The Mysterious Mr. Enter

I think you're oversimplifying the issue.

Yeah I am opting out that video.

PC culture is out of control is commonly a saying that is used by a alt-right/neo-nazi hacks that are trying to erase the fact that they shouldn't be alouded to be bigoted pieces of shit without being called out on it.

Mr Enter is playing with fire and I do not agree with him in this case.

Edited by Wispy on Dec 18th 2018 at 6:33:19 AM

There is a difference between when it come from alt-righters and when the complaints come from those who really have issues with nitpicking for ways to be offended.

I see that on both sides. The anti-PC crowd just likes to pretend they don't do that.

Judging by the thumbnail he totally buys into the alt-right talking point that "Dem liberal media is trying to take away our songs y'all". If you guys watch tell me, does he go full Jontron? Also most people who get called sjws dont want to ban things, they just call out things that are bad bad, and the right wing spins that into "liberals want muh things banned!!1!"

Why exactly are we surprised about this? Remember his The Goode Family video^note More specifically, his second follow-up video to it.?

they just call out things that are bad bad

They call out things they view as offensive and put pressure on companies to change those things so its acceptable to their tastes. The irony is their are other ways to help less fortunate people such as volunteer work and charity that are infinitely more productive and have more of a definite impact.Its sad to think All that time spent by these people complaining about Baby Its Cold Outside being the date rape song (despite the fact that their are several current songs that are more misogynistic) or that one of Game and Watch’s attacks references some old game no one gives a shit about which featured Native American Caricatures could’ve been spent making a real difference in the world. And just to clarify I’m not talking about all people who have a problem with the examples I listed. If you do go out and make a difference in the community good on you. I’m primarily referring to armchair crusaders who get wound up over petty shit.

I also fail to understand how these moral crusaders are any different from previous moral crusaders like Wertham or Lieberman besides the fact that they’re smart enough to not get rid of stuff they don’t like via legislation (at least in the US)

Edited by Invincibleasshole on Dec 19th 2018 at 5:18:31 AM

It is entirely presumptuous for Enter to make the claims that he did about "being gypped" which a) Reeks of the whole "well I don't see it used so it it must be uncommon" (it's still rather common parlance here in Australia and where I was living in London) b) Using a word of which the root of the phrase is slur and the meaning of the phrase is "to be scammed or swindled" (a stereotype that has long affected Rroma) all the while while hate crimes and persecution against the Romani are on the rise in Europe.

It's almost as if his only experience of Romani and Romani culture comes entirely from Disney's adaptation of Hunchback and he doesn't know what he's talking about here.

It certainly doesn't give his argument much credence.

Also I'm not surprised this is the turn he's taken considering he's spewed some MRA misinfo before.

Edited by PippingFool on Dec 20th 2018 at 12:39:54 AM

I think that dismissing all criticism against over dogmatic political correctness as being just talk from the alt-right is not helpful.

Some people who complain about representation may do nothing else to help people but I think it's wrong to imply that most of them do nothing else. And how minority groups are portrayed in media is important because negative or overly stereotypical portrayals can affect public perception of those groups and their "real issues". Also quite a few people who complain about this "petty bullshit" actually are members of the group's that are affected. I've seen several Roma criticize the phrase "getting gypped" and dismissing their voices is callous at best.

And the fact they don't enact legislation to get rid of stuff they criticize is a pretty huge difference between current "SJ Ws" and the prior moral crusaders. Most of the so-called "SJ Ws" just criticize work they don't like and even the ones who do advocate for removing media they find offensive have little power to make that happen. While people getting too dogmatic about social justice stuff is worthy of criticism and frustrating, I think the harm they do is vastly overstated.

Edited by TommyFresh on Dec 19th 2018 at 6:06:13 AM

@Invincible Asshole: The "you could be doing charity instead" is pretty vague critique. Since it could be leveled at pretty much anything that doesn't help people in a direct way. You could level it really easily at religion, (which could be argued very well.) the anti-social critique crowd, (who it should be noted are known to reflexively complain about any gay or minority representation as "pandering to sjws") artists of any stripe, (we could probably get all the filmmakers and make them solve hunger instead). No one is really upset about "baby it's cold outside" honestly that is a spun Fox News story that because one radio station decided not to play it (because of lost context it comes off as bad) means "LIBERAL DEMONRATS ARE BANNING IT!1!"

As for your critique of "putting pressure on companies" yes, yes they do, it's called criticism. People of all opinions tend to do that.

The moral crusaders argument: Nobody is trying to get them federally banned or even stop people from watching it. They are asking the authors to "do better" and sometimes the author's choose to listen and sometimes they don't. The argument your trying to make fails because under your logic you shouldn't get offended by any story, even something with values as terrible as Birth Of A Nation.

Mr Enter often falls into those thinking traps, he should know better and I'm gonna call him out on that if he wants to continue to speak about social issues.

Considering he has been upset about Family Guy being too offensive before and then says "everyone is offended by everything!" I'm not too keen on listening to him.

Edited by Wildcard on Dec 19th 2018 at 9:10:18 AM

Yeah yeah, we know it's not just the alt-right complaining about it.

But complaining about sjw's is also, at best, a completely pointless action, as a) "they" aren't a unified group and as such have no power over you (other than shaming online, which, let's be honest, is how all online discourse is handled), b) only gives more legitimacy to the opinions of bigots, so is less than helpful, and c) unless you are a part of the social/racial/cultural group in question being referenced, you have no say as to whether or not something "isn't harmful", and are a damn fool to think otherwise.

As for Enter himself, the man's a damn hypocrite for all the times he's complained about Family Guy, Spongebob Squarepants, and King of the Hill being offensive and then having the gall to say crap like this.

Edited by Eldritcho on Dec 19th 2018 at 6:28:06 AM

I'm wondering just where all this "dogmatic political correctness" is.

"Dogmatic Political Correctness" has been around since at least the 90s, apparently. If it means "forced diversity and tokenism" a) what is the metric of "being forced" here being used and b) how legit is the source discussing the supposed political lefitist biased agenda. Like, I'm not going to take a Davis Aurini or rockingmre type at their word that everything in Star Wars: A New Hope was designed with a "leftist political agenda" in mind and that characters like Rey, Finn and Poe are tokenism because I know that argument is disingenuous on its face. Plus it completely ignores economics coming into play that a lot of these big media companies are not adding more black people or women to their movies because the jews regressive cultural marxists have been secretly indoctrinating creators to do that. It's because more demographics = more demographic appeal = more money to be wringed out of one product. It's savvy business to have diverse casts because diverse casts are chique.

(Or sometimes it's because creators might just want to have diverse casts. Crazy thought, but it's true. Not everything is created for an agenda.)

Second of all. If you want art to be art, you have to let it be criticised like art always has. "Male Gaze" (wildly misunderstood as it is) has been around as a term since the 70s, feminist critiques around since the 60s and marxist critiques much earlier. These ideas being aimed at modern media isn't new, it's just more exposed than ever thanks to the internet.

Third of all. "Right of Free Speech" just means that it's not illegal to say what you're saying. It doesn't mean that the people around you have to listen to it or give you a platform, especially if you're say, a Neo-Nazi or Nazi-Useful Idiot who parrots a lot of their talking points that can legitimately get people harmed. If the best thing you can say about your argument is "It's not illegal to have it", something has gone awfully awfully wrong.

Fourth of all. The leftist/ feminist aren't out to take your medias away. In fact, the people that seem to want to legitimately limit your right of free speech are often evangelical, conservative moral watchdog groups. People who say "Hey the anime "Women Getting Ripped Apart By Aliens" is kinda shitty and sexist" aren't going to be storming into your house, burning your dakimakuras and taking your Crunchyroll account and Kissanime access away from you. It's a vast misunderstanding of the idea of feminist critique and what it's purpose is in general.

As for people like Milo and Jordan being campaigned against from speaking on campuses, that goes back into point two. Places don't have to host your speech, even if you have a right to say it. Plus to feed back into point 1, if it looks bad for you and makes you unpopular with your student body to host people who have email names like LongKnives1290 or some who attracts a crowd that constantly asks for him "address the Jewish Question" and says that Humanities Studies in university are dominated by Cultural Marxists (You know, that nazi conspiracy theory?), cutting your losses and not giving them a platform where they can openly mock a transgender student on stage might be seen as good praxis. Plus there is somewhat of a double standard here. People protesting Milo Yiannopolous are "censorship dogs", but the folks who make a petition to ban all social studies in universities "majestic free speech martyrs". Similarly there is the whole "DON'T WATCH IT" for people who give "progressive" criticisms on a thing, but completely tear apart a movie or show they haven't even seen yet for it's "progressive bias" (The 2016 Ghostbusters reboot, She-Ra 2018, that exclusive Crunchyroll Magical Girl show) without a lick of irony.

I have seen no shortage of bad leftist takes on the internet (Steven Universe is fascist apologia because Blue Diamond is sad), and yeah, I have seen leftists be a little too gung-ho about some censorship (some reactions to the recent no horny ban on Tumblr come to mind). But to portray these people as powerful entities dictating the creation of media and destroying alternative opinions is just outright wrong to the point of farce. If leftists were so powerful on the internet, the YT algorithm wouldn't be recommending me the "latest skeptic of the week" and Ben Shapiro clips.

Edited by PippingFool on Dec 20th 2018 at 1:36:00 AM

@Eldritcho

@Wildcard

I don't think it's hypocritical when you think people are taking things too far when declaring something sensitive. And I disagree with a lot of them being harmless, because some of them are really people like that portrayed Rose Quartz as being thinner and they sent that artist death threats.

And no it's not always because it's a thing people say they have seen on Fox News, but it's due to how they seem to always claim that they are better than the previous moral guardians but act just as bad as them. As the Rudolph example, shows they made a mountain out of a molehill. While yes there was a few questionable language about women but it's not like a lot of worse things around that time period. Also the fact that people claim it encourages bullying shows it misses the point o the special and makes one think they watched the wrong show.

Also Mr. Enter pointing out when a show is genuinely offensive, doesn't mean that he's a hypocrite. It's the fact of when there should be a genuine complaint, instead of making mountains out of molehills. The biggest reason for family guy is that they go out of their way to be offensive in the name of comedy, while trying to invoke it's just parody.

Another example is the Boheimian Rhapsody biographic film. But invoked Bury Your Gays on a film about Freddy Mercury, who actually died in real life. And again it shows why this mentality can get out of control when it comes to portraying real events.

Also the difference between Ghostbusters 2016 and A New Hope is that the latter knew how to make their characters more than tokens. Some of these shows and movies just think throw a few tokens and be done without really going out to add depth.

I think people downplay how these people act towards media. Also some of these people actually have been banning books like Little House On the Priare and to Kill a Mockingbird for not being PC. So, I can say some of them could be for censorship of material they don't like.

I do think there is a knee jerk reaction here to any criticisms towards SJW, because it then goes to how it must be just influence from Fox or alt-right. However, I do think ignoring complaints and writing them off comes off as bad. You know the reason why people feel annoyed because they are comparable to religious people, who shame people and are very unforgiving towards anyone they see go out of line. In other words, they display the same judgementalism that many have critized religious types. And the reason why people are critical of SJW's is because like religious types of the old days people often listen to them and hear what they have to say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/25/laura-ingalls-wilders-name-stripped-from-childrens-book-award-over-little-house-depictions-of-native-americans/?noredirect=on

Edited by firewriter on Dec 19th 2018 at 7:13:26 AM

No matter how many times the "sjws harassed an artist for drawing rose skinny" get debunked as not what happened in the zamii case, and when zamii herself asks people to stop using what happened to her as as proof of the SJWS BEING EVIIIIL. people will still keep bringing it up won't they?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-left-wing-harassment-campaign-against-ruby-roses-lesbian-batwoman

https://forward.com/opinion/390296/its-time-to-call-out-bullying-by-social-justice-warriors/

https://medium.com/@pwross/pampered-privileged-and-annoying-as-hell-why-sjw-s-need-to-borrow-a-clue-2a97b51e6b43

https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/07/social-justice_warrior_on_soci.html

Even some left wingers have criticized it.

See this is exactly why I don't get involved in these arguments(I'm currently in "I just woke up so I'm tired and my brain isn't stopping me from getting involved" mode) Whenever you brought up idea that there ARE people who are overly political correct, other people start implying "subtly" that you are secret alt-right agent masquerading as sheep and that all examples of people being overly sensitive are just propaganda that was blown out of proportion and completely irrelevant.

I mean, the main problem with people being overly sensitive IS that they are being really frustrating to deal with or argument with, not that they are actually causing any harm

Thing about Internet arguments is assumption that you are taking a side or being one of radical extremes that keeps popping up. Like, someone brought up MRE arguments previously, but didn't actually bother bringing up the context and what video they were mentioning? I remember faintly he made long time ago video that mentioned double standards, but I don't really remember context of that episode or if his examples were real or if he made really bad sounding arguments, but because someone just mentioned word "MRE" now I have image in the mind that clearly Enter is one of those secret Alt-Right agents pretending to be offended by stuff

(on side note of the current video we are talking about, I still haven't bothered watching it since it sounds like he is very much in the wrong in this case and that sounds annoying to watch. Plus I always feel uncomfortable whenever Enter discusses IRL problem since I always kinda get feeling he isn't really type of critic who does lot of research on subject which is kinda needed when you discuss sensitive matters. It'd kinda troublesome since I would have to watch the video to know how hypocritical he is being about offensiveness, but since I don't want to watch it, I just have to take thread's word on him being really hypocritical about topic considering how many times he has picked episode apart for being offensive)

Edited by SpookyMask on Dec 19th 2018 at 7:53:08 PM

I'm just gonna say, ud one of your sources is literally tilted "Why SJ Ws are Cancer" written by a guy who defended Kavanaugh's confirmation, it's gonna raise eyebrows.

On Zamii. To describe the situation as "poor girl harassed by the mean sjoos over skinny rose" is a broad oversimplification to the point of being super disingenuous. First of all, while the hate she got from the SU fanart definitely didn't do wonders for her mood, losing her job, her cat dying and her abusive mother were much bigger factors in her suicide attempt than the one piece of fanart.

Second: "Skinny rose" wasn't the only thing she was getting flack for. She was getting way more flack for the times she drew yellowface, redface, her transmisogyny and - probably the thing she got the most flack for - defending a convicted pedophile she was friends with (who she has since broken contact with).

Thirdly. Considering that zamii has both apologised for the fanart, has spoken out against drawing fat characters skinny after the fact◊ and has asked to stop being used as a prop in discussions about SJ Ws and wishes to move on from the whole thing without being constantly reminded of a black spot in her life. And I think we should respect the poor girl's wishes.

None of this is to downplay the harassment she did receive, or claim that """SJWS""" (whatever that means) or progressives didn't give Zamii a lot of underserved shit - she certainly copped a lot of vicious flack. But the terms of which the situation is discussed is really disingenuous.

And it's not like I've completely ignored shit that "SJWS" have done (the whole "SU is fascism apologia", harassment of Lauren Zuke or how some folks reacted to the Horny Purge of Tumblr I think are much better clear cut cases you could use to discuss the idea of progressives being shitty).

It's just if you use the rhetoric and language of conservative or alt right talkers ("The overly sensitive and way too politically correct SJWS are censoring our free speech"), you're gonna sound like a conservative or alt right talker. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that. You can talk about abuse, harassment, people using progressive language and ""motivations"" to harm people and bad takes within progressive circles without sounding like a Paul Joseph Watson clone.

Edited by PippingFool on Dec 20th 2018 at 5:01:55 AM

On second part(because now I can't edit my post anymore since someone posted) of why I dislike getting involved in this topic in Internet is that whenever these types of discussions start "growing" and more and more people join them, half the time eventually someone who actually is "secret alt-right agent pretending to be on left/center" does actually join the conversation making everything more annoying

It really makes the contrarian inside every philosophical debate loving person really scratch their head when they have to argue against every person in debate

Jokes aside, I also dislike getting into these arguments whenever people start posting links to articles. Mostly because I don't really have time and energy to read through additional articles and then do research on whether the writers of the articles are genuine or those secret agents I keep joking about

Either way, did you really have to mention "Steven Universe is pro-facism!" group? Really that group really makes me face palm really hard to the point I think my face is bleeding. Well mentally at least, because I'm exaggerating :P

On another sidenote, another part of why its really annoying when people link to articles is that it makes following the conversation really hard. Like, now someone is accused of claiming "PC people want to censor free speak!" but I don't know if they are referring to one of linked articles or what because as far as I saw, nobody in thread bought up that stupid argument that is definitely brought up by both normal and alt-right.

(also I really hate free speak arguments considering they are only used ever to justify being offensive, at least in Internet where nobody seems to be actually in danger of being imprisoned by oppressive government over speaking criticism about their government :P)

Edited by SpookyMask on Dec 19th 2018 at 8:07:32 PM

I brought up the "SU is Pro Fascism" because it's a really good and clear cut example of progressive types being over critical and ""oversensitive"", so to speak. Moreso than even the Zamii case. And linking to articles and screencaps is mostly to source your claims so you can give more credence and backing to your ideas/points within a debate and not rely only on first impressions, Weasel Words and the hope that nobody fact checks your claims to get your point across. It's merely good praxis (but it's also something you learn in those biased Social Studies courses so ¯_(ツ)_/¯)

To wheel the matter around to the original point. Even if Enter does have a point, and in some regards he does, he approaches it from the wrong angles and argues his case badly to the point of forwarding some rather eyebrow raising ideas that aligns with some of the other questionable stuff he's said in the past. Plus in was it comes off as hypocritical considering how he's written about how shock humour shows portray abuse in the past (which I feel shows that Enter has some oversights in his worldview.)

Edited by PippingFool on Dec 20th 2018 at 5:31:00 AM

Yeah yeah, it is good practice, but when it comes to Internet, its still annoying Second part of why its annoying is that when it comes to internet, you can't see people you are talking to so you don't even know if they are in their right mind(aka if they are drunk or sleep deprived or crying/angry after really bad day, etc). I mean, if you have noticed what I've been saying, I've just woke up and I'm grumpy in the mornings so I'm less commenting on what is good etiquette, and more commenting on "I'm TIRED so tired, this is so annoying blaaaaaaaagh" in the way tired people, children and literal babies complain about since I don't have filter on currently even if I have self awareness

And no, I don't have self awareness to not post at all when I'm being tired and morning grumpy, though each passing hour my self awareness comes back and now by second hour after waking up I realize I shouldn't have posted at all in this state, but by now its kinda late to delete my two previous posts from time when I didn't notice I'm being grumpy :p So I'm now starting to get embarrassed especially since I like debates and I'm now like "Wait a minute, did I seriously say half a hour ago that I find it annoying to have to read through sources what the frick".

(I predict in few more hours I might be woke enough that I'm like "Oh god why I didn't stop at that point embarrassing myself")

But yeah, I think everyone can agree that even if Enter had a point, he shouldn't do irl issue videos :P

Edited by SpookyMask on Dec 19th 2018 at 8:35:11 PM

Well when he was doing ones about abuse, love, cyberbulling and such he did have more of a understandable point.

This video confuses me though as he is pretty much doing exactly what he is complaining about, being PC, in many of his videos.

@Pipping Fool

I think criticizing overzealousness is not hypocrisy on his part. Not that any response to SJW behavior is just wanting to to have no other presentation. It's not. Heck, some of these people might have criticisms themselves of how the media handles certain topics, because they often times can be insensitive. However, I do think the meat of the criticism towards SJW behavior is when they go out of their way to try to be offended by seemingly meaningless stuff or say they speak on another group's half. For the Veggie Tales one, they forget that the French peas have been antagonists and they are not technically ethnic. Again when you pick apart some of these criticisms they become less legit, and more based cherry picking.

@Wispy

I don't think criticizing their attitudes is doing the same thing.

Edited by firewriter on Dec 19th 2018 at 11:43:41 AM

It is the same exact thing. A lot of the things he criticize conservatives support. Hell its conservatives whom enforced that stupid belief that cartoons are for kids in the first place.

Not to mention that Mr. Enter is autistic which conservatives do not like.

@Wispy

That's really incorrect. I've seen tons of conservatives who are very pro-autistic. Actually I seen a ton of them being very vocally against Autism Speaks for how they treat autistic people.

Also cartoons is for kids is not a conservative only mentality and yes not all conservative think that. Actually I don't think it's a conservative or liberal issue, but those who believe that certain stuff shouldn't be shown to kids. In fact, just recently Bill Mahr a known liberal insulted people for reading comic books, just because in his mind comic books were for kids.