for the most part, I can have healthy, balanced and informed discussions with all of these people without either of us having our sensibilities offended. This is a good thing, obviously. However, there are people who I do _not_ consider my friends, who fall under all of these categories. And these are the kinds of people who are fundamentalists. They're aggressive and defensive and often feel that they're beyond scrutiny. I've had them tell me that I couldn't possibly understand their position because I'm cis/male/eat-meat/not religious, because they believe that fact absolves them of the need to simply expand on their reasoning. As someone who values themselves as critically minded, I find these people to be offensive. I find their disregard for reason and their own minds to be upsetting and, when I have found myself unable to leave their presence, I have become hostile in return - our conversation descending in to petty squabbling. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's the truth. I _think_, that is to say I have a suspicion, that Anti Sarkeesian is one of these people. I've watched all of her videos and her tendency to flatly misrepresent the material she refers to, and to state rhetoric as _fact_ without explanation make suspicious of her. Unfortunately the pure, liquid, molten hatred being directed at her by people I have no respect or time for, has prevented legitimate criticism from being addressed and I suspect it never will. Honestly I forgot how I was going to tie this up.

Matthew Crawford : I don't know people who think like that. The thought that they don't like what I do so they think I'm a bad person.

OMGltsFred : But isn't that true the other way around? When People bring forth truth about the pay gap, not being related to sexism. Isn't the people bringing forth that statistic, "that person at the party" and the feminism, and others who believe the pay gap is due to sexism, they now have to think about something uncomfortable, becuase they have believed a lie for a long time.