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.

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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

Jesse Kwast : the amazing atheïst makes us all look bad

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

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

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."

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

Luke Johnstone : I feel compelled to correct you. "We are not born Atheist, they probably grew up believing..." No, we are all born Atheist, then our parents indoctrinate us into a religion or belief system.

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.

Olo Sabandija : I really don't mind being called names or being considered a "bad person", what gets to my nerves in Sarkeesian's case, is that her personal opinions and views are not being used in a constructive way, her kickstarter was not to create a feminist game developing company or at the very least produce one single Sarkeesian approved videogame, it was to produce more videos to complain, and her backers haven't received even that. Her videos are just attacks on the game developers, writers and artists' freedom of speech. The worst part is that there is just no way of pleasing her, since she and her videos feed on controversy, whenever one of her requirements is met, she raises the bar even further. She wanted a female Link on a Zelda game, Mr. Miyamoto pandered to her and her loud minority's demands and she got it, and then she found a way to complain about it. She struck gold by attacking sexism in videogames, gamers tend to respond to any aggression, perceived or real, in a more immediate and violent manner than movie or book fans, that's why feminist frequency is all about games now. instead of using all that fame and exposure to draw attention to sexism in all the media as she used to do on her early videos, she specialized on the issue that she deemed more profitable: videogames. Sarkeesian is in for the money. As a gamer I'm furious that a person who don't even like videogames is making a living out of attacking my favorite pastime, but being objective, I'm actually impressed at how she managed to do get so much funding and support despite not having finished even half of what she promised on her kickstarter. Successful scammer is successful.

KT JH : Anita never really ever responds to female critics who counter her points, either, so that is a very moot point on your behalf.  She focuses on the male critics, lumps them into harrassers, than says this is how things are.  People have found videos of her saying she doesn't like / doesn't actually play video games, so she is spinning a narrative.  She is going after something that she never really had an interest in. You like asking why, why is that?  Games do not directly impact her life, so why is she, an outsider, looking in at something she doesn't actually like?  There are female gamers / critics / developers out there now.  I for one do not have issues with games, they are what they are.  They are meant to be fun, not taken seriously. I am a female gamer, and I disapprove of Anita's lies.  She doesn't know what she's talking about and she's going after what she thought was an easy target.  Feminism is about censoring everything that they dislike.  The problem is, they are so contradictory in their statements, there is no pleasing them.  People would have probably liked Anita more had she not out right lied about her intentions.  She does not wish improvement in a hobby, she wishes to censore that which she doesn't care about.  What is the purpose of this?  Apparently it's to make money, get famous, and / or spin her Feminist narrative.  Though, to be honest, talking about her only makes her that much more popular.  Now she has a Feminist horde backing her up and parroting her.  Thankfully, games will more than likely not change, they haven't in the last 3 years and so long as companies make money, they'll continue distrubiting them.  If the Feminists had their way, they would more than likely lose out and that is not conducive to their health.

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.

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.

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.

Oscar Barda : The thing about "atheist are assholes" is really dependant on the degree. I mean when your life and your identity (as in, I made a video once about atheism, it brought me 200000 views, now that's who I am online) is so strongly about something, no matter what, you're going to be angry about by default… I advocate for video games in the circles of power of many countries and it used to be that talking to a minister for culture anywhere in the world was like a minefield of trying to dodge straight insults at you because as "mister video games" you were responsible for addiction and violence and perversion of kids and so on. That drove me in a very literal sense into a posture where I just grew tired of those arguments and so knowing that they lead nowhere, I started being blunt, then rude about it: YES, I'M THE VIDEO GAME GUY NO THEY DON'T CAUSE AUTISM. And it took me some time to understand that I was being a bad advocate, that all my efforts were undermined by poor pedagogy.  So for anyone that is passionate about an argument but that is exposed to people ignoring their points oft become very virulent about it and then often violent when they feel ignored, they resort to force. And I think (that's a tangent) that we've taught that to children: when you slap a kid because you have no more argument or patience, you teach them that violence is the be all end all of arguments. When all else fails, scream louder and diminish the other speaker as if they were a child. We resort to that very often and I don't think that's a system that's built into us.

Houshalter : No one making death threats to Anita remotely believes that what she is saying might be true or that they might be wrong. They are completely determined that they are right and see her ideas as a threat. "Have power over her"... lol what.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Darth Suraii : The problem with Anita Sarkeesian is that she flat out lies about games she knows close to nothing about. 4:17 what he say is a bit harsher way of saying, "she lies a lot", judging atheists based on the "Amezing Atheist", one person with his own moral and ethical values and a different world view, he is in the end just an individual. So to judge every atheist based on him is as tolerable as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all catholic priests are paedophiles" generalizations are bad and some of your arguments in this video are poorly thought out just because they are sweeping generalizations. Also I have nothing against Anita as a person, her action on the other hand combined with her misinformation about simply any put any subject at hand, makes her appear as a con artist.

debaiona : For me, the issue comes when someone like Anita Sarkeesian makes a truth claim that is really based in her own opinion. Saying "I find this media to be problematic" is perfectly fine. Saying "This media IS problematic" is a truth statement that needs to be backed up with research and evidence about what problems the media has actually caused. The sane critics (as opposed to those whom I believe to be genuinely insane, such as those who make threats) call for this evidence, but are often lumped in with the people making threats, and they don't feel as though their concerns are being adequately addressed. I hope you make this distinction clearer in future videos, rather than lumping all criticism together as "Angry Jack."

pyr666 : you have to pretend anita is powerless when, unlike any of her detractors, she has had a seat at the UNITED NATIONS.

Anthony : "The atheist probably wasn't born an atheist" ???? I wasn't aware one's parent's religion(s) were transmitted in-utero. That's fascinating!

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.

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!!!!!

Radium J : Oh, I finally get it.  The cis-Jackbooted White Man is should not speak unless spoken to, and should never speak about anything that affects "marginalized people".  If he does, it can only be because he is angry.