Soooo.... James "AVGN" Rolfe is in the news this week..

[RaikuFA]

EDIT: Also tainting things with feminism is my new favourite thing to do. Sorry dude, you can't have some of this cake, it's tainted by feminism.

Nobody would want that cake though, because it would be the bitterest cake in the world.

Excuse you, son. My cakes are freaking awesome. You can't even taste the feminism... until it's too late. By then you're already seeing men and women as equal, and queueing up for the new Ghostbusters movie while drinking male tears from a sippy cup.

[small]Do I have to point out I'm having a laugh? I really hope not. But you never know.[/small]

This comment brought to you by Tainted Feminism(TM)

Question: What do the cakes taste like?

I'm a varied cake feminist. I can make all kinds. My most recent creation was a Blueberry Lemon Drizzle cake. It came out lovely, though the recipe was a bit different than the standard Lemon Drizzle I usually make. The trick with the feminism is to whisper about equality and then gently fold those whispers into the batter.

Never had blueberry lemon. Sounds good.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Omg, the red text. And look! There's a tweet of a woman saying she cant wait for Ghostbusters. And another person saying they're going to see the movie!
WHEN WILL THE HATE END?!??!?

You're right, it reads more like damage control by those desperate for Hollywood-senpai and its fat stacks of cash to notice them.

EDIT: Also tainting things with feminism is my new favourite thing to do. Sorry dude, you can't have some of this cake, it's tainted by feminism.

"Fear the taint! The forces of Cake-os call for your destruction!"

...I'm sorry, it was just too good to pass up.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

neoprogressives

Can we please just stop putting "neo-" in front of everything as though that makes it look more radical and extremist? It doesn't, it just looks like the bizarre hybrid of strawman ("progressivism is an extremist, hostile movement") with a built-in escape hatch ("well obviously not all progressives, just the, you know, neo ones").

If we want to go the extra mile and call them what they are then they're regressives in all honesty, but I try to be generous with my own definitions when being serious. Not everyone who wants to legalise drugs(which is the only progress outside of LGBT activism I can think of) is a raving lunatic.

 

[Rednog]

After reading all the various nonsense associated with this I honestly don't know what to say anymore.
I'm just baffled as to how people can be so red in the face mad that someone holds a rational argument of "I'm not going to see this movie because it seems bad and I don't want to encourage a studio by giving them my money."

It really is sad that whatever movement is overtaking the general public has swung so far into irrationality. And it really does seem like it's going to be here for quite some time until there is the inevitable backlash that swing us to the polar opposite. I really don't see anyone coming out ahead of this quagmire in the next couple of decades.

 

[Josh123914]

He did what a reviewer should really probably do in that instance (having a colored view based on past experiences)...he stepped away.
If he doesn't think he can be fair on this movie, then I don't know what more people are asking for.

 

[JimB]

JimB, my boy, I'm kinda losing the thread of your argument.

According to you, it is not okay to express an opinion on the internet about someone else expressing an opinion on the internet.

According to you, it is okay to have an opinion on the internet about the way someone else phrases his opinion on the internet.

Therefore, so long as I manage to sound civil in the way I can present it, no one is allowed to criticize me for anything I say, no matter how reprehensible it is, because substance (or lack thereof) is immaculate and not a fair subject for discussion, while style is totally okay to comment upon.

 

[Dizchu]

You know what the real tragedy of all this is? James probably made the video in an attempt to AVOID controversy.

I mean look at it this way, you're a content creator that's built their career on nostalgia, reminiscing about old video games and films. There's a film coming out that has had a massive negative reaction and any discussion about it turns into mean-spirited drama and endless hostility. You know that whatever you say about the film will just pour fuel on the fire.

So he did the best thing that he could do. He explained calmly that he did not want to be a part of it. He's not a professional film critic, he's an enthusiast. I've actually written album reviews for Sputnikmusic, which is a sort of hybrid of professional and community music criticism. You know what gets really old really fast? People listening to widely-disliked albums they knew going in would be fucking awful, and they do it just to trash it.

People are calling James childish? Are you kidding me? This is the most mature thing he could do, and people are being such unbearable pissbabies about it. MRA SCUM!! GAMERGATE!! MUH-SOGGY-KNEEEEEES!!

Jesus Christ this happens all the time, any attempts to de-escalate a situation ends up making it worse. And people wonder why feminism on the internet is stuck firmly in the toilet.

 

[anthony87]

...But I'm saying the insult was unnecessary. Not the opinion.

Oh. So, it's okay to criticize people for the way they express their opinions on the internet, but not the opinions themselves. Opinions are sacrosanct, but tone is not.

Um... yeah, I think? I would like to think we live in a society that values not being a dick.

What a delightful loophole this forms for politely-spoken Klansmen. Or hell, let's be less dramatic than that example, and go with anti-vaxxers.

Careful there man, slip down that slope any harder and you're likely to break something.

 

[JimB]

Careful there man, slip down that slope any harder and you're likely to break something.

Spare me. Pointing out the applications of the rules as written is not a slippery slope. It's treating the premise as the absolute it's presented as.

 

[the December King]

I'm a varied cake feminist. I can make all kinds. My most recent creation was a Blueberry Lemon Drizzle cake. It came out lovely, though the recipe was a bit different than the standard Lemon Drizzle I usually make. The trick with the feminism is to whisper about equality and then gently fold those whispers into the batter.

Cripes, I'd risk the feminism for that cake, it sounds wicked.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Are they calling him a misogynistic **** on Twitter? They're calling him a misogynistic **** on Twitter, aren't they? Fuck Twitter. Twitter fights aren't news

Anytime someone complains about something that includes 'on twitter...' my inner Lewis Black comes to the fore in all its hand-waving histrionic glory. There are only THREE legitimate uses for Twitter. To announce an advertisement for something, to whine needlessly about something, or to troll people with whatever comments will make people the most butthurt. If you're using it for anything else, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG, and everyone should point and laugh at you.

Also comedy. I can't deny that Twitter can be a great source of actual funny shit. The Kim Kierkegaardashian Twitter is pure gold, for instance.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Whatever you think about his stance, he at least made it without making personal attacks on anyone, I dont know what calling him a manbaby is meant to achieve.

Accurate description of a guy who has had tantrums in the past and will in the future?

So, you care to back that up, or are you just gonna make a statement like that without evidence? Cause outside of the Nerd and Board James personas, Rolf's pretty laid back and easy to get along with, to the point I'm not getting anything about James throwing tantrums.

Unless you actually ARE basing your stance entirely on the characters he plays, which honestly kind of scares me.

I wouldn't expect any evidence. I've seen Amyss make claims like that a few times before while lurking about. Next step will likely be carefully under-the-radar insults and accusations of your intentions; and probably some misrepresentation. Frankly they're one of the few people on the forum that I'm genuinely scared of ever talking to (I have anxiety issues), to the point of avoiding threads entirely.

You know what the real tragedy of all this is? James probably made the video in an attempt to AVOID controversy.

Its like I said on the first page. There is NO safe position to be held on the new Ghostbusters. If you mention it at all, even just to say you're not going to see it and therefore don't want to comment further, you get abuse of some form or another thrown at you. The only thing you can do is to just say literally nothing.

[small]Do I have to point out I'm having a laugh? I really hope not. But you never know.[/small]

Poe's Law is a terrible thing sometimes. X-D

 

[Something Amyss]

Unless you actually ARE basing your stance entirely on the characters he plays, which honestly kind of scares me.

Well, then, you can relax. I am not basing it off his video game characters. In fact, I find James less embarrassing when he's pretending to empty his bowels on video game consoles.

As for anything else? I'm not interested in a formal debate with you.

 

[Something Amyss]

Omg, the red text. And look! There's a tweet of a woman saying she cant wait for Ghostbusters. And another person saying they're going to see the movie!
WHEN WILL THE HATE END?!??!?

It's madness! Madness!

EDIT: Also tainting things with feminism is my new favourite thing to do. Sorry dude, you can't have some of this cake, it's tainted by feminism.

Pffffft. You're late to the party. I've been doing this for ages. Without even identifying myself as a feminist. Apparently, that's how tainted feminism is.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

He did what a reviewer should really probably do in that instance (having a colored view based on past experiences)...he stepped away.

Yeah, he didn't really step away. He presented a "non-review" (his words) based on a trailer and rendered a judgment about a movie before he even saw it. If he just wanted to say "I don't want to see this movie, I'm passing" then he wouldn't have needed more than six minutes to air his greivances about this movie (many of which I agree with, BTW).

If he doesn't think he can be fair on this movie, then I don't know what more people are asking for.

I don't think that was his point. He's angry that this movie was made, and he's resentful of its existence ("The original, which we now have to call the 1984 version...") because it's a "name-make" (a term I actually don't mind). The video isn't about his bias or fairness, it's about how ill-advised this remake is, and how bad it looks.

And to be clear, I don't think his video or his decision is sexist or mysonginistic. And I think a lot of his criticism is sound. I just think Rolfe is being ridiculous by declaring he's not going to see/review a movie while in the process declaring that it looks awful. He's totally within his right as a critic to decide he doesn't want to see a particular film, and explain why. But he nor anyone else shouldn't be surprised when people slam him for casting a judgment about a film before it's even been released.

You know what the real tragedy of all this is? James probably made the video in an attempt to AVOID controversy.

No, he didn't. He's a smart guy and a seasoned critic. He knew this would probably generate controversy and piss some folks off and probably get a ton of views (nearly 900,000). If he wanted to avoid controversy, he could have just not seen the movie and, if people asked, said "I don't want to see this movie, so there won't be a review." But instead, he made a big show of his "non-review" -- "Instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do -- go see the movie and then talk about how bad it is -- I'm gonna do something different. Something unheard of!"*

*Which is funny, because he's talking for six-plus minutes about how bad the movie is HAVING NOT SEEN IT.

 

[shrekfan246]

After reading all the various nonsense associated with this I honestly don't know what to say anymore.
I'm just baffled as to how people can be mad so red in the face mad that someone holds a rational argument of "I'm not going to see this movie because it seems bad and I don't want to encourage a studio by giving them my money."

I'm baffled that people can be so mad that a comedian mocked a reviewer in a pretty neutral way. Somehow, I have a feeling that if Ghostbusters wasn't involved in this, nobody would really care about the supposedly "rude" comments Patton made (which really weren't nearly as rude as even people on this forum regularly get).

 

[Cheesy Goodness]

James Rolfe has always seemed like a very down-to-earth person. While I'm not a fan of everything he does, I have always admired him a little. He was the very first YouTube channel I ever followed, and his years of content feel very personal to me. He is also the least phony online critic I can think of.

I don't disagree with anything he said, and I never planned to see the new Ghostbusters either. Never in a million years would I think anyone would attack him personally over such a sincere, yet innocuous video. This kind of stuff is why I hardly ever share my opinions about anything, especially online. I've also tried to live by a very true phrase: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." For this case, I'll break my own rule. This backlash couldn't be any more manufactured.

 

[Dizchu]

No, he didn't. He's a smart guy and a seasoned critic. He knew this would probably generate controversy and piss some folks off and probably get a ton of views (nearly 900,000). If he wanted to avoid controversy, he could have just not seen the movie and, if people asked, said "I don't want to see this movie, so there won't be a review." But instead, he made a big show of his "non-review" -- "Instead of doing what everybody else is gonna do -- go see the movie and then talk about how bad it is -- I'm gonna do something different. Something unheard of!"*

*Which is funny, because he's talking for six-plus minutes about how bad the movie is HAVING NOT SEEN IT.

He wanted to explain why he wouldn't be seeing it, and the current obsession with remakes and reboots that he finds exhausting. If he just responded to people asking for the curious absence of any "Ghostbusters 2016 review" it'd be ambiguous, and ironically it would encourage even more of this "reading between the lines" bullshit that happened despite his efforts.

He didn't talk for six minutes about how bad the movie is, because he doesn't know that the film is bad. He even admits that he doesn't know if the film will be bad. He just doesn't want to get involved, he doesn't want to be a part of the whole controversy because no matter which side you pick, you're gonna get shit on. So what did he do? He tried to be diplomatic, he only mentioned the whole "female Ghostbusters" gimmick once and that was out of necessity. And look at the response he got for doing that, "he's only avoiding talking about it so he can avoid looking sexist!" Seriously?

I honestly can't stand all of these bullshit assumptions about people, that they're horrible misogynists for not wanting to get involved. If the Wayans did a remake of or sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey and I refused to see it, would that make me a racist?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

JimB, my boy, I'm kinda losing the thread of your argument.

According to you, it is not okay to express an opinion on the internet about someone else expressing an opinion on the internet.[/b]

No, I just think it's kinda a jerk move to insult people while doing so. Least of all, the person you're disagreeing with. It's counter productive to the whole point of conductive argument... as if such a thing ever truly happens anyway. I'm much more for the idea of passive activism, leading from behind and all that jazz.

According to you, it is okay to have an opinion on the internet about the way someone else phrases his opinion on the internet.

It's okay to have an opinion about anything and to share it. It's the challenging of one's ideas that allows one to grow as a better humanbeing.

Therefore, so long as I manage to sound civil in the way I can present it, no one is allowed to criticize me for anything I say, no matter how reprehensible it is, because substance (or lack thereof) is immaculate and not a fair subject for discussion, while style is totally okay to comment upon.

No. not at all. Depending on what ones objective is, convince the otherside and make the world a better place from one's own subjective pov or win the argument.