Why Are You So Angry?

July 19, 2015 6:49 PM

Why Are You So Angry?
A six-part video series on angry video gamers as means of talking about privilege, feminist backlash, do-gooder derogation, harassment, and online community. They are functionally the sequel to my video about internet fame, This Is Phil Fish. (previously)

Part 1 discusses Anita Sarkeesian. (transcript)

Part 2 talks about the reflex to anger when confronted with a philosophy that seems to include a judgment on the listener. (transcript)

Part 3 deals with the intersection of that reflex to anger and axes of privilege. (transcript)

Part 4 dissects GamerGate, or what happens when privilege and anger join with movements started by serial harassers. (transcript)

Part 5 talks about faulty understandings of ethical behavior. (transcript)

And Part 6 suggests ways of healthfully engaging with angry people online. (transcript)

Role: Director

posted by Peevish (3 comments total)

Oh hey, this is you! I just caught the first episode of this the other day and have been rarin' to dig into the rest of it.
posted by cortex at 6:49 PM on July 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

is there any work on what motivates these people? i'm old school, so my intuition is to look for class/power based politics. and i do wonder how much of this feeds off feelings of inequality.

when you look at the difference between how ellen pao and yishan wong were treated it seems obvious (to me) that the difference comes down to sex, and i am not denying that. but part of it could be that people are simply used to seeing men with power and money, and so notice inequality more when it's a woman. again, that's not an "excuse" for what happens, but it's an angle i never see mentioned. these people - pao and wong - are close to royalty. they're not sam altmans, but they get to serve in his court.

maybe this was covered in the links? i listened to the first and last, and it all seemed a bit smug, so i'm afraid i gave up after that.

of course, if you're happy with power and wealth and inequality and the american way in general, but still feminist in some sense, then this isn't really relevant... and even if not happy, i can see how this approach could be seen as counter-productive (sorry).

(also, i guess it may be that such discussion is not appropriate here, in which case hello mods. again.)

ps by "work" i mean some kind of numbers. i have no idea if that's even possible.

pps and really, maybe the comment about royalty is misleading. more generally, i am thinking of young males who feel they don't have "any chance". and perceive women as "getting their jobs". again, this is obviously sexist. but there is also a class angle that seems to be excluded. and anecdotally i see quite a few comments from young males who feel no-one cares about how shitty their lives are.

the whole thing is related to my (deleted) comment on competition between victims the other day. i am really clueless about all this and, as you can see, fumbling around in the dark. so if anyone can give pointers on what i should read that would be appreciated (i think i do "get" much of feminist politics; what bothers me is that there seem to be chunks missing, motivated by need to "sell" a single story to win "political sympathy" in some sense).
posted by andrewcooke at 5:52 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]

I watched the whole series last night, and it's really well-done. I liked the message at the end of Part 6, where it's not about changing "Angry Jack," necessarily, but changing the pool of unrelenting abuse thrown at people who have a viewpoint which is threatening to the "Angry Jacks" of the internet.
posted by xingcat at 6:04 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]