I’m justifying this post under the guise that it may be educational, but honestly I expect people who read and write blogs to be a cut above random YouTube commenters when it comes to making arguments, so this is really just an excuse for me to pettily roast a guy I got into an argument with because he’s the type who will never admit defeat no matter how badly he gets thrashed and I’m tired of getting YouTube notifications about this argument. If you’re at all interested in a startlingly stark showcase of how to argue reasonably versus how to not argue at all while pretending you are in fact making legitimate arguments, or if you really just want to bask in my pettiness, feel free to stick around.
Before I get going I’m just going to lay out the format for you. I will paste the argument in this page as whole after this paragraph. Then I will look at each comment made and discuss why it’s good or bad and how it applies to arguing like a rational human being. And lastly I’m just going to refute his last comment he made after I said was done arguing with him on YouTube for my pettiness and spite are too powerful for me to resist. Also I’m going to refer to the guy I’m arguing with a Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole because while I would like nothing more than to see this stupid shithead get dog piled on, I’m not enough of a dick to send potential harassers to him. Also because someone else in the thread called him a Pseudo-Intellectual and I think Asshole is a good finishing touch to the name. For context, this argument took place over a video cataloging the evolution of SAO criticism and fan reactions to the show with Digibro’s hour-long diatribe serving as a major turning point. The first comment is directed at Digibro. Let’s look at this shit.
Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole: Recognizing that SAO is crap does nothing to vindicate your rambling and inconsistent anime criticism.
Me: You do realize that criticism of art is subjective and therefore will always be inconsistent right? I’d say Digibro’s relative power in anime critic circles more or less proves that his style of criticism vindicates itself…
Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole: Subjectivity is no excuse for being inconsistent with yourself. Nihilism is not a justifiable perspective upon which to base criticism. Stop brown-nosing Critical Theorists
Me: Inconsistent with yourself? You say that as if we are unchanging immutable entities, which we aren’t. Our opinions change constantly as we absorb more ideas and experiences. But even setting that aside where is he inconsistent with himself? I’d love to hear some examples. Moving right along how is nihilism an invalid perspective? There’s no such thing as a wrong way to do criticism, at best you can argue his criticism is done badly, in which case you’d be disagreeing with over ten thousand people and me. But coming at things from a nihilistic perspective is not inherently wrong, and the idea you think someone else’s perspective is invalid is far more damning than any criticism from any perspective. And I ain’t brown-nosing, in all likelihood Digibro will never see this and I didn’t reply to you in the vain hope he would. I wanted to politely disagree with you because frankly I think what you said is retarded and I think don’t just calling you an idiot at the first step is polite.
Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole: Do you even understand that different perspectives contradict one another? You are the only one here who is denying that there is any value in Digibro’s criticism when you suggest that the validity of criticism is meaningless, that the only purpose of criticism is to please the ear of its audience. How could I possibly let such an outrageous claim stand?
Me: How the fuck did you get THAT out of what I said? Where did I say criticism only exists just to please the audience? I didn’t and I never would. Based on your skewed as fuck interpretation of what I said, you mean to tell me that because I said any perspective is valid I’m somehow claiming Digibro’s criticisms have no value? Because if anything I said his criticism was valuable even if it came from a perspective you claim is invalid. And since when do different perspectives have to contradict each other? There’s a million different perspectives to come at critique, countless shades of grey that you’re treating as if they were black and white. I guess the closest I can get to a logical thru line in your argument is that if I posit that all perspectives are valuable and valid, then criticism of all stripes lose their validity because there’s no longer a way to divide between invalid and valid perspectives of criticism… I think? I’m trying to be politeish and take you seriously but that’s honestly so ridiculous I can’t. I mean the fact that you twisted my words to an insane degree to make me sound crazy already makes you look stupid and petty, but the fact that argument your seemingly attempting to make while doing so is so ridiculous just makes it worse. Let me spell this out in short easy sentences. Criticism of art is subjective. Subjectivity is intrinsically tied to one’s perspective. Perspective is shaped by the art one consumes, the experiences one has and the values one finds valuable. Therefore, you can, and really have to, be able to approach criticism of art from any perspective. Therefore all perspectives are valuable and valid. The audience can choose to like or dislike any style of criticism from any perspective, but no style of perspective is inherently wrong or invalid. Therefore Digibro’s criticism is inherently valuable, even if an audience member, such as yourself, doesn’t like it or find value in it or considers it invalid.
Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole: “[i]f I posit that all perspectives are valuable and valid, then criticism of all stripes lose their validity because there’s no longer a way to divide between invalid and valid perspectives of criticism.” If you understand the problem with relativism, why are you still whinging about it? The fact that something is subjective is not an excuse for a critic to abdicate all responsibility to the listener. Don’t you get why I am objecting to your sentiment? By your reasoning, my original critique of Digibro stands simply because it was my subjective experience of his work.
Me: That’s a nice line you quoted from me, seems like you missed the part where I said the argument laid out in that quote was honestly so ridiculous I couldn’t take you seriously, you utter moron. You also missed the part where I explained this was your argument not mine, because I don’t fucking agree with your idea that one’s perspective can be invalid. For the record I never said invalid arguments don’t exist. For example if you get an objective fact wrong in an analysis and make statements based on that, then sure that’s an invalid argument. Which incidentally was what I called you out on. If you’d said “I don’t like Digibro’s criticism”, I’d never have bothered to argue with you. However your critique implied (and you kindly later confirmed) that because Digibro didn’t do critique a certain way, the way you want, his criticism was invalid. Which is wrong. There’s no goddamn formula for art critique, you can have your own formula if you want and some people might find a formula valuable, but there’s no set way things must be done. Personally I think criticisms which incorporate formulated scoring are shit, I don’t like them, but they aren’t invalid just because they aren’t useful to me. In a similar vein there’s no such thing as invalid perspective, because all perspectives have their own insights on a work which collectively increase the value of the discourse about the work. The only invalid critique is one based on an invalid argument, like an argument where you cherry pick quotes without context and twist your opponent’s word’s to attempt to hide their actual argument instead of confronting it and then acting like you’re the one in the right and on the moral high ground… you sniveling little shit. And you mentioned responsibility, galling considering you’ve shown not an ounce of it yourself, but what does a critic owe you exactly? Fucking nothing is what. I write reviews too you know and I don’t write them for the audience to walk away with a score and recommendation to watch or drop. I write them for me, to put my thoughts and feelings into words and share them, if someone agrees with those thoughts or chooses to watch a show based on those thoughts, that is entirely up to them, not me. The most Digibro or I or any critic owes anyone is a valid argument, and Digibro lives up to that obligation and therefore owes you nothing more. Incidentally, I presented you with a valid argument, one you’ve repeatedly refused to reply to with valid arguments of your own, and as such I owe you nothing else as well. I will not respond to the inane babble you present as an argument again.
Anonymous Pseudo-Intellectual Asshole: “… [T]here’s no such thing as invalid perspective, because all perspectives have their own insights on a work which collectively increase the value of the discourse about the work. “ My perspective is that, to me, your comments feel like advocating for child rape and on the behalf of pedophiles. So just how does my subjective experience of your words as pedophile apologia add any value to your work or to Digibro’s?
Ok. Now that that’s over with let’s go over each point, starting with Asshole’s first comment. Now that comment “Recognizing that SAO is crap does nothing to vindicate your rambling and inconsistent anime criticism.” is not too terrible. It appears mostly innocuous and the only reason I replied at all is because it implied that Asshole didn’t like Digibro’s criticisim of SAO, which is fine on it’s own, but that the reason he didn’t like it was because Digibro did the criticism wrong. He would later confirm this to be the case. However, as this comment is wrong but not too egregious, I politely and mildly rebutted him by explaining art was subjective and therefore Digibro’s review is self-vindicating. And vindicate was the key word here because it was what implied that Digibro’s criticisms were somehow invalid, which they aren’t. The key thing to note here for argument noobs is that I’m being polite, because all arguments should at least start polite, and the longer they can be polite the less chance there is of it devolving into a shit-flinging contest.
His response to me was that Digibro was inconsistent with himself, which I assume he means as Digibro is a hypocrite, and that nihilism is an invalid perspective of criticism. This was the only time he actually presented me with an argument, the only insight I have into his viewpoint and reasoning. And it’s hilariously bad. As I later argued, people’s perspectives are constantly changing and no one’s values are necessarily set in stone, meaning being inconsistent is not really an issue. I did however challenge Asshole to provide me with examples of Digibro being inconsistent with himself for the sake of argument, Asshole didn’t reply to this challenge. Moving on to his second point, I find myself asking two questions, only the first of which made into the Youtube argument. 1, How is nihilism an invalid perspective? and 2, In what way is Digibro’s criticism of SAO nihilistic? In the actual response I explained why a criticism from nihilistic perspective was not invalid and once again challenged him to explain why he thought it was. He also failed to respond to this challenge. His final part of this response was to me accuse of brown-nosing, which I not-so-politely refuted because I called him out for being wrong for the sake of proving to him that he was wrong not because I wanted to win favor from Digibro.
The most important thing to take away from this stage of the argument is how things will change on Asshole’s end going forward. I mean his argument here is barebones and stupid, but at least he’s presenting me with his own argument. Going forward his tactic will be to twist my argument to make me look stupid instead of actually arguing anything so that this original argument appears right. Also notice how I’m arguing. I go out of my way to rebut his points or express my concerns with his arguments, and then I make arguments of my own on top of that. This is how to argue reasonably, to create valuable discussion, though my use of insults isn’t one I’d encourage unless your opponent has really fucking earned it. I acknowledge his points and if I disagree I refute them and explain why I disagree, and if he made points I agree with (I mean Asshole never does but I just want to expand this point) I would acknowledge their value before going on to make my own argument. Give your opponent the sense that you’re at least paying attention to, if not respecting their arguments and you increase the odds said opponent will return the favor. Moving on in the argument.
Asshole’s next response is where things start becoming a downward spiral. He argues that different perspectives contradict one another, which I honestly don’t get his reasoning behind. I mean I argued that different perspectives didn’t contradict because not all of them are in opposition to each other, which is true, but I can’t pin down his line of reasoning at all. The closest equivalent I can think of is that he thinks like a radical SJW and believes anyone who holds opinions that aren’t his are wrong, conveniently ignoring the fact that of course other people have different opinions. I admit this is mostly speculation and I won’t outright accuse of him of thinking that way but it’s the impression I get. He follows that up by claiming I am the one robbing Digibro’s criticisms of validity by claiming that the only purpose of criticism is to please the audience. WTF? What the fuck? Where the hell did I say that? You can scroll up and see that I never said anything like that, seriously where the hell does he see that in my argument? He can’t, not logically anyway, because it’s not there. He even has the nerve to say he can’t stand my outrageous claim, by which I mean the outrageous claim he made for me and treated as if it were my own claim like I gave him permission to make me look shallow and vapid. This dear readers is not an argument. He hasn’t made any points, he hasn’t rebutted any of my points, all he’s done is attempt to make me look bad while speaking for me. This actually pisses me off more than shit-flinging because at least shit-flinging is honest in it’s ugliness. What Asshole’s doing is duplicitous, and still just as worthless as shit flinging when it comes to progressing the argument. Like I said he’s made no new points, nor has answered any of my questions, this argument is dead in the water.
It was at this point I should’ve stopped arguing, it was also after this point that another commenter called Asshole a pseudo-intellectual. But being the avatar of argument and righteous fury that I am I kept going. I even had the courtesy to dissect his skewed as fuck interpretation of my argument and argue against it as if it were his argument. I even proved right in coming to the conclusion that Asshole’s argument boiled down to the idea that some perspectives have to be invalid, so that he can separate criticisms into valid and invalid perspectives and thereby find more value in the criticism he likes since those are “valid.” It’s pathetic really, an incredibly self-centered and vapid dumpster fire of an idea that throws actual intellectualism under the bus to make Asshole feel like he has better taste than other people (which itself is a flawed idea). I called this idea ridiculous, because it is, reiterated my points about how there are an infinite number of perspectives and they’re all valid and insulted him some more along the way because at this point I felt he’d earned my contempt.
Asshole’s next response was a sightly botched quote of me figuring out his argument on my own since he wouldn’t express it himself, and following that up with a “if you see the problem with Relativism why are you supporting it” (paraphrase of Asshole’s quote became I’m too lazy to get the actual one). He then says subjectivity is no excuse for the critic to offload all responsibility to the listener (which I’m once again confused by because how the fuck did he come to this conclusion?) and that by my own logic his “subjective” interpretation of Digibro’s work was valid. This response has a lot of issues. For starters he took the quote out and provided no context, making the words appears as my argument when in fact it was my deduction of his argument. Real honest fucker isn’t he? Then he reveals his hand with the Relativism thing. For those who don’t know, in an artistic sense Relativism is the idea that standards don’t matter and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In fairness, the main example being painting and sculpture, the abolition of standards has resulted in mountains of art I consider shit tier. But as I explain in my next reply, art or critique I find shit is not invalid. That it has no value to me is irrelevant, it’s got a right to exist and be recognized as a thing because someone, somewhere enjoys it. Mainly this just proves he wants art criticism to have standards in place, though he doesn’t at all outline what those standards should be so I refuted the idea using formulated scoring systems, the best idea I had of a standardized review, as an example of criticism I thought sucked to show that standards aren’t necessarily helpful.
His other point, the one about how his own argument stood because it was his subjective opinion of Digibro’s work was probably the best point he makes in the entire argument. And it’s wrong. As I explained to him, he can hate Digibro’s work all he wants, but the idea that Digibro’s review is bad because it doesn’t meet a standard, undermines the basis of art criticism. This was the issue. As I explain further, you can’t have invalid perspectives but you can make invalid arguments, and Asshole’s argument that Digibro’s work sucked for not conforming to a standard is an invalid argument. Then I addressed his idea that critics have a responsibility to the audience. I phrased it poorly but my point was that a critic only needs to provide the audience with valid arguments, and what they take away from that review is up to them. Reviews can come from any perspective, choose any format, give scores or not gives scores, whatever, and that any perspective can add to the overall discourse on the work. Critics can do what they want how they want so longs as they make valid arguments, and it’s up to the audience to decide what they like. I also spent more time insulting this craven shitlord for being a dishonest idiot, which he proved himself to be over and over, and said I was done. And as far as YouTube is concerned, I am done.
Asshole however was not done. In his trademark style of taking things way out of context and twisting the argument to make me look bad and validate him indirectly instead of attempting to validate his arguments directly, he took what I said and said he felt like my comments were advocating pedophilia. Now his tone was anything but genuine, it seems clear he was just using an example to try and make me look bad rather express something he really felt, though technically I suppose he could have felt that way. In any case the reason I want to attack this that another commenter said Asshole had a point. Because Asshole doesn’t have a point. Remember this entire argument has taken place within the context of art criticism. I’ve made no statements whatsoever about society and social norms and law or anything like that. All I’ve said is that in regards art critique all perspectives are valid. Asshole, being an asshole, decided to strip away that context and put insane words in my mouth. I don’t believe all perspectives are valid in all facets of life, and I’m not advocating for pedophilia. Nothing in my argument suggest I do unless you do what Asshole did and strip out all the context, and even then you’d have to ignore how I said things like criticism of art and perspective on the work (something Asshole leaves in when quoting the line he uses to make me look like I’m ok with anything in all circumstances, and extrapolates to me being pro-pedophilia, thus invalidating his own argument, not that it was ever really an argument so much as it was misdirection).
So yeah, his argument is once more, invalid. But in the name of courtesy I’ll explain where his ludicrous idea could be applied to my argument. Theoretically speaking you could say that according my argument if a pedophile wrote a review of Boku no Pico, or any show that one’s just a good example, the insights a pedophile’s perspective brought would add to the discourse on Boku no Pico. Which is true, I do believe that, that said I doubt a pedophile’s insights are something most people would like. I certainly don’t care what new ideas on Boku no Pico come from a pedophile reviewing it. But that review has a right to exist even if I hate it and disagree with everything because so long as the arguments it makes aren’t invalid, then it’s fine. There you go I advocate pedophilia because I support pedophile free speech, hurray. Naturally I’m being facetious, I support free speech which happens to include the free speech of pedophiles, doesn’t mean I advocate for pedophilia. These are two very different things which Asshole labels as the same thing to make me lose credibility. And the fact that someone was stupid enough to buy into it galls me.
If you’ve made it this far, congratulations. I do hope you’ve enjoyed the equal parts pettiness and superb reasoning ability/intellect that’s been on display. If you’re not the type to argue much I do hope you’ve learned a bit about basic argument etiquette and what works versus what doesn’t. But mainly what I want is further third party vindication assuring me that I’ve totally roasted Asshole, which I did, so I can stroke my ego and feel good about myself and be confident in my Asshole crushing abilities. Thanks for reading, I do hope you enjoyed and that I’ve not scared you off from my blog. I hope this never happens again.