sean oreilly

anonymous asked:

I think it's really telling that every time a "skeptic" debates with an "sjw", they always feel the need to be nicer and tone down their opinions. I mean, how do they even justify that in their heads?? If anti-sjws genuinely believe that their videos aren't mean spirited and their opinions aren't hateful, why do they do a complete 180 in their debates? Especially if social justice advocates are supposed to be the sensitive, irrational ones. If that's true, why cater to them?

It’s definitely harder to be an asshole to someone when they are right there in front of you.

And to some extent, if we’re being fair, YouTube videos are a “performance.” My videos aren’t mean-spirited, but I’m way more animated in them than I would ever be in a real conversation.

but overall I really believe that “anti-sjw” content is mostly phoned in and disingenuous (which is why I tend not to take it seriously anymore). There are a couple that I think are honest (albeit often still uninformed) and there are some that I think are intentionally malicious. but in general, I think the emotions are intentionally drummed up because that’s what gets the validation and the views. It’s like Sean Hannity and Bill Oreilly, they have no desire or intention of being objective or reasonable, they say what they need to say to get the viewers and to advance the agenda they’ve set out to advance. And my guess is that probably both of those guys, like most anti sjws, are normal and civil when there’s no cameras around.