Apparently Davis Aurini is capable of sometimes telling the truth.
As you may recall, the bald, semi-Nazi stain on humanity released his version of The Sarkeesian Effect (that was officially not his version of The Sarkeesian Effect) last week to something less than universal acclaim, with one critic describing the “film” as “worse than a dead squirrel in your wall.”
Ok, that was me.
Weirdly, it turns out that Aurini actually agrees with some of my criticisms. While still maintaining that his not-version of The Sarkeesian Effect is a “damn good film,” he admitted on a livestream last night that the section of his film critiquing Anita Sarkeesian’s alleged lies was “crap.”
He then suggested it would have been much better … if he’d actually watched Sarkeesian’s videos.
Yep. He spent a year — and tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money — ostensibly making a film about Sarkeesian. But somehow he never got around to watching any of her videos.
ETHICS!
You can hear the whole segment on “Bechtloff’s Saturday Night Livestream: Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour” on Youtube here. (The link should take you to the relevant portion of the livestrean, which starts just short of an hour and twenty minutes in.)
Here are the highlights.
In this first clip, Aurini responds to someone with a question about his attacks on Sarkeesian’s alleged dishonesty.
This clip ends a bit abruptly because Aurini was cut off by Bechtloff before finishing his sentence. Luckily, he went on to elaborate on his point. And threw in in a racial slur while he was at it, because why not?
And here he admits he didn’t bother to watch Sarkeesian’s videos.
It’s about ethics in making an entire film about someone without actually knowing anything about them.
EDITED TO ADD:
We Hunted the Mammoth has obtained this footage of Davis Aurini as a child.
H/T — Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to the relevant section of the livestream.
@wwth – Don’t take a drink whenever you see the tedious rantings of an over privileged naïve Ayn Rand fanboy on the internet.
You’ll die.
[tbc]
Axecalibur says:
Might I suggest the unauthorized tour of the sausage factory, then?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Anarchonist says:
Like the whole hairy mess that is proprietary research.
Puppy!
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCo5w6qukJY&w=854&h=480%5D
He apparently grew up to become a rooster:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y8jGR8WYj0&w=854&h=480%5D
EDIT: Don’t know how to embed.
@Paradoxy:
I didn’t mean any offence. I really like reading your posts, and you put so much effort into your writing that it’s just a total joy to read. My favourite Paradoxy posts are the long, passionate ones where your love of your topic (or contempt for the manospherian in question) shines through very charismatically, so I think those have swayed my opinion.
However, you have never been anything like as verbose as Galt here, so I shall gladly retract the accusations of longwindedness and apologise for them.
I’m not sure what’s to stop a very wealthy and powerful from levying taxes in might makes right utopia. Except, unlike the systems we currently have, we would get no say at all in who distributes the tax revenue and where and how big or small the taxes are.
As John Rogers said “there are two books that can change a bookish fourteen year old’s life. The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
Ah Galt, sadly I was right. There is no personal strength to you.
That’s just white noise right there. The closest you get to an actual characteristic that matters is length of text, but you don’t actually say why Paradoxical Intention was too wordy. Where they repetitive? Did they include something irrelevant? Here is what I mean. You could have shortened this into,
Much simpler, the rest of it had nothing to do with anything but satisfying your base emotional needs.
And this,
Should’ve thought about that.
…could be,
And this,
…could be,
This was pretty concise though,
I can’t say that it means much from someone as fundamentally dishonest as yourself though. I want to meet more people you don’t like.
I accidentally left part of my text in with the first quote. It should have looked like this.
Insults are fine and dandy IF they can be unpacked into actual demonstrable characteristics that are relevant to a person or situation. I mean this,
Yeah, nothing says ‘reasonable person’ more throwing an internet tantrum because people tried to make you think about the end results of the ‘philosophy’ you claim is the bestest thing ever. I’m so convinced now. I’m going to go Galt, whenever I can find the time between working full time and being the primary caregiver for a severely disabled person (I’m really bad at living up to the ‘lazy commie’ stereotype, I guess).
Also “Should’ve thought about that.” should have been a quote.
Sorry, I would use the edit box more often but it normally takes a full three minutes for the edit option to show up and then I click on it and I think it times out after that.
I’m still confused! Who is John Galt? Apparently he’s a metaphor for an Internet baby who gets angry when people don’t agree.
For real tho this was hilarious. More on topic of the article, I never understood people’s hatred for Anita. I understand critiques of feminism. I’ve heard very civil arguments from people who claim the media has no influence. But this level of violent rage towards Anita, and feminism in general, I just don’t understand. In what way does it threaten them? How is asking for women in games to be taken more seriously going to damage these people?
EJtOO, I laughed so hard at that <3
It’s criticism of something they consider part of their identity. If you say video games are sexist, then you’re saying they’re sexist.
ETA: They also believe that feminists want to ban and/or restrict video game content, and they’re very much afraid of what that will do to their hobby. They don’t understand the difference between Anita, who is a critic, and Jack Thompson, who tried to pass laws banning games.
I think the best part of the rant is that he made it on the internet. For two reasons.
First, it was in fact originally a government research project. Though the rumor that it was designed to help maintain communications in the event of a nuclear attack is actually false; it was to let research institutions collaborate and be resistant to routine hardware failure.
Second, in the US it’s actually demonstrating the road failure mode already. Laying cable is expensive, so it’s concentrated in the hands of a few big players and would be even more concentrated if it weren’t for antitrust laws. And they tend to avoid laying their high-speed cables in the same neighborhoods, and they’ve been discussing charging for speed and favoring media they make over competition.
Hey Galt, who asked you to come in here talking about objectivism? I’m not saying you should stop, because I find it amusing, but what gave you the impression that your input was needed here?
@Mr Galt,
I’ll try to be brief!
Good! I hope that you can read it with an open mind. (and I hope that you can give up ignoring me long enough to read this paragraph!) I don’t mean that as an insult – it challenges some ideas that you currently hold, and brains are terrible for turning on the confirmation bias filter in those situations. So, try to read it when you’re in a good mood, maybe a little sleepy! That will help to limit that particular cognitive quirk. You don’t really want the brain to be running at 100% when you’re reading material that confronts your beliefs, it gets too defensive about things.
I – I’m really not an enemy of reason, sir. I make reason my profession, actually! This doesn’t make me right about things, of course; being devoted to rationality actually makes it easier to be wrong about something, and more stubbornly wrong at that! See my first paragraph for a mechanism that facilitates wrongness in the rational mind. I’d be happy to explain more deeply if you’d like!
You have a strong interest in being right about things. We all do to some extent, and men are brought up to be even more so – they are taught that being smart and correct is manly, and being corrected or wrong is unmanly. This is a part of that “toxic masculinity” that feminists are on about!
This desire for rightness is a double-edged sword, sir! It’s good to pursue the truth, but it’s too easy to get complacent when we think we have it. And we never do! The fact that the confrontations you’re receiving here are making you angry instead of engaged is a strong sign that you’ve become complacent in your pursuit for the truth of the matter.
I hope that you can see this some day, and that you can discard your literary and philosophical heroes to look at the facts plainly. Good luck.
(P.S. I work a full time job in a STEM field as a researcher, take night courses, and have recently alternated from watching my sisters’ children to taking care of my father during recovery from a surgery. In case you are weighing my opinion on whether I am a dirty, filthy, unwashed, hairy, dumpster-sifting, dirty, possum butt-wiping leftist. I am only 12.5% of those things, preserving quantities.)
((though possums are adorable and sometimes need to be cleaned up after. is that bad?))
I move that Scildfreja is the most reasonable person in the known universe. Do I have a second?
Sure they do. Just not in the way you’re talking about.
(For anyone who wasn’t aware, Jack Thompson’s a popular #Gater. Yes, really. I COULDN’T MAKE THIS SHIT UP IF I TRIED.)
After that last outburst of pure reason he left for us here, Galt is banned.
Aw, thank you, mockingbird and EJ. I always enjoy your posts 🙂 Though I am not really all that reasonable! Usually I am unreasonable, just in the wrong direction. I didn’t at all like the insults he was hurling at people, I just know that there are others far, far better at replying in kind to that sort of thing.
And besides! He wasn’t wrong about everything. Just … you know. Most things. And so am I, just, well, again, in a very different direction of wrong.
And thank you David! He was getting rather stressful!
@Anarconist
http://45.media.tumblr.com/2897aa1cb873786bac0e33e8c92b9283/tumblr_mvp5xf0BZ51sa2c1ao1_500.gif
Well, dayum. You got it, Engels 🙂
To your arguments:
Who said anything about laissez-faire?
So… no property, then?
I’d consider the lightbulb an overall benefit to society, and I don’t think its invention hurt employment too badly. Not really making a point here, just a counterexample
Sorry the system undervalues your talents. I’m pretty fond of competition, myself, but I see why you wouldn’t
The “free market” is indeed bullshit
Perhaps “stable” was the wrong word. How’s about resilient?
I don’t know what that means
And therein lies the paradox, things are only objectively real, if we subjectively believe them *googly eyes emoticon*
No such thing as outside the system. It’s kinda like saying food is outside of me, therefore the fact that I can’t live without eating means I’m not alive
It isn’t 🙂
Honestly, I give Galt points for having some very inventive insults. I find the sentence “You’re a snot, you Walter Mitty heathen, cantankerous shark, Andrew Jackson helping piece of chicken beak pie, you make more noise than an octopus with a drum set.” to be legitimately amusing.
Still in favour of the ban, though; he’s essentially jumped the shark. Even if he failed to stick the flounce, we’d be looking at diminishing returns on entertainment value.
http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB15xoPJpXXXXaaXXXXq6xXFXXX3/-font-b-drums-b-font-octopus-music-funny-animal-font-b-Poster-b-font-Home.jpg
As the person those “insults” were directed towards, I found it hard to be insulted by something that made no sense in such an amusing way.
Like, I know what a “snot” is, but the rest of it…
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I missed the Galt thing, but would it be possible to just do as Galt did and go on strike? Because then we will see how much better / worse our lives would be without them 🙂
Axecalibur, I’m not totally sure what you’re going for, but it feels very disingenuous. Other people have been making a lot of detailed, incisive criticisms and your responses just feel like sniping. For instance, just saying “The lightbulb!” is not a counterargument to the point that profit-driven motivations actually create disincentives to research anything that isn’t likely to be profitable.