Your Fave is Problematic

[@Jane-oz7pp]

I somehow doubt that the people misinterpreting Lolita are doing so unintentionally. The land of child beauty pageants, legally protected child marriage and Hollywood being where so many come from kind of makes it hard to think anything other than them seeing theirselves in the character and intentionally recontextualising it to defend their own proclivities.

[@brianu2229]

As the meme goes: "Tonight's Episode: The Writer's Barely-Disguised Fetish"

[@morganqorishchi8181]

It's always funny to me when people say that people "didn't get" Lolita. They got it. They just disagreed with it and decided on the interpretation they liked instead. People do that *all the time*. The pro-fascist 1894 novel Olga Romnoff or The Syren of the Skies was a smash hit among anti-fascists at the time not because they all missed the point, but because they loved the anti-fascist villain enough to recontextualize her into a hero. This is not a new thing in fandom, this is standard procedure and has been for over a hundred years at minimum.

[@ConvincingPeople]

It's worth listening to Lolita Podcast for some context on this because I think that there are instances where people genuinely do not fully understand the point of the work and misinterpret it in deleterious ways; Adrian Lyne (the director of the second adaptation) comes to mind, given his response to a Nabokov scholar's criticism of the film to his face. Not all bad or even dangerous readings of a work are inherently done in bad faith, but the potential for a bad-faith reading does exacerbate the problem, particularly with a work such as Lolita or any other similarly transgressive work which expects the reader to do any heavy lifting.

[@searchingfororion]

There are *tons* of people who genuinely don't know that they're recontextualizing Lolita. Anime conventions (and the *very* popular fashion in Japan that was carried over that participants enjoy emulating) is a huge example of this. Kawaii fans are especially drawn to "Lolita fashion" - yet, I can tell you from direct experience: 1. Most "Lolita fashion" aficionados are unaware of the origin of the term. Furthermore; 2. Not a single person I've spoken with that enjoys the Lolita aesthetic (once again, the Japanese fashion) have never seen any of the films - so it goes without saying that there's no similarity between the depictions associated with the character and what "Lolita fashion/styling" is. 3. It's rather fair to say that if I've yet to encounter individuals in the Lolita subculture that watched any of the films (and most aren't even aware of them), they *certainly* haven't read the book. --- I've known people who've lived in Japan, shopped in the fashion district and bought outfits from Lolita style exclusive boutiques and *they* didn't even have a clue. --- The closest analogy I can think of is in the "classic" Hot Topic days when tons of people would get decked out in punk gear from head-to-toe but if you asked, they couldn't give you the name of a punk band (or song) even if you **paid** them.

[@xxxaragon]

@@morganqorishchi8181 Of course that's probably another discussion: How relevant is the original intent really? Like, if I write a song with the intent of it conveying "message x", but it's overwhelmingly perceived as conveying "message y", wouldn't that essentially +change+ the "real" meaning? (I don't have clear-cut answer to that, I'm just saying that's at least a valid question/topic of debate)

[@zoe_bee]

I loved this!! Thank you so much for asking me to be a part of it! I absolutely loved hearing from all of these different creators, and it has definitely helped me think more deeply about my own relationship with "problematic" faves.

[@hootsyoutube]

Thanks for chatting with me! I had so much fun!

[@zoushaomenohu]

Rosenkreutz's point about consumption only really serving as a virtue signal was VERY salient. A lot of the "discourse" surrounding problematic faves is built on a belief that liking a problematic work or figure says something about your own moral character, most often boiling down to an accusation of hypocrisy, that you can't REALLY be committed to a cause you're advocating for if you have a problematic fave that is regressive in that regard. That in order for your points to REALLY be valid, you have to be some kind of social justice ascetic who doesn't really ENJOY anything. This is utter nonsense, since it's impossible for a human being to be 100% morally consistent at all times. In the end, what your problematic faves say about you as a person don't mean much compared to your ACTIONS, and you're not going to fix systemic issues by consuming the right media or having the right parasocial relationships!

[@SpecialBlanket]

It's not even abt not being morally consistent. You had me until that line. The "point" is that there's no moral crime whatsoever in liking someone who isn't perfect or even good as long as you aren't actively enabling them.

[@zoushaomenohu]

@Anonymous-54545 I'd argue that it is to a certain extent, as an artifact of the United States' cultural Christianity. As a result of being inundated with messaging to "practice what you preach" and that one of the worst things you can be is a hypocrite, we're primed as a culture to demand our public figures be perpetually correct in their takes and moral stances even in secular spaces, when that's impossible for anyone to do because people are always going to have biases and gaps in their understanding, and when we inevitably find out they either did something shitty or had a bad take, we're also encouraged to denounce them immediately to preserve our own assumed moral integrity from being "tainted" by association with them. A friend of mine once called it "moral cholesterol." But yeah, if you ARE directly enabling a person's shitty behavior that is absolutely on you, but I was referring more to the tendency for people to dismiss someone they might otherwise have common cause with because, "they watch show/content creator X, therefore they are Y" as if that encapsulates the entirety of another person's soul...

[@ruthspanos2532]

My father’s favorite song was Never Walk Alone from Carousel. He was a feminist…and believed his daughters, and all women should have the same opportunities as men. In his last years he campaigned for the Democratic Party. I don’t remember talking to him about the musical, but I am pretty sure he would have seen it as an observation of how screwed up society is, rather than an endorsement of abuse/suffering in silence. Mostly I want to say my Dad was awesome and I miss him.

[@Cloudsurfer69]

Having daughters really can do that to a man! Your dad sounds awesome af, glad we have people like him on this planet

[@Princesssbishhh]

This was beautiful to read I’m sure your dad was/is a beautiful soul

[@Violexie-wb7op]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ Mine was too. Sending you positive vibes.

[@Starkweather133]

Are you sure he wasn't a Liverpool fan?

[@FinntasticMrFox]

Holy crap this was great. My "immediately comes to mind" problematic fave is probably Road to El Dorado, which felt like a boon to my closeted queer kid self when it came out around the time I was debating whether or not to do the same (and didn't.) It was Ali Nahdee, actually, who got me examining it more critically due to its failures where Indigenous representation is concerned--there were some serious rose coloured glasses going on for me. Great to hear her perspective here, too.

[@JessieGender1]

This is fantastic! Loved it hoots.

[@TeagueChrystie]

Love ya. Godspeed.

[@LukeFromLasVegas]

The Golden Girls is by far my favorite tv show. For years and years during my many-many frequent sleepless insomniac nights i'd watch any random episode and i'd always feel better after. I've long considered the show to be incredibly progressive for its time, talking about issues like Gay Rights, Drug Addiction, Homelessness, Death of a Loved One, and Aging. It was only after the internet had its "Fat Shaming is bad actually" moment (and the subsequent alt-right backlash), did i realize that The Golden Girls had quite a bit of fat shaming sprinkled in throughout the entire series. A disappointing trend considering how well they handled so many other contentious topics for their era. I can't recall if their was ever even an episode where they critically discussed their own normalized levels of weaponized body shaming (in the same way that Blanche's homophobia towards her brother was shown). Now a days when i rewatch The Golden Girls, when i see an instance of body shaming, bald shaming, wrinkle shaming, or fat shaming i kind of just take a mental note of it. Acknowledge it, and try to remember that those words can have real hurtful consequences towards human beings. "Thank you for being a Friend".

[@avalauren4731]

The golden girls was also trying to speak to what older women might be going through, which does involve concerns and jokes about aging/weight especially for that generation

[@b1untf0rce]

valid critique, but they’re all old women a lot of whom had these problems you mentioned. seems more self aware than anything.

[@kostajovanovic3711]

@@chrisdow6627 so far it seemed ineffective

[@chrisdow6627]

@@kostajovanovic3711 we need to step it up. Extra taxes and penalties for them.

[@megsley]

jfc imagine picking apart the golden girls 😂 we are actually doomed

[@awandererfromys1680]

Old faves becoming problematic is a good thing. It means society still progresses in the right direction.

[@TrevorMcNeil-e1y]

As some of the old faves would want. Including, but not limited to, Charlotte Smith, Mary Shelley, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, George Sand, Jane Austen, Henrik Ibsen, Mark Twain, P.G. Wodehouse, Franz Kafka and Mervyn Peake.

[@morganqorishchi8181]

Faves being problematic at the time is a good thing. It means that you're thinking clearly enough to identify that there are problems in it right here and now and don't need to wait for society to progress enough for it to reach common consensus that [thing here] is not okay for you personally. Your fave having a major flaw in it just means you have more time to think over the problematic elements and really dissect why the content is problematic. I have learned a lot looking into the flawed logic behind my faves' problematic elements.

[@kaydgaming]

If

[@EricDMMiller]

Just like Muslims blowing up Buddhist monuments because they are problematic. Definitely moving in the right direction! 👍

[@xxxaragon]

Not necessarily though. Because "problematic" can mean lots of things. Like, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's more freedom.

[@abracadaverous]

OHHHhhhhhh, "Death of the Author" is a play on "le Morte d'Arthur" and now I feel silly for not realizing that sooner.

[@glupik1234]

it's la mort d'Artur and Artur and auteur don't sound the same in french at all

[@rudetuesday]

I really enjoyed this video, especially since I'm in my mid 50s. Darned near any fave I have is problematic. What I think has changed in terms of popular discourse is how difficult it has been to enjoy (?) the loose/gray boundaries of cultural goods, and the analysis we use to parse what's happening inside us as we draw closely to things we like. "I was young" does so much heavy lifting for many of us. Sometimes we like ugly art, sometimes we deem ugly art beautiful because we love it, and sometimes we find our ugly selves beautiful because we love something that we recognize. I think this is something human beings do.

[@Torthrodhel]

As a portrayer of fairly non-boundary-breaking grunge music, my agreement with this is basically what my stuff is trying to get people to feel (how successfully being for others to judge, of course). I love it when art dives into that, and try to echo it. Grasping at the weirdest and least comfortable emotions I can locate and going here feel this, innit like a dream? I try to be averse to flippant dismissals, though. "I was young" is never a thing I want to catch myself saying. I wanna give myself a proper slap each time I do. I'm 41 so a bit younger, so maybe that has something to do with that (or maybe not). I love a lot of ugly art. Not so much the ugly artists, but still not perfect in that respect either.

[@Ember_Green]

Great video! There are a few "autistic" characters that spring to mind now I think about it, with whom I relate & enjoy seeing in the same way people here describe, like, there isn't much out there so any representation of yourself triggers some kind of feelings. Even if it's problematic pseudo-representation that you wish SO much was better.

[@zikkthegreat]

omg yes

[@fenrik8178]

The representation that sucks the worst is when an allistic person is portraying an autistic character without even an autistic person or a specialist having been consulted. (Or the only specialist consulted is autism speaks which is just ugh) Oftentimes the best autistic representation for me personally is characters I head canon as autistic that the writers probably didn’t even mean to be.

[@sleepinbelle9627]

​@@fenrik8178 I was thinking about this after we collectively lost our minds over The Good Doctor (surgeon). I think the reason that "Captial A" Autistic characters often feel so off is that they're playing autism based on a medical summary. They don't see the ways that real autistic people learn to manage their struggles to engage with allistic society. I think it's why they often come across so childlike. By contrast, when a character is written unintentionally autistic the portrayal feels a lot more genuine because the artists are probably drawing on real people they know who happen to be, whether they realise it or not, autistic. Like, Sherlock Holmes was written before the word autism was even coined, but he still reads as autistic to me because he's written like a human being.

[@turtleanton6539]

Yes indeed😊

[@ConvincingPeople]

I immediately knew from the second you began your hypothetical that you were talking about Lolita, and I was incredibly pleased when you brought up Jamie Loftus' essential Lolita Podcast. Honestly, Nabokov's work in general is frequently problematic in the original sense precisely because it centres itself on protagonists whose motives are not to be trusted while refusing to offer any sort of pat moral instruction to the audience; sometimes, as with Lolita, this leads people to bring extremely bad and bad-faith interpretations to the table, but that's what makes Nabokov both challenging and rewarding: He leaves it to you to think for yourself and trusts that, as an intelligent good-faith reader, you will come away with a meaningful experience. Which I think is great, but it sucks when a whole lot of people latch onto the surface aspects of his work (and really any work that is sufficiently transgressive) to push some really ugly stuff. Also, 100% agree with Kristoph on how consumption and justice are functionally unconnected. There is an odd tendency particularly in music-listening circles for a certain kind of person to equate the two and righteously condemn those who enjoy art by artists who have said or done reprehensible things regardless of whether they support that artist financially, or for that matter regardless of whether or not they might have directly contrary views to the artist and act on them in the real world, and I honestly find that attitude deeply frustrating. What's more, the Nabokov issue remains in play: Didacticism does not ensure good faith in the interpreter, nor does openness to interpretation inherently ensure bad faith; likewise with art whose source may be, well, questionable at best. It remains, as you point to here, on the conscientious audience to negotiate their own relationship to the work, not for someone else to tell them not to engage at all.

[@xxxaragon]

"He leaves it to you to think for yourself and trusts that, as an intelligent good-faith reader, you will come away with a meaningful experience." Unfortunately I legitimately believe to there are way too many (supposed?) well-meaning "wokies" for which that doesn't work. Like, I'm refering to the kind of people that will get hung up on certain words (and damn something/make judgments about it) without +any+ regard for the context. So a complete lack of nuance. For these people, anything that is somewhat ambigious, not "clear-cut" etc. is questionable by default.

[@EmilyParagraph]

speaking of problematic shakespeare, my fav of his is The Taming of the Shrew. its awful, it has awful messaging, but i love the final monologue because it sounds so mocking--to me--of what the rest of the play was saying. i actually love it so much i hate it and have an idea simmering in the back of my mind of a retelling that leans more into what i love about hate-to-love relationships: two strong-headed people in precarious situations finding common ground and helping each other to outwit the society that put them there in the first place.

[@lachlainegordon806]

YAASSSSSSSS THANK YOUUUU I firmly agree that by the end Kat had found a way to not only play, but win the game she was put in. Also, I think by putting a Woman like that as the main character he was (Shakespeare) was trying to introduce the idea of “what would happen if a woman was like this”. I can imagine how cathartic watching that final monologue would be especially for women in his time. Here’s the way I think about it: Kat was tryna avoid marriage bc she didn’t feel prepared for it bc she didn’t really have a mom. I think she was trying to hold onto the freedom of girlhood for as long as possible and the prospect of entering the next stage of her life freaked her out. I also think that she was intellectually stimulated by Petruchio’s advances (kinda like a cat). I believe that by the end of the play Kat and Petrucio respect each other because they bond over both overcoming challenges ( keep in mind how freaking satisfying it would for Kat to prove literally everyone who disrespected her, wrong ). Im sorry for the long rant but I agree with that last statement one hundred percent. The final monologue reads like its an inside joke that the couple is sharing so that they can gain the maximum amount of money and astonishment from others as a way to say “HA! You guys thought you would win the bet but we did. Now give us the cash”. Anyways: I agree

[@megsley]

and the majority of people are still gonna read the taming of the shrew over your retelling.

[@aurizzistic]

Hot take: you don't need to feel guilty if you enjoy something created by a horrible person. Its okay if your fave is problematic. Just pirate whatever they produce. Sometimes the world just spits out disgusting people who are really good at something. It does not reflect on you as a person unless you like them because theyre problematic lol.

[@jamesparker7377]

3:04

[@jamesparker7377]

🎉😢😢 3:32 3:32🎉 😊 4:05😢 🎉😢😢😂😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢

[@jamesparker7377]

😅😅😮

[@jamesparker7377]

😢😢😢

[@xxxaragon]

Yes, that's essentially my take on that. Honestly, I'd have no issue listening to nazi black metal if I liked the songs. But I would likely not buy it (etc.) and would probably not +promote+ the band (online), maybe outside of circles that I'm certain "get" that distinction.

[@dunnejos8423]

Lady Gaga referring to "the gays" as being problematic is bizarre, because she's bisexual herself. We refer to ourselves as "the gays" all the time as a form of reclamation. And honestly because it's hilarious to mock those who use the term in a demeaning way.

[@gothicanimegirl44]

I might be wrong but i don't think she was out at the time so people took it as a straight person saying it

[@wakeup2realityostriches]

because she logical even if flawed

[@dunnejos8423]

@@gothicanimegirl44 she was out already before she was even signed to a label or had an album, she just wasn't "out" in the media sense which like, is kind of the story for most bisexual celebrities. It's the societal assumption of straight as default.

[@gothicanimegirl44]

@@dunnejos8423 right I was meaning publicly out. And especially at that time straight was the default.

[@JelloIntegral]

⁠@@dunnejos8423can we have bisexual be the default, just for a few centuries or something, as payback for all the bi erasure 😂

[@geoffdewitt6845]

I mean, I'm a fan of Heinlein (especially Starship Troopers), the Wheel of Time series, and old-school D&D, so it's nice to hear people work through these same issues.

[@jldx7]

So much appreciation for this essay and your entire channel!! As a supplemental resource, I want to recommend episode 40 of The Feminist Present podcast where they speak with the person who started the "Your Fave is Problematic" blog, Liat Kaplan, who gives integral context and reflections on the origin of the blog and how she feels about its legacy now.

[@Bobson_Dugnutt_Esq]

YFIP was somewhat akin to places like KiwiFarms, where they claim they’re “just observing” but they end up saying way more than the “nothing” they claim to say

[@acidstrummer]

I just found out hoots is problematic :(

[@aboomination897]

the comment i did not dare to post

[@lillith3159]

I mean...she speaks ill of the dead (wich i love by the way)

[@78theworm]

Omg fuxkin cancelled.

[@Jane-oz7pp]

I made that joke first and nobody liked it, this is a crime.

[@modvavet]

Problematic hoots

[@gamewrit0058]

1:10:30 "Art that is more inclusive is more interesting." Excellent topic, questions, conversation, and editing, Hoots! 👏 I agree with the idea that we need to learn from problems in media (a reflection of our society), instead of completely censoring them. Media literacy can be improved by disclaimers and using critical (that is analytical) lenses to engage with media on a regular basis throughout life. To use a nature metaphor: I can't avoid or identify poison oak, or treat a rash from accidentally putting my foot in it, if I haven't been taught what it looks like or why it can hurt me.

[@Kiseochan]

Theres something that really unsettles me about movies, music writing and such being permanently erased. Maybe keep certain things away from children and emphasize the importance of viewing them through critical eyes. Im not sure what exactly the thing is that makes me uneasy about it is but some things that come to mind is that; -at the end of the day, the people or person in charge of who choses what is erased is a fallible human with thier own uncomplete views. - it feels similar to the hiding of information. -it hides concrete examples of the reality of the (often terrible) ways humans used to think. -i just feel icky about things being hidden. From book bannings to the fact that search engines can conveniently show a very limited number of search results rather than all of them. -im vaguely aware that this my view on this isn't one that has research behind it, and that there are probably flaws and exceptions to be considered but im not sure on the specifics.

[@Sammyandbobsdad]

Kubrick is a problematic favorite. Brilliant yes but an abusive motherf-ker. He isn’t as bad as Polanski or Woody Allen (he doesn’t rape children) whose work I now will not watch despite the genius, but I have a problem with the genius excuses the abuse or narcissism. Caravaggio is one of my favorite Renaissance painters, but he was a truly awful person, but 400 years later, the genius is all that remains. It’s a tough call to recognize the greatness without condoning the bad, honestly it comes down to each of us.

[@dinosaysrawr]

Great choice! Yeah, Kubrick was a brilliant director and a first-class abusive asshole.

[@averyjeanne]

I have such a complicated relationship with Kubrick. The Shinning and Eyes Wide Shut are two of my favorite movies, but I can’t stand any of his other films. What he did to his actors in the Shinning was absolutely disgusting, yet it’s the one movie I can watch over and over again and still find something new to love about it.

[@andthatsshannii]

Whenever I critique a text’s more problematic elements, there will always be people who assume that means I’m saying they can’t enjoy the text anymore. In my opinion, critiquing a problematic text is the only way I feel ethical enjoying it. Like, I feel like it’s much more useful to point out where the bad tropes are so we’re more aware of them and less likely to be negatively impacted by them. Then we can just have fun with the rest of the stuff

[@mse90]

I did not expect a musical based on Ferenc Molnár’s book to be the centrepiece of a video essay on problematic faves, but here I go with my assumptions! Turns out, I can now be everyone’s fave problematic Hungarian for never having read Liliom in the first place. 😢

[@Dinnyeify]

I can be the second favorite problematic Hungarian for not even knowing about Liliom! 😅

[@blazing_orchids]

i agree with zoe bee (edit: and carene rose mekertichyan!) - all your faves are problematic. no one is perfect and everyone is flawed, and most celebrities/writers/directors have so much more power over our culture and over other people than most of us. everyone's mileage varies over what they can overlook when consuming art or supporting a celebrity, and that's okay. i think it is just important to be AWARE of their problematic behavior/beliefs and to not assume they can do no wrong also really enjoyed kristoph's discussion of the soviet punk band. there are a LOT of really really problematic things within the punk scene that no one ever talks about - i feel like a lot of ppl put punk on a pedestal and ignore all the misogyny and racism because "nazi punks fuck off." as if hating nazi absolves someone of all their shitty beliefs/behavior. there's also a lot of punk music that is like offensive on purpose to make you think about your own beliefs critically but in kind of an edgy south park way - that's my favorite kind because part of me still has the humor of a 12 year old in 2009

[@btarczy5067]

I like so many things that are problematic that I hardly know where to start. To me it's about recognizing what I like about it while being aware of how that can be either problematic without question or interpreted in a way that makes it problematic. What I find annoying is the holier-than-thou attitude that's dismissive about anything and everything problematic as if it didn't have any appealing qualities to begin with. And that annoyance could be problematic in and of itself. Even though I don't fully buy into "death of the author" interpretations I can block out pretty horrible shit that authors (as in whoever made something, not specifically writers) have done when the art is compelling to me and not everyone can do that - which is not a deficiency in any way, just a difference. Still annoys me. It gets a bit harder when it's not about who made it but about what they made. For one, if the author was racist, a sex offender or whatever else it stands to reason that it informed their perspective when they created something even if it's not obvious on the surface. And with art that wears its problems on its sleeve... Well, it can be complicated and revealing. I can still have fun with an old James Bond movie when it's imperialist, not so much when sexual assault is depicted as acceptable. It can be interesting to see where my emotional connection to a topic is and examine why that might be.

[@delecti]

Another fantastic video. Personally, in the wake of the cancelling of creators I still respect, I've definitely changed how I look at "problematic" art. I'm less sympathetic to the idea of "this is bad so we must abolish it".

[@unticinesetrans]

I'm so happy to see more videos from creators I like being edited by Babila, he has such a creative editing style and it's lovely to see it spread :3

[@michcarp]

as someone who STILL frequently googles "[celebrity name]+your fave is problematic" I've never clicked on anything faster. and as a soprano whose LIFETIME achievement was as soloist in You'll Never Walk Alone, I'll probably watch it a few times through for the algo 😅 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@princesskittyglitter]

The Pickle Rick episode first came on April Fools Day while I was at an anime con. Imagine that guy screaming Pickle Rick, times 1000, for like two days straight. 🙄

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Hope you were able to regain some of your sanity after that you poor bastard! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY deserved something like that! I was deployed in the Balkan Region several times during the 90's and early 00's - and if I had to pick between what you were forced to go through, and some of the shit we went through, you wouldn’t be able to see the soles of my boots because I would be running all the way to Balkan out of fear that if I took a plane, someone would change the destination! I feel so bad for you, genuinely! While I like what I’ve seen of Rick & Morty, I have a harder time liking most of the fans I’ve encountered!

[@anfisachern8570]

I did not expect to hear the words гражданская оборона in this video but here you are

[@starpasta]

Thoroughly enjoyed this! I knew you were talking about Lolita in the hypothetical, and then I got even more excited when you mentioned Jamie Loftus' Lolita Podcast! It's one of my favorite pieces of media ever, and I STILL need to read the actual book!

[@chcknpie04]

I’m amazed that Harry Potter didn’t get mentioned

[@sopranophantomista]

My problematic fave of media, for decades at this point, is Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera. I can't say much about the book that it's based on, mostly because I've only read it once and then have never read it again. The musical though? The musical I know inside and out, top to bottom, sideways and all ways. Phantom was the musical that got me into theatre, and into musical theatre, and I love the costumes, the sets, the pacing. I love that when the casts jive, the really, really jive, and it's a beautifully tragic story of a man looking for love and never truly finding it. What he does find, the crux of the musical in it's closing moments, is forgiveness, and how that forgiveness can free you... HOWEVER, I also realize that the Phantom is an older man preying on a younger woman's trust, and that power dynamic is scary and downright predatory. The Comte doesn't care about her well-being either, she's just a prize to be won from the big bad. The Phantom character at the time could be considered one of the biggest self inserts of the writer towards someone in their life. Lloyd Webber was married to the original Christine, Sarah Brightman, at that point, and there's a lot of sexually charged moment in the stage show that reflects this passion. The passion evolves to the point of obsession, and how precariously it places the person of obsession in question. Christine's friend and the Ballet mistress are the only two that believe her, and the misogyny that comes from none of the men really, truly believing Christine's in danger is horrifying in this day and age. The stage play, and the novel it's based on, tries to reward the tragic, put upon musical genius and his obsession. And, let's not even get to the whitewashing of the character of the Persian, a knowing individual that helps those that hunt down the Phantom by giving them advice to 'keep your hand at the level of your eyes', dare you find yourself in the Phantom's lasso traps. Lindsay Ellis has actually done some great work on Phantom on the Opera, and I would highly suggest you watch her videos, as she can articulate the points I made above way better than I ever could.

[@J.J._777_]

29:45 Thank you for saying this. I grew up watching my father being emotionally abused by my mother, and it was traumatizing. There also seems to be plenty of domestic violence among same-sex couples. All domestic abuse is terrible.

[@twistysunshine]

So so glad we talked about the tumblr history part of this. There is an entire chunk of media analysis done in the last decade (AND conservative backlash to analysis!) That makes no sense at all without being able to discuss the tumblr history. To see where "cancel" went from "black people trying to tell other black people to stop playing r kelly at parties" to "Ben Shapiro whining about how a transphobe was cancelled" requires an interim step where a bunch of white teenagers on tumblr took that word from black people and started using it in places like the blog yfip or also just. When you were no longer friends with another blogger and wanted other people on the platform to stop spreading their posts where you might have to see them. And a lot of us are engaging with Ben like that middle step didn't happen, and i think without discussing the middle step we are doomed to keep repeating the "appropriate AAVE and now white people are using it to offend one another and create entirely new unthoughtful forms of discourse" cycle

[@ItsPascaltheOtter]

I was recently re-watching the show Roseanne for the first time in a long time after I had came across her current stick of going all in on the "groomer" grift in that stand up special she was in. That was a show I used to watch a lot in my adolescence cause it was just so real in its depiction of working class families, feminist ideals, and being an early example of gay representation. There were a lot of incredible moments that I thought we could learn from and adapt into the current context of what's going on in the real world now, like scenes from the end of the first season where her and her co-workers all quit in protest after a new boss comes in to make their lives harder. Or a few seasons later when she and her family had another snooty boss home for dinner and for her husband to help him with a school project too, only for him to fire her in front of them, and the entire family deservedly roasted him on his way out, including the husband destroying his project they had completed (the boss was also young, which I liked because that meant he could learn early on the hard way that you don't get to get away with fucking over someone's family). Stuff like that really stick out as peak moments from it. But as you get into it, you realize that the namesake in the show is a far cry from who she is now. That first season of the reboot put a lot of her current behavior into perspective when her character was written to be a Trump voter during the 2016 election, even though that was handled really well in showing a realistic perspective of why someone might have voted for him. Now that she's all in on the anti-trans groomer panic, it makes you wonder how much of the entire show is a grift and how much is authentic. That's the real slap in the face I've received. But even show, I think regardless we can still learn from when Roseanne was at it's peak and create our own stories with them, or apply them to real world situations as stuff like unions are becoming more popular and inevitable. I know I did with my co-workers recently when we all got our racist lead to quit a few weeks back by going to HR after she got all power trippy and did nothing when another lead from a different crew was allowed to scream and cuss at us. None of us were having that, so we all decided to rat on our leads and bosses, and they got punished for not listening to us. While it was an entire collective shift that took action, it reminded me of that one scene from Roseanne I mentioned, where I was able to learn from a moment of television an apply it to a real life environment for the better of myself and all my co-workers. Experiences like this is why I think it's important to remember our problematic faves. We can critique how the piece of media is, or the people involved with it are, and we definitely should. But we have them as our faves because they have something that resonated with us in some way despite the stuff that hasn't aged well. Cause the stuff we resonated with helps make us who are. We don't need be putting problematic shows or people on a pedestal anymore, but we can remember the things that can help us be good people and look for those same qualities in something else that doesn't contribute to any harmful rhetoric.

[@theponderingplumb9790]

Your videos are fantastic- thanks for uploading and collaborating with so many other great creators!

[@FuzzyKittenBoots]

I see your "Gone With the Wind" and I will raise you *Tintin in Congo*

[@ConvincingPeople]

Oh boy, that's… a rough one.

[@FuzzyKittenBoots]

@@ConvincingPeople Even the Congolese dogs worship Tintin's white dog by the end....

[@chellybub]

I watched the '97 version of Lolita with my high-school friends, we were a bunch of misanthropes and only watched the film because we were told not to by all decent folk. I was the only one to go on to read the novel, and it really expanded my mind. Though it was something I was afraid to bring up with my pre-tertiary Creative Writing English teacher (I don't know what you might call it but it is one of the English studies you take to prepare for University). I blew her away with my unreliable narration with a short story in my folio, which went over the heads of external assessors, landing me a middling grade and ending my dalliance with writing. My problem child (to take a phrase from Hoffman) is none other than the Holy Bible. My Wife and I were raised good little Christians, but both came to fairly different conclusions, which are the same destination. Personally, I think Julian Jaynes is onto something about why we have religion, and whilst my wife might agree with me, we still have Theological debates regularly. The reason is that I was raised a Pentecostal, and she was raised Anglican. To paraphrase Catch 22 and tailor it to our situation, our fundamental issue is this: The God I don't believe in is a Pentecostal God, where as the God she doesn't believe in is the God of the Church of England. How absurd. Great vid-essay. Bis bis!!

[@erasserta4246]

didn't expect to hear about гражданская оборона in this video 😳 tbf the band had other problematic aspects aside from the nazbol stuff, but they didnt stop it from being one of the most iconic russian punk bands overall this is a very good video! you had made a great exploration of such a complex theme

[@Scooter_Alice]

I actually really like this video. I actually have been liking your content a lot but i was still surprised by how much more thoughtful and introspective this video is than I thought it would be. Unfortunately there's a few "breadtubers" who treat this sort of thing like a lunch table, where if you like something they think is bad they basically say "you can't sit with us". I appreciate you not doing that, while still not pretending that there's nothing wrong with a lot of these celebrities and their behaviors.

[@loorthedarkelf8353]

I can't think of anything intelligent to say, so I'll just say thank you for putting together this amazing discussion, and thank you to all your collaborators for taking the time to enhance the project!

[@RickNelsonMn]

At @49:00 your build up to "Lolita" had me onto my Charles Bukowski problematic fandom. He was such an irascible man of degradations. His poetry caught me in the first years of my sobriety. I read and thought about him the last year I was quite active seeking ways to be wasted in 1999. My March 2000 sobriety, age 38, began an education I have maintained. Buk gave me a weirdly aspirational lifestyle in poems. His biography set me to imagining a life where there was just enough money to f off the system. But, his misogyny is/was apparent. It was a thorn in the lifestyle of not giving a damn about whatever! Plus, I have always given a damn. And I've never read "Atlas Shrugged". Largely because my high school years were trauma and ended my Junior year. Then later, it wasn't required reading in any courses I took in college. I didn't have it on my radar until I knew how much vitriolic disdain I hold for Libertarian ideals. To me, there's not enough grey area of overlap into my sense of humanity which redeems Libertarianism. Not an iota! I hold a vitriolic response to Libertarians as I do to Republicans, racists, bigots and fascists. Well, that seems a wild tangent from Bukowski. Forgive my wandering mind, or don't. I have parts of me that take a lot of effort to understand and therefore care about. Meaning you don't know me, and why should you?! Now I dug up sadness, and don't have an ending.

[@ConvincingPeople]

It is worth noting that, ironically, Ayn Rand held right-libertarians and particularly "anarcho-capitalists" such as Murray Rothbard in tremendous disdain, considering their worldview fundamentally incompatible with her own. Call it the vanity of small differences. :P

[@OverAnalyst]

Seeing Phantom at 12: OMG so romantic! Seeing Phantom now: YIKES so much wrong here. Mildly embarrassed that my 1st theater crush was a murdery stalker & kidnapper. TBF he's shown as a romantic lead, just sOoOo iN LoVe he had do some bad things, poor fella. Plus I was naïve. Wish I could talk with "tween me" about healthy relationships vs 🚩🚩 - while agreeing those songs are bangers. Thanks for such a nuanced, thought-provoking vid on this!

[@Pinka13]

I mean... The phantom is a villain character. He's supposed to do villainous things.

[@dklee.01]

perfect timing as brittany broski- someone i used to like- doubled down on her support for problematic celebrities as well as her use of aave and minimizing it to “internet slang”

[@algebraizt]

Omg the Lolita movies yes. It was the 1997 one I watched after reading the book and I kept thinking "Oh yeah this is a really interesting adaption for film. Film's a visual medium so you can't use the same techniques. If it showed what was really happening it would be so obvious that he's a predator. So this is *his* visual narrative and at some point we're going to cut to a 'reality' shot. Dolores body language is going to not be seductive but uncomfortable that sort of thing right?" Aaaaand then the scene never came and it took me like 19 showers to feel normal again.

[@Johnny_T779]

It's different if your fave is dead or alive really. Lovecraft or Rudyard Kipling were products of their time, long dead, so it doesn't have the same impact on me, as Stephen King or Marilyn Manson. These are really heartbreaking for me 😅. And finding out that Sonsombre's band leader is an active member of a white nationalism hate group... Well, I can't listen anymore to someone who would gladly hatecrime me! I am this dude's nightmare (multiracial, trans, pansexual...). Same with Harry Potter. I tend to be way more affected if the problematic person has views against people like me than other stuff. Like I'm directly targeted.

[@-tera-3345]

Well, Lovecraft was even seen as being far too extreme even by his peers, so "a product of his time" is being a bit too nice to him. But on the other hand, he did appear to have mostly repented by the end of his life, and while the influence of some of his more rotten beliefs is pretty clearly visible at places in it, much of his work has taken on new meaning to the very people who would be affected by it.

[@Akasha6915]

Feel the same, I was a huge and almost close to a Manson stan when I was younger. His birthday is right here in my user name, and because of how deep I was in that fandom and love of his music I absolutely believe ERW. And yeah, there is something different in how i feel about a dead artist who can't benefit from my enjoyment the way a living artist does. Just hard, especially when that work meant a lot. I get some of the folks I know who lost their safe fandom in Harry Potter.

[@Torthrodhel]

I tend to disagree a little with this interpretation. To me it seems like a dead artist can still have a powerful effect on the ways people shape their thoughts about the world. A lot of intent does bleed into someone's output (whether deliberate or not) and yeah, I think of this as maybe a bit naiive, even possibly a bit perilous? Sure, figures like Rowling can and are actively harming. That is a difference, I just don't necessarily think it's as big a difference as it's often thought to be. Not in the way of the active ones being less damaging so much as in the way of the passive ones being more damaging. I dunno, am I wrong?

[@spinnenpfotedonnerclan5318]

I definitely agree with this a lot, though I'm not up to date with everything - what was the controversy with Stephen King? 🤔

[@jacquelinealbin7712]

@Jane Ross: I personally think that if they're dead, the money spent supporting them isn't being sent to fund hate groups or fund discrimiatory legislation. And they can't be alive to see support for their work as support for their views. They also can't actively engage in promoting hate if they're no longer around. Like, Handel isn't rising out of the grave to spew antisemitism if somebody perfoms one of his operas the way that JKR will go on the news and demonize trans people if people keep buying her work.

[@thelmadelyte5890]

As always, this was a joy to watch (sorry for watching it earlier on the television while I sewed and coming back to comment later). I especially enjoyed the discussion of Lolita, a book I've wrestled with for years.

[@ephre]

That was a really great video, when i saw the list of interviewees i did get a little worried it was going to be a bit too moist, but it turned out to be perfectly baked.

[@kandyjo]

I joined the live feed right when Sondheim showed up on screen and I started sweating. Great video hoots!!

[@MuttPlaysMAGIC]

My parents did the same thing for the Disney Channel! I watched nearly all of Don Blum's reprotoire in the early 90s with ZERO context along with a bunch of random shit, lol.

[@yakovgolyadkin]

20:10: "Have you ever seen [3rd Rock from the Sun]? It's an old sitcom..." Damn, Mandy out here making me feel super old right now, I watched that as new episodes were being made.

[@shannond1511]

I read this as “your face is problematic” I was thinking someone really confrontational for no reason

[@yasielromero8236]

😂

[@austensg9596]

“We are all somebody’s problematic fave.”

[@Rosencreutzzz]

Glad to have the opportunity to expose more people to one of the most obscure bands I've ever listened to. Even if they had their whole *nazbol* moment. (Not to downplay the problematic since that's the appeal of the video but at some point the frontman did end up distancing from the nazbols and got into "eco-anarchism" instead...which I can only pray doesn't mean an-prim stuff)

[@AxlPatrol]

I think a lot of the people who subscribe to the idea of totally discarding old "problematic" classics are a little to confident that future generations will agree with everything they say/do.

[@WallebyDamned]

Lovecraft made his own cat problematic.

[@TheoEvian]

I think a big part of a work of a philologist or anybody who sincerely engages with a piece of media is to rescue it, not condemn it. There is very little learning in saying that Ayn Rand had funny ideas about how society works and what people should be like and say that nobody ever should read her books because of it. On some level I do agree with Rita Felsky that critical theory is too negative in its approaches and we should read restoratively, which is in no way a carte blanche for anything. We can learn from (and even enjoy, even though in the field of literary analysis I think enjoyment is a scarce currency) the problematic, accept it, and find value in the work regardless.

[@rachelblake2350]

My problematic fave is Zack Snyder's Watchmen. He fundamentally misunderstood the source material, and glorified what the book mocked, especially when it comes to Rorschach. The way he sexualises sexual violence is just grotesque, and the way he sexualises violence itself is uncomfortable. But you know what? Apart from that, it's a fantastic adaption. The direction is great, the cast is great, the soundtrack is great, and the ending is better. And that's a hill I'll die on. The Watchmaker sequence is just beautiful and melancholy and well edited, and the editing overall is pretty tight for a nearly four hour film. It shows an overall love for the original, even if it is at times a misguided love, and is executed with enough style and flair and competency that it just works for me. I understand all the criticisms more than anyone, but I still think it does enough to count among the best adaptions I can think of.

[@Jane-oz7pp]

Yea Alan Moore outright called Snyder a fascist for his interpretation, and the man ain't wrong, Snyder's movies all carry fascist undertones and aesthetics. He's a large part of the reason that Moore now hates EVERYONE that likes even the original comics.

[@Torthrodhel]

@@Jane-oz7pp I always feel like that's a ridiculously divaish reaction by Moore who should probably get over himself a bit. Like come on dude you wrote a great comic, be a bit more proud of it. Don't let some random director's interpretation install a complex like that in your mind. Really shouldn't cause that. Even after saying that, I do really agree with the OP. The ending's better. The film itself I have a huge soft spot for, just for being a very direct adaptation... even if it missed some important points of the source material, it was at least still honest in the attempt and there's so precious little of that out there! What you usually get is someone trying to "make their own mark" by throwing an entire thing in a big blender for no bloomin' reason and shuffling everything around... "adaptations" that'd be unrecogniseable if they didn't slap the title on them to make them sell. I guess my point is it can be SO much worse and you get this common defeatist attitude that goes "ah adaptation can be whatever you want man" and I'm just so against that, and I suppose this is a film that does demonstrate that can work when you're being really straightforward about it (which the "whatever" people don't seem to believe is possible). Love it for that reason I think. I'm a massive fan of the Silent Hill games so there's your context for my opinion when it comes to adaptation. Dear gods those films (and consequently all the games that followed them) were off the flippin' mark.

[@lessevilnyarlathotep1595]

@@Torthrodhel i mean, if you had to deal with frank fucking miller and all the other moore copycats brand of bullshit for years on end, i think you're entitled to be a bit of a diva about it

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

I can’t even disagree with you! It’s just, in its own league!

[@rachelblake2350]

@@Torthrodhel to be fair, Moore is known to be a complete diva, to various levels of justification. But yeah, I agree with you. I understand the argument of "you have to put your own spin on it if you are adapting something in the first place, otherwise why bother?" And I think the opposite argument is equally valid: "Why bother adapting something if you're just going to change it?" I think Snyder did a good enough job correcting the ending, but as we've established, fumbled the thematic storytelling. As far as the raw art of straight up transferring something from page to screen goes, it's fantastic, but lacks that deeper layer of theme and purpose. And to be honest, Snyder *does* have some incredibly questionable political opinions, like his obsession with Ayn Rand objectivism that Moore absolutely despises, so I understand Moore calling him a fascist. Not exactly the hottest take this century.

[@Hotsingesl]

"I don't want to use up all of your recording time, you can-" immediately moves on to the next segment

[@TheOneTrueAnthemis]

WHOMST AMONG US doesn't stan a problematic Queen

[@rachael5025]

i think about this vid a lot when i think of the messy things i love. thanks for making it and keeping me thinking and caring.

[@a_real_one2000]

Informative video. You bought a question that warrants thought it was whether a production is worth be reproduced in the future? For me I fall on 2 opinions one was is to insure the wronged/harmed party is being aided. 2) can problematic art be engaged in new critical way. I’m mostly looking into the theater space. As Black man who recent starting to watch older movies from the 60,50,30s I find myself watching critically & often seeing how good the movies may be becuz of certain character types/stereotypes it often undercuts the themes.

[@NAETEMUSIC]

as a Richard Wagner stan, I have needed a video like this to unpack the simultaneous facts that I found incredible queer liberation in the characters like Lohengrin and Brünhilde while also grappling with the fact that Mime and Alberich existed side by side with these characters as antisemitic stereotypes. Thank you THANK YOU for this video essay.

[@alphaiguess2900]

omg the one other grazhdanskaya oborona fan here! nearly jumped out of my seat when I heard it mentioned!!! great music

[@TakeTheStep10]

This was a great video. Truly looking at our tastes with nuance and knowing what is excellent and what is flawed and why is the best we can do. I found it very interesting how sheepish some folks became while admitting to loving masterpieces. Dances with Wolves is an exceptional film, both Atlas Shrugged and Gone with the Wind are literary classics, H.P. Lovecraft is a legend. There’s no shame in understanding and enjoying the value in these works, while knowing the controversies and deeply entrenched problematic elements that ride right along. Have yourself nuanced observation and critical thinking, and no shame necessary. This video could have done better with a bit more focused editing. Meaning watching people rattling off answers to questions I didn’t know were being asked puzzled me. I know they were asked a question, but without knowing what the question was and watching them ramble and talk around was rather confusing. Comprehending their answer while deciphering the question was a bit of effort and it was difficult for my neurodivergent mind to focus.

[@benjamindesjarlais5713]

This was incredible! I'd love if you or someone could link the creators and external media mentioned so more folks can easily follow/find them ❤

[@hootsyoutube]

Apologies, everyone should be tagged now. For some reason my initial description didn't save.

[@benjamindesjarlais5713]

@@hootsyoutube ty!!

[@aggersoul23]

Extremely entertaining and very informative and many more adjectives. Loved it, Hoots off to you!

[@DavidLindes]

1:13:55 - I was wondering if that moment would come. :) And Zoe's "oh no!" was priceless. :) Nice exploration, hoots!

[@jsrodman]

I came in with no context, being bewildered why youtube was suggesting this video. I left with s lot to think about. Thanks for the work.

[@SIDEKICKDUSTY]

Everyone is pop-o-matic, because its fun getting into trouble

[@Jane-oz7pp]

this one wins

[@intrepidabsurdist]

Is there even such a thing as an unproblematic fav? And if so, what would that even look like?

[@GaasubaMeskhenet]

Omfg Loleetah is my favorite fashion style and now the word is banned on like every website and it's KILLING ME

[@gorimbaud]

Was thinking about who my problematic fave was since the video started, but Carene came in with my exact answer and reasoning. Though it wasn't Moulin Rouge for me, it was a different film from 2001, A Knight's Tale.

[@aj7058]

Your singing is so beyond beautiful.

[@dinosaysrawr]

Side thought: One of my genuine pet peeves is when people use "problematic" as a frankly-cowardly euphemism for "evil," "bigoted," or "bad." My feeling is that it should be reserved for morally-grey, mixed, complex, and nuanced people and things, and not for things and people the speaker has already decidedly are mostly-or-entirely-bad---for example, it would be absolutely laughable to call Hitler "problematic!" I wish more people were willing to just openly own their feelings and convictions in this regard, because I get tired of people using the word "problematic" in a way that suggests an awareness and appreciation for nuance or complexity, and then operate as if the thing or person in question is cut-and-dry and black-and-white.

[@nekobun]

Someone hook the Cooks up with a table that has one leg shorter than the others, so Sarah can use Gone With The Wind to prop it up.

[@IanJAGreen]

La’Ron Readus would have been great for this 🤙🏽💕

[@NelsonStJames]

At this point the term problematic is thrown around so much, it’s almost lost meaning. Especially when you consider all the things being called problematic because the people doing it are not astute enough to realize they have missed the point of the thing they’re criticizing, or don’t understand it all all. So for me problematic has become subjective, and I assume people are adults and have the right to like what they like without any input from me, I also assume people are smart enough to know if something they like might be deemed problematic by the current society so that we can talk about it without me having to tell them every few minutes that it, or it’s creator is considered problematic.

[@loorthedarkelf8353]

Oh my gosh I feel so silly, I'm sitting here racking my brain trying to think of WTF my problematic fave is... And remember I like Anime, I HAVE SO MANY The most recent is the show is Overlord. The sexualization is gross, and tired, and so fucking indulgant is makes my brain wanna melt-- but if you get past those scenes there's some tasty fuckin plots going on. I really wish we could have gotten that WITHOUT the gross and infantalizing explotation of a character who literally cannot consent in any meaningful way! AND CONSTANT UNWANTED ADVANCES! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Its horrible but I can't stop watching it, see also Food Wars and everything about how it treats women on the show

[@br1na332]

This is incredible. Randomly watched your Harry Potter video after the mighty algorithm suggested it and I cannot believe I haven't come across your or the othersl people in the video before. Great stuff. Thank you!

[@nomonosferatu]

Always happy when a lil hoot video drops.😊

[@jimmyrrpage]

May I add my own problematic fave? Led Zeppelin

[@drowsy7921]

Same.

[@WallebyDamned]

The Fifth Element is one of my favorite movies, 'cept I can't watch it without thinking about how Luc Besson impregnated a 15yrold.

[@zoekellam4083]

Plus it's the grooming that keeps giving. That 15 year old has turned enabler. As an adult writer-director, she assaulted the boss of Médiapart, the French news agency that's been breaking most of the French metoo stories in culture and politics, including updates busting Besson for other acts. She grabbed the Médiapart guy by the hair and spat in his face.

[@kostajovanovic3711]

​@@zoekellam4083 and she directed a film with Johnny Depp

[@zoekellam4083]

@@kostajovanovic3711 that's why I heard about and I can talk about the assault - she admitted to it straight out on camera on some panel show she did as pre-publicity for the film she cast Depp in.

[@yasielromero8236]

Same, loved the Fifth Element as a kid watched it a bunch of times. Recently I've learned about Luc Besson being a creep and let's just say I'm glad I haven't been rewatching The Fifth Element in recent years

[@tsaniklidu]

As much as it’s hard to admit (or even do to be more exact) you need to criticise each artistic piece based on its respected time of creation. It is something we’re taught in Art School and I completely agree. If you don’t, then you’re doomed to not be able to enjoy any piece of art or media that has surpassed the 20 year mark (or even 10 year mark if we talk modern media considering modern technology). It is what it is and unless you’re like 10? 14? You ARE going to have problematic pieces of media that you’re going to enjoy because it has been part of your life in the current environment you were growing and living in. In the future, things we deem as morally correct now are going to be labelled as problematic and that’s okay because societies change and social normalcy isn’t a one way train that keeps running forward. I think that’s where appreciation for the arts lies in- your way of interpreting things based in your modern and personal view- if the piece still emotionally stunts you 200 years after a it’s making it means it has done its job and it should be considered a classic. As for artists or personas people aren’t programmed Ai. We’re all creations of our time and circumstance. That does not mean that one should excuse problematic behaviour but it certainly doesn’t mean you should crusade yourself if you happen to enjoy people who’s works speak to you in a personal and intimate way despite their creators being not-so-perfect ♡

[@loorthedarkelf8353]

18:12 so glad you kept that flub in, makes me giggle every time

[@jougjimmadome]

i am good at having problematic faves become special interests- current focus is the dragon age games, which Love to "both sides" slavery, but as a choice-based video game series I do think it's uniquely open to being Fixed

[@Torthrodhel]

Just at the beginning of slowly playing through those myself, and already recognising a little of what you're talking about.

[@s.s.6661]

!!! I'm so happy to hear you talk about Lolita here!! You get it!! Yes! Thank you!

[@chipmorris7797]

I was just thinking about this concept while listening to The Queen is Dead by The Smiths this morning. Love that band.

[@TrevorMcNeil-e1y]

Not but very few of my 'faves' are usually considered 'problematic.' Mostly on the outside myself, my favorites mostly involve those who openly criticize the worst excesses of a given society. Including the queen of backhanded sarcasm who was Jane Austen, and the slightly morbid but also gleeful dismantler of Grand Narratives known as Mervyn Peake.

[@resident-evil-jerma5389]

my problematic fav is clockcleaner. specifically babylon rules, i haven’t explored the rest of their discography. the album is a haunting and eerie exploration of the most insidious parts of toxic masculinity and sexism in american culture at the time. it delves deep into the most violent types of sexist hatred. it’s the kind of work that makes you nauseous when you listen to it. but if you turn it on but don’t Listen, it’s a bombastic musical cacophony that swallows you whole. it’s nearly a masterpiece. but it has issues. one of the standout issues is the guitarist and vocalist (john sharkey iii) is a complete asshole. screamed racial slurs at audience members and pissed on someone else’s property out of anger kind of asshole. he was hated in the Philadelphia punk scene and a lot of venues refused to host clockcleaner because of how massive of a dick this guy was. and why is he writing about this violence? in such a visceral and disgusting way? some people describe it as voyeuristic or punk adventure and if it can be interpreted like that, maybe it was how it was written and i can’t know that it wasn’t written for that purpose. i often feel embarrassed to like their music as much as i do, because despite being extremely well made, the lyrics can seem to be spouting disgusting things just to say them in certain songs and im really bothered by the idea that that could be the whole point. i don’t think it is, but i’m bothered by it. more bothered by the guy being a total ass though who was doing things to be inflammatory on purpose. it’s art about oppression made by a person who benefits from that oppression, which feels… not good in of itself but could be done well. this guy however was clearly not very self aware of his ability to further oppression and cause harm. this is one of those times a mostly good work is greatly harmed by context, shaking the very foundation and premise of the work versus just how we might feel about it. it’s hard to tell if it is an exploration and deconstruction or a twisted fantasy or just a way to say gross shit for fun after learning more about sharkey. and that sucks.

[@jerrys.9895]

As always, I am reminded why you are a criminally under-subbed channel. (Also, loved your cameo on TLC's vid!)

[@TwoWholeWorms]

Barely into the video, but that "OHHHHHHHH-" "Klahoma." edit made me proper belly laugh. xD

[@Teeto_K]

Ominous seeing so many of my faves show up after the intro... 😅 Jokes aside, I'm giddy to hear thoughts and insights on this from so many cool folks!

[@Sljm8D]

Keanu Reeves. He trains with LAPD Newton cops for his John Wick movies (which I love). 'nuff said, I hope.

[@AJX-2]

wholesome keanu chungus 100

[@jelyse14]

I keep forgetting which one/whatever they're talking about when it jumps to the next person.

[@veggyeater]

All my homies love гражданская оборона. My all time favourites are probably вечная весна, and у войны не женское лицо. A lot of the songs of that band have lyrics that are made specifically to not make sense, like an expressionist painting. It was a hard time for the country so the music reflected that and the mood of contemporary art in general

[@redmaple1982]

There is something so funny to me about hesitating to donate Gone With The Wind out of the fear of exposing people to its racism - the book is over 1000 pages long no one was going to read it anyway

[@ericvague19]

this was a great subject with a well executed video.