What “Questions for SJWs” Taught Me About YouTube Antifeminism

What “Questions for SJWs” Taught Me About YouTube Antifeminism

CC by Twitter user and loyal fan @arineticc. Once upon a time, Buzzfeed made a few videos in which women asked questions to men and black people asked questions to white people. Some people had an issue with this for some reason, and unleashed their wrath onto Buzzfeed for all to see. Shortly thereafter, a meeting of some other people, henceforth called The Rationals™, was called by TJ Kirk – ‘The Amazing Atheist’ himself – to petition Buzzfeed and the larger “gynosphere” for a redress of grievances which they called “Questions White Men Have for SJWs”. This video is, as I said, a meeting of several of Youtube’s most popular anti-feminists and anti-SJWs, Standing firmly together in their ‘white-ness’ and their… …’man-ness’? Uh – joining TJ in his finest fedora, no less, is Undoomed, or what happens when Slenderman meets a horror movie trailer voiceover, Armoured Skeptic, someone who’s a bit newer to the anti-SJW Youtube scene, but has undoubtedly made a mark, [through clenched teeth] Anthony Fantano of theneedledrop… [clears throat] Uh – excuse me, Atheism-Is-Unstoppable, everyone’s favourite militantly anti-theist kangaroo, Sargon of Akkad, [close to the mic] because of COURSE, Dusty Smith, the resident country-boy of the crew, Chris Ray Gun and Kraut and Tea, two people whose content I’ve not actually watched before, but who I believe I can infer a few things about by virtue of them agreeing to be in this collaboration, aaaand Mr. Repzion. Not much to say, it’s Mr. Repzion. Well shit, guys, this is a pretty stacked roster we have here. My only complaint is that they seem to be lacking in the department of people with fursonas and Ph.Ds. Do you even CARE about diversity!? I’m not going to take the time to give every question in this video its own unique answer, there’s only so much time of the day and if I gave this video the same treatment I gave the RESIST Supercut, it would just get really redundant after awhile. Also, a lot of these questions aren’t really meant to be answered, a lot of them are rhetorical, just like in Buzzfeed’s original videos, and a lot of them are just jokes. Really… painful… jokes… [Anthony Fantano]: “Have you guys tried drinkin’ this shit? It’s great.” [Thom]: Instead, I’ll be looking at the unifying themes of a lot of these questions, and I’ll arrive at what I think are some pretty interesting conclusions. Links to any websites I mention as well as a few Youtube videos will be down there, if you wanna check ’em out. One of the fundamental issues I take with a lot of Youtubers who are against feminism is that they treat feminism as a monolith. This is a concept that a few people have mentioned before, but I think it becomes very apparent throughout this Questions video. Feminism, much like any other large social or political movement, contains a wide variety of differing schools of thought. Feminists can be liberal, social democratic, atheist, socialist, religious, marxist, anarchist, individualist, radical, or even… c-conservative? Yeah, conservative. And, feminists belonging to these different groups will all approach their feminism differently. Yet, in the questions these guys have for feminists, they conflate various feminisms with one another. For instance, in Mr. Repzion’s only contribution to this video, he asks: [Mr. Repzion]: “Why do you think every cis, white male is born racist?” [Thom]: This is probably referring to Milo Stewart’s video from a few months ago where he does, indeed, make the claim that all white people are racist. This strikes me as a more radical version of the more popular feminist idea that white people are more likely to be racially biased, whether implicitly or explicitly. This concept sound much more valid to me, and a lot of more mainstream feminists, than just saying point-blank that all white people are racist. However, Mr. Repzion seems not to notice this, and tars all ‘SJW’s with the same brush. Just a heads-up: Uh, when we talk about white people being racist or bigoted, we’re only referring to racist and bigoted white people. Not every criticism of a shitty white person is an attack on YOU. How about we take TJ’s very first question as another example. [TJ]: “Why do you claim to speak for LGBT people, women and ethnic minorities, but when LGBT people, women and ethnic minorities disagree with you, you harass them?” [Thom]: TJ assigns this behaviour, again, to ‘SJW’s, which is a term that’s basically lost all meaning and devolved into a synonym for feminists. The behaviour TJ mentions is something I’ve noticed on “woke” Twitter quite often, and I’m not sure I can really get behind it. The whole “it’s not my job to educate you,” “delete this,” “delete your account,” “shut up becky” attitude that these sorts of people take to their feminism never struck me as being productive for either party. If we want people to get behind our ideas, maybe we could help them… understand them a bit better? …it’s just a thought… …enough of me digressing. Again, TJ’s treated feminism as a monolith. [Mocking TJ] “These certain feminists act a certain way, so all feminists must act this way!” “Blargh, bleh, blah, fallacy of composition.” For one last example, let’s take this question from Undoomed. [Undoomed]: “How do you reconcile your opinion that gender doesn’t matter or even exist with your need to invent new genders each day?” [Thom]: This is probably my favourite question of the ones I’ve mentioned to deconstruct, because it conflates different sorts of feminism VERY clearly. Feminists who hold the opinion that gender doesn’t matter are pretty easy to come across. I’m one of them myself… I don’t give a shit what gender anybody [garbled unintelligible voice] (identifies as) Although, with that said, you’re not an attack helicopter and your efforts to make fun of non-binary people are… pretty fuckin’ weak. However, feminists who don’t believe gender EXISTS are much harder to come across. Undoomed could be referring to gender-abolitionists here, who tend to be WAY radical to the point of transphobia. “TERFs” and “Womyn-born-womyn” type of people. Clearly, these are not the sort of people who would go about “inventing new genders each day”. If you want something of an answer to this question, here’s the best I’ve got: Gender is a spectrum. It’s not so much that people are inventing new genders, they’re just finding ways of describing their place on the spectrum, You know. I’m not non-binary, myself, If anybody wants to correct my understanding of that, then please, by all means, do so. Treating feminism as a monolith is, like I said before, a fallacy of composition, which anti-SJWs rely on for their criticisms to be seen as valid. This allows them to point to slam-poetry, people who are loud or look funny to them, no-name vloggers, or movies about busting ghosts, and extrapolate that ALL of feminism is bad because these things or these people are deemed bad. They’ll point to anything other than feminist ideas themselves in their efforts to “destroy” feminism. Well, to be fair, sometimes they DO try and mount attacks on feminist theory, but – [Chris Ray Gun]: “If feminism and egalitarianism are both ‘for equal rights,’ then why does one start with a gendered prefix, while the other one is entirely gender-neutral?” [Thom]: Chris has just now demonstrated another point I’d like to bring up about the anti-SJW approach to criticizing feminism at its roots. It is INESCAPABLY reductionist. Here’s an outline of Chris’s line of reasoning here, which is a pretty common objection to feminism. 1. Feminism claims to be for gender equality, but starts with the prefix “fem-“, clearly referring to women. 2. Egalitarianism also claims to be for gender equality, but is a gender-neutral term. 3. Because egalitarianism is a gender neutral term, it must fight for the rights of people of all genders. Additionally, because feminism uses a gendered prefix, it must only be concerned with the rights of women. 4. Therefore, egalitarianism is superior to feminism. The problem with this approach is that you can’t determine what an activist movement claims to be for and against by looking at the conventions of its NAME. You have to take a closer look at key figures in a movement and what their stated goals are. …It’s time for a history lesson. From its inception, feminism was concerned with women’s rights, and so the name feminism just made sense. Feminists of the first wave demanded that women be granted the right to an education, the right to vote, and the right to have a job outside the house. Later, this activism expanded to equal pay, and equal employment opportunity. You’ll have to forgive me for putting a fan on in the background, but, uh… It’s really hot. Summer. Of course, this was the first and second wave, by the time the second wave wrapped up, men and women were pretty much equal in law. So, third wave feminists swooped in to try and focus on not just women’s legal rights, but their treatment in society. Additionally, the decision was made not to just focus on the treatment of women, but also to collaborate with other movements, and focus on the treatment of people of colour, LGBTQ people, [Zizek]: “And so on and so on.” [Thom]: and they decided to focus on how the treatment of these different groups might overlap with each other. and how these different oppressions could possibly amplify one another. For example, what sorts of discrimination would a white, cis, straight woman face, versus a black, queer, trans woman. This principle of modern feminism is called intersectionality [airhorn noises] and it is by far the most inclusive form of feminism that has existed in the movement’s entire history. …Was that a bit of an… info-dump? I’m sorry, but I think it was necessary to illustrate that feminism’s been around for a LONG time, and that the activism and academia surrounding it have gotten pretty complex. Yet, here come The Rationals™ and their Critical Thinking Skills, which are often applied fairly well when it comes to debunking creationists and flat-earthers, after all, their arguments are pretty easy to pick apart, but are often lost when approaching feminism for some reason. Listen to an anti-SJW give their definition of patriarchy and you’ll see what I mean. [Sargon of Akkad]: “So when a feminist says to the uninitiated that ‘we live in a patriarchy,’ they’re thinking that a patriarchy is a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe. And, by the second definition, this produces a society, community, or country based on this social organization. This is going to sound quite counter-intuitive to anyone who lives in the western world, and they’ll probably take to Google to see if they can find any sort of evidence to corroborate the feminist assertion that we live in a patriarchy.” [Thom]: And read as his fans further demonstrate their reductionist thinking on this subject, and you’ll continue to see what I mean. Because when I think rational, I think of defining the feminist concept of patriarchy with the layman’s definition of patriarchy, and then concluding it doesnt exist based on the wrong sense of the word. Have a Golf Clap. [Golf Clapping] Let’s look at one more example of reductionism, this time from Atheist Roo. [Athetism-Is-Unstoppable]: “Here’s a question. Are you aware that the present is not the past? I’m not kidding. Are you familiar with the concept of linear time? Because you seem INCREDIBLY comfortable traveling back through time to talk about how bad things were for women. Or black people, or whoever. And then by using some form of SJW magic, you then claim or imply that those problems in the past exist today. Are you aware that this trick that you’re doing is not working? Why do you think that would work?” [Thom]: This is a very “Racism Is Over” argument to be making here, for one thing. Uh, but for another thing, it demonstrates Roo’s lack of… …nuance when discussing other “SJW” talking points. Feminists and other activists will often say that things like slavery and racial segregation [Zizek]: AND SO ON AND SO ON have had long lasting effects that are still felt in society today. This is something I tend to agree with. There’s still racism even though the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in the 60’s, and there’s still discrimination against women even though, as I said before, they’re pretty much equal IN LAW with men. Outside of abortion rights, for one thing. however, Roo builds a strawman by saying that “SJWs” are claiming that the oppression of women and slavery are still having effects the way they did 200 years ago, today. And he knocks it down by wondering whether they understand… the concept of linear time? as I’ve said before, it’s pretty easy to disagree with somebody when you deliberately try to not understand their ideas. [Anthony Fantano]: “What are you afraid will happen when you leave your safe space.” [AIU]: “Your continued attempts to silence all opposition only serves to insulate your bubble even more. and maintain your echo chamber.” [Anthony]: “What is your favourite song to sing really loud when you’re confronted with a different point of view. ROW ROW ROW YOUR BOAT GENTLY DOWN THE STREEAAAA-” [Thom]: Have you ever been told to “go back to your safe space” before? This has always been an interesting talking point for anti-feminists. I personally don’t claim membership to any safe spaces, but I think the idea behind them is pretty solid. The idea of a “safe space” is that it’s a space, often on a college campus, for people to be able to express themselves without being antagonized, and come together in unity and solidarity in some shared experience. LGBTQ safe spaces are unified by their members’ experiences with homophobia and transphobia, among other bigotries, Safe spaces for people of colour are unified by their members’ experiences with racism, you get the idea. This concept has been subject to that same reductionist thinking I was talking about just before. To many anti-SJWs, safe spaces are places where people can go so that they don’t have to have their preconceived notions of the world challenged. And they can collaborate with other like-minded “regressives” to form an “echo chamber,” where their supposedly shitty ideas can live on forever, and destroy western society from the inside. Well… that might be a bit of a leap in logic, but by the way The Rationals™ talk about them, safe spaces sound like a pretty big deal… It does sound kinda scary to me, actually. The idea that a group of people would congregate together over a set of faulty beliefs to form a hivemind, or a mob, and go around telling people they’re wrong, and being all condescending, and using fallacious arguments to convince people they’re right, and VIRTUE SIGNAL about how RIGHT they are all the time, and anyone who disagrees with them is a cuck or a regressive le- uh, wait a minute. I’m not talking about the same people Carl is, am I. The anti-SJW community believes that a safe space is little more than a glorified echo chamber. [AIU, sped up]: “Maintain your echo chamber.” The problem with this is that if you define a safe space in this way, you start to see safe spaces everywhere. However, I’ve decided to not give any merit to that definition of safe space, So here, we’re going to be looking at a lot of echo chambers right here, on Youtube. These are “safe spaces”, only in the way that /r/TheRedPill or conspiracy theorist [garbled voice] (forums) are. First of all, let’s take a look at some low-hanging fruit. White nationalists. David Duke, Black Pigeon Speaks, and Varg Vikernes have all amassed a pretty decent following on Youtube, based entirely around being fucking neo-nazis. This sort of outright racist rhetoric is usually roundly criticized by all manner of politicians and activists, and yet, here it is! It’s found a home, on Youtube. Just take a look at these comments on Black Pigeon Speaks’s video about why he believes Black Lives Matter defends “criminals” and “thugs”. Varg’s a bit more obvious than Black Pigeon Speaks, though. I mean, he – he’s a fucking murderer, and a survivalist, and a pro-european, and he hasn’t made good music since 1996. And even more obvious than Varg is David Duke. Once a member of the American Nazi Party, once a grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, and always a consistent white nationalist, holocaust-denier and anti-semite. Everyone from Ronald Reagan to Stephen Colbert has openly condemned or mocked this guy, so you’d think there’s be an internet hate-mob up his ass on Youtube, right? WROOOONNNGGG Duke’s videos on this website have amassed a following of over 70,000 people, most of whom actively foam at the mouth with similar propagandas to that of [shouted from a distance] GODWIN’S LAW. Also, he’s running for senate, now, and he’s definitely got a few people on his side at the minimum. If these 3 people and the community they’ve helped to foster don’t constitute an “echo chamber”, I don’t know what does. Why do I bring this up? Well, for one thing, I think it’s necessary to demonstrate that echo chambers exist far outside of “SJWs”, or “the left”, or “third-wave feminism” or, whatever you decide to call it today. White nationalism is something that I HOPE many of The Rationals™ would be quick to call out, and maybe they’d agree with me that the community centered around these three guys are fitting of the label of “echo chamber.” However, I think we’ll probably start disagreeing in just a few moments. This might be the one thing that I want anybody who watches this video to come away from it realizing, or knowing, or having heard. So, please stick around, even though I’ve probably gone on for way too long. I’m not about to say that the people in this video are supporting white nationalism, or that their politics come even CLOSE to white nationalism, or anything like that. What I am about to say, is that the way these guys and their channels operate has struck me as… Intriguing, to say the least. About 5 years ago, The Amazing Atheist was the top dog on the anti-feminism scene. I don’t even think the term “SJW” existed around this time. However, he usually balanced this out with a regular stream of more… …progressive… content? If you can call it that? …Calling Papa John a piece of shit for being a shit guild to his workers, or defending the rights of trans kids, and otherwise being pro-LGBT, and socially liberal. …Outside of repeatedly calling women bitches and cunts. Sometime later, newer people popped up in the anti-feminism scene with slightly different leanings. Minarchists, classical liberals, and conservatives began to dominate the scene. All of this is to not even mention the rise of the men’s rights movement, a group which has had a noticable influence on anti-feminist discourse, whether some anti-feminists wish to admit it or not. Now, liberals like TJ have not always held a good track record of dealing with these sorts of people. He’s made his fair share of videos against Donald Trump, Free market libertarians and the G.O.P. However, he’s put these differences aside in recent years to make connections with people he might have been less kind to in his early days. This is a theme I’ve noticed on a lot of anti-SJW Youtube, and even in modern politics. Refusing to call people out on their bullshit because you have some shared common interest you don’t wanna stomp on. I believe TJ’s dont this sort of thing for the sake of preserving a truly colossal anti-feminist echo chamber right here on Youtube- yuuuup, here we fuckin’ go, her- here- [very close to mic] here comes the disagreement. The nature of anti-feminism on Youtube is such that it breeds a hive-mind mentality by necessity. No matter how many anti-feminist channels pop up on Youtube, their rhetoric seems to be largely the same. I bet I could probably sum up the view of every person in this video just by describing one set of beliefs. With that said, here’s one set of beliefs I think could probably be applied to every person in this video: [Voice pitched down] “Feminism used to fight for TRUE gender equality, but now, thanks to the third wave of feminism, it’s been hijacked by female supremacists. Feminists nowadays believe that all white, heterosexual cisgender men are privileged, racist, sexist pigs. They perpetuate a constant victim mentality in the minds of women. Their social justice identity politics rely on tactics such as censorship and defamation and are in direct conflict with values such as free speech. They’re too busy inventing new genders and sexualities to realize that no one is taking them seriously outside of their little special snowflake club. They are impervious to reason, and are busy self-congratulating in their echo chambers, and do not have any grasp on… Wait.” [from far away] Dammit, that was Sargon’s tweet again, wasn’t it – …I should hope that’s fairly accurate. That paragraph probably reflects a lot of my own anti-feminist views from a few years ago fairly well. And I can definitely spot a lot of these themes running through the videos of all 10 collaborators on this video. However, that leads me to ask something. If the way these 10 guys view feminism can be described in less than 30 seconds, then why do there have to be TEN of them, or even more outside of them, to convince people of why feminism is bad. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, and HBomberguy on ask.fm- imsosorrYPLEASEFORGIVEME “If feminism was this poisonous, you’d only need 1 person to disprove it.” A lot of the questions these men had for people like me have been asked before by other members of this same video. Chris Ray Gun’s dilemma about feminism vs. egalitarianism, TJ asking what the deal is with All Lives Matter, Undoomed wondering why feminists don’t acknowledge that Islam is “true rape culture,” and “the world’s most misogynistic ideology,” and Armoured Skeptic’s “do you want women to be equal or a protected class” thing? I’ve seen these sorts of questions intermingling across the borders of the content of all 10 of these guys, and they seem pretty uniform in their agreement on the answers. Not only are all these guys in agreement about feminism, but so are their audiences. If someone is subscribed to 1 of these channels, they’re most likely subscribed to maybe at least 2 or 3 more of them. The like bars are excellent, the comment sections are uniform in their disdain for the “regressive left”, everyone pats each other on the back for not believing in patriarchy, and believing that feminists are the true sexists, and the cogs in the machine keep turning. However, on the other side of things, However, feminist videos that come under the scrutiny of an anti-SJW’s lens are often destined to dog-piling and harassment. The dislikes flood in, and comments fill with ad hominem attacks, bigoted trolling, and suggestions of suicide. This kind of response has caused some feminist content creators to disable their comments, at which point their detractors ask why they can’t take the criticism they were never receiving in the first place. Or even delete their videos, or shut down their channels entirely. This doesn’t strike me as the behaviour of rational, free-thinking skeptics who are open to different points of view. This strikes me as the behaviour of people who all think more or less the same thing, and want everyone else to tow their line at any cost. “My opinion, or no opinion at all.” Opposing arguments are either shrugged off or ignored entirely, as they’re all viewed as being part of some plot to undermine the values of “free thought.” Not only do they not understand their opposition, but sometimes they don’t WANT to understand their opposition. [real burp] They are impervious to reason, and are busy self-congratula- – no that was Sargon’s tweet again god DAMMI- Now that you’ve had your meat and potatoes, it’s time for some dessert. Here’s some points I’d like to bring up just because I… …felt like they needed bringing up and I felt like I could comment on them. [Undoomed]: “What do you hope to gain by bringing back racial segregation?” [Thom]: Well, Undoomed, I can only assume you’re referring to black-only safe spaces here… These have been promoted by certain Black Lives Matter branches, like in UCLA, which have called for the creation of spaces where black people can express themselves. However, calling this “segregation” is a pretty disingenuous move. I’m paraphrasing The1Janitor here, but these sorts of spaces are really only “segregation” in the way a women’s health centre not allowing men to use its services is “segregation”. …You’re only using the term “segregation” because, for one thing, it sounds scarier than it is. And, for another thing, you’re trying to make it seem like you’re on the side of the Civil Rights Movement, which opposes racial segregation, but people who shared your EXACT politics in the 1960s were TRIPPING over themselves to defend it. Chris, you’re up next. [Chris]: “So if a drunk man sleeps with a drunk woman, the woman is incapable of giving consent. But the man… is?” [Thom]: I haven’t been able to find a discussion of consent where it was claimed that only drunk WOMEN are incapable of consenting to sex. On almost every website where I could find any discussion of sexual consent, something along the lines of the phrase: “An intoxicated individual is incapable of giving consent” has been used. “Individual.” Not “woman.” So, to answer your question, no. Here’s one from Skeptic: [Armoured Skeptic]: “In your version of equality, will white men EVER have a voice in society, or will white men ALWAYS be too privileged to participate in discussion?” [Thom]: Well, white men certainly have a lot of voice in society right now. D-Do you mean to say that they don’t? Or that there’s a large group of people who say they shouldn’t? I believe white men should… …certainly participate in discussion if they feel like they have something noteworthy to say, I’m a white man in a discussion about feminism right now. Strangely enough, I have some disagreements with the way some feminists use the concept of privilege as a way of keeping people who look like me out of their discussions. Like I said before, if we want people to understand where we’re coming from, maybe we could start by letting them in more openly. However, privilege is still an important thing to deal with. It can shape the way certain white men approach conversations about social issues, and sometimes their opinions… are… …less than welcome. To be more direct about your point, though, If the goal of feminism is the end of patriarchy, then that would also mean that the goal of feminism is the end of male privilege. So, at some point in a post-patriarchal society, I expect that men, white or otherwise, would part ways with the privilege they currently hold, and would become not “too privileged to participate in discussions.” [Sargon of Akkad]: “Do you really think you can spent your entire life in a state of perpetual emotional immaturity. Do you actually imagine that you will be able to stretch out your adolescence for your entire existence.” [Thom]: Dusty Smith. [Dusty]: There are 13% more women in college right now than men. So if the whole goal of feminism is ‘equality,’ shouldn’t we have some men-only scholarships in order to equal everything out?” [Thom]: Oh, I can think of a few. You could go the Milo route on this and look at the Privilege Grant, but there’s a much simpler answer to this. And it’s every men’s sports scholarship under the sun. There’s also the Lax Scholarship Fund for Gay Men, The scholarships afforded to Eagle Scouts by the National Eagle Scout Association, and plenty of others that are easy to find through some simple Google searching. LOGIC. TJ. [TJ]: “Why do you feel entitled to control what artists and entertainers are allowed to express? Why do you think your sensibilities should be placed above the sensibilities of ACTUAL creators.” [Thom]: It’s not so much that we feel entitled “control” the content of media, we just wish that some comedians and writers and artists would keep in mind the fact that SOMETIMES, jokes can be marginalizing, and can feed stereotypes that serve to ostracize people by misrepresenting them. Also, I love your use of the term “…actual creators,” as if feminists are somehow LESSER in the grand scheme of creators. Alright, if I keep responding to these we’ll be here all day, so… one more. Eenie, meenie, minie… Kraut and Tea. [Kraut and Tea]: “What makes you think that the power of censorship, that you are so desperately trying to establish now, will at no point be used against YOU.” [Thom]: The charge that social justice politics constitutes censorship has always… puzzled me. This came up awhile ago when 2 Literally-Who’s went to the UN and talked about how harassment of women online has ramped up quite a bit lately. Anti-SJWs everywhere cried that they were trying to “censor the internet…” …by getting rid of sexist trolls? It also came up when Milo Yiannopulous was banned from Twitter for inciting the mass harassment of Leslie Jones. He claimed that Twitter was “violating free speech” and “starting a war on conservative points of view,” and… the same shit he says every other day. …As if it were Twitter’s fault he violated their Terms of Service? Anyways, it seems like in most cases where SJWs are trying to “censor things,” it’s just a mountain being made out of a molehill by “rational free-thinking skeptics,” who all tend to think pretty… similar… things. So much for free thought. Personally, they’re not fooling me, considering one of their most popular spokesmen made a petition that basically constituted censorship of a whole field of academia. …Really starting a dialogue there, aren’t we. Really crusading against CENSORSHIP, aren’t we? So. What DID these Questions for SJWs teach me about Youtube antifeminism, anyway? Well, honestly, not a lot that I didn’t already know. A lot of these questions aren’t very new, and some of them were just kinda baffling. [Dusty]: “When I’m singing along with rap music, is it ok if I say the word ‘n*gga?'” [Thom]: I didn’t really want to provide too many straight-forward answers, since my goal was really to just talk about the nature of anti-SJW talking points. This collaboration just worked out well as a framing mechanism for this topic, which is one I’ve wanted to talk about since I started making these videos a few months ago. Consider this my most definitive work up ’til now, I suppose. Here’s my big takeaway: If these questions for SJWs taught me ANYTHING, it’s that we who are in support of social justice need to do a much better job of presenting our cause to them. It’s my belief that anti-feminism hasn’t had too much intellectual criticism levied against it, and that’s something that it SORELY needs. A lot of Youtube feminists speak using the jargon of their own, which possibly contributes to the amount of times they seem to get “rekt.” However, there are people on this platform that are extending an olive branch of sorts to the other side. People like Garrett, hbomberguy, Chrisiousity, Kristi Winters, ContraPoints, The Skeptic Feminist, Michael Rowlands, demotivator, Captain Andy, and so many others I could mention are beginning to approach dealing with anti-feminism in a more level-headed way. Even if they can be jokesters. They speak clearly and rationally about their beliefs, and you can find yourself easily convinced by them, even though they all approach feminism in slightly different ways. It’s come with some pushback, but I think they’ve definitely planted the seeds for more rational discussions about social justice down the line. And maybe I can join in that shift as well. So… thanks, you privileged, white, cishet male scum. You’ve enlightened me in ways you probably didn’t have in mind. Thanks very much to all of you who stuck around for this entire video, I know it probably went on for a long time. I haven’t finished editing it, but I’m gonna assume it’s… …20 minutes, or so. Editing Thom, put whatever time this went onscreen right now. Um, if you feel a certain way about anything I said, you can leave a comment below, I implore you to keep it civil, sorry, Garrett, I just stole your- – stole your damn catchphra- If you enjoyed this video and you want to see more, you can feel free to subscribe, because this won’t be the last video I do. I’ll leave you with some links to my other videos, um, onscreen somewhere right now should be my playlist for An Anarchist Response to the RESIST Supercut, which are some older video I made, but I think are still… …halfway decent. And somewhere else onscreen will be my ongoing playlist of my Buzzwords From The Right series. I do- I don’t know where it’s going [laughs] I’ve given you enough things to click on, and do, and comment, and this video’s gone on for far too long now, so I’ll just, uh- I’ll leave you now. My name’s Thom, and until next time, Agitate, Educate, Organize.

100 thoughts on “What “Questions for SJWs” Taught Me About YouTube Antifeminism

  1. Some of these youtubers like the ones you show, should have gotten a smack or two when they were kids.
    How's that for non-PC.

  2. Some non-transphobic people are gender abolitionists, like me, I think we should get rid of gender after getting rid of the hierarhy of genders just like we should get rid of race, even tho I myself am nonbinary

  3. As a comics/sf fan I'm also concerned about the way the anti SJWs see diversity in those media as a threat. They not only dislike Rey in Star Wars, Burnham in Star Trek Discovery, Captain Marvel and the female Doctor Who, often without ever seeing the movies, but they have a million videos stating as "fact" that those franchises are dead. They see films like Black Panther, Captain Marvel etc as "shoving a liberal/feminist agenda down our throats. I'm researching for a blog on that (apparently it started with video games),, and now they're railing against LGBT characters on the CW superhero shows. Such films and comics do more than provide "minorities" with heroes of their own, they help us see how "different" groups of people are just people not so unlike anybody else. A prime example is Marvel Comics' Ms Marvel – a teenaged Pakistani Muslim girl living in New Jersey. I saw Into The Spiderverse and Captain Marvel with a 10 year old. His favorite character was Milo Morales' Spider-man. He didn't seem to notice or care that Milo isn't white or that Marvel isn't male.

  4. It’s kinda sad to think about if a woman or trans person made this video, all of these brain dead bigots wouldn’t listen. :////

  5. Also I think this guys definition of gender is wrong. If someone wants to call themselves something else that doesn't change what "body parts" their born with. Idk if this makes sense, writing is hard for me.

  6. Woah woah woah was Anthony fantano really in the anti feminist community??? Is he still??? Oh my god how have I been this clueless could someone educate me

  7. I just can't believe the Amazing Atheist

    How can you be a public figure for so long and still be such a fucking dumb ass. He is the absolute definition of a neckbeard

  8. Fantano actually said recently in a video that he thought it was going to be satirical, which is why he takes it significantly less seriously. He said he thought of it as “one of his darkest moments”. Just wanted to let y’all know, great video.

  9. Humans are dumb, this is all very dumb, I don't care about any of this, all I care about is plugs and sockets, some plugs like sockets, some sockets like sockets, and some plugs socket plugs.

  10. Aren't both the "only women's center" and the "only black safe space" segregation?
    Coming from a wamyn.
    And an anti-feminist.

  11. To be honest, all you actually quite make your argument less valid your first answer. Not all of anti SJW are the same and those videos are for "extreme SJW". I still dislike SJW but this video made me learn and respect them more (thanks for that). By the way, why is Asian kinda left alone? We still face legal discrimination like we needing to score a lot more to get in college.

  12. There’s idiots on both sides and both sides make generalizations about one another: The problem isn’t political views it’s skewed perception…LETS KILL ALL HUMANS😂

  13. I would really love it if MRA meninist crybabies could learn the difference between feminism and misandry.

  14. I like how you posers now think that being right-wing was just some edgy ploy. You all have no credibility, because you lack the ability to think for yourself. The left is the downfall of society. When Smollet gets away with faking a hate crime, whilst being protected by the masses. THAT IS THE DOWNFALL OF SOCIETY. Responsibility, rationality, and morality get kicked to the curb in the defense of leftist nonsense and fragility.

  15. Ah… yours arguments are just… weak
    Fast questions – cuz there is soo many of them
    SJW – are no "monolith" – ok
    BYt – anti-feminist also – are not a Monolith
    You just splash your ideas and lie streight in your eyes

  16. Dusty actually woke up in the meantime and realized what a fucking retard crowd he had gotten in with and is now an avid denouncer of these racist, mysogynistic, ethno-white-state militant shit-bags. He actually talked about his past as one of them and how sorry he was about it. Glad to see at least some people have a modicum of self-awareness and brains in this cesspool of stupidity that is YT. Good for you, Dusty! That being said, the original videos from buzzfeed were pretty fucking stupid. That doesn't excuse the dip-shits, though.

  17. Well, there was a viral picture of a poster on a college campus saying something along the lines of "He's drunk, she's drunk, they had sex; he's guilty of rape!" This was a while ago, so probs not word for word. So, that particular question was probably regarding that poster. Undoubtedly, that's a double standard, but does that make feminism toxic? No, as you yourself are, and could probably point to countless others, who support equal treatment as feminists, and denounce the philosophy of that poster.

    Apart from that, I would just object to your suggestion that removing trolls isn't an attack on free speech, as granting any individual or organization that kind of power would, in my mind, constitute a slippery slope that could result in opinions are unpopular and which may be hurtful but are sincerely held resulting in a person's removal and censorship of his objections. Those objections may be crazy, but every so often, something crazy sounding will have intellectual value, so we should engage with people rather than censoring them. There may be certain rules that would not pose this risk, like any comments containing nothing but personal attacks should be removed, but who can we trust to enforce this rule? For this reason, I lean more toward free speech absolutism.

    On everything else, we're in agreement. The right wing has more than its fair share of echo chambers, and most importantly, we can't respond to critics with "Not our job to educate". I strongly suspect people who say that are just too low-info to respond and they just have a sense that they're on the right side, but they make the left look horrible, and they are paraded around by the right as examples of how we're unwilling to debate. If you are one of these people, just don't talk politics; you are hurting the cause.

  18. "some people had issue with this for some reason" well bro you gotta admit some of the questions were really dumb…. for real.

  19. People here acting like opposition to leftism is “just a phase“ is just as ignorant as saying “gay is just a phase“.

  20. That stuff about 18:30 is what most people are talking about feminism when the are saying such bad things. The antifeminist are just as attacked as the feminist… now a days thats the way things are people are more and more polorized taking sides and thinking there sides are the only possable sides to have any wroth in a black or white view point, seeking out echo chambers and all the like. Paticuarly in the political scene wich is taring out contery appart x.x As for the points brought up, segragation he could be talking about the fact some feminist are saying don't marry and interact with white people now saying interatial relations are bad, so could be that too. A lot of rape cases where the man is raped are just ignored. Think he was just tring to say women have more privlage than men right now…. think the roman looking dude is talking about woman trying to party and sleep around till there hormonal clocks kick in before they try and settle down thing thats starting to show up thats leaving a lot of men having relation ship trubbles and women getting depressed and lonely when they are older…. other guy i don't think he knows what he's talking about, i mean realy (though girls can be scouts now yay for that!)… I don't think he was acusing women of not being actual creaters, I think he was acusing some of the SJW creaters of not being so, wich anyone that creates is a creaters but i think he means SKILLED and TALENTED instead as a lot of these people just shove uninspired marysues with no charictor or development and nothing bad ever happens to them and they can do nothing wrong (not all ofcorse but far to many x.x) and it just ruins the story…..one man's hypocracy don't change the fact that that there is a lot of cincership going on. That was interesting, Now i'm going to play devils advocate for feminists on that vedio too XD

  21. Thanks to this video I now realize that I am privileged white male, I use turn myself into a doormat for all women and have no self respect. I believe all white men are inherently horrible and should be disrespected at every given opportunity (unless they're gay or trans). The family court is the best thing ever, it gives horrible single white fathers no chance to secure a life for them or their children. Everyone who doesn't believe in feminism is and edgy fedora wearing neck-beard and should immediately submit to strong women or suffer the consequences. All white men should be made to work two times harder for the same pay to balance out the gender pay gap and no matter how hard they work they should never receive any respect.

  22. It was hilarious when Brie Larson used her platform to criticize the prejudice and misogyny in the film industry, and then outraged prejudiced and misogynist Conservatives flocked to social media comments to prove her right.

  23. Ok yeah anti sjws are cringy but I think in this case this video is mainly satirizing the original video (I Hope atleast it would be really dumb if it wasn’t)

  24. It’s hilarious that you use a zizek clip when he repeats some of the same bullshit these anti-feminist types.

  25. Hey, I just wanted say that exactly the way you decribed how racial or gender stereotypes can marginalize people & spread ideas about them that aren't accurate, is the way that "rational atheists" are kinda portrayed in this video. I consider myself to be a rational atheist but I don't follow any of the YouTubers you mentioned here, I didn't even know there's an atheist kangaroo, I think I might be subed to armored skeptic bc I do like his gf shoe, but I don't really like any of his videos, & I kinda hate "the amazing atheist". Even when that guy is right & I actually agree with him, the way he says it makes him seem like a real ahole.

    I am a woman & do believe that women deserve equality, however I do happen to think that, not all, but many of the present day feminists & SJWs have actually taken it too far. I have heard them say, "we won't settle for just making as much as men, we want to make more than men", & many talk about men like they are the actual enemy, all of them. One group even went so far as to say that if you're really a feminist you'll CHOOSE to be a lesbian bc otherwise you're sleeping with the enemy.

    There's a vagina church & vagina manicures & even vagina Xmas ornaments & those are only some of the things they make all about vagina!

    I don't think they're all bad & unlike the people you criticized for not understanding feminists & then opposing inaccurate beliefs they don't actually have, I've heard a lot of these women out. They often talk about the wage gap, which to the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very open to learning new information & changing my beliefs when the evidence changes) is the difference between the average income of every man in a year & the average income of every woman in a year, then they claim that when a man & a woman with equal education, experience & seniority who hold the same positions at the same company, the man usually makes more money even though they are equally qualified & do the same job.

    The problem with that of course is that averaging together the yearly income of all men & then all women & comparing them literally can't tell you that. Men tend to gravitate towards higher paying feilds like the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) industry & finance while women often tend to gravitate more towards arguably more rewarding fields such as the social services & teaching.

    Also, men as a whole statistically tend to elect to work more hours & have less family time while women as a whole tend to elect more flexible possitions so they can have more time with their family. Obviously not in all cases as more & more these days couples decide that the father should stay home with the kids or have more flexible hours for family reasons, sometimes it depends on which person works in a feild that already has less hours or more flexiblity, which one is trying to grow their career to a specific level that requires putting in more time or just which one wants to spend more time at home. Sometimes if they have jobs that pay well enough, both keep working long hours & hire a nanny or invest in good daytime child care. But still, statistically women still choose having more time with their kids as a higher priority than men currently. If I were ready to have kids I'd probably choose more flexiblity so I'd have more time with them, knowing that making that decision could somewhat limit my income & career growth.

    Another thing to remember is that men tend to be more direct & often try to negotiate a higher salary when talking to potential employers & even ask directly for raises over time when they think they've earned it.

    All of these complex factors go into those figures so personally I don't think it's fair to say that most women make less bc their employers think they are worth less.

    They also talk about the "pink tax" in reference to the difference in the cost of men's items & women's items, usually toiletries are used as the example. There is a discrepancy in many, if not all of these items. However, once again they tend to take those numbers largely at face value with no analysis of the reasoning behind it.

    If you look at the ingredients in most of the products, the women's versions, bc we have much more sensitive, softer skin that men do, that's just a scientific fact, include more moisturizing ingredients & things like that. Men tend to wash their body, face & hair all with the same soap sometimes. Women tend mostly to care more about moisturizing & using the best product for the job. It takes more work to create deodorant that is clear & keeps the skin soft, sometimes they even help with effects of shaving. More research, more ingredients & higher quality often means more money so there is often a very clear reason.

    Once I saw this whole thing about feminists gong crazy over an actress taking a photo with 4 men on an outdoor balcony at a party in a little black dress. They were angry that the men let her be outside in the cold & didn't give her their jackets. They were taking about it all over the internet & saying these men should be ashamed. Finally, the actress heard about all the drama in her name & flipped out on them. She explained that she's a grown adult who chose what to wear herself & if she'd been cold she would have done something. She said she was outside for like 5min, just for that photo, & that she was wearing a $2,000 designer dress that she wanted to be visible in the photo instead of covering it up. She was very upset that all these people just decided, without even taking to her or finding out how she felt, that they had the right to speak on her behalf as if she wasn't capable of speaking for herself.

    These are just a few of the examples of feminists who are out of control & make accusations without any real facts to back them up. It's really sad bc this has caused the public to want to distance themselves from anyone calling themself a feminist or SJW & it has caused the original & important terms themselves to lose all real meaning. It really detracts from the actually problems that still exist bc no one takes them seriously. They figure that if the only things these groups have to complain about are how men sit while trying not to crush their testicles & that the dragon in a children's movie turned out to be straight then they must not have any real or important issues at all. That's awful bc I think we still do have a few issues that need work like the fact for some reason our whole society seems to think that if you insist on sex & don't take no fur an answer & the person doesn't scream bloody murder or try to stab you than they consented. Or how women seem to be expected to be sexually assaulted at random in public & if they complain they're "too sensitive" but the occasional ahole grabbing your ass is really a minor problem anyway & all allegations of seemingly systematic & widespread sexual assault on the level of rape are lies bc "if we really had a so called 'rape culture' than rape wouldn't even be illegal at all". How is my personal choice to pay $2 more for razors with a biult in moisturizing strip possibly more important than guys on college campuses chanting "*NO* means YES*! *YES means *ANAL*!" All across the country? No one takes these real issues seriously anymore bc now they just think, "it's probably another imaginary issue they made up like the 'wage gap', 'pink tax' 'manspeading' & trying to force a fictional dragon to be gay. They have to invent fake problems bc feminists & SJWs don't have any real issues of equality left to complain about." That's obviously a problem! Sometimes it's important to pick your battles or you end up being the boy who cried wolf.

    So I don't want to be lumped in with these people. I'm a liberal, I believe in all LGBT+ rights, I want women to be treated equally, I hate racism, I'm disabled & believe a lot of people are very ableist without even knowing it, like complaining about environmental issues & declaring that no one should use plastic straws or have access to pre-cut & pre-packaged fruits & other foods bc its wasteful without thinking for a second about people like me who need those things just to survive & I also generally try to judge everyone as individuals & show people respect. Just bc these people who happen to be atheists can sometimes be real aholes doesn't mean we all are. But to make another fair point, one of those SJW videos aimed at white men contained the question, "how does it feel to be the same gender as Donald Trump?" That's obviously a rhetorical question meant to paint ALL men in a bad light just bc some of them suck. You can't fight for the right not to be judged solely on your gender & ask that question at the same time & expect not to be criticized.

    I just wanted to voice my individual opinion. I agree that everyone should be judged individually & understand that it isn't fair for a whole group to be judged harshly bc some of them have decided to create some kind of Amazonian vagina cult with petty grevences but at the same time this video proves how easy it is to see a group of people with common beliefs who act badly & make judgments on everyone else with those beliefs based on them.

  26. feud bots being feud bots on the dramanformation genre. It was a good unaware willing suspension of disbelief run, it had its fully subscribed to moments, and now for the wellness of worriers who sympathize on really no ones behalf they understand the difference between the video production/time business model of a website related to commerce from REAL LIFE.

  27. This is ridiculous. I don't have to be in an echo chamber to have people agree with me all the time etc.. I am used to people disagreeing with me it's just nice to be somewhere where I can actually be heard.

  28. This guy is ignoring the fact that many intoxicated men drug the woman they have sex with so that they become unconscious and it to me is the fact that she is " not concious" that makes her incapable of consent because she can not speak and therefore can not express her wishes.

  29. Hold up, I thought Melony Fantano was sorta left leaning? Did he go through an edgy anti-sjw phase?

  30. lmao I remember answering all these questions before wow. This particular video. I identified as a feminist and a proud SJW so I figured, "SURE! I'll answer these questions."
    Yeah, the comment section was filled with damn ignorance. I just answered sensibly. The only one I recall off the top of my head was whether white people could say/sing the word nigga when it is in songs. I remember saying, yeah! It's in the song. Sing it. Wow, that was so long ago.

  31. I've watched the video, and I'm sensing you're doing exactly what the few I watch are saying you're doing. Sweeping each of these YouTubers under the same brush and dismissing everything they have to say with a few selected examples presented in a way that ignores the context behind it. I don't align any which way politically, so I can't really be accused of blind allegiance, but from the videos I've seen on either side, the ones that overwhelmingly tend to have more of a point in both evidence and research are the people you're attacking here. Quite a few, at least.

    Not only that, but when a YouTuber from the "anti-SJW" movement engages in lying and morally dubious activities, they do not defend that YouTuber. Look what happened with thunderfoot a year or so ago, or more recently with Mr Metokur. They scrutinise their own side the same way they scrutinise their opposition because their ideas are based in truth and facts over lies and generalisations.

    You are misrepresenting them in exactly the ways they claim to be misrepresented, and that's why they're popular. They have a point and you're making the point for them. And you're using the fact that some politically extreme people align with them as a basis to destroy their personal, individual arguements.

  32. you are saying that anti feminists laugh at your stupid ass because of how you look but in fact they laugh at you mainly because of the authoritarian laws and the experimental medical shit you manage to do to children, you are sick

  33. e(GAL)itarian is superior if we go by definition as well… Egalitarian by definition supports equality of everyone race, religion, sexuality, gender etc… Where feminism only mentions equality between the genders…

  34. I love how all of the internet atheists are now aligning themselves with paleo conservative christians and jews like Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, and Jordan Peterson.

  35. Low-effort intellectually dishonest garbage. Dude, the whole thing was about "SJWs", and your entire argumentation seems to be "but some feminists aren't like that". The questions were addressed to SJWs, not "feminists". You admitted that they exist. You showed examples of their behaviour. You said you disagree with their conduct. Then shut the fuck up. That's what this was about. Stop trying to derail the issue with strawmen and no true Scotsman fallacies.

  36. I guess the skeptics think being pedantic or willful ignorance is the same as being rational but an extremely strong argument can be made to dispel that assumption

  37. Wow, the stupidity of those anti-sjws was so staggering, I could only get through 4:39 of this video. Don't they realize the irony of lumping all sjws into one category is exactly what they rail against when we paint all conservatives the same color?

  38. Ironic that TJ and Dusty are called SJW. Armoured Skeptic acts like a moderate, and Sargon backs nationalists.

  39. while i disagree with a lot of what you said, i can appreciate the level head with which you approached this subject.

  40. I had an issue with the BuzzFeed because of how condensing they were
    The women talk about how we mainsplain and got they hate being spoken when too while speaking down to men
    Save with the video where black people talk to white people
    Like "Why can you pronounce Schwarzenegger but not *difficult African name to pronounce*" the reason is cause there's a famous guy with the first man and no famous got with the last
    Also anyone who says that white people are more inclined to be racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic see wrong since the color of your skin didn't increase the chance to be racist
    Finally, I think the reason they referred to SJW as 1 group is because many of the loud ones refer to white men (or white people or men) add 1 group

  41. Shouldn't everybody get as much privilege as the cis white male though, instead of him parting with it? I'm a cis white female, but I've always thought "using my privilege for good" meant working towards that end. Privilege is good – everyone should have it!

  42. I feel dirty for watching all these people a few years ago. Glad I moved on and learned to become a better person

  43. Dusty has since distanced himself from this crowd and is actually more of a libtard himself, same with the best teeth in the game

  44. The guy at 23:06 is actually noting something that’s an issue, but it’s not the issue he thinks it is. Occidential College had a case were a pair of students had sex while intoxicated but only the male student was punished, (expelled in that case.) There are quite a number of these cases. Here’s a story of from close to where I live:


    However, there’s also another case from University of Cincinnati where only the female student was punished, (less clear how.) The difference seems to be that in the second case the male made the accusation first which appears to weigh heavily on college board decisions.

    If there’s a gender issue, it’s not in the policy, it’s the implementation and surrounding social pressures.

    This seems like a very difficult area to navigate. Realistically, we’re not going to stop drunk college kids from having sex, so what should happen? Should we expel both students for raping each other? That would create an environment where victims would be more hesitant to come forward. Do we dismiss these cases? Doesn’t that make “I was drunk too” an affirmative, and largely non-verifiable, defense and move us back toward being more dismissive of rape?

    The anti-SJW crowd are only making it more difficult with their reductionist rhetoric. This isn’t an area of men being punished and women not. This is an issue with our changing ideas of consent, that it comes from a “yes” instead of “not no.” This seems like a good change, but it complicates things since it’s possible for two people to both not say no but also not say yes.

    I know you were going through quickly, but I thought this was a point that deserved a little more attention to understand where he goes wrong.

  45. You immediately lost me when you called BPS a neo nazi. He ain't perfect or correct on everything but he sure as shit isn't a nazi because he's a white nationalist. These 2 are not the same things.

  46. Despite this video, I still think it’s wrong to hate people because of their white skin color. Crazy, I know.

  47. 15:08 Burzum was actually still pretty good after 1996, Daudi Baldrs and Hilsdghaph (I know these are spelled wrong) are great albums

  48. It is pretty easy to disagree with somebody when you don't try to understand their ideas? You just spent this entire video dismissing, conflating, putting words in their mouth, and making unproven claims. I think you should go back to the drawing board here, and try to better understand where these questions are coming from. Maybe ask some questions of your own, instead of making assertions based on your own bias and assumptions.

  49. That echo chambers stuff was spot on. Good point. That is a huge problem for them. Unfortunately it is tough to self regulate that more than ever. The tech companies know what kinds of content you consume, and will basically force feed you with the same crap all the time. You have to go out of your way to break out of the algorithmic rut.

  50. Cult of Dusty has backed out of the anti-SJW crowd now too thankfully. He’s one of my favorite atheistic YouTubers and I’m glad he backed out of that pit hole of bullshit.

  51. Seeing Anthony Fantano basically stare at his shoes while lost in regret when someone brought up this video in a Let's Argue segment and agree with the commenter that it was basically the worst thing he's ever willingly involved himself in was definitely Something.

    Anthony is a good dude and I appreciate that he owns up to his mistakes.

  52. At least Dusty has done a 180 and now fights the anti SJW crowd, he openly admits he was wrong which is more than most YouTubers ever do!

  53. For the first seconds of the video: there's alway an issue when a group of people address another group of people by their race or gender. The right thing would be to address people by their views not on something they didn't choose.

  54. Feminists? Fuck'em. LGBTQ? Fuck'em. Minority victim hood olympics? Fuck'em. White guilt, self hating whites that are cucked to the black and brown sack and miscegenate themselves into extinction via multiracial children? Fuck'em. None of you people are normal. You are mentally fucked up and in any normal society around the world, you would be seen as mentally ill and targeted for isolation.

  55. "For some reason"? So you didn't have any issues with those stupid "Questons for.." videos which were often just racist and sexist? Man, you are stupid.

  56. They answered the questions from buzzfeed not because they had a problem with it. But because it was so stupid that it was funny enough to make a video about it.

  57. 1:27 and yet you guys had steve shives in your guys video "questions SJW's have anti-SJW's". The man who created a safe space by making bots to block anyone who follows anybody who he disagreee's with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *