No, not a video game board game. It's like the original board game, right? Sure, there's a video game of the board game though. Actually, I played it. Yeah, I'll next what 360 Know that go is the shortest sentence in the English language. No, it's the shortest sentence not the shortest sentence Yeah, that's what I said the shortest sentence. Yeah, when Americans say sentence fast. They start saying sentence Yeah, when you speed everything up you're gonna have to make budget cuts God you guys The tea didn't make the it just couldn't make the grade People are already saying wolf. He's he will be here. He's not currently here. It'll it'll happen eventually Unlike the rest of us here and the e-fap family Wolf likes to prioritize other things There's like life and stuff. It's just thing Doesn't he know that e-fap comes above literally every single thing we've spoken to him about this at length But he seems pretty steadfast that There are things that are more important than all of you guys now the rest of us Disagree and we disavow his position But he's definitely a work in progress and that's why you should elect us as your 2020 candidate for the presidential electorate election isa Yeah, I think that we're gonna bring the country into a new golden age of e-fap will bring balance to force Look wolf is just out for some cigarettes. He'll be back soon Any day now or have you seen the podcast between alt shift X and just right? That's a thing X never heard of him It does a bunch of Game of Thrones episode recaps and analyses and such He does pretty good work Accidentally found it already What is this? Episode 15 game of Thrones featuring alt shift X and just right So it's like someone else's podcast with them to on it, I guess Okay, well, I like alt shift X's work. I'm not a fan of just rights But I don't know what alt shift X thinks about Being objective about the work or whatever cuz he I've seen a lot of his takes and he usually says that his channel isn't about having a Personal take on what happens. So for example with how bad game of Thrones was he was like, you know This happens this happens this happens and that doesn't really make a lot of sense because this and I'm not gonna get into it That's not all this channel is for his like Well That's the true rags that is the true I used to read books, but then I Gave up reading for lint one year and I forgot how did that go it turns out reading isn't like swimming or something You can't just forget how to do it. So that's what happened. So now I only read through pictures and Very generous interpretations Do you read a picture? How do you read a picture? Well, I say that in more colloquial sense It's like to scan it with your eyeballs. Yeah to Excess aesthetics See lesson South Pole said he's been watching Sicario. Have you guys seen Sicario? I have not seen Rags can we watch that maybe even today? I've heard good things about Sicario, then they made a sequel and I almost made a video like is he like an Italian guy Yep, he's an Italian he makes pizzas, but He gets it's some bad luck his pizza place is attacked by spider-man and he has to fight him The spider-man universe great It's the Sam Raimi spider-man most people didn't know that was actually in that universe. It's only recently been uncovered Yep, because you never actually see Toby McGuire. You can only hear his tears Raising different scenes. It's really really good They are everything storytelling. Yes So so how is everybody it's been like 10 years since the last if it has been a while I Couldn't read last time either. Oh I mean that's good because it means that you'll never necessarily reach, you know an end So it'll all be middle and I've heard Mixed things about the middle. I'm always like the middle namely being in the middle. Mm-hmm. I I've heard that everybody prefers it these days. Yeah, everything's all about the middle or something I was Established that I cannot read I Just wanted to let you know that all the all like all the messages that we exchange You know to set up these e-faps and everything.  Mm-hmm. I just have to go by your expression Yeah, like sort of like the volume alone. Yeah, kind of and I just sort of just Clap the keyboard and what happens happens More or invite hope that you've been getting legible, you know messages back Invite be high cheeks at me hi to eat If you would like to be on e-fap we would we would love You would appreciate it catastrophe Yeah, there was someone posted on our discord a screenshot of somebody in chat I must have missed it who said something likely, you know The reason you rip at this video parts because you break it up to pieces keep pausing let the guy make an argument That's like I don't think it's I don't think I'm not certain that's why we ripped into it. I think that the video was how we ripped into it.  What are you saying? That's probably not even remotely relevant. You think it was bad outside of the fact that it lacked more middle Yeah, I think that theory just nailed it I don't see how anything else could possibly explain anything. I was so beyond impressed with it I don't know. I have to feel like there's some other issues going on. Hmm. Maybe that's just me Once said that a sandwich without a middle is only bread Hell Theo we're mad at him. Why have you ditched D&D for today? Do you do Theo? Yeah Well, this is the thing this was the thing that Theo was supposed to be doing last time But then we got sidetracked with being Nazis, you know, it happens. That takes my that takes her attention away Can't blame us for it. But this is the this is the final time You'll ever be taken away from D&D unless he wants to come on You have to know where you're my last ever parents goodbye everyone Your friends or us I mean EFAP comes above all like we said other than maybe oxygen will let you have oxygen. Okay That's our gift Cuz I need I need oxygen in order to partake in the EFAP. So I guess I don't need D&D in order to partake in the EFAP It's either us or Mihai cheek sent me. Hi. I can't get over that name Like how before we checked it it was funny that after we checked we're like that's still funny The fact that it exists is still funny It sounds like such a meme name You that's not a real name. I like how we instantly pause the video when he said that And again, I want to clarify you can have a funny name no matter where you're from that one's just hilarious That one's just funny Me hi cheek sent me hi. It's just a funny name I'm glad Imrable too And Wonder if you like learned English You know after having that name and then sort of look back on his name like oh man. That sounds really dumb But in a good way, it'll be a good icebreaker be like hey, I'm each high cheek sent me high people like what? My name is Mihai cheek sent me hi, and you know, I'm sorry. I got the first word, but what? Me hi me. Hi. Okay. Hello. Hi. No, no, no me. Hi.  Hi cheek sent me Hi, hello See we've already written like a whole Sent me hi Hello, Mihai cheeks sent me I wonder if his parents hated him And shouldn't it be my high cheeks sent me like no no no no listen Mihai cheeks How long's this scene gonna keep going oh the whole episode Um, so yeah, we the plan today is to talk about Finally just right which a lot of people have wanted to talk about for ages just writes a video on Objectivity and then if we can we'll get through another video on top of that after that one But before that but since it's thematically relevant There's another video that I was sent and I want to cover it first only 10 minutes This one is is everybody in the watch together ready to start up this disaster No, let me let me click on the watch together link and we'll explore This one is called modern critique bingo and it is a criticism of I guess video essays using words That uh, they don't necessarily understand And so that's something we kind of do sometimes Um, or if we don't understand But we we criticize people for maybe that but also maybe just not being clear on say for example Use one word and it can mean several things. It's like maybe tell us what you're trying to say That'll just using it and assuming we know what your chosen definition is that's kind of Yeah, yeah, usually get confused with that.   We're in a society with that's actually the case If someone says you're being facetious someone else might be like Yeah, I know And then they quickly About like game of thrones and I was like, well, could you could you define a nitpick? And they're like, what do you mean? Everyone knows what a nitpick is Except everyone disagrees and then eventually when I got him to give his definition It was completely different than mine on a very fundamental level. So like this is why we do this It's almost as if definitions are a lot more Made out to be there was an argument on twitter ages ago. It was like, um He doesn't even know what nitpick means about me and then they were like, what does it mean? They were like it means an invalid criticism I was like, that's what it means at all Isn't like I've always known mitten nitpick to mean a valid but tiny criticism very small one that doesn't really matter But it's still there In the way that's like your perfectly white suit has a small black piece of like, I don't know fluff on it I'm gonna pick that right off and like, all right. Jesus didn't really matter.  Yeah, it was still there It carries the connotations of like overreaching To try and find problems. Yeah, and then and then you can have people say because of that black piece of fluff Your entire suit doesn't work and it's like, um No, that doesn't really follow like how do you I don't know about that Uh, and that's what people are typically complaining about people nitpicking for they're like, don't know He only does his nitpick to try and say the thing is bad And it's like, oh, well, I think that we should talk about nitpicks because the reason why they're there Why and how we can get rid of them, but yeah, I wouldn't say that uh Everyone has a different definition of what qualifies that's the problem I mean, wouldn't things be better without those things that we could nitpick? Yeah, that's a simple piece of logic It's like why why not not have those things and how do we do that? Well, we need to identify them so we can learn how to not have them there in the first place. That'll be good Why not have consistent writing? Why not have no nitpickable things in it? Yes, um Which leads us to this video who's gonna bring up a lot of topics And this man's perspective on all of them and we're gonna have some fun on the burn Um, you guys ready?  But yeah, again, this is called modern critique bingo if you guys want to uh, check it out yourselves All right, do we need to do we need like a bingo board in order to he didn't supply one with the video? I was quite upset about that. I thought that he would in the description give me a link to a bingo board But nope apparently not Gonna he's gonna do the bingo in for us Dx Here's dx following video is in the 21 9 aspect ratio select 1440p for intended viewing Well, hold on All right, all of like all of my videos are 1440p 60 fps or at least they are now Thank you.  Um, but I don't think I ever have to Change I I think if you don't have it in 1440p if you have it like 480 or 360 or whatever. I don't think he The youtube screen, right? I mean, no, it doesn't really matter I've seen the first few minutes of this and his footage doesn't Really you go to his video click on the link to the video. It's like in this ultra wide. Yeah But like his footage doesn't necessarily um Matter in it says it's just a series of clips in the background that not necessarily connected to what he says I might be wrong. I only saw the first few minutes, but it doesn't seem that important. But yeah Yeah, I've never I don't think I can remember another video that had this aspect ratio on youtube Criticism is everywhere. It's inescapable nature like the This is like an intro God, I hate it. I agree criticism is everywhere, right? Criticism is everywhere It's inescapable nature made possible by the accessibility of the internet has made at the forefront of many discussions About entertainment and for good reason the discussions we have about works of fiction promote critical thinking Especially when there's a back-and-forth dialogue about things we disagree on We learn a lot from the things we don't like and as of late I've seen a lot of terms and terrible rhetoric thrown around that don't really describe the issues at hand with A work as much as they act as a doorstop to any real discussion or critique. All right I guess that's up Seems fine Or critique today We're gonna take a look at a collection of these terms and explain their true meaning while sharply contrasting that meaning with the way They're popularly used today Oh god I uh, it can all right. So here's what I haven't seen this yet um, my prediction Is that his complaint will be that philosophically Object he's gonna apply some ultra anal philosophical definition to objectively hear that nobody uses Um possibly Philosophers use it. Well, I mean people People hey come on man philosophers aren't people um Yeah, well when I saw this I was just like oh god here we go because uh, I don't know. I feel like it's a very To be objective about anything like make a statement or a claim and it can typically be put into Objective or subjective and then it could be valid Or invalid as an objective statement like if I said Uh, there are seven bricks in that wall and you look at it and you're like, but they're eight So what I said wasn't necessarily subjective. It could have just been objective with poor information Um, but if I was like there are eight bricks in that wall, I'm I'm curious how someone would argue that You're not being objective You you were clearly influenced by your bias if there was actually eight bricks, I should be like, oh Well, you were using your eyes to make that calculation And so you're just using the interpretation of the light bouncing off of the objects, right?  It's like, okay. That was a great conversation by Most people I know are happy to agree on like fat Like there's eight bricks in that wall. Well, typically people don't like to go against science being objective That's that's a boundary line. They don't want to cross. So if they if that can be objective And we start to work from there and how can we how can it be approached without? Objectively is the most egregiously misused term in modern criticism It's also the most obvious because it's popular use and the phrase is objectively good and I think that The most egregiously over you or misuse thing is like theme Yeah, I think I agree with you on that. I actually yeah, I think I agree with that um People abuse the shit out of the word theme and they don't tend to actually talk about what makes uh A theme let's say well planned out or at least Uh consistent with the actual narrative versus just going It's a great theme They don't like to go for themes with strong like textual reference, which is how you make a strong interpretation right They just tend to you know Bring something and I don't think people are prepared to the work. I'd say I don't think people are prepared for the whole like, you know Our tlj's theme was blah blah blah then you go But this thing that happens in the film is in direct opposition to that theme and then they'll be like No, it's not I disagree There was no we didn't need to go to the like, oh, it's my opinion that he's like, no, no, no, no, these are the did did Do you remember we had this with major lee or it was like The whole idea of po didn't make any mistakes and his his argument at one point was the post The lair slapped him and I remember being like so by virtue of lair slapping him He did something wrong. It's not that she could have been incorrect about the scenario at all And he was like, oh, no, no Like, you know, it was the kylo kylo and wren were clearly kylo and wren Oh Um, no, maybe second. I remember I'll remember her now. I will do it rey is her name Not kylo and wren kylo rey Who are the characters? Featured in the last jedi in that discussion that we had We he brought up how kylo and rey had some romantic thing going on between them. He's not the only one who thinks that I found well He that is sad, isn't it?  What are your references they touched fingers?  That's how charismatic adam driver is and how the script just enhanced his charisma Uh, but yeah, he's so he said is his problem is with objectively good and bad So I'm gonna let him go on a little bit before I guess kylo wren. I can add one thing to that First order really quickly from Like I guess the philosophical count is that that is one of the main digs with objectivity is the idea of objective value Yeah, and then on facts How do you the jumps that people have issues with is going from holdos an inconsistent character in tlj to Holdos inconsistency in tlj is objectively bad Yeah, which and then turning that into a general rule You still haven't you have to dig deeper into all the definitions. So again, I was gonna let him go first and then I'll In modern criticism It's also the most obvious because it's popular use in the phrases objectively good and objectively bad Is the most evident in its contradiction Good and bad are subjective terms So good and bad are subjective terms The issue Is that good and bad as I've said on this podcast a million times and people really don't want to grasp this is if I told you to define good Your answer to me should be um Well, that kind of depends on how you're using it in the sentence. Yeah, because two different uses of good If we go with google you got one two three four five six seven seven seven main definitions So like the idea that someone uses it to mean having the required qualities of a high standard, which is the second most used definition Um people ignore that they're like, no, that's not what good means I got 10 here. So to be definitions as a noun and an adverb Yeah, that's the thing it gets even worse when you start to look into all the definitions as well because they can all vary to a different degree so If good if I'm using good to mean of a high standard and I'm using objective to mean irrelevant of my feelings Then objectively good means of a high standard with no influence of how I feel Does it not Yep In that and you'd be like well not necessarily it could mean and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's how I'm using it That's what I'm using it to mean. That's why I always say Uh objectively good storytelling typically in my videos I'm trying to grow out of just saying good because I know people for some reason will be like Wow, he's saying that objectively everybody should like it and I'm like, that's obvious No, that's not what I'm saying at all, but okay So over high standard and then you you can go on to say but a standard is subjective That would be the next step But like we couldn't even get that far with this guy as far as he's concerned good and bad are subjective things Um just to create the subjective terms and you know, I'd like to see some backing for that Exactly why that's the case. Maybe I'll go into that Yeah, and I don't know That seems and there were people out there who'll be like wow use google definitions that I'm like, I mean We can you you can use whichever one you'd like let's Google if anything is the simple ones which means that if you want to keep going in We're just going to get more and more and more exact and that only helps us And this is the thing google's just trying to represent what people are typically using it for that's what a dictionary is for It's like hey, this is what this word is typically used for and so I appreciate the fact that the primary definition is To be desired something that people like or want. It's like, yeah But that's not what we're talking about the definitions that google gave us you'd disagree with And and yeah, that's the thing if you're very specific about it And then I was going to say and that's why we use sometimes words like solid or um strong We say like writing is strong. You're like, what do you mean by that? And it's like usually mean tight What do you mean by that? It's like well without inconsistencies heavy objects That's kind of that's the primary definition is strong right probably. I don't know. I just this is the thing it's like He's already assumed that everybody's using the definitions that he uses Because I told you I already understand People there's some people out there who think objective means everybody feels that way We do see that quite a bit and that's something a lot of people have said just right said it One person agrees it can't be objective And that's that thing isn't nothing objective at that point because there's no there's always going to be one guy There's a crazy person out there who thinks the earth is a red velvet cake Or that the world wasn't birthed by the cosmic chicken like there are people out there who don't believe in that It's a travesty, but they'll learn they'll learn in the end And when it comes to settling on whether or not good and bad can even be objective One way to bridge the gap of a non-believer Is to ask if one thing Can be objectively more good or more bad than another thing If there are degrees to good and bad Anyway kicking on Add our subjective terms Objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity. No, that's not true The opposite the the opposite of objectivity is not objectivity And the opposite of subjectivity is not subjectivity I mean, is he kind of argue that they like fill two hearts of a whole That's probably what he's trying to get at but that's not actually if he's going to be anal then Well, we've had I've had a lot. I've had a lot of practice. Okay, so But carry out the opposite of subjectivity to use the term objectively in relation to the word good or bad Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means So by saying what the word means Implies to me that he thinks that there's only one way to use any word Pretty much There's what the word means of this. There's no other way the word is used which Yeah, he's wrong. And if I was to Introduce someone to the idea that a word can be more than one thing the word I would use first is Good or bad. There would be the ones I'd choose.  They can mean a lot of things Like what were the other ones we went over two of them we got um Skilled at doing or dealing with it. No way possessing or displaying moral virtue Yeah, we haven't even gone over the fact that there's a moral element to it Um, I guess that comes into the whole deserved thing giving pleasure enjoyable or satisfying To you about the About the herpes question Okay, I was just I was making sure who had and hadn't because I just trying to keep my brain straight here. What was your answer to that Theo? Uh It's probably expected, but I don't know if they deserve it He said I don't know if they deserve it rags. He's in the middle The the blessed middle. He's in the middle. Nice to be the blessed middle. He's an enlightened dissentrist.  Yeah Good golly gosh batman And so someone said good heavens that he goes you've used that word wrong There is no so you can't have something that is a good heaven Or something you should be like, okay In my opinion heaven is good Yeah, I don't know. I feel like this is already just having a good time Also, yeah, just whoever made this video if you have a catch wind that we've covered it You're welcome to come on and talk about these points because I don't know. I feel like he would fold on this immediately. He'd be like, yeah, okay There are more than one ways to use it I wonder if he'd say like only and you can't use it more than one way in film criticism or something Yeah, you don't get to just say that X and Y terms are subjective or our objective are something because That's not that's not quite how language works Especially words like good and bad because of your word variety of uses they have meaning Yeah, I don't even do they just have shared understandings pretty much because words evolve completely look at look at Look a massive We are so large Word good or bad shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means Further the use of this term kills any discussion about the subject because it simplifies the subject by making it an undebatable truth Thus killing any So we have so we've had so many discussions Prompted around just the idea of objectivity as a concept and criticism. I think this is like the a discussion I it's it's almost you could just discuss this for ages I don't know if anyone who's making an objective claim with regards to a film is saying this is Absolutely the case rather than saying as the facts are right before me are presented This appears to be the case um X film is bad because Uh because of x y and z that has appeared to me from the film If anything Objectivity as we see it in media allows us to formulate those discussions and leads us to believe that we can Come up with a what we believe to be the the correct Um answer on something Yeah, I mean there's object. We we use objectivity as essentially the basis of the scientific method as we understand it and Lord knows there will be never-ending discussion As that topic's explored But you think we're gonna figure science out what I was gonna say there is to this day discussion on whether or not the earth is flat I don't think it killed discussion. Unfortunately. So cosmic chickens don't play flags. So a lot of people That's true I've asked chat a few times everyone's keeps saying rewind and I was asking why I can't seem to find Apparently rags objectively misheard something What did I miss here? I don't know I don't know either Also, yeah, the as as justin's just highlighted the fact that I've been trying to use objectivity in videos has caused massive amounts of discussion Oh, yes Um, all right. Well, we'll go back. No, like a good half a minute to make sure we've not missed whatever people Have been about it's also the most obvious because it's popular use in the phrases objectively good and Objectively bad is the most evident in its contradiction. Good and bad are subjective terms Objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity to use the term objectively in relation to the word good or bad Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means further the use of this term kills any discussion Did he ever actually explain how it's a contradiction? because Uh, the words are inherently subjective and you're trying to it's like I guess he thinks it's like you're saying that is objectively subjective even though You could say that actually Let's just say it Yeah, he's because he said the the use of the phrase is objectively good and objectively bad Objectively bad are inherently contradictory. You know, right? Can you tell us how? Yeah Rags so he uh, yo apparently he said objectivity He didn't say objectivity is the opposite of objectivity. He said objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity I thought you knew that I thought rags that doesn't actually change the rags. His response was that um, the opposite of objectivity would be not objectivity, right? That's what you said Yeah, yeah, I mean if you even if you swapped them around it would be the exact same thing Yeah, so yeah rags wasn't rags didn't miss here that that was it would be the same response either way But hey, look, I do try and I do kind of try and keep track chat in case we do um Make a mistake of some kind. It's all good. Um, you know who can't track chat wolf We can't if he's not even here It was a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means Further the use of this term kills any discussion about the subject because it simplifies the subject By making it an undebatable truth Thus killing any elaboration on what is actually meant with the use of this term So the implication being that once I tell you that holdo Uh was wrong not to tell po the plan it kills discussion on the idea that she may or may not have been wrong to tell po the plan Yeah, we we've never had any discussions Around the last Jedi especially also, I don't think that it's a bad thing to reach a conclusion. Um, yeah, so it was like It's a carp before the horse almost for example, is it contrived that star lord punches than us in Infinity war and it it's a discussion that goes on for a while and a thanks to end game I think we've concluded that it's a yes now because dr. Strange would have seen it coming And he chose not to do anything about it when if he had it may have stopped everything Like if he just ported star lord out and the fact that iron man saw it coming And he could have probably blasted him away and he did nothing the fact that the gauntlet doesn't come off for ages Even though Thanos is asleep. It's like what's Put some butter in there guys come on Get get it out butter him up And yeah, and you talk about it for a while and a lot of people who Uh Probably included myself who comes straight off the movie are like no no no no no It makes sense because then you support it with all of the star lord's history But it doesn't when you get to the wider context and you're able to separate yourself You can reach a conclusion and then it's not like there's an ongoing discussion about whether or not the room is a masterpiece of filmmaking But like writing and direction and audio editing and stuff. It's like no, it's pretty much been concluded However if you would like to make an argument and have a discussion that would be great And that's what happens on youtube super fun You get those videos that are like turns out spider-man 3 from the ramy films is actually good You'll find a video like that and you're like, okay Give it to me. What have we got? Yeah, let's hear it The discussion happens then the consensus is is Reached and that's what's considered quote unquote objective until I suppose a better argument comes along and changes the consensus A consensus doesn't necessarily start from one person just going. Hey, this is my this is what I saw from the film And I think this is a problem therefore it is and the conversation stops there No, it's hashed out until a conclusion is reached and if someone says uh, for example Batman homecoming is a terrible movie We don't have to accept that We could be like, all right, give us your arguments We'll we'll argue against it because and there's not a limit on how many discussions you can have about a particular topic Oh You can just keep having discussions until the cows come home Literally and the idea that someone uses Object like it, you know So we conclude that this is objectively poorly written and he's sitting there watching the video like what? Well, now I can't say anything back.  You can be objectively wrong Uh, because you got a faulty piece of information. I don't know Objectively is basically the n word of criticism So who do we get the pass from? It shuts down all discussion. Who do we get the pass from? um me Oh, you have the objective pass. I am uh I mean if you depends how you want how far back you want to go but I am I'm some part in word. I'm sure That's hello all my inwards. That's us. Wolf gave us the pass a long time ago He gave us a lot of the passes massive pass was he made a pass at me. He did Yeah Let's let's let's keep going. I guess see what else he's gone Thus killing any elaboration on what is actually meant with the use of this term by saying something is Objectively anything it robs that subject of its true meaning Oh, tell me what? Sorry, but what does true mean?  They're false meanings How is how is uh, how can I not just reflect the same criticism on him? I'd be like True meaning does anything have a true meaning? Yeah, what do you mean? You mean objectively the true meaning or just what you feel is I'm not even sure I agree that anything has true Beating. What does that mean? What does that sentence mean? Robbing it. It's a whole weird fakey. It's a whole lot of buzzwords. I can tell you that much I was gonna say this is kind of an ironic video, but uh What so what are you saying something is objectively anything robs it of its true meaning? Yeah That's that's something to just stare at for a while I'm trying to oh how what if you're right though Is what if you're right about your assessment of its meaning then it doesn't rob it of its true meaning It just means you've described its true meaning If he believes that because he he says things By saying that he robs by him saying that the true meaning has been robbed. It implies there is a true meaning to be robbed Hmm I love just for him to develop that because it sounds like he's just a hypocrite right now. I don't know Is objectively anything it robs that subject of its true meaning Water for example is not objectively good for us. Water is essential to what it depends. What standard you use it Yeah, it depends on what you mean by good if you mean it is good to survive then Yeah, it's it's got nutritional value I suppose or you know you could easily have a scientific But then you could be like a water is objectively bad for us in massive quantities where we're stuck In it if you don't I mean like you can drown us water is objectively good in moderation Yeah, if the if the end point like if our goal here Which is an inch which is generally a good thing to have in these discussions is what is what are you trying to accomplish? What's the end goal? Human beings objectively need water to survive like I don't even What do you mean generally they do yeah, some are sewers some are suicidal Right, right. Well, I was just gonna say like is there can you can't like Whatever the compound is at the base level like humanity humans need it to To go on right like we dive dehydration before starvation Because water is more important on dementia. Oh, yeah, we quicker. Yeah I don't I mean, it's it's an oddly formed thing here That he would say I mean that's You want to frame all right if the goal is x and water has these properties and we know this about humans Then you can say barring freaks of nature Right and and flukes of evolution and such then we can conclude this about water's effect On human bodies that helps us to reach that goal that we've determined I think he's trying to use a different definition of objectivity. He's just not elaborating it on really well robbing it was through meaning because objectivity as used in philosophy and other places Is essentially independent of human thought Ideas or perception of the matter like the thing as it is kind of essentially And there's a whole argument around objective value in that case like that kind of objective value That's where again one of the big problems arises in that How does a thing get value without people to ascribe that value to whereas the value locate it within that thing Kind of deal if that makes any sense Yeah, sort of I think I think I know what you're trying to get To I think I'm I think I'm picking up what you're laying down The idea that uh, like For something to be valuable it requires like A physical requires sort of like yeah things around it to communicate that value With one another almost point to me point to me where on the human body the value is yeah, exactly It's valuable because of it's valuable intersubjectively rather than Objectively or subjectively necessarily like with our input or not water will Uh subsist a human being like it's not That's not debatable that yeah water can be absolutely the case But then it can also drown a human to facilitate survival And a human being these things are all true So it's like so is it objectively good? It's like well it depends on what you mean by good And if you mean it satisfies a standard Then you have to tell us what standard and if that standard is to Prolong existence for human in moderation, then absolutely it is objectively good And if you want to just look at water itself and say is water good or what is good water is like well That's another thing. Yeah, you know hydrogen and oxygen molecules in this arrangement So if it is arranged like that that is good water And if it isn't like oil oil is bad water And yeah, so this is the point his statement could be correct. It depends on what the context is What is he actually saying and that's in these videos?  Thanks for watching this past two hours Why is piss objectively poor though? Piss poor it refers to um discussion about it. It refers to the objective true meaning of writing Okay, this objective. Yes. What is the true meaning of piss? Substance that Yeah, we're gonna go into this You know, there's some water in piss. So it's objectively good for humans The water in piss is good water. Mm-hmm. This keeps shitty company. Uh, I get it Our survival with water we tend to conflate our survival with the concept We understand is good and we further conflate that with a truth that is self-evident and therefore objective Similarly interesting sentence. Yeah, I need to hear that one again Full is not objectively good for us water is essential to our survival with water We tend to conflate our survival with the concept. We understand so we conflate our survival with an objective good It's like um, you can do that. It's the whole point of the word May once we once we all I mean once everybody in the discussion If you don't want to set up an objective standard to work towards then I mean that's on you man Like is existence inherently good or bad probably not it isn't I wouldn't say I think it's Completely outside of good or bad because existence is just a state of something I think I think he stuck all the way back an objective can only be a statement of what is it can't be a statement of What's good or bad or what's high or low or what's Nothing anything further than that would be relative relative to something else and so it's invalid I'm stuck right now because he seems to have shot himself in the foot because he said water is not objectively good for us Like again, I think you can quite happily say objectively. It is factual that if it water enables our survival Then that would follow that it's good for us question mark It's good and a utilitarian Survival equals good like yeah, I don't know. I guess that comes down to sure It depends on how inherent to the universe you want to define it. It's like I I'm Perfectly happy going along with the idea that existence is neither good or bad It's just a state of something's reality or not, right? If you'd said water is object water isn't objectively good. That's something I can get behind but you said water isn't objectively good for us I was like, well, but it is This is an implication of standard. I would just be like, so what do you mean when you say that and once he explains it I can be like, oh, right. Yeah. So what you were saying was true Which is this happens all the time like this is why you always develop statements and stuff By saying something is objectively anything it robs that subject of its true meaning Water, for example, is not objectively good for us. Water is essential to our survival with water We tend to conflate our survival with the concept we understand is good And we further conflate that with the truth that is self. So what is good to him? What is good? Yeah, I was about to say when you say good for survival, which of the 10 definitions of good are we going for here? Okay, I because at this point does he is he referring to the moral element? I mean existence I would say is amoral. It's just yeah, that's because that's the thing He would actually be right. It wouldn't be a moral good that we exist But is that what he's saying? I don't know This is the problem with good and bad. You have to be a little bit more specific sometimes I have no idea where he's going in these past 10 15 seconds. I don't I don't know what he's trying to say anymore I had like vague ideas, but it's gone now Just again buzzwords, I suppose That's his point Theo We further conflate that with the truth that is self-evident and therefore objective similarly some critics tend to conflate well-written examples of character development or foreshadowing as Good and turn it into a standard when it was them who decided these examples were well written to begin with And also them who decided to work a fiction by We do not decide the truth the truth exists and our acknowledgement of that truth is irrelevant to it being a truth By labeling a work of fiction as objectively good or bad You're saying that what you're describing as good or bad is a matter of fact Despite you basing this off your interpretation and your standards for what makes it work good. Yep We acknowledge we base this and this or is it we explore this Critique essentially in the same way that we do science Yeah, we cross-reference it with other people what he just said is we try independent verification That's how we do everything what he just he just criticized how literally humans have approached analysis of anything Yeah, we set parameters I guess by the definition of objective he seems to be going with then sure And media analysis at that point would be normative or intersubjective rather than objective necessarily I guess I mean if we go with that if we go with objectivity as he's using it in this context Yeah, well because this is the thing it's like why is it that um raise That weapon that was going to kill ray disappearing Is an objective bad and my argument would always stem from The idea of progression of story is completely interrupted.  It's like, yeah, but that's what we're talking about That's specifically what we're talking about in this Instance and it's like what if someone wanted to Create a story that was bad.  That's not what it was Like oh, that's not actually What what what I was doing, but you know, that's how people feel but Pile of bricks is what shabby lattice to live.  I'll throw him a bone here. I have seen this people just calling a thing Objectively bad and leaving it. Yeah, but then then it goes the other way too But that's the the interesting part is when you explore the actual because like for example Uh We on eFap and shadow versity agree that tlj is objectively poorly written But we'll actually reach different fundamentals for why We'll have different sort of like base standards of storytelling They usually are akin to storytelling or relevant storytelling, but They're slightly different and the idea of like logical consistency is absolutely something that shad takes seriously But he also has a couple of other Additional ideas about how characters are meant to be written or what makes strong characters that I don't necessarily agree with I think they're good guideline sort of thing. So that's the really interesting part but the idea that nobody ever like Explains themselves or whatever. This is some people out there. I mean, we will do it Yeah, I do want to raise something really quickly off the back of that Just a question to I guess pick your brain a little bit if you all have different fundamental standards Is that still objective? Um, I mean, I guess once you agree on the standards Then it's not really our opinion whether or not it holds to that standard And there's two different things being objective to a standard and then having an objective standard in the first place Like what is a standard that is objective and to me? I think progression is inherently tied to the definition of what a story is. So it's like Intrinsically tied to it. You can't it's not an a standard that was brought in from my personal preference Like our all characters should have long hair Like what's that got to do with storytelling? So it's not really connected. Yeah, you could set that as the standard Yeah, and you could be objective to it Like we are going to set the standard for this discussion that long hair is good and long hair is measured by it being This long, you know, give a measurement, you know, 10 inches 5 inches, whatever you want to set it at and then boom we could now talk about this in a purely objective way hmm I've talked about that before like Someone says a film is only good if there's more than 10 people in it and then they watch a film That has nine and they go well that film was bad and they're actually being objective in that case To a standard that they need to let people know about this the idea that you go Subjective take because you just didn't like it yourself. It's like no actually funnily enough you Explore what they're saying they've remained objective to a rule set But then you can talk about how valuable the rule set is and I think logical progression is a really description It's not necessarily a quality assessment Because something could be objectively Objective but kind of awful. I mean quality usually adheres to the The degree to which a standard is achieved, right? So the standard in which progression is most coherent Would actually have a limit like if everything in a storyline follows then it is as coherent as it can be Therefore the maximum standard of objective progression and if it was Half and half or if it was zero you've almost you've generated a scale there. That's a technically a quality scale Even though it's based entirely on What are essentially ones and zeros? right isn't that in Like referred to qualia versus something else in like basic philosophy. I remember glib talking to me about it Because this is This is not something that we've come up with by any stretch of the imagination. This has been around for a long time Uh, that's not one I've heard or read about I'm afraid it gets very interesting when you start to poke really really far But no, oh, yeah, not all people do some people just say blah blah blah blah objectively bad moving on. It's like hey wait, wait, wait Yeah And yeah, and the unfortunate thing is the author of all of those statements may not know they need to explain themselves Sometimes like we say a lot on e-fab. We're like, hey, what does that mean?  I guess people don't see it the way I do. Fuck. Uh, yeah, so what I mean by that And that's the thing my videos can always be longer every word I use I could be like oh I could explain that one like I'm not going to go on a nitpick rant ever again Hopefully it was in my tfa part one and I'm never going to do it again But maybe I will depending on more and more people talking about it We shall see to our second term Oh god Good and bad writing are terms less offensive than objectively as the people using them don't think they're Opinion is fact, but they have the same What would be the point saying good slash bad writing instead of saying I don't like this writing or I like this writing You by starting off with the examples that he did he's almost kind of poisoned the rest of the entire video Yeah, because he can't be objective about any of this I need to stop and I think how is this like Significantly different from yeah Because I've already assumed I've jumped the gun on this I assume he's going to be saying that when they say that they mean the primary definition of good meaning They were satisfied by it Therefore This is what bothers me about videos when they say this is good writing I'm like when you say that do you mean this is writing you enjoy and then they go Well, what else could I possibly mean and I'm like oh right? Yeah Because they think there's no other definition So I'm just saying like why didn't you say that and it's like because it doesn't sound as good If you just end every sentence with and I like this it's like meh, but if you say this is actually well written Oh But yeah, I think that's what he's going to be running with and that's why he doesn't find it egregious I guess writing our terms less offensive than objectively as the people using them don't also again. Have you noticed how this just clips? Yeah, they're just they're just Yeah, and he has that thing in the beginning like this needs to be viewed in this one I'm like, why do you even need to see what's on screen? He had one little neat editing thing was when he said the words good and bad When he said good Batman was on screen when he said bad Bane was on screen other than that That was like, what are they right? That's not even objectively true anyway. So what's the point? Right Maybe he's just referencing what people typically say Don't think their opinion is fact But they have the same effect on a discussion because they generalize and quantify matters that should be discussed Or at the very least examined before judgment is made If I argue for a certain plot point and someone just tells me to stop defending bad writing They haven't made an argument Counterpoints are an argument. Um, does anyone ever use the phrase stop defending bad Writing as the entire crux is going to say that sounds like the end of the argument Who is this video directed at? Yeah, who are these people? Modern critique is modern critics, I guess Because you'll say stop defending bad writing Yeah, that's at the end of a long four hour effort. Yeah, I was gonna say that's after the consensus has been reached I would end up saying it if I was pretty much at the point of being like giving up You know, I'd be like, oh my god, stop defending bad writing I wouldn't start with that because I agree with him. That's not an argument. It's just a Inclusion statement. Hopefully you have an argument supporting it They haven't made an argument Counterpoints are an argument. Condensing elements that you believe to be bad or good without being able to explain why Doesn't help prove your point. Unfortunately, if you put most people on the spot They wouldn't be able to tell you what good writing is or how you achieve it I don't think you just said that doesn't exist anyway. That doesn't mean anything though Yeah, first off, it doesn't matter whether on the spot people can tell you that that's actually Not an argument.  For one what good writing is differs from person to person that's why we set a standard we can all agree on right that Is So is so is the point of this section that this is the subjective angle, but they don't explain themselves Is that his criticism the first one is you can't be objective This one is you can be subjective, but you have to explain yourself. You can't just say it Is that the simplified vision? I think so anyway, that'll be my Best faith analysis of this how you achieve it for one what good writing is differs from person to person But more importantly, it's far easier to point out the bad things in entertainment than it is to explain the good things Why? I would I would agree. That's true. Um I I think that I mean I I think I I imagine the three of us would probably agree I'm not sure I do because theoretically it shouldn't necessarily be that way with how we've broken things down Why why would it be easier to break things down in a negative way than a positive way? Well, no, I don't think that's necessarily like the I the the whole idea of what he's saying I think that people do Kind of even if they don't even if they're not conscious of it immediately or even if they can't put it into words people sort of know or at least feel negative things, um you know Is like, you know when something bad happens you pick it up the whole you might not have noticed it But your brain did thing About bad stuff. It just stands out more like we know something's wrong Or are we feel something's wrong? Even if we can't kind of explain it? I uh I don't want to put words in you But I think you guys would agree with me when I said you tend to judge like elements and aspects of media in a Sort of functional sense like in terms of the role that is playing within the work and how Adequately it performs that role. Yeah Functionally, it would be a good way to you Yeah, so past that point I'd probably say it's a lot easier to tell when something is broken or not Performing that function like it is non-functional then it is to tell when something is Three good functional or thought it's harder to quantify positively than negatively You've still haven't seen far from home yet, right rags I haven't no, um, but let's like let's use a fork as an example Like if you if you put a fork Do you show someone a fork right and you show someone just a fork that's just Into in dust, right and you show the two of them to say which which one of these is I don't I don't know I get it's it's hard. I'm trying to find a way to really phrase the concept in my head. Um I think people recognize things are bad more clearly than they recognize things being good I mean, I would tacitly agree. I just uh On a fundamental level if we identify what's bad by being To a degree inconsistent then surely good is just identified by being consistent Which is pretty simple to spot as well as the opposite um, but Yeah, I mean, I think I probably just agree that we typically see The people are much find it much simpler to point out floors than uh Praise worthy elements. I guess What's the what's the word you'd use in opposition to floor? What's the antonym of floor? What's uh floor? Um That's interesting. Um the opposite of the floor. Well in the colloquial sense opposite. Um, I would say See what chat says now. Hey, yeah, um Merit virtue Yeah I'm with merit. Yeah, I'm with merit more than virtue. Um Virtue has moral implications. Yeah like deserve Yeah big a pro low and pro Benefit a strength or something uh because Uh, we're defining good relative to a standard as the degree to which a standard is met, right? I said I guess my point would be Very good The degree the degree to which a standard is met. It's a lot harder to measure like I suppose excelling at that standard or exceeding the standard then it is to see something Non-functional or below the standard and how many degrees below the standard it is the severity of the like issue um someone in chat said as well that Sometimes it seems to be that the The good is almost the lack of bad and so when you're watching something that's coherent You'll be like on the prowl for any deviation of that Like we consider good the default Almost yeah, and that's maybe why we're not wired as much to then engage and why something is good Because you'll find with a lot of critics and again, this isn't This is something I've always been working on as well.  Yeah, but why? I Don't know I had a lot of fun with it And you're like, yeah, but when you said the other one was bad you named all these like mechanical things What's what's good about this one mechanically and you're like, I don't know everything worked Like a lot of people do have trouble with it But you know, I uh, I actually do think that there is like an equal and opposite So every time we highlight any kind of flaw in writing they will be the reverse of it Like Luke being out of character. What is the good vision of that? It's like well him being in character But we don't necessarily praise that because it's supposed to be default He's not supposed to be deviating from him being in character because that's like what the fuck I guess yeah, that's my point because then I ideally in this case We would want something above that for uh for a scale.  It's like, yeah And then how do we start quantifying those positive elements in a praiseworthy manner There you go. I think we've cracked and now agree with what he said pretty much And I'll have a I gotta I uh, for there's a friend of mine here. Uh, Renzi channel Steve McCray. He's really big into philosophy. That's his bread and butter essentially So we need to get him on one of these days to talk about the nature of objectivity. Is he free right now? Um, I don't know But with uh, I think we'll be good for now, but we should probably Like we should probably pick a video specific to him being a guest Sure I mean because this is probably the only video a week ever covered a video wisecrack did Technically what they call philosophy right in the last defab Philosophy of the middle, but we definitely do a philosophy with just right soon enough. It's gonna be great The thing is differs from person to person But more importantly, it's far easier to point out the bad things in entertainment than it is to explain the good things To help with this, I'd like to quickly I would say pointing out and explaining aren't dichotomous. So And I don't necessarily find it that way for myself But I guess it's probably because I've been trying to work on that I like to want to start figuring out If if there's a bad then what is the equal and opposite and how do we start talking about them as well I need to do more praise videos I understand that I've only done literally the one other than saying positive things in the long form videos, but I want to do more positive ones as well. I just I'm still pissed about Game of Thrones. So To help with this I'd like to quickly explain what good writing is to me as it's important for the next term We'll talk about right to me a story any story at its core is about us Our perception of fictional characters is based entirely from what we understand of our own species A well-city of humans within its constructed world and convinces us that the events the characters are going through No matter the story's concept are actually happening to them And that the decisions these characters make are consistent with our own rationalization patterns What do you mean they're consistent with our rationalization patterns? They're them not us You're referring to us in a like does he mean the yeah Does he mean the as long as they behave in a way that we can understand would be a human way You're only judging this from the perspective of how a human would act and behave like hell. Yeah, I am you can have stories that Create a whole new being like a Vulcan, you know Like they Well, we can still objectively analyze the thing that they're doing We just say all right. This is how they behave and this is what their goals are and motivations are I'm saying that we can't we don't empathize with Vulcans necessarily Uh because of what we know about us is Oftentimes it'll be we understand how they work who they are what they do and then When they make decisions, we'll be judging it entirely from what we know about them We'll be like Vulcans blah blah blah created the concept of Vulcans anyway. So Clearly they can be understood with a human mind in a way. So I don't this is a silly point I was gonna say if that's all it is that yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that we judge everything based on how we understand everything It's like yeah Fair enough are actually happening to them And that the decisions these characters make are consistent with our own rationalization patterns Bad stories are the ones where the characters stop resembling people And you begin to see the strings on their bodies as the author or writer Marry and let them through the world with no one maybe Depends on what we're analyzing here. Yeah, I was just saying what about a character that's built that way? Like a robot or puppet controlled can still behave in objective ways or have objectively analyzable Traits This is really limiting on what a story can be And I think that if you were here you'd be like no, of course I'm referring to characters that aren't robots that that in context Have robotic decisions that don't make sense toward their own values or something like that and I'd be like well, okay I doubt he would say the you know robotic character is bad because they're robotic, you know What about human characters like explicitly human characters are made To explore a concept rather than to be as Close to being a human or like as humanoid and normal as possible Like that may have made an exaggerated abstracted ways to try and explore an idea Like and surely this guy hasn't forgotten that characters aren't human anyway Well, sure But are you referring like have you got an example of that theo just so I know you're talking about Like are you saying like a character that represents more of an idea rather than a person? I suppose. Yeah Um, I'm trying to think of a good example. So like a character like in Well, the female the female in uh, Chernobyl Uh, Cole mute, uh, I forget the name. It's a weird Russian name But she was an amalgamation of people in the real world. She wasn't actually a character in that sense Sure She's still seeing she was still pretty consistent in in who she was right. She like I believe so.  You have like Uh, envy is a character, but it's more of a representation of an idea Yeah Um, but again, I So if he was to say envy Uh, is unrealistic because nobody's that envious. I'd be like, well, that's the idea It's that it's envy in the purest form. I don't know Yeah, but we just say envy just has to be that envious That's the only person who has to be that envious is that character Yeah, again, you know, what's funny us about this is this whole video is just too short for me I feel like I'd love to delve into every one of these topics with this guy assuming he's um No, not willing to shut it down after every statement or anything Author or writer marionette them through the world with no attempt to mirror reality There's a very jarring feeling when a story starts doing this and one of the complaints that manifests itself because of this is I guess You can have that manifest through a character. I don't know not necessarily the behavior It's usually how they an action either survival don't survive arbitrarily It's it's it's if anything it's a lack of an event happening the lack of an event being that character's demise I don't I'm being completely honest here. I don't know many people who misuse plot armor. Most people seem to know what it is Yeah, and plot armor is I mean just like real armor. It's not all the same So there are some things where someone could like Explosions are great because they generally have a randomness to them. Yeah, which means some people can seemingly miraculously survive explosions and other people can Tragically die when you wouldn't expect it So when an explosion happens on screen and a character doesn't die from it Oh, that's not quite as plot armor e as someone say being crushed by a Extremely large ridiculous object and surviving as a result Not all plot armor is the same essentially because of this is What no one tells you about plot armor is that every character has it fictional stories are not retail. Okay Does that need to be told to you?  It's like a lack of plot armor almost or anti plot armor I guess you could try and overextend it and say say that like any given narrative has a requirement that Certain characters Make it to a certain point such that the narrative is able to proceed And thus like they have to survive to that point. Thus they have plot. Yeah, even if it never I would agree But even then it's I think people have like a tolerance for plot armor levels Like people don't complain about like Frodo and sam surviving often, but they'll really complain about Yeah, john snow surviving massive aero follies and cavalry charges and you're like What a lucky guy, you know Congrats you be cancel you must have great plot armor and excessive luck can sometimes probably be interchangeable as well I think I think it's a category.  Why can't that just be the story? It is like well because the stakes How could I care about anything that's happening if there's no rules? Hey, what is a slightly tangentially related question? Sorry not on e-fap Would it be plot armor if a character survives something like incredulous and then they're just completely plot irrelevant Um, like they do nothing for the entire rest of the film But they they survive something they absolutely shouldn't have is that plot armor? Um, I guess the question then is is plot armor directly related to their effect on the plot? Yeah, is it contingent on their importance on the plot may um, I don't know. It's interesting I don't know if it's I don't know if I'd say that that's necessarily how I use it I usually just use it to mean that they help them survive something that should have killed them I use it with reference to like their importance in the plot like It was the plot itself that gave them their survival So whether they're important to the plot or not It was the plot that determined they survived and arguably their plot goes on whether or not it's relevant to this story Okay, so it's it's arguable, but I like the question. Yes Um, and again, both of those would still come down and under luck.  They were shot in the head. They didn't die. Fuck off Tellings of real world events where luck and randomness are indiscriminate because stories are constructed narratives They can only simulate the factors of luck and randomness And it's the degree to which they do it that we can calculate their believability as a reflection of real world examples It's not just luck though. We're talking about like if you have a character that gets their head chopped off It's not lucky that they survive it. It would just be a direct contradiction. You really you can't survive that like but they did Like okay, okay You do not then say they're lucky. That's not a thing you say It's not lucky when a person survives something with About as close to a hundred percent fatality rate as you can get and then yeah fine in the next scene They literally separated by the atom ultimately plot armor does rely to some degree on Individuals ability to believe something that happens on screen But I think there's enough I think there's enough people out there when you talk about plot armor with people They're like, oh, yeah, absolutely was the example you gave an explosion Everybody react like a hundred people see a guy with an explosion of dynamite threw me as away from him And then he falls over and gets back up straight away half the audience is okay without the other half are like what He he's just straight up dead. Maybe all the audience are okay with that but some are like wow that was Okay, yeah We can talk about the concepts of plot armor without all necessarily having to agree that it is plot armor or not And then we the fact that we're discussing that whether or not it is plot armor means we all are trying to come to a conclusion Does it meet the requirements for this thing? This thing is a thing we have all agreed exists Even as a concept. Yeah, and we usually we talk about feasibility to Stop it from turning into a plot hole and turning into just a convenience slashing convenience when it comes to Plot armor like being disintegrated or being shot in the chest and get into the hospital in a couple of hours It's like I think that could work and then you google it You're like how long can someone survive a gut shot Then it says you know it says however long and you go, okay, I guess I can believe the character did that then that's fine Just my understanding of how gut shots work, but the literal chopping off someone's head and they survive was like Sorry, you have to have an in-universe rule for that like this character's Species their heart is located in their fucking head or something and you're like oh Hmm World events where luck and randomness are indiscriminate because stories are constructed narratives They can only simulate the factors of luck and randomness and it's the degree to which they do it that we can calculate their I wouldn't say they simulate it. I say they determine it um Simulate luck and randomness does he mean that it's all preconceived by a writer therefore none of it's actually luck or randomness It's just simulated. Yeah, I wouldn't I don't think simulate I don't think simulation is a good way to describe it really.  It's possible. This is the thing. It's not an actual contradiction. It's Wow It's not unheard of I can believe someone getting shot through the cheeks. Absolutely. I've seen pictures of it but Oh, man, why would you aim for the cheeks? There's some bad odds. I mean you can have your jaw blown off and survive This is what I mean.  It's like lol. No, he's not you're like, what? Why did it?  It depends how quickly they get to a hospital There's a gajillion billion million variables to something like that And then if you have but this is the other thing It's not even necessarily that though because if say they were shot by a You know a quantum phase ray. I'd be like, okay, so what is that you go?  I need to know what this stuff does um Like a lot of shows and tv will have tranquilizers the instant action and work on humans and it's like It's not logically impossible, but that's not how they generally work in the real world, but we can buy it I'll just uh, okay. I guess they have that kind of thing in this world. Sure. Yeah Whatever, I mean, we do it with time travel all the time. We're like, I'll buy it Yeah As an author has a story to tell the characters in that story will always need some sort of protection from the story's choices to imitate real world hazards Stories are contrived in their very nature because you have to take characters from one point in time to another Depends on how you write your story Yeah, um, you couldn't literally because I'm pretty sure georgia. I'm on has talked about this. He does Have a couple of endpoints. He wants but Uh, it's the whole garden thing. I think someone said garden versus something else. Oh, that's architect Oh, there you go.  It's like well in a world where you've got Seven kingdoms fighting over a chair Some interesting things are bound to happen Problem with that approach is you get what georgia or martin has right now Which is uh, the work spiraling out of his control. Yes more and more elements get introduced The mirror needs not as well, right? That's the famous one. Yeah, that's the one One point in time to another both points of your own creation as a writer While we as people are affected by factors outside of our own control all the time Stories are a nullification of these factors because characters can only go through what the story wants them to Not necessarily It's kind of a weird way to put it. They go through what the story wants them to Is uh, you can have characters that essentially dictate their um their journeys Via what they want or where they want to go like I said that again the gardener approach kind of Count as that depends on what you I mean, it's a quote unquote rule that you generally want a fairly active protagonist Does it other seeks out and does things towards whatever goal it is they have And it's not the story writing and their goal for the story is not Everything I want to happen everything that I desire to happen in a story will happen in this story sometimes things happen in a story and the The uh, the artist of the story that the author that is yeah, I don't really want it to happen I don't like it, but it makes sense in the story and it makes it very believable. So therefore it will be in the story I am ignoring my own personal desires It's the kind of thing that happens when you write yourself into a corner You realize I need to I need to either let something really bad happen that could affect the narrative further down the line Or I need to you want a character to live But they're in a position where they just can't live and you're like, yeah I like this guy Because characters can only go through what the story wants them to these factors have to be reintroduced at the expectation of an audience Yet not at the random apparel of necessarily. Uh, you don't have to Whether or not people like it doesn't have anything to do with Any of that actually what what the story wants them to these factors have to be reintroduced at the expectation of an audience Yet not at the random peril of the characters So while it's easy to say that a character has plot armor It's far more beneficial to explain the situation the character is in has issues with its believability And examining and that's what it is Who doesn't think that's what plot armor is It's pretty yes pretty much intrinsically tied to believability and that's why if someone says This character's got plot armor and then you go, uh, no, they put the mithril vest on earlier in the film So that's why they survived that and you go what the fuck's a mithril vest? It's like the strongest I think I started off by saying it was about the audience's tolerance Determines whether or not they would call it plot arm or not, which is essentially believability is the tolerance whether or not they can believe it Is this video addressed to five word long youtube comments? Because that's the impression I'm getting Because like Who says these things who are these people and where can we punch them? Has issues with its believability and examining and critiquing why that character or characters Are in the situation they're in to begin with since we've started talking about characters Another 10 cent phrase I see getting to run around a lot these days is Should be fun. Yeah, I don't know. Where's he gonna go with this one? Oh, yeah I don't even know if I could answer to guess Character arcs are a story's way of simulating how people change through the course of their lives based on the experiences They have one of the problems with the term character arcs and their Whoa, whoa an objective standard for critique Uh, you guys slightly ahead of me. I think I need to rewind I'm at 622 621 I'm trying to go to six and that work Change through the course of their lives based on the experiences they have One of the problems with the term character arcs and their sudden bizarre inclusion as an objective standard for critique Is anything bizarre about it? Is he doing that in like quotations like objective standard or is he saying like that as an actual objective standard? I don't know What about I'm confused here because how is character arc a standard Well, but I was going to say I don't even agree because a character doesn't necessarily require an arc Static characters are fine. Yeah, the pens are fine It's contextual dependent on Well, for example, what is the arc of um, you can name a lot of villains villains don't typically go on arcs What's the emperor's arc? Is he a bad character because he lacks an arc? really So I guess I need more information on yeah, if he's gonna because it sounds like he's not gonna agree with this either Um, again, I need to know what the people he's arguing against are saying Yeah, I don't know.  He's thinking about in his head pretty much Is that they imply that characters must change and that if a character reverts I mean, there's probably some guy out there No, you know what you know what I have a reference People told us to respond to Jenny. Is it Jenny Nichols or Jenny Nicholson?  Uh, she she says she's complaining about the characters in rogue one And she goes through them all and explains. They all don't have arcs And I remember Like listening to it and being like, why is this your standard right now? Like why can't you talk about what they do and who they are? Why are you talking about whether or not they have an arc? I was like, that's a strange If they have an arc talk about the arc and how well it was executed, but a character doesn't have to have an arc Yeah, um, so there are people who apparently use it as a sort of like Litmus test of how good a character is I suppose And you know typically again, this is not an objective good or bad as far as I'm concerned But typically people will like a protagonist in a long story to have an arc I like to see a character change over time, especially in relation to events that they experience It means it means everything was, you know, it's all remembered. It was all impactful. It was all worthwhile. It wasn't just Watched it and now it's gone. Yeah, it's just how people generally are their collections of memories that respond to events and Is that they imply that characters must change and that if a character reverts to a previously plotted point in their arc That their arc is then ruined character. Well, that's possible. That's possible Some people can naturally regress Again, it's all contextual I feel like this is a very loaded kind of thing to say because you know Oh a character reverting to a previous stage in their arc or having their arc undone. Where have I heard that before? I guess tlj, but game of thrones Game of thrones Jamie Lannister is upset many people But um, yeah, the that's definitely um, something you can say. I'm curious if he just does he just flat out disagree with that Characters like people Change if they want to and it's the nuance in that choice and how they interpret the experiences that change their lives That is interesting Not the mere fact that they change by implying that the only good characters are the ones who have changed Through the course of a story. We ignore the fact that there are people in life who don't I feel like are we trying to defend? Who says this what's gonna say whoever said this is wrong? Yeah, whoever said that's clearly wrong. I don't even know if I don't think anyone in our audience would say You have to have a character arc for the story to be good Or for the character to be a good one and then to the idea of is it Strictly better for a character have an arc than not I'd be like not necessarily There's it's really dependent. It's complicated Depends on their role within the work What is what is jack sparrow's arc throughout all of his films doesn't pretty much just stay the same Not like his whole thing And yet people absolutely adore that character So I mean as long as people if people don't change but behave consistently. I'm totally fine with that Kind of raise Heath Ledger's Joker Yeah, I mean a lot of people they don't change very quickly The dude are consistent with themselves And this is the thing if it doesn't make a character bad to lack an arc and therefore character with an arc could still be really poorly written um Because the arc can be broken. Yeah, but the arc cannot work. I guess he's implied that That isn't necessarily true. Oh, someone said patrick said it and that gave me a bit of a flashback I think patrick says about batma versus superman But the character's like a flat slash don't learn anything Which there's like there could be an implication there of patrick saying that they have to grow and change in order for it to be good Or at least engaging for him because he obviously doesn't believe in objective stuff I don't think anyway What was Ned Stark's character arc? Um, there is something there. He at the end of his rope. He does give up on his idea of always Being honorable and honest in order to try and save his daughter's life and it ends up technically killing him I would argue that He breaches but the thing is that's not necessarily against his character because he's already breached his quote unquote honor to protect john snow so Extremely often. I like no character is perfectly consistent with their morals or at least no human is I don't think I don't think so No, the real world is a the real world is a very messy place that doesn't care about your perfect streaks. So I think it's just natural for I think it's just inevitable that at one point you're gonna have to make hard choices Ned's character arc is big alive and that big dead It's definitely a change From one place to another also shagley boy said post of it. It's coming. It's gonna be really long I've already tested more than half of it on fringy and he liked it even without seeing game of thrones. So It's coming. This is a common People are gonna keep asking me but it's coming Change in that they can be equally as interesting as those who do for example General Zod is the same character at the beginning of man of steel as he is at the end of it But that doesn't make his interactions with the world around him any less interesting because it's his conviction that defines his See so he's just I actually have a criticism for him now because he's he said people saying character bad if no arc and then he responds with It doesn't make his interest is in interaction with the environment around him any less interesting It's like oh was that was what they were saying by good or bad Were they saying that if you lack an arc as a character you are therefore less Interesting when you would interact with the environment. Is that their standard? Be nice. We knew what they're standing because I was gonna say like I did maybe that's true I don't know. I don't think I'd agree with that I kind of yeah, I broadly agree with what he's saying, but It's it's quite easy to agree with um Yeah, I guess we'll just I don't care, you know I guess he's just making standard arguments for why a character isn't terrible Even though they don't grow which I would agree with him on so because it's his conviction that defines his character As he is quite clear about his unwillingness to change Stories have the incredibly difficult task of trying to mimic human behavior Characters that don't change are hard to write but characters who look like they're changing and then don't are probably the hardest What do you mean? Why did you reference jamey lannister when he said characters that Look like they're changing and then don't he does change He literally abandoned cersei lannister to fight for the living That's an action. You can't just say like no, he was just lying Like he nearly dies like three times in that episode. He did it, but he was lying.  It's like he doesn't ditch.  I'll stick my dick in crazy And then yeah, so and and the whole brand that's the point going into it here But like if if that's not a character dark break. I don't know if there is one Don't are probably the hardest We're not very forgiving of irrationality in our characters because of how out of place it can seem in our own day to day Well, that's why you have to set that up. You have to show us The elements of the character that inform that you don't just have it happen ie star lord Like the idea with jamie is that supposedly cersei's supposed to be something like an addiction to him and uh Addictions are supposed to be a constant temptation. So he relapses We need to see that. Yeah, we don't see that We see that he's he's kicked it Yeah We've we've seen that uh jamie. He's kicked his Cersei addiction.  It's yeah humans can do it Like what why why it's the sub it's the subtext of rags realizing the futility of life The futility of being objective yes Are probably the hardest we're not very forgiving of irrationality Sorry, I mean dying is not objectively a bad thing for me. So In our characters because of how out of place it can seem in our own day to day lives But a character we think makes an irrational choice that sets their progression as a person back to square one Isn't instantly a bad character nor you just implied then that there is such a thing as a bad character Is there or is there not and does he just mean they're not this thing Oh, so you think this thing is a thing that exists He's fucked because he just said that and it's like, okay So you don't mean objective, right because you're just talking about uh subjective stuff because there is no objective bad And he'd be like, yeah, and I'd be like so why are you saying that whether or not Someone can dislike a character has to be based on them do an x y and z when when it's all subjective anyway You can dislike a character for being consistent I could be like I fucking hate this person because they always do x But he's just yeah, it's no fun. He's just running himself around in circles You can't say like oh, it's not that doesn't make a bad character. It's like you can't decide that if it's entirely subjective screwed himself by saying that good and bad Uh, uh inherently subjective terms that early because then he had to write the rest of his script without saying good or bad ever again As a person back to square one isn't instantly a bad character nor that choice automatically illogical Irrationality exists and it's important. I think we should I think we could fairly well Measure whether or not someone's doing something logical or a rational, right? Yeah, or a rational. Yeah I mean unless that comes into the whole you can be irrational while being logically written as I'll just keep using star lord as the example The problem with him hitting thanos isn't him hitting thanos that makes complete sense It's like we understand why he's doing that. He's a very emotional character. He loves gamora. He's already done this previously Like that's fine. It's the other surrounding elements and what the character the other characters are doing. Um So like the the idea that someone does something absolutely out of character and insane and his answer is well You know people are irrational.  It's like it may as well just all be a Don't call them characters. Just call them events A4 jumped out a window then a3 called him and threw him out another window To analyze whether or not that choice the character makes along their arc is one that is true to the character By defining everything as a character arc.  Define everything by character when you define whether or not a character is committed to an action That's true to them. You have to figure out what their values are what their motivations are and then see if it's in line. So um I hate the x's and chap all the way Sorry Apparently the x's and chap the creator of this video. Oh my Well travel fast on the planes. Hello there. We're nearly done with your videos, uh If he is in chat I scrolled up and I saw someone um dx. Do you think that your video is good? I think he thinks it's good I just want to hear him say that his video is good because if he I know you're going with that right Uh, we shall crack Oh, yeah, there he is. Hello We are responding to your video, so By defining everything as a character arc We're saying that progression must be linear when sometimes it's circular Just because an n is linear the results can be circular I was about to say it wouldn't a circular progression still be linear It would have gone in a complete circle. It wouldn't have jumped around the circle Yeah, results can can come you can have repeating results.  But yeah, but the idea that I don't know Like I don't know anybody who really defines everything about a character through their arc as opposed to What they value like I said, that's that's where I typically would start and their values may change across their arc like, um A lot of the times like a character's arc They'll they'll have a fundamental value that stays the same, but maybe they will Change the way that it's expressed or at least Will they incorporate a new value? Yeah, like it's learning something about I mean Or an experience makes them appreciate something like oh, I appreciate my family now. I appreciate, you know It's a reference to all homecoming but Going from I must get into every battle possible and help every person possible to I must pick My battles and do like responsibly act responsibly and use my power correctly not just jump in Um, it's the same value the goal of helping people, but it's like expressed in a different way. Thanks to the arc When sometimes it's circular Just because you end up at the same place that you started doesn't mean you haven't grown as a person That one dimensionally. Yeah, you can go back on one thing, but you can develop in other ways Um, yeah, so I guess dx if you want to Uh Come on you welcome to do you have discord? Well, um, we typically since we're close to the end. We'll try and finish a video and then we'll talk about it That's what we did with the doom sausage man I think that's what we've done with everybody pretty much Stand on its own a car did we do that with snowman gaming? I think we got through most of it I don't know if we finished. Yeah, I think we pretty much finished it I don't think we've ever had someone in while we were watching their video As a whole the video should stand on its own Yeah, so in the description for this video, there is a link to my discord get in there and then at me Um And then I'll I'll add you into this conversation. Be wonderful. But uh, we'll sort it out. Like I said, we'll just try and finish this video Change who you were to begin with the final term.  It is. Well, we we use it as a meme, right? Don't forget. Don't forget benny often. Why is this contribution to that? destruction of subversion Well, they've also destroyed foreshadowing like the concept That everyone's had to talk about foreshadowing versus development. Thanks to them In theory, a story that subverts expectations is an amazing one It does two things we've already talked about It creates a cast of characters so closely resembling actual people that their behavior is consistent and therefore their actions predictable Yet it also forces these characters into situations that make us question whether or not their choices that have subverted our expectation of the choices They would have made were choices that were true to their characters. Yes In a way In theory, it could be very good. So like a character who's I just think that you need Uh, not a strict one-dimensional source of information need a bunch of things like um There are characters throughout buffy and angel who some of them have a rule of never kill humans Some of them have a rule of never kill good people And so they will come conflict is the same with superhero like stories where the punisher versus daredevil for example um and so Could you enter into a scenario where the person who said they would never kill a person Would and you'd need a bunch of additional information and context to be able to set up this moment But maybe maybe that's something you would expect because you understand the I guess the ultimate What's like a great subversion of expectation? I was going to reference the depart. I already did that in my video. So um, you argue net fate as a subversion who's Game of Thrones net starks.  You don't kill them That's not something you do But everything points to him dying in that episode There's no reason why he shouldn't and then the closer and closer you get to it. You're like no no No, the other characters react when you're like, no And yeah, he doesn't come back so There's a couple ways it depends on what you're subverting. I suppose which expectations complicated feet I tend to be of the opinion that a subversion is like it's still a kind of payoff in terms of setup payoff kind of Uh the way films are made like it still comes from something within the work yeah um, and then again It's like a our expectation of what the character will do or what will happen to the character Where the story will go. There's lots of different things. There's lots of different, uh, I guess Ways we can gain our expectations like, you know, you can have a scenario where something happens Then two people one of them is like, yep, that makes sense to the ones like what that that came out of nowhere and it's like, uh, so They got information differently The problem with this line of thinking and why this phrase needs to see the pits of hell soon Is because you don't actually need well written characters or difficult personal choices to make the Of expectations a component doesn't have to be think of Yeah, you don't have to submit. Yeah, you don't have to have subverted expectations to have a good story Not at all a lot of the times they can't help if they're done right But as we learned from the last Jedi if they're done really crappily Then it really hurts the final product. They expect everything to be meaningful. Let's make nothing meaningful Okay You got me You showed us you've successfully paid off nothing Of expectations a component of your story think of subverting expectations as a box Now i'm going to put everything that has ever fooled me into thinking something about a character or a situation Inside of that box without any context as to how I was fooled by the story That is the problem with this term I said that a character's behavior has to be consistent so their actions are predictable But that doesn't mean you have a great character on your hands because I don't think I mean by any of these Tim's though if none of them are objective Is just great just mean character you like in which case Are these are the is there a standard by which we can objectively like measure Um, I wasn't measuring what makes a great character is a consistency because he was almost saying like he doesn't You don't require x y and z to make A character great and I'm like, but what is a great character by your own definition because I thought that wasn't a thing Beyond you saying the character you enjoy I don't know this is true either for every general zod. There's a uran gray joy Both characters never changed, but only one was actually interesting Wait, is he saying that uran is interesting? I some I hope no reference got earlier. I think in a mo in a some I don't know. I think that was a positive reference for zod Yeah, all right. I yeah because I haven't seen man of steel in long enough to not remember if sod was like I don't know A great character. I hesitate to ask chat because I'm pretty sure everyone hates man of steel You know, we could uh, we could explore that one one day. We will I also said that irrationality exists and while the choice a character makes that subverts expectations Could fall under legitimate irrationality It also could have been pulled out of the rear end of a horse. Right. So how we define that is the important part how we figured that out Was it them being irrational but within character or was it them being uh, out of character? If we label anything under subversion of expectations, we're not actually specifying the quality of that subversion Yeah, no, I agree with him You need to be more specific than saying it subvert my expectations. Therefore good Yeah We're just what if your expectations were good? What if your expectations were excellent and they made sense and they were rational And then therefore the traits of what's what made it subversive was the fact that it was terrible What if the subversion doesn't Doesn't pay anything off doesn't do anything with any of the material present and kind of I guess squanders in that sense Like say tlj. I guess Think that they did really well. I don't know what you're talking about I didn't see that shit coming That it's a subversion and many people think that subversion is objectively good I don't know who says that which brings us back to objective I'm sure there are people in there The problem with modern criticism is that some critics both professional and amateur would rather encapsulate their criticism into descriptors Than actually mostly a games critic these days But my ability to resonate with an audience still comes entirely from being able to explain in great detail How something fails or succeeds If I said a gameplay mechanic was objectively bad and left it at that the viewer Oh, yeah, I did saying something's bad on its own isn't boring. So you gotta say why You don't get to say something's objectively bad without then qualifying Yeah, before or after because otherwise. Yeah, what's the point? It's just a thumbs up or down for every video. It's like, okay Doesn't learn anything if I explained why I thought this mechanic was objectively bad The viewer learns something But is in a poor spot to debate because I've determined that it is bad No matter what if I explained not bad no matter what no matter what you haven't explained it It's a different sense of objectivity Yeah Because yeah, I completely agree dude like if I said to to rags the Fucking end game is objectively badly written 100% and that's it and he's like wait and I go. No, that's it I'd just be an asshole It wouldn't be the we're having that that word doesn't stop discussion I guess because that's something that he's echoed from earlier in the video Um, but what it tells rags is that I've got information that goes beyond my feelings and so he can be like so What are you referencing? Well, I really all I know is that you believe it. Well, no, even all I really know is that you've said it Well, I'm going on the going on the fact that you know me rather than I'm a random person Like you know that if I say it that I'm probably gonna have references, but Yeah It doesn't end the conversation is my point Why the no objectively doesn't Conversations if you say something objective at in stations. There's no discussion that can be for me.  No I wonder if he's heard of me. He probably has Add no matter what if I explained why the mechanic works against the player's goals And how it also works against the intended design of the developers The viewer not only understands my position on the topic.  Yeah We can offer their own insight on the matter which could influence my previous judgment We all benefit from having a discussion on these issues But only if we actually talk about the issues and not summarize our opinions In terms that sound cool without any reasoning as to how we arrived at this opinion Or what to do about it. Oh, this sounds like this guy might be on team efap to a degree We're all about people explaining everything they say I completely agree with him. I just don't know who he's talking to necessarily and don't agree that when you say something Objective that there's no counter-argument that can happen Some of my criticisms do amount to like nobody's explaining what they like we do that on efap regularly, right? All the video essays we cover when they just Say a thing is a thing and we're like, what do you mean by that? I mean we kind of done it with this video too I mean it happened Which we're all free to do Obviously, but the more people who do it the less nuanced a topic becomes Until the only thing you have left to talk about is how much you hate what you're talking about All right Uh So he is he's joined the discord. Just I'll get him I'll add him as a friend If you accept my friend request, I'll jump you into this call mr. Dx What did you think of the video guys? Um It's far from the worst bag. Yeah, it's definitely not even the contention for the worst video we've seen So you take that as whatever victory you want to Just uh There's certain misconceptions about how objectivity or objectively rather tends to be used by people Did he actually ever define objective? No, that was part of the problem is that he's assumed there's one Definition I suppose the the two the two uses of objective I tend to Be familiar with uh the more journalistic sense of let's try and be as unbiased as possible To be as you know fair to the subject as we can and then the more formal sense of Irrespective of human thought and ideas on the matter The thing as it is I guess Hello sir Hola, what's up guys? Hello, let me just do a nap on a podcast So your video was sent to me a couple times because it's the That first word you tackle is something of um I'm I'm I'm something of a proponent of it in youtube criticism of you have you heard of me before I'm like a demon when it comes to this sort of thing Yeah, I've heard of you, but I haven't seen your content. Um To be here to be fair though. I don't watch a lot of youtube content these days. It's just a time So you uh this video you made it after I'm assuming seeing these ways being used in a couple of videos Sure, I saw them in a couple of videos. Uh, I saw them on reddit as well read it to a very strange place for criticism Can I ask if are there any like youtube critics that you don't like that? You really think don't do a good job at what they do? Are the people who like you just don't think are good critics?  Um, yeah, I don't think You went into the right mindset I mean if you have somebody that doesn't play first person shooters review first person shooter It's it's topical, you know, so if you don't play what you're reviewing. You're probably not gonna get a Uh grasp on the on the matter, but I mean Um, I'm a little curious. What have you played young blood? Oh, yeah, I'm playing through it right now What do you what do you think? I think it's okay. I don't think it's I don't think it's the best Wolfenstein game Obviously, I think it's okay as well and we seem to be in the mind. I've got a review. It's not up yet So but I that's that's what I say is I think that's it it's okay guys It's not terrible, but even that that seems to put us into the minority I I do think there's right. I think people sense blood in the water and they do want to hop on it Well, I think I think the knives were out for that game Even before it came out. So Yeah, Bethesda's been making a lot of friends lately Yeah, they're they're uh happy tree friends up there Everyone loves them right? Sounds like what you're highlighting as well would be like how episode nine will be hated Even if it was a great film at this point now, I think uh potentially um I For a long time had no interest in watching episode nine.  I think all of us we all hope it's good Are just our expectation for it to be good Is not high if I was given one year to write a good end to the trilogy of the sequels in in in disney I would be like no, I can't do it Yeah, it's so fucking hard to do Well, I mean, I I've never talked about this and I haven't done a video on it But I think a lot of the problems with the last Jedi originated from the force awakens So even though that's not an I I like the force awakens Smaller But I think a lot of the problems That present themselves in the last Jedi come from that come from that film and just the entire, you know Concept of of universe shrinking. I don't know.  It's an incredibly Orchestrated film visually, but I mean the writing still the writing didn't really hit me I mean, you know, sometimes I like I rewatched Batman versus Superman after I saw it in theaters And I thought to myself, you know, maybe I was a little too hard on this film I haven't changed my rating on it, but I see some of the merit there The last Jedi. No, it just No, no It is the doodoo But you wouldn't go as far as saying it's objectively bad, would you? No, yeah, that's the thing that's the point of my video or at least one of the points I make in the video Is that I hate the movie. I just straight up hate the movie. Um, but do I think it's objectively bad? No, and I guess, you know, the definition of whatever we describe as objectively is important here So what we can start there if you want what do you consider the definition of objective to be? Sure, um, I'm gonna go off what it says in the dictionary. So Let me pull that up. Give me a sec Okay In a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence Actually, that's what I think objectively in the context of critique should mean or I guess in overall context And so what does good mean in this context? Good is whatever you think it means good is, you know, a subjective word Yeah, sure if you like lobster lobsters good, right? No, no, no lobster can be good But lobster isn't inherently good No, I don't mean anything can be inherently good or bad I think good and bad we're good as lobster because good can be anything Well, yeah, that's the point good can be anything to us, but that doesn't mean Um, I I guess but they're different So, uh With what my question I meant, um Which which definition of good are you running with and I know that may sound As a strange question, but I'm almost being literal here Like how would you define the word good in that sentence? Uh, something is objectively good I don't think objectively good can't exist. I know. I know. So like if I said, um, a wheelless car With wheels you'd be like that's not possible a wheelless car with wheels is You and they'd be like why it's like well wheelless means without wheels More basic than that is like If if a shape has four Equilateral sides, is it not a good square? Well, it is a square. Um, the definition of square is Pretty defined. So whether or not it's a good square is irrelevant. It's a square Definition perfectly of something Yeah, but what is a good square? Yeah, I mean a good square is what not a triangle because a triangle is In your line of thinking objectively not a square. So Well, yeah, it's a triangle is objectively not a square Yeah, sure, but that's a tautology. Uh, you're saying the same thing twice a triangle is not a square A triangle is objectively not a square. They're you're saying the same thing You're just trying to find out what you think like to define good Oh, okay. So like in the context of a story or in the context of you know, overall things As a as a quality of something The thing is you seemed you said the good and bad are object are like inherently subjective terms So that implies a singular usage To give you a a rope. Are you are you suggesting good means likable? No, what I mean by good and bad is And I I guess I should have clarified this in the video is that I yeah, I I could think I have a good phone, you know um, my definition or What I think is good about that phone Is not going to be what I think is good about anything else if that makes any sense So like whatever I say something is good I'm judging it off the merits of whatever it is in relation to how to what I think about it It's effectiveness and then we get into categorization from there So what makes a phone good? Sure, uh, to me a phone that's good has, you know, a huge screen. It's a responsive phone has a lot of features Um His picture-in-picture, uh, I have the galaxy note 9. So I have the pen that's a useful feature as well But see that's all subjective So if we can agree upon criteria and it doesn't matter what our opinion is But you would agree that if we agreed upon those criteria Then we would be able to behave objectively to it as in We pick up another phone that lacks a pen is small and then we go with that by the standard We've just employed is now a poorly A poor phone objectively Sure, but if we created that standard and I guess that's the point I'm trying to make in my video is that If we if we create that standard then it is not objectively because objectively is something that actually just Is the earth would you consider? Just to clarify would you consider there is there such a thing as an objective standard in any Any walks of life in any conversation about anything ever? No, I wouldn't I wouldn't say so everything There's no objective standard for a square No, because a square is a square has a definition so Well, I'm with you on this right so the idea that Scientists bite over whether or not a Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet, right? Is um, I mean I say they fight I'm pretty sure there's always an answer. They just change the parameters or whatever So dependent on what are the standards been generated? It would be objective of me to say it is a planet or a dwarf planet depending on what the current understanding of science Is and if you said to me all those standards therefore are subject to change by whatever standards have been generated by the Science as it exists on this planet by human beings. I'd be like well, yeah But that's the best we can so like is any is nothing objective at that point Well, I feel like In the example you mentioned you Assume that the discussion is about planets if you told me Pluto is a rock then I would agree Pluto is objectively a rock But that's but a rock is a standard that we've generated ourselves I I don't think so uh a rock is Rocks exist in our universe, you know, uh rocks in space. So what I mean to say is that a rock is formed of certain Materials regardless of whether or not we want them to be a planet on the other hand is what we define it to be If that makes any sense. I wasn't a rock what we define it to be because rocks existed before us but it's so Our definition of what a planet is Did not exist before us neither did the rock definition Well, are you saying that the categorization is made by us? Yes, that's exactly. Yeah, that's what I'm saying I'm saying the categorization is made by us. So Yeah, Pluto can be a planet regardless of whether or not it's a planet But at the end of the day, it's it's a rock. We're arguing about whether or not it's a planet because we haven't really Decided, you know, or I guess we didn't I couldn't I go further than that and say no, it's not a rock is a collection of atoms Yeah, sure and you'd be right But so that's kind of what I'm getting at is that everything we we make any kind of conclusion about is run on standards That we've generated ourselves in the first place I I wouldn't agree because um, okay, so in your example about, uh collection of atoms, um The collection of atoms exists whether or not We want it to it existed before us Our definition of a planet did not exist. Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. It's objectively a rock But so does the planet so does Pluto It's just the name we gave it Right. I I I don't think we just I'm not sure we disagree on this because I don't know what we're saying It's the difference in what you understand to be objective. I think Yeah, I think that's I think that's a discussion we're having because I don't disagree That Pluto is a collection of atoms. I don't disagree that it's a rock What a discussion can and has been had on whether or not it's a planet because Well, we haven't decided on that but you know, whether or not it's a rock is indisputable Well, as someone just said in chat, it's not actually a rock. It's ice Then it's ice my bad. I thought well, but you get right that all of this change is based on how we define We look at all of these things that exist that what they are and then we just use language to To explain to other people what they're defined as which is how everything runs There isn't anything that doesn't run with that because that's what language is and so when Uh, we're talking like what I'm saying is that whatever you agree we can be objective about With a planet a rock or atoms, whatever we can extrapolate that into basically everything Because it's all based on how we define and what parameters we generate and the only problem is to just explain to the other party What the framing is but when you say like it can't be objectively good I'd like to know what you mean by objective what you mean by good and then I can explain to you what I mean when I say objective and good and uh You can understand what I'm saying that you may give different names Like if I said Pluto was a planet and then another scientist goes no No, no, no, it's a dwarf planet and they go well, we we're saying the same thing We've just given it different names because we didn't understand Each other's standard and which is the correct standard Well, typically we just run with whatever's most commonly understood at this point Or wherever science tells us is the correct answer at this point because we have to run to uh Authority figures with that because we're not scientists, but typically we run with with Uh definitions of ways we just go to the dictionary common understandings For example, someone saying a shoe is a car We'll just be like well, we're not going to be taking them very seriously because that's just useless Well, yeah, there's a there's a difference between I mean, I believe in facts obviously But I don't think facts are determined by people if you tell me that The solar system is going to collapse in a billion years That's that's a fact. It's just going to happen regardless of whether or not we're around Not necessarily, but sure I mean, isn't that what happens with stars? Again, this is all based off predictive models is the thing so I can't say that for sure Um Because to try and bring it around again, right? So the way I look at good if I conclude at the end of a video essay that uh, let's say Game of Thrones season eight was poorly written And I say it's objectively poorly written Then you say okay, you can't say that or I would have said sorry It's objectively bad and then you go what do you mean by bad and I go by the standard of poorly written It fails By the standard of writing it fails to reach A high standard and that's a definition of bad. Likewise with good. It reaches a high standard There's someone you can use that word for it's it's typically looked at as the second definition as opposed to the subjective side Which is just like it. I like the thing. It's good because it makes me feel good. Um, so when you say something's objectively good That's why people say like that's an oxymoron. You can't be objectively a subjectively good thing Because everyone's gonna have a different reaction. So when someone says objectively good I would assume or bad that they're referring to a standard and I agree with you In the portion of your video where you you're explaining that someone Saying something is x or y without having any kind of explanation is pretty much useless because you're just like, okay by your mysterious standards you've just defined it but um With my videos and I hope with with many others they would do some legwork and explaining it Mine typically runs with like a sense of logical consistency an establishment of rules that do not get broken A progression that does not get broken um Which I would argue is intrinsic to the idea of what a story is you can't have a story unless there's progression in the first place So it's a standard that's tied to it objectively um, so whether or not I like let's say Season eight of game of thrones it is poorly written and I would have to separate myself from it if I really enjoyed it A great example is endgame. I rewatched it recently and me and my friends Me and my friends like non spoilers or anything, but me and my friends are going through and it's like damn Like I love this film, but good god. None of this makes any sense. Like loads of decisions.  I can Really dislike something that I accept is actually very well Well made like a lot of people feel that Blade Runner is very boring or lame Even though they'll say it is pretty well constructed though um, sure, um So I don't think we disagree on much beyond the concept that Like the example with Game of Thrones that If you say it's poorly written based on The standards or based on standards. My problem is that those standards were just I mean like It's hard to get my point across here Standards were created by people. Yep. So I mean, yeah, we can all agree to them, but there's always going to be dissonance Within that standard there's going to be who don't disagree. So I guess and correct me if I'm wrong. What you're arguing is that Because of the arguments we've made we have determined that it is objectively bad and we're running with that and The only reason we're running with that is because no one has presented an argument Proving the opposite So if somebody presented an argument, I don't know. Maybe it's the greatest argument ever that season eight of game of thrones is good Oh, uh Things like that can change over time. I'm trying to think of um if you remember a lot of people consider Ben Kenobi is an it made inconsistent by the prequels because he looks at Anakin as this Person that he's like, uh, he thought was an amazing Jedi and a great friend and stuff And it's like you look at the prequels like oh clearly he wasn't but you know I don't know if you've seen the video where someone made a mashup where He's talking about Anakin with Luke and then they intercut scenes from the prequels And it actually makes a really emotionally impactful scene because it's the idea is that ben is deliberately Talking about it in a flowery way when he knows that it was all painful And it's like oh and once you look at that as an interpretation It's hard to make the conclusion that he is now inconsistent in the same way that when he goes um from a certain point of view People like wow, that's a ret card.  So Hiding the fact that he's his dad is probably for the best to a degree It's a it's a relatively you could call it an immoral choice to lead to um a moral The ends justify the means is kind of what i'm getting at there I guess I guess you could you could also argue that You know vader eventually does get what he wants which is killing obi one But it doesn't result in anything and he's completely It's a completely pointless victory So the discussion isn't necessarily uh over in certain topics But for example, I'm assuming you've seen the clip people reference where someone's about to kill ray with a knife and it disappears Yeah, that yeah, there's no That conversation's over we've we've had different guests try and defend it like uh, we had major lee say Yeah, that's only a mistake if you judge it as a mistake and it's just like You can try you can try all you want to walk around it to find any kind of standard that makes I was like the only way you can make says if they radically have a movie later on But they go yeah, it sucks that the imperial guard that were under snow sometimes their weapons would disappear That's just a thing that they do it sucks. See not yeah, just I mean knives dematerialize all the time Then you know, well, it's the thing it completely changes.  I mean obviously My interpretation is that that was or what I think happened is The knife must have been erased in post Because somebody realized why is any killing her right so so It has to be a production to sake of production error um My point and the point of my video is Whether or not we think that's a good or bad thing Is ultimately up to us. So yeah, it's a production error. We can look at it that way or I mean I guess you can quantify it however else you'd like, but whether or not It's a good or bad thing is it is to us. I think it's a bad scene But does that actually make it a bad scene? I I feel like I don't have really the authority to say that even when you know When you say good or bad, I assume you're referring to whether or not it's a it's a Ultimately like either moral or desired or approved of thing. That's the primary definition, right? Well, I'd be like well by the standard of Maintaining a progression of events maintaining stakes having your story Match without it's it's a complete faltering. It's a complete contradiction of events. So it's just like Absolutely a bad on the binary scale if we wanted to put it that way It's certainly if if we were to say characters walking from a to b It's just like all good. Everything's in line. It's all making sense. Nothing's wrong.  I guess at this point Um, I used to review like really really bad anime and a point that I'd always like to make is that yeah It's like here.  Um, I'm not really interested in arguing with other people who think it's good because ultimately That's their interpretation and I'm not I'm not interested in arguing with that person The merits of the content because at the end of the day Both of our both of our arguments are going to be motivated by personal feelings as to how things are work or they don't work Do you not think you would you not want to change their mind on it? No, absolutely not. Um That that's just how I am. It's like if you enjoy something I know what it feels like to enjoy things So I'm not going to try to rob that from another person Um, and this is in the context of power to rob that from people Well, sure I do if I know and and I've gotten these comments before it's I've seen you I love this anime and I saw this video and wow, I I Saw all the flaws in it and now I dislike it or I like it less I I think you can absolutely rob somebody of their enjoyment if you Can convince people but it's not like you're forcing them into doing anything Yeah, I I would take issue with the word rob It's it's like would they not would it need not be consensual for them to engage in your video Especially if the title is like critique of or review of or something something is bad I think the question is if they notice they're seeing themselves How is it any different to if you showed them it is that still them robbing themselves? Is there and I suppose Is it really robbing rather than enlightening? I mean, I think that's um, I think that's an interesting Take on it enlightening, but I don't feel like I have really the right to do that I mean I state my opinion And whether or not you agree or disagree is you know, ultimately up to you So it's like I don't the the focus I take with my videos and my critique videos Like I did of rainbow six eages. I have these problems with the game. You might not have these problems with the game But for me, here's why they are a detriment to the game. You don't have to agree with me Um, I guess we can even argue the merits of my complaints But at the end of the day, these are just my thoughts and that's the that's the that's the approach to critique I take that everything is just what if that makes people enjoy rainbow six less Well, then it makes them enjoy it less just like it makes me enjoy it less But there I mean there are in the previous examples There are plenty of people who Would never I mean I mean, there are plenty of people who agree with my complaints about siege and there are people who If you go on the rainbow six subwriter right now would never agree with a thing a single thing I said and all the unbalanced garbage in the game makes the game more fun for them. Um, I recently did a video on call of duty where There's a lot of people who like black ops 4 For the reasons that I hate the game. So So why why would that not apply to the previous example of the anime? um Can you remind me of You don't want to you said you didn't want to rob people of the way they feel about it Sure, but he's like a double standard and in really obvious kind of way How how would how would you say I'm genuinely trying to understand my bad. You don't want to put out your You you said you don't want to rob people of their enjoyment of the anime Why would you know? Oh, okay, so yeah, no Okay, I get what you're saying when I post well when I feel like when I post a video on youtube Yeah, I can get shared by algorithm. Yeah, I can get shared by that but My videos specifically the ones I've done I've done on anime have had this very strange effect where people start taking them as Gospel and bible and people just start Repeating the talking points and repeating the talking points at a certain point It just went well beyond me to where I was seeing these talking points Spewed everywhere on the internet Points and people I mean I I guess but agree with them then sure, but I don't means you make good points Sure, but I don't think that makes them objective points I mean they they can be argued and I've I've even seen some replies to my video where I've seen Well, yeah, maybe I was wrong about this but does that change anything because even if I think it's wrong about it the The consensus has gone way beyond me at that point I can't rectify whatever I said in that video at that point Well, shouldn't you do you think it's better for us to be able to justify the things that we believe? I mean in the context of critique. Yes, because I help I feel like it helped gets your point across, but at the same time It's not um It's not law, you know Well, it never was law Well, I mean if you're saying it's better that people should watch a video And through that video be able to justify the way that they feel Instead of just in an ambiguous impossible to express way like something for reasons that they could never explain I mean I would consider that almost infantile to a way I think I definitely think it's growth if we can Be able to express the way Or why we think the things that we do Would you would you prefer that? Everybody liked everything No, I mean people can like right so if someone liked the holocaust for instance Would you not want to rob them of their enjoyment of that?  It's subjective So of course it's I mean we can substitute the holocaust for the concept of the holocaust. What are we? Okay, so you like killing jews. Is that is that the we already know that the the people who exist is Yeah, I mean, we know people enjoyed that. Is it not do you think it's good to rob them of their enjoyment of that? Well, how would you go about robbing them of their enjoyment of that by killing them?  What? You would have how the difference would be a significant moral judgment, right? You consider it far more important to consider people humane than it is to enjoy an anime Yeah, I think we're certainly more weighty than the other. Yeah, rags concept is a fundamental like So just right argue to us the well to me and wolf that uh We shouldn't necessarily Break a piece of media down that people are enjoying because you can rob enjoyment from the world. That's that's the words he actually used Uh, so the idea that it's a it's almost a bad It's just strictly a bad to explain to someone why season 8 of game of thrones is poorly written because they might have enjoyed it I don't I don't know that it follows that because they're having a positive experience It means that to prevent to explain something to them that stops them from enjoying it is always a bad thing And rags has chosen an extreme example on purpose to prove that that is not definitively true So now we need to draw a better line I I just don't I just don't understand the Equivocation of no, no, I get I get what your point is. I get what your point is that there methods are being equivocated There there are people obviously who want to see jews removed from the face of the earth. That's you know Yeah, there's seven billion people out there. Yeah Yeah, and there were nazis, you know that committed atrocious crimes in in germany and across all of europe, but I just Yeah, we have muslims. I mean, hey, it's a very real example that we can pull from I feel like Who are you to rob them of their enjoyment of the concept of the holocaust? Is that you're right? No, because we have for each speech laws in this in this country So for me to I mean, what how do we are we killing them? Like how are we are we arguing against their points because that's that's just illegal. So I mean, this is the exact same way that you use with anime How how is that possible? How how is it possible? Sure, I would have a I would have okay. So in in your example, I'd have a debate with somebody It is what you're saying That the holocaust the holocaust isn't probably something that Uh, you say that's bad essentially the holocaust is bad, right? And if you're also trying to explain this is why this anime is bad Well, you would use the same methodology for yeah, but the same yeah, and in the same light and in the same Using the same logic if somebody liked that anime. Well, what if somebody's a nazi? They also like that too. Are you arguing that?  Is that what you're arguing? No, no, I'm arguing here I'm saying that because I this whole this whole thing stemmed from the idea That there was a there seemed to be a very obvious contradiction in why it's okay to do the rainbow six thing And not for the anime thing, right? And so yeah, we're getting into the methodology for you know This stems after that it stems from should you take people's enjoyment away because you frame that as a bad thing to take away people's enjoyment Sure, but you can't extrapolate that to me taking people's away Me taking someone me taking uh, someone's enjoyment from a thing does not Void their rights as a as a citizen of this country or of their Lives, um, I don't I don't l