Wolf and MauLer VS Just Write [REUPLOADED]

[@periodicpete]

-So I only just found out that Wolf has a new channel. So, if you like this video (and especially if you want to make me feel better about having uploaded someone else's video on my own channel) Check it out here. It's small, but I'm hoping it will grow:- kzbin.info/door/LxMJq15PFt1CCUPoyJJbbQ EDIT: So, most of you should already know that the channel didn't work out. It looks as though this time Wolf is gone for good. I'm a little bit conflicted about leaving this video up. Wolf has said that he doesn't want his video's re-uploaded "just like before", but the last time he did this, Mauler made it clear it was OK to re-upload his streams, such as the Not So Great Debate, but Wolf wasn't specific about differentiating his streams from his other videos. Since I'm unclear, I will gladly take down both streams I have uploaded from Wolf's old channel, should Mauler, Rags, or anyone from EFAP expressly ask me to do so, Either in the comments, or in A Discord Far Far away (@PeriodicPete) That said, I have no way of stopping anyone from downloading it. Should you do so, in the event it would be taken down, I can only ask *PLEASE, DO NOT RE-UPLOAD IT.* This is all Hypothetical of course, but I want to make this clear. Until then, the debate is yours to enjoy.

[@rzedovah423]

What's his new channel?

[@periodicpete]

@@rzedovah423 Is the link not working for you?

[@rzedovah423]

@@periodicpete yea it wasnt computer been taking a shit lately on itself and a lot isn't working anymore but I got it working

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

According to his goodbye any streams that are like efap with Mauler are fine

[@periodicpete]

@@lordinquisitordunn336 That's reassuring. I never feel too certain about these kinds of things.

[@connormoorerocks]

"I had something really insightful to say here" I honestly laughed out loud

[@christiericardo3101]

This fundamentally boils down to, "if we can't agree there is objectivity, why the hell are we even talking about it?"

[@periodicpete]

I'm not sure I follow. The whole reason why they're talking at all is because they disagree. Could you explain?

[@christiericardo3101]

@@periodicpete Sure! Mauler and Wolf can't get anywhere with Just Write because he can't concede that there is such thing as objectivity. This is an overarching problem on almost all postmodern discourse. Mauler and Wolf are trying their hardest to get him there but he just can't agree. Not because he has any justifiable objection to it but because he can't bring himself to acknowledge that his personal inclinations and feelings don't square with facts/reality. It's an uncomfortable place to find yourself, sure, but it isn't intellectually honest. In the end, they all have to part ways without having gotten anywhere.

[@periodicpete]

@@christiericardo3101 I see. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@properduction2586]

@@christiericardo3101 1)Objectivity can bring genuine and coherent arguments into a debate...You never hear a objective defense for Luke's character in The Last Jedi or Rey not being a Mary Sue...because that clashes with the defenders feelings '' See i enjoyed it ... So its not a problem for me '' ...Or put it more simply ...You cant defend Last Jedi by bringing up Luke or Rey as ''CHARACTERS'' ... 2)The Last Jedi also poved that Disney actually ''PAYS'' Critics...I saw more than 10 Critic reviews on Metacritc,Rotten Tomatoes and guess what there argument for Luke's character was...'' Luke had a satisfying arc '' You cant have a satisfying arc when the character is inconsistent... 3)The idea that Objectivity damages discussion about movie is ridiculous when its the opposite...Subjectivity is the word you should use when you dont have a valid argument...And start off with '' Its just my opinion so please dont hurt me '' Then dont make an invalid opinion...

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@properduction2586 I don't disagree with your statements but I'd like to say that you should fix your formatting because it makes the comment harder to read, as well as the run-on sentences and ellipsis abuse. Also, I'd give better evidence for point 2 because the critics feeling that Luke had a satisfying arc doesn't necessarily mean they are payed off. That's all that I find contestable, everything else is fine.

[@SaintMaxxi]

You're doing The Cosmic Chicken's work, you massive. Subbed

[@periodicpete]

I'm making my next video on the topic of objective critique, so stay tuned for that. And let me know if there are any other streams from Wolf's channel you want me to reupload, and I'll see what I can do. The Don be with you as well, fellow massive.

[@amanibob1416]

Don be smilin' and dawn be shinin' upon you for givin' us that geode... Also: "hi Rag's!"

[@stelmaria-mx]

Praise the Long

[@No1important88]

Massive what?

[@shidelerdantheogre8487]

Mauler: things have to make some semblance of sense JW: that would make for boring art I can’t stop laughing

[@periodicpete]

None of us ever stopped laughing at Just Write

[@periodicpete]

@K Ren Mauler has been as respectful as reasonably possible, thanking Just Write for coming on to talk with him and Wolf, and even reaching out to him a couple times not long after to talk about other topics as well. He’s never advocated for people to attack or harass Just Write at any point, and I think you’ll find that the people who do are in the smallest minority. But Just Write, despite Mauler’s multiple offers, has never been interested in civil discourse since his initial talk on Wolf’s podcast. He doesn’t want to address their complaints and actively encourages other friends and general acquaintances of his not to associate with EFAP at all. I believe this is why people laugh at him. Not solely because he’s wrong, but because he wants to pretend like the people, who explain why his arguments are poorly constructed, don’t exist. Were he to discuss with them more often, even if he disagreed with them in the end, I imagine he’d be in a similar situation to where Jay Exci is right now. Jay is a perfect example of someone who disagreed with Mauler and others on EFAP, had his video deconstructed by them, talked with them and even actively engaged with them afterwards, and now he’s one of the most recognizable guests on their livestream in the most positive sense I can describe. Just Write has the capacity to make good and even thoughtful content, but he doesn’t want to face the people that tell him when he’s wrong.

[@thinhvo3893]

Just write isnt wrong. Alfred Hitchcock once said logic is dull. It doesnt make sense in his movie psycho keep record of a girl who he murder in his note book while burried her car and body. To insist that a storyteller stick to the facts is just as ridiculous as to demand of a representative painter that he show objects accurately. What’s the ultimate in representative painting? Color photography. Don’t you agree? There’s quite a difference, you see, between the creation of a film and the making of a documentary. In the documentary the basic material has been created by God, whereas in the fiction film the director is the god; he must create life. And in the process of that creation, there are lots of feelings, forms of expression, and viewpoints that have to be juxtaposed. We should have total freedom to do as we like, just so long as it’s not dull. A critic who talks to me about plausibility is a dull fellow. And that is the point just write try to make. I also believe you can argued objectivity exist like sure TLJ which show bomber images from world war 2 but how does it affect the story. Or how Phasma dissapeared and reappears when ship split matter in grand context? All of that is subjective.

[@shidelerdantheogre8487]

Thinh Vo Let me tell you where I agree and don’t agree. I think it’s entirely dependent on genre. Let’s take literature for example. I want the narrative to make sense in a work of historical fiction, in epic fantasy, in science fiction. Do I hold poetry or allegorical works, or certain pieces of magical realism in which everything is symbolic to the same standards and conventions as those other genres? Of course not It has everything to do with genre, and it has everything to do with the way the breach in logic makes a statement that serves a greater symbolic purpose. For example: Plato’s allegory of the cave makes no logical sense. How were those people being fed? How did they relieve themselves? How were they able to walk around if they were chained up their whole lives? Plato’s allegory of the cave is not meant to be interpreted this way. The same does not apply to Rian Johnson’s work. Admiral purple hair not informing her subordinates of a key military strategy because she “doesn’t trust Poe” Is not something symbolic or allegorical It’s something stupid and foolish because Johnson is not a particularly skilled writer

[@thinhvo3893]

@@shidelerdantheogre8487 No Johnson make Holdo not inform Poe to prove a point. If Holdo inform poe then there would be no conflict. A lot of these are deliberate because he want audience to side with poe and not Holdo so he could yank the rug under them. Johnson if anything is a very skill writter. He very deliberate in his intention and what he doing. And again if Holdo tell poe the plan there would be no conflict and movie. Poe would not learn anything. Sometime you have to bend the logic to tell a story Going back to Alfred Hitcock quote. Logic is dull. He again said playability for the sake of Playability doesnt help. It not an story teller job to tell a story make sense. It their job to tell a good story. For example a lot of Shakespeare play like Othelo conflict would last 5 seconds if there was some communication with his wife. Lord of the ring would be very short if they just sent an eagle with a legion of escort to follow Frodo and drop the ring into mount doom and done. However once agajn it not about the journey jt abouts the destination. There is a reason why Rian Johnson have been constantly praise by critic as rising star. Hell he even nominated for the academy.

[@EvanMonroe]

I still want to hear MauLer's arguments against "Annihilation" and "Interstellar".

[@periodicpete]

I don't remember if he had a stream with Wolf on those topics, but I'll let you know if I find anything.

[@periodicpete]

Bet you thought I wasn't going to get back to you, didn't you? I think they covered a response video about Annihilation in one of Wolf's streams (nothing on interstellar tho). It's not much, but you might find something (try skipping to 2:13:00): kzbin.info/www/bejne/inSqmXelitOhn68

[@neropunkt]

watch capital o opinions' video on annihilation. it's pretty fucking good. and it made me read the book which is pretty good too

[@Biggiiful]

I love Mauler and EFAP, and I have several criticisms of Interstellar, but it's way better then Mailer thinks it is. I'm surprised. He fundementally does not understand one of the biggest plot points in the film. He thinks the film is literally using "love" as a scientific measurement. Tons of people who hate the film, hate it for that reason. Which they are completely wrong about. The film never says love is a scientific measurement. It says gravity is. Gravity is how Cooper sends his daughter Morse code messages into the past. Gravity crosses space and time. Not some scientific version of "love." The film is arguing that love is the only thing that makes Cooper travel to a different universe to USE the scientific version of gravity. Without love, humans wouldn't attempt to do such things. That's all the film itself and Christopher Nolan was saying. At one point, Anne Hathaway's character DOES hypothesize that there might be more to "love." That there might be something scientific about love that humanity doesn't understand yet. That "love is the one thing that transcends time and space." That is the line that Mauler and everyone who hates the film latch onto and roll their eyes...and completely misunderstand the film at the same time. Hathaway's character is saying this after several major trauma's in the film. After being denied a chance to see the man she is in love with by visiting the planet he is on. After being told by her crew that she is being irrational. The film itself and the other characters, are telling her she's wrong and emotional. The film goes on to demonstrate that there are improbable, but POSSIBLE ways to communicate through time and space....with GRAVITY. That's the SCIENCE aspect that is perfectly logical and possible...given the FICTIONAL story aspects that are provided by the script (a tesserect built so humans can interact and manipulate said GRAVITY through time and space.) This is INTERNALLY consistent with the logic provided in this science fiction movie. The science part of GRAVITY is accurate. The fiction part is plausible, given certain technological advances in the future. The fiction part is STRETCHING modern scientific theories and understandings...but not breaking them. That's what goos aci Fi does. Bad sci Fi gets the science wrong and/or creates fictional elements that are logically inconsistent in how they function inside the rules set up by the universe. In ending, Mauler completely misunderstands the whole "love" theme in Interstellar. The film doesn't advocate for some magic love science. A character in the film does. And is proved wrong by the film. The film also says that love is a very real emotion that makes humans strive to USE science to care for one another and why that matters. Lots of science nerds completely misunderstood this. Ironically not nearly as smart as they think themselves to be. (The other big criticism that Interstellar gets is that it's a paradox. But that's a whole other really complex discussion. That's not so much a flaw, as kind of the point. There is a whole scientific theory that delves into arguing about wether time is a closed loop or not. And that's what Interstellar is diving into. Its not NOT a paradox. And it's not unwarranted criticism...but it's more complicated than that. But then the argument moves into literal scientific understanding of reality, and less about a flaw in a script. Because if you could prove time IS a closed loop....then that isn't a problem with script. You're mind just can't comprehend this paradox that considers time a line, instead of a circle.)

[@countof3everybodyOD]

@@Biggiiful maybe it isn’t a scientific version of love. Why couldn’t actual, all encompassing and totally transcendent love be a thing? Or like you said perhaps it is just what drives us You’re right. Hating Interstellar is a bridge too far

[@wizardcat7654]

Me: "Mechanic, why won't my car start" Mechanic: "Well let me take you back to 1913......when Ford Moddle T came out"

[@periodicpete]

History is subjective

[@wizardcat7654]

@@periodicpeteWhenever I hear the word objective. I always think of history. The way in which historians view history is something we sometimes need to do in order to acess the quality of something. Remove our personal bias and feelings and just look at the facts presented in the body of work. There are measurable things we can look at to get to the root of the quality of a piece of art. Which, if we are talking about movies, makes the great movies even better, because we see why they work so well and why another movie doesn't. That isn't to say you can't like something or feel a certain way about something and certainly there are errors in everything. There is very little if not nothing that is perfect. But to say the things that just write is saying. That all points of veiw and perspectives are right, is insanity. When he said that oh it isn't objective, because one person might disagree. Just shows he doesn't even understand the word itself. I'd be curious how he feels about History. He would probably say that history is seperate from art because history is reality. But what is our history if not a grand story of all our lives from the beginning of mankind. A collection of mytholigies and stories. Listening to this guy hurt my head a bit. Not as bad as Major Lee though.

[@periodicpete]

​@@wizardcat7654 THIS RIGHT HERE! This is why the Subjective side has no argument. Until they can properly explain why you can't remove bias from writing, yet you can for anything in history, their point has no validity. I wish that Mauler and Wolf pressed on Just Write a bit more on that, instead of letting him slide when he said he couldn't articulate why he thought that.

[@periodicpete]

@@Visitormassacre A story, its events, the characters and their decisions of a film or written work are objective. They exist independently of the viewer and happen the way they’re portrayed regardless if they think otherwise. We can judge coherency, consistency, and how effective narrative elements were set up and paid off by how they’re communicated. The fact that those elements can be used to elicit an emotional response means nothing.

[@periodicpete]

@@Visitormassacre The intention to elicit emotion doesn't mean much either because intention is not a tangible part of the story. It's not objective in the way that the characters, events, and progression of the plot are. Conversely, oils, brush technique, and color paints are objective, so why wouldn't you judge a painting based on that? "The reason people don't zero in on that one thing really comes down to personal reasons" In the Olympics, people may not zero in on the reasons that make one dive better than another. That doesn't detract from the skill required to pull off much more difficult dives, and the excellence of executing them effectively. You can say something similar for anything we judge the quality of, and writing is no different. I think there's something to be said about how broken the sequels you listed are. That there's a limit to how contradictive you think they are, especially in comparison to other films I can name. But even if not, I wouldn't call all of those films well-made either, especially if they are heavily contradictive. The fact that many people like them doesn't play into that. People can feel that one dive is better than another, but how they feel is independent of both the standards used in the Olympics to judge the merit, athleticism, and physical excellence, and the reasons we use them. People can like poorly made films. People can dislike well made films. What of it?

[@grumpygoof349]

"Just Write" cannot tell the difference between an objective point, and an opinion. Thats very troubling.

[@periodicpete]

That's, like, just your opinion. right

[@grumpygoof349]

@@periodicpete pretty much his entire argument.

[@Catholictomherbert]

People don’t get what there “opinions” are

[@maurovaz6081]

@Joshua Greger man most people don't even understand what a fact is.

[@metaljacket8128]

Post modernism in a nutshell. He doesn't think there _is_ anything objective, period. It's the problem I've had whenever I get dragged into a debate with a relativist or a nihilist. They know their own philosophy is kinda BS deep down, so they'll use certain objective truths against you when it's convenient for them, but whenever it isn't, they just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say nothing is objective, nothing is true or false, nothing is consistent, etc. It's maddening.

[@connormoorerocks]

thankyou for reuploading this, I miss you wolfy

[@periodicpete]

On the Bright side, we'll always have EFAP. And he's always welcome there.

[@scotty-2-hotty354]

I miss his videos, i always wondered y i couldn't find him anymore

[@jebalitabb8228]

Scott Radcliffe he was on a stream with mauler yesterday, here’s hoping he shows up on EFAP soon

[@connormoorerocks]

"we keep running in to this road block" what he means is he literally doesn't understand words

[@michaelreyes9283]

It is clearly your subjective opinion man

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

@@michaelreyes9283 jesus 😂

[@No1important88]

I think he does understand words

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@No1important88 But that's like, your subjective opinion, man. In my opinion, words aren't real because of reader-response theory.

[@bilalkhares9337]

Luke being so different in TLJ isn't impossible but he is so different that it would require a trilogy just to see how he got to be so different.

[@The_Punisher]

Exactly their point

[@jebalitabb8228]

It’s nice hearing these again without knowing how everything turns out. I felt more sad when I heard Wolf was finally leaving than having my boyfriend leave awhile back, the dude provided so many hours of entertainment that made so many college/work days fly by

[@periodicpete]

I know what you mean. I found Mauler's channel through Wolf. It's so weird knowing the guy who basically introduced me to EFAP won't be appearing on it anymore.

[@jebalitabb8228]

PeriodicPete same, I had one of his alpha and omega reviews in my recommended years ago and didn’t find EFAP until they covered Jay. It feels so weird hearing older videos because you’d never expect things to end up how they have

[@periodicpete]

@@jebalitabb8228 Right? It's so surreal, in an odd sort of way. EFAP #47 was the first time I heard any mention that he wanted to delete his channel, and at the time he was passing it off as a joke. It's not as funny looking back. And watching it now just feels.... strange.

[@jebalitabb8228]

PeriodicPete I have a sad feeling what got him to make this decision out of nowhere after returning was the watchmen video backlash, the comments got blown up with insults and character attacks by random people. Before that happened he seemed so much happier then went back to how he was before :/ people can be such shitty people over media, I never thought Wolf would be the one having to quit

[@periodicpete]

​@@jebalitabb8228 Yeah, that seems about right. Iduno, there are many times I wish I could find a way to grow my own channel more. I struggle just to find a consistent niche between my videos. Then I think about bigger KZbinrs like Wolf and the kind of people that respond to him and sometimes I wonder if I would act any differently in his situation. And that maybe being small isn't so bad. Also, your comment was flagged as Spam for some reason, so I'm sorry I never got back to you for 2 weeks. Thanks KZbin :p

[@amanibob1416]

Step one: Someone drew a mustache in permanent ink on the Mona Lisa's face. Step two: Culprit is brought to court. Step three: Lawyer go with: "Der, I think it's hard to find the act of vandalism to be validated as a degradation of sort... Cuz, you know, art is subjective to stuff and leave me alone it's just my opinion guys!" Step four: "May the real Slim Spider Baggins please stand up?!"

[@periodicpete]

Its teh prefict crime >:D

[@amanibob1416]

PeriodicPete I googled it, *Nyuk nyuk nyuk* It's really genuine, a sure like thing in a bottle. Scientistically proven to work sixteen percent of the time, all the time!

[@metaljacket8128]

If movie companies listen to this guy, we will never have a good movie again as long as we live. In his world, no movie is good or bad, ergo there is no reason to strive for improvement.

[@periodicpete]

It's worse than that. We'd never have good art ever again, if art could even still reasonably exist by that point.

[@fakecubed]

The big studios and distributors absolutely are infected with these sorts of guys (and mostly women, let's be honest). But there will always be indies, and a lot of them are genuinely good artists who do actually care, and the indies will eventually succeed to the point where they take over, as the big companies fail and fall to ruin. Then the indies will be the new big companies, and they'll make the same mistakes, and a new batch of indies will come along to supplant them too.

[@onnixcarmichele3911]

Even though JW’s perspective is heavily flawed, he seems like a civil guy. I’d be interested in him coming on EFAP at some point.

[@periodicpete]

I think it'd be very productive, for everyone really, even those watching. And if he wasn't tweeting at all his friends to avoid EFAP like the plague whenever it comes up in a conversation, I'd like to believe it would happen a second time. As flawed as his logic has become, I remember a time when JustWrite was much more of an intellectual. I'm very sad to see what he's become.

[@amanibob1416]

I'd rather see/listen to a debate about another, maybe just as relevant and *controversial* , yet not that one. Tired of the brick wall being head-butted into by one side and of hearing the other side yelling: "door's over there mates!" Perhaps we'll actually have to face that crossroad once the IX one gets ahold of everyone's fragile little mind... Anyway, that's me ol' *subjective opinion* , so not much weight, but thought I'd bring a wee bit of ze ol' pragmatism in order to counterbalance the amount of subjectivised tism.

[@successfulfailure7563]

Too late. If you do some digging g he stated multiple times that these guys are "anarchy among critics" on twitter

[@SolarDragon007]

@@successfulfailure7563 Didn't he tell someone who was going to go onto EFAP not to go on?

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

@@successfulfailure7563 damn, thats a shame. I am really enjoying listening to his perspective and this discussion.

[@connormoorerocks]

Just Write - "I understand what you're saying" he did not understand what you were saying hahaha

[@DeepEye1994]

There's two quotes from HBO's Chernobyl that I find fitting for how awful these video essayist that defend Disney SW with nonsense about subjectivity and reader response theories are: "When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there. But it is still there." "The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all."

[@periodicpete]

Though I think using these quotes for something as mundane as a discussion about art sort of undermines them, I don't think that makes them any less valid in this case. If we keep insinuating that the quality of art is subjective, art and artists will suffer as a result.

[@kossettereaditte7552]

@@periodicpete you're right and it totally is suffering. Everything feels like a cash grab or political propaganda now

[@PaulAlexander-tokyomagic]

And this ladies and gents is what civil respectual debate is. No shouting, no insults. Brilliant.

[@periodicpete]

EFAP has always hosted and structured their debates in an incredibly civil manner, given how much "less civil" (if you could call it that) they could be instead. It shows a great deal of self control on their end, and it mirrors a level of respect that even I sometimes find myself lacking in discussions. I think that anyone could learn a thing or two from them when it comes to having discussions of ideas.

[@PaulAlexander-tokyomagic]

@@periodicpete agreed

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

@@periodicpete and yet their latest video of an old debate with someone else over the last jedi gave me a bit of anxiety lol. It was heated fo sho

[@robotspgc]

@@SangheiliSpecOp Are you talking about the Not So Great Debate? To be fair, I think there was some stuff going on behind the scenes prior to the debate between that guy and Wolf (like Online harassment or something like that) so I think he had it coming.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

@@robotspgc that's the one, I couldn't remember the name off the top of my head. I suppose I could have easily looked it up, thats my bad. But yeah I don't know if I ever watched one of their longer debates before, and I love a good debate but I'm not very confrontational at all, so it took me waaay off guard when wolf was calling th either guy a retard and being so rough with him lol. I also felt at times that Mauer and Wolf could have gone a little easier on the guy at times, but I was unaware of whta happened prior to the debate and wolf did say that the guy came at him pretty aggressively. The guy they were debating was pretty dense as fuck as well, always trying to defend everything in the film until Wolf said "i'd have so much more respect for you if you could just admit that something was wrong". To be fair, after watching about one third of the video, I started to get used to the tone they had with each other, I just had a bit of anxiety and felt uncomfortable as I was watching at first lol.

[@SeaBearYogurt]

"see this is interesting right..." (x10)

[@SeaBearYogurt]

*chuckles*

[@periodicpete]

It's almost like he's running out of things to say in response Weird...

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

The irony is that Just Write went on to release a video harshly condemning _Rise of Skywalker,_ calling it “bad writing.” And yet his arguments mainly came down to how the movie subverted his expectations (one of his complaints was that Finn and Poe didn’t hook up - seriously). So much for all this talk of lenses and interpretative communities: apparently Just Write feels that his subjective experience of that movie is _the_ correct one after all. Like Wolf, my first exposure to Just Write was via his Hobbit videos, which were good. Now his how-to-write channel claims the how doesn’t matter because it’s all subjective - until a movie does something that HE doesn’t like, then we can call it definitively bad. His channel is little more than a joke now.

[@Firehazerd5444]

Dang. I remember liking his channel too.

[@evokejake]

No wonder his channel is "Just Write"... every other word and every sentence he speaks is ended, with "right" inlew of a question mark. Right?

[@periodicpete]

Right!

[@Bignic2008]

Everyone has little verbal habits that they use all the time when they speak. Doesn’t affect the quality of his arguments.

[@metaljacket8128]

@@Bignic2008 The guy isn't saying his arguments are bad because he has a verbal tick. He's making a joke about it for fun.

[@ulrichweiss9912]

@@Bignic2008 That's true. His argument is garbage all on its own.

[@Biggiiful]

@Reflective Ducky these are separate but related. He's not saying that Just Write is wrong BECAUSE of his verbal tick. Just Write is clearly incorrect for other easily demonstratably reasons. No matter how much you deny it. Also, when someone's SPECIFIC verbal tick is constantly repeating the word "right" at the end of every other sentence with an accompanying question mark....it's an extreme indication of how subconsciously unconfident they are on what they are saying. His brain is grasping for social cues and confirmations that his ideas are logical and acceptable. His brain knows they aren't on a deeper level. So it's nervous and uncomfortable and lashing out to be calmed by being told it's being understood. Its a giant tell from someone who is trying to convince themselves of their own bs that they don't even believe deep down.

[@Knabtube626]

Just Write’s laugh says everything. He’s laughing as a way to cope with his argument falling apart.

[@beircheartaghaistin2332]

It's a nervous laugh of desperation. He knew he was chatting shit and that they weren't buying it. He hoped that if he just kept throwing out word salad they'd be derailed for long enough so he could stumble into some kind of point that wasn't fucking retarded. 😂

[@cherlojomzyaduermanse]

They should have used police/crime genre to showcase the importance of consistency and lack of plot holes / convinince as fundamental in a plot, it's the most evident example of when it needs to make sense to have payoff. For example if the detective catches the killer without clues and proofs then it becomes a lesser story than where he or she does so in a realistic and intelligent way. It's the most basic and direct showcase of logic as a functional base to create an impact. It hinges the closest and clearest in it.

[@ReyemNeirda]

Around 1 hour"they can't revive darth vador with no explanation that would be terrible " Well that didn't aged well.

[@jakobrenner2230]

Ugh. What has become of Star Wars? How did it end like that? Why?

[@fakecubed]

@@jakobrenner2230 Well first the communists infiltrated academia, and then the communist professors trained a bunch of young communist revolutionaries who went on to get HR jobs at Disney. A few steps later, you have Rey Palpatine taking over the galaxy without breaking a sweat.

[@theaverageDon]

Just Write: how many times can I move the goalpost until my argument is valid?

[@HolyReality]

Corey Ciepiela oh so accurate

[@truegamerking]

I know this is old, but I watched the last airbender as a kid. That was the film that taught me movies could be bad.

[@exleylynx8201]

For a guy with a channel about writing, he says the word "like" a lot

[@periodicpete]

I imagine it's very hard for someone to explain their point very well when they don't understand the heart of their own argument.

[@evokejake]

And "right". I counted 16 if em in a 60 second block...

[@sathrielsatanson666]

What the fuck does writing has to do with a free flow conversation?

[@greuju]

@@sathrielsatanson666... The issue is most competent writers that aren't socially awkward are eloquent regardless of setting... I enjoy justwrite but only for art opinions, when it goes beyond that into more meta stuff it falls apart. I think the channel just recites what was learned in university and has no depth outside of that

[@sathrielsatanson666]

@@greuju The issue is you are projecting. Artists like any other group are different. There are many outspoken writers and many that do not like to talk publicly. And there are writers that are shy or bad at public speaking. Sure, his channel is about writing so feel free to disregard anything else he says.

[@nicolasowen3095]

Your scholarhood is only rivaled by the great Bigideas, my friend! I've looked everywhere for this lol

[@periodicpete]

Any time. If you have any other streams from Wolf's channel you'd like to see that haven't resurfaced, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I plan to upload A Totally Civil Discussion (the discussion about civil war with Mauler) after I've finished editing my next video. Keep an eye out for both.

[@nicolasowen3095]

@@periodicpete Will do!

[@WigglyMcWiggly]

"Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right?" - Just Write

[@r.henryjr.1533]

Just Right

[@connormoorerocks]

honest to god the biggest problem with this debate is he honestly justt doesn't understand the meaning of the words he is using

[@beircheartaghaistin2332]

Just Write knew he was full of shit. He just played dumb so he didn't have to openly admit to being objectively wrong.

[@KobyBrennero]

I have to say, as someone who saw the Y-Wing tirade without having seen this, I now understand why Wolf was so mad at this guy.

[@kossettereaditte7552]

Yeah that was awesome

[@elliptical_orbit6735]

Thank you for posting this video. It is continually referenced throughout EFAP, so it is so nice to see what they were referring to.

[@periodicpete]

You're welcome : )

[@shidelerdantheogre8487]

MauLer straight up killed this man

[@WigglyMcWiggly]

This is your brain on postmodernist subjectivity, kids.

[@connormoorerocks]

objective adjective 1. (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[@wachyfanning]

Which excludes any judgement which entails 'good' and 'bad' ergo all of Mauler's criticisms of films which lead to a definitive qualitative summary are subjective, based on his lens which values logical consistency over all the other numerous aspects of film-making.

[@sageoverheaven]

@@wachyfanning His metric for 'good' or 'bad' when he's critiquing things *is* objectivity. Something that aligns with facts and has internal consistency is good, while something that does those things to a lesser degree is bad. Maybe the phrases of 'good' and 'bad' are what make his arguments so hard to understand, so that can be nitpicked as a shortcoming, but the implication is plain as day.

[@capthavic]

I wouldn't call it being a "robot" but more like a scientist, basically dissecting/reverse engineering works of media in order to find out how they tick and what does or doesn't work in them mechanically.

[@periodicpete]

That description could also work, but the reason they use the term "robot" is because a robot doesn't have bias. Scientists still disagree with one another on certain topics. But a robot is consistent and will never disagree with another robot, only unless they're programmed differently (but in that case it's the fault of the programmer, not the robot).

[@capthavic]

@@periodicpete Guess I was looking at more the method and how even if there is a disagreement they can either prove or disprove their stances by presenting evidence, like how Mauler talked about toward the end of the debate with Just Write.

[@shidelerdantheogre8487]

The issue isn’t “plot holes” The issue is the WHOLE plot So many different aspects of the plot don’t make any sense, character motivations don’t make sense, the dialogue sounds like it was written by a teenage girl, etc. “Saving what we love not killing what we hate” “Now it’s worth it” That sort of dialogue sounds more like it should be on a Saturday morning cartoon for eight year old girls than a science fiction epic about intergalactic warfare.

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@You tuber Just so know, you posted the comment twice. In a sort of EFAP way, let me go through this point-by-point. >Well TLJ scored a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes That has nothing to do with the argument >criticism is relative, bad dialogue is relative Subjective criticism is relative (I didn't feel like X was good), objective criticism is not relative (X is not good and I can support this with Y and Z). As for bad dialogue, you'd have to explain what you mean by that because there are several ways dialogue can be bad. >the originals also had a ton of bad dialogue, motivations that made no sense, and plot points that make no sense You have to support this with examples. >And unlike Wolf and Mauler, the critics on rotten tomatoes are polite, uncondescending, unarrogant human beings I can see the argument for Wolf being mean sometimes, but MauLer? Are you kidding me? Also, as for critics, I disagree but I don't have any evidence currently so I'll give you that one. >so I tend to trust professionals rather than high school children who desperately want to demonstrate intellectual dominance They are adults, and they have said many times on streams that they just like to talk about movies and actively make fun of pretentious people, they have never once made a stream or video to "demonstrate intellectual dominance", you are assuming that about them without any evidence. >by making condescending remarks against other people. Give me an example of them being condescending. >The problem is, is that if you demonstrate such condescending behavior, much like a certain president, you will be too arrogant and have your head too far up your ass to be objective and analytical, your objectivity transforms into ego aggrandizement and you lose any capability of becoming objective When have Mauler and Wolf been condescending? What does former president Donald John Trump have to do with either the comment you're responding to? When have Mauler and Wolf been arrogant and had their heads up their ass and even if they were why would that mean they are not objective and analytical? Since when has their objectivity transformed into ego aggrandizement? Why have they lost any capability of being objective? You have to back up these things with evidence otherwise you're just saying your opinion of them, which has nothing to do with the comment you are responding to. >That's why faith has been lost in media, when news anchors care more about demonstrating how smart they are than promoting truth, then truth eventually dies Okay sure, but what does that have to do with anything? >Its not a secret that emotion is the death of reason That is a false dichotomy, reason can inform emotion. >and condescension correlates with unobjectivity which correlates with lack of truth Even if they were condescending, why would that make them unobjective? >But cherrypicking a few bad lines But they weren't, they responded to him every time in his video he said something they figured was incorrect, that is the opposite of cherrypicking, they are literally showing the video in full. >when criticism exists in a relative vacuum What does this even mean? >this film had less stupid lines than the others, Empire had "Turn around CHewbacca I can't see!" or ANYTHING C3po says or "Good, let the hate flow through you!" Way to state the narrative Palpatine!. I haven't seen any of the OT yet (yes shameful I know) so I can't counter this but I have a strong suspicion it's wrong. >But again, Mauler is not objective How? >EFAP is not objective How? >living in a world of smug condescension like FOX, CNN and MSNBC only sets you up to create little worlds of bias and condescension. How are they doing that? Are you implying they are an echo chamber? Because they let people they disagree with on their show freely, and respond to people who disagree with them in live chat. Also, you never explained how they are condescending. Overall, this response little to do with what the original comment said, and you're pretty much just talking about how much you don't like Wolf and MauLer.

[@shidelerdantheogre8487]

@@Visitormassacre Yes.

[@dreaddark2861]

Alot of his counters are based of subjective and very feelings based. Justt has a cognitive dissonance when it comes to what is and isnt objective, he would rather rely on his bias without actually admitting it. Hence why he ends up in a corner every time.

[@ElectromagNick]

I think the worst part is that he originally started his channel to celebrate objectively good writing and dissect poor quality to see exactly why it falls short, but his cognitive dissonance over The Last Jedi was so great that he's completely doubled back on himself and rejected the idea that qriting can be judged by objective quality at all, prioritizing the emotions of the audience experiencing the work as the sole arbiter of quality and that writing should never be criticized for fear of diminishing the enjoyment someone else might have gotten from an otherwise poorly written story. This is a shame as his deconstruction of the Hobbit films were well-crafted and showed a great appreciation for the art of storytelling. It demonstrates an ongoing decay with our collective ability to think critically and separate internal responses from the facts presented within the world around us.

[@demisor9701]

That's because art is subjective.

[@No1important88]

His argument: different people enjoy different things for different reasons; and it’s all equally valid.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

You can say x is subjective and y knows more than z. Siskel and Ebert know more about film than you so no - not all views are valid. Some are better - JW - and some are worse - M

[@wannabehistorian371]

@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Well according to JW all views are valid, so...

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@wannabehistorian371 where does he say that?

[@bigbadseed7665]

Just Write literally used the "It's for kids" argument to defend The Last Airbender.

[@hand8007]

RIght ....right....right ....RIGHT ...RiGhT!?!?!?!?!?

[@goodnaturedgamer8181]

Right?!

[@HolyReality]

This is f***ing painful. Just write needs to never procreate. And I can say that because that’s how I feel and according to him that’s all that f***ing matters

[@thetextbookgamer]

Take a shot for every "this is interesting"

[@bernardocoelho6069]

Well, is clear to me that it took one movie that JW really loved, to change his mind on the object vs subject thing .... He loved TLJ so mutch that whem he saw that he loved a piece of s**** movie, he had to chNge all his conception of art ..he knows the movie is bad,..he knows....

[@periodicpete]

Those are the *bEsTiST* people to have a conversation with. "Let me change my entire perspective on art, to art's own detriment no less, just to make a point (and not even a very good one). but of course, if we're talking about something that's _actually_ bad, then it becomes objective. But only I and I ALONE will decide what is *ACTUALLY* bad."

[@sunkenconstruct6855]

I very much enjoy Mauler's content and enjoy his criticism of films that I enjoy, and films that I do not. He is very good at giving viewers a new perspective when it comes to the entertainment industry. However, the criticism of the Just Write video frustrated me at the beginning. His criticism of the video wasn't very impressive at the beginning. It came off at him just making jokes and not really putting in the effort to have a critical eye. I understand when you have an opinion, the tendency to go out the gate swinging at the people who disagree, but this came off a bit annoying. Just Write, at the beginning at least, I will admit the argument got a little derailed, managed to talk about the lenses of film analysis and the different ways that you can experience the film. A video is not immediately bad if the creator quotes a book or a philosophical text, just because you find it pretentious. It is also not bad when it has text flash up on screen, and the comment about how it distracts the viewer from what the critic is saying, is insulting to the viewers intelligence. Anyway, if you read this far I still very much enjoy Mauler's and Wolf's content, but that just bugged me a little bit.

[@richardadesmond]

A humble English movie watcher Schools an American University English major.

[@D4K44R1]

Welsh*

[@richardadesmond]

@@D4K44R1 Listening to him now, yeah it does sound Welsh. Thanks. there goes my "clever" comment. haha

[@Si_Mondo]

@@richardadesmond Which region of the union he's from is irrelevant to the point you were making. Your comment is still clever, just contains a minor error.

[@richardadesmond]

@@Si_Mondo Thank you very much:)

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@richardadesmond Overall, I think the objectivity robot would give this an 8/10.

[@maurovaz6081]

He really went deep down into Literary Theory.

[@Freqv]

This is pathetic. Mauler is bringing up an argument, facts, a reasonable question, and for the last hour all I’ve heard from just write is “wEll WhO dEfInEs WHatS oBJeCtIvELy iS?” I feel like just write is making the most shallow response, he talks about movies like they are paintings, where what you interpret is solely up to you, and there’s no right or wrong way of painting. But this is a film, WHERE THINGS HAVE TO MAKE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SENSE TO MAKE THE FILM IMMERSIVE.

[@symbolicjohnson7]

>wEll WhO dEfInEs WHatS oBJeCtIvELy iS maybe because agreeing upon the use of the terms is actually helpful for a debate and for some reason Mauler uses multiple definitions of the word, including his own, and switches between them when it's convenient. >WHERE THINGS HAVE TO MAKE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SENSE TO MAKE THE FILM IMMERSIVE. What that got to do with what JW said?

[@maurovaz6081]

@@symbolicjohnson7 objectivity is define on dictionary there is no debate about the word means.

[@asimplewizard]

The birth of gdelb quotes

[@patrickwalsh8913]

Listening to Just Write is so frustrating. Says "like" every other word, and has no rebuttals to anything other than "I don't feel like that's important"

[@whade62000]

He's basically just repeating the magazines line of, "Fans didn't like it because it did not match their fan theories/preconceptions". Then he kindly explains why we are like that and don't realize it, basically treating us like idiots. There's a degree of childishness in this video because he considers us too stupid to comprehend we're wrong, yet still feels a need to be a smartass at us and explain just how wrong we are.

[@hamishgoeden7852]

It annoys me so much that write brought up "why don't the eagles take the ring to mordor." Then gives the wrong fucking answer as to why they didn't. The whole point of why the ring is with the hobbits rather than gandalf is because it corrupts based on the power of the creature holding it. The eagles are very powerful, therefore the ring would corrupt them. Not to mention that sauron has defenses to attacks from the air and would see the eagles coming a mile off.

[@milkmancometh149]

damn I didn't even think about the ring corrupting the eagles. That makes a lot of sense. That and if they were flying with the eagles, then all Sauron's forces would be concentrated their.

[@MichaelSlovin]

Just Write's idea of movie "magic" sounds like a cop out.

[@amanibob1416]

Again... I know it ain't the original one, but having access to this is a precious commodity that I consider a gift, so thanks for that! It's Mewsley and *ORIGINAL* Wolf growing stronger by peer confirmation, brilliant! Edit: Thinking about Wolfy being back whilst listening to *Without me* and then listening to this precious vid is fawkin'awesome, but maybe it's cuz I'm hardwired to find entertainment in correlations..?

[@bilalkhares9337]

With Thanos and the gauntlet it's a somewhat soft magic system so it employs a sense of wonder and the unknown. The power levels are inconsistent but tbf Thanos does win so him not using powers so perfectly is okay because he does win anyway. I think that the reality stone requires someone to imagine what they want to change something into so he uses other stones of he is having to react quickly.

[@LWolf12]

From my understanding, and I could be wrong. Force Ghost don't gain power or learn new abilities. Which is another reason the Obi Wan show breaks Canon, Qui-Gon Jinn can't project himself as a force ghost, his training is incomplete.

[@Aiden-wg3uf]

What how dare you compare just write bs to Jordan Peterson.

[@mechamedegeorge6786]

When they said that

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@mechamedegeorge6786 Eariler in the video.

[@michalignition232]

Mauler, I am adhd multitasker mind tripping reverse psychologist gentle sociopath. And in my humble subjective objective opinion, you are the one or the only one who possess the ability of mind bending. Food for thought. In one word “Respect” @mauler

[@kossettereaditte7552]

It has been so long since I last watched this debate and listening to it now as a more mature person. Just Writes sounds so pretentious. Like he is trying so hard to sound intellectual but is argument his ridiculous. I boils down to: "If it makes us feel good the quality should not be considered on m'themes."

[@reachlol1]

If art is just subjective why do we give awards for it? They should all just be "you participated!" Medals if that's the case. Everyone is a winner, dont try better, your perfect as you are. This mentality is corrosive and damaging to socitey.

[@reachlol1]

​@@ghujdvbts The technical aspects help to reinforce the themes and subjective components. Remember that "art" does not only apply to painters or illustrators, it involves many mediums like games, movies etc. If a game is fundamentally flawed and unplayable should it still get a pass because they "made a game"? But if we discuss "art" in that sense, (paintings, illustrations etc) What if someone attempts to recreate the Statue of Liberty in clay, scaled down, and makes her head a giant skull would that not be objectively wrong? Would they not fail in that recreation? If no one encourages an artist to work better, how complacent do you think they would become? Art would be mundane because all of it is good and no one should criticise it. How is this not destructive? The awards come as a result of the components of the piece. I don't mean shit like taping a banana to a wall and selling it, but understanding of the things that draw other's attention to it and create good discourse. Something that has the artist's compassion conveyed clearly instead of vague and assumed meanings.

[@Si_Mondo]

The problem with the method of analysis that critics like Just Write use is that it stems from post-modernism. You can sum up the post-modern position as; "there is no objective truth" so they can find a way of accepting any kinda shit as valid.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@Si_Mondo lol there is no objective truth - that's stating the obvious unless u are god and you are not u have just fallible perceptions

[@r.henryjr.1533]

​@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 The Earth is flat, The Room is a well made movie, your comment was not posted on KZbin, and I am a black homosexual female. Yes, there are objective truths, you don't need to be God to know that they exist, and you should give reasoning as to why that person has fallible perceptions instead of just saying it.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@r.henryjr.1533 You're saying no one has fallible perceptions. So every person has access to the Truth. really? People in Ancient Greece knew quantum physics just by being alive ... OK ... that makes sense LOLOL

[@definitelynotapervert5602]

I just want to say this: Do you agree with MauLer and Wolf that art can absolutely be objectively measured? Or are you with Just Write in that it's ultimately all subjective?

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

I think that with any craft you can assess how goals were achieved and the consistency of the plots internal logic. However enjoyment does play a factor, I like Jurassic world even though it has many problems including running from a trex in high heels. However I ignore that because I watched it with my little sister and we loved the ending. is the rest of the film that satisfying or well written no. But I still acknowledge and agree with the flaws. However I do not enjoy watching most Pixar movies excluding incredibles 1 and 2. Finding Nemo I find really boring but I have no problems with it as a movie I just don’t connect with the material. Confused Matthews review of the themes allowed me to see what aspects I could incorporate into my own writing but my enjoyment is not increased it’s just kinda interesting to think about. However there are movies that I hate that are badly written the last air bender is one of those. It is badly constructed it relies on voiceover exposition in order to fill in the scripts problems. I also hate beastly the because there is a drastic character voice shift in the last third and it felt fake to me even though most of it made sense. Both perspectives are valuable. Feel free to enjoy whatever you want more power to you, but if you’re going to be a writer having a high standard of consistency and quality in order to be a good writer. Ultimately there is a need to properly represent the film and say that I got a good lesson or entertainment from it but it’s bad. Same with movies that have disturbing or “troubling” messages but are well written and achieve what they set out to do

[@robotspgc]

I'm of the belief that the only things that are subjective are things that cannot be proven with facts and Socratic reasoning and are left entirely up to the perceptions of an individual and only that individual, or at the very least that said facts and reasoning supports that thing being subjective. So the idea that people can make video essays on movies and art while using facts and logic, much like JustWrite's videos on Suicide Squad and The Hobbit, support the idea that art is objective more than it is subjective, despite what they may believe.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

robotspgc well said sir!

[@periodicpete]

If I'm being honest, I think that the topic of objective critique is one that is so nuanced that trying to explain everything about why I believe what I do would result in a comment so long no one would read it, or one so short it would be a disservice to my side of the argument. I'll probably end up making my next video on that, if not the video after, but in short: I don't contest the idea that art has many subjective elements, but I agree with Wolf and Mauler that the quality of art can be *and must be* judged objectively.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

PeriodicPete well said sir!

[@wannabehistorian371]

Something is emotionally resonant but it’s objectively bad? That’s called a guilty pleasure.

[@No1important88]

2 days in Bruges is one my favorite movies

[@bilalkhares9337]

At 2:46:00 they touch on something interesting which is that in order to be objective we have to fix our definitions so Pluto is a planet according to an old definition whereas it isn't according to the modern definition.

[@SOLDIER1st_Class]

The entire problem with this debate is not just like some other commenters said on not being able to arrive at a conclusion and definition of objectivity. But rather this knucklehead just right in his inability to agree with almost anything that they say. If he even senses that Mueller is trying to find Common Ground he will piss his way out what's something absolutely ridiculous and it's the most pathetic thing about people and why mini conversations can't happen in today's society

[@Huxley_Day]

Revenge can be so delicious sometimes.

[@QazwerDave]

Have these two really never heard of any of these theories before ?! Doesn't Wolf say in this video that he studied film in uni? How did he not learn about this ?! I studied film and film production, and this kind of theory is the entire first year !! Plenty of these theories are present in every course in university, even mathmatics. Wtf ?! Mauler constantly mentiones how «filmmaking is taught», as in «how can something be taught by someone if it's not objective?» (by teachers with subjective oppinions on the issue), but this is what that looks like, Mauler !! Academia is theory. Theory all the way !!

[@No1important88]

All mixing up objective quality with subjective impact does is obfuscate any meaningful analysis

[@QazwerDave]

I disagree with Mauler's point on the creator of the film having all mighty power over what the movie is about. That view takes the creator's subconsious out of the game, and the movie world is full of examples of solid interpretations of movies, where the creator said it wasn't so. It might be that the creator subconsiously wrote a story undernieth the surface plotting. And there can be multiple reasons why a creator might fight a specific interpretation of the film. When denying something, the creator might be lying ...

[@trevdeesciple3324]

Tally how many times just write says “right?”

[@periodicpete]

I am not doing that :p

[@spenser9908]

And “like”.

[@Spink_Prime]

Good news! I just did my best to do it. He roughly says "Right" 185 times and "Like" 275 times.

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@Spink_Prime God damn, nice job.

[@thegoodfather1177]

I will say that force ghosts were quite new, with Qui gon being the first, it could be that they discover powers over time

[@periodicpete]

I'm pretty sure force ghosts were in the original trilogy. And I'm pretty sure Obi Wan was the first force ghost.

[@thegoodfather1177]

@@periodicpete QuiGon was the first to become one with the force, I was mistaken there, but my point was that since force ghosts were such a new phenomena, they might be able to obtain unknown powers from this force connection.

[@periodicpete]

@@thegoodfather1177 Ah, I see. I thought you meant new to the franchise. My mistake. But, how do you know there weren't ghosts before Qui Gon? Additionally, it does raise the question why Yoda isn't fighting the First Order himself if he can do stuff like that. And because I'm not sure that future continuity is going to remember force ghosts have that power, I sorta have my doubts that an addition like this would've been a good decision for the franchise here on.

[@thegoodfather1177]

@@periodicpete I agree that Yoda not confronting Snoke or the first order is stupid if he has power like that. I don't know for sure if there were force ghosts before Qui Gon, but I can only go by the canon materials, and Qui Gon appears as a force ghost in the Clone Wars.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@periodicpete It was a cut scene in Revenge of Sith - Lucas was going to film it but did not. Yoda talks about it to Obi in ROS. So yes he's the first

[@RadioSpec93]

The amount of times this guy says “ right?” At the end of every point he makes is infuriating.

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

This debate is INSANE. You can feel Just Write shaking and trembling and dancing around saying that any single thing is objective

[@periodicpete]

I think the biggest problem with his argument is that he can't "articulate" the distinction that separates art from anything else that can be objectively measured. There is so much wrong with his argument, and that's why this is my favorite stream from Wolf's channel, maybe even my favorite out of all of EFAP.

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

@@periodicpete I've been engaging in this objectivity subjectivity argument alot recently, and ooh boy is it a massive headache. I thought this shit was common sense but apparently there's a legion of people who are on the side that conflated subjectivity with actual objective quality

[@dungeon-wn4gw]

I made this comment while the debate was going on. But later on they explain the same thing. So my comment sounds redundant lol

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Nathan Sanders agreed just write and everyone else who likes this movie have such thin skins. Alex Shaw has perpetually shot barbs at the people who hate this movie even if they have airtight arguments, Patrick willems strawmanned that perspective same with moviebob. Just write made a video about objectivity only months after this and it did nothing to prove his point because the exact philosophers countered his own point in their other works. I used to like these people but unfortunately now that I can see through their bs I can’t take much of what they say seriously

[@elijahanderson3288]

@@lordinquisitordunn336 There are airtight arguments for those who love this movie as well.

[@Spink_Prime]

I went back through the video to see just how often JW uses "right" or "like". It was quite eye-opening. Either he's not very intelligent, had awful writing classes that never taught him to vary his vocabulary, or is just really bad at public speaking, because he had many verbal tics that really indicate how unprepared he was. I counted how many "right"s and "like"s he used, but also noticed he said "just", "um", and "you know" a lot as well. For roughly 75m/4500s of conversation, halved to 32m/2250s because it's a debate between 2 sides, he said "right" and "like" a total of roughly 460 times. This means he said "right" or "like" on average roughly every 5 seconds for the entire 32 minutes he was talking.

[@fettbub92]

These debates are the Patrick Star/Manta meme, EFAP is rarely Patrick in them.

[@nuclearchezburgr3857]

Just Write seems very pleasant, even though I can't agree with or follow his ideas

[@megamuffin3900]

The problem with differentiating liking something subjectively and a work of art being "objectively" good or bad is that there can be instances where something considered "objectively bad" on this scale that is enjoyed by the majority of people. If the requirements by which a work of art becomes "objectively good" don't line up with the overall experience of the audience, then this "objective scale" becomes meaningless. I'm sorry to say this but a "plot hole" itself is subjective to the person pointing it out, and thus it cannot be an "objective" criticism any more than a criticism of themes. The only point of calling a work of art "objectively bad" is to try to undermine the views of those who consider it to be good. What ever happened to having a more substantiated opinion instead of just asserting your opinion as fact and sitting on your high horse.

[@megamuffin3900]

Also, it's cute how Mauler has created this little robot that is made to perfectly replicate his opinion on how objectively good movies are. Spoiler: Mauler is the robot.

[@r.henryjr.1533]

For your first paragraph, the fact that there are instances that something that is objectively bad can also be subjectively enjoyed by people (i.e. Twilight and Fifty Shades) does not at all contradict what he says. You can enjoy bad things while acknowledging they are bad and vice versa. MauLer and Wolf say this several times in the stream. For your second paragraph, it's broken up into a few points so I'll handle those individually. >If the requirements by which a work of art becomes "objectively good" don't line up with the overall experience of the audience, then this "objective scale" becomes meaningless. Basically the same as the response to the first paragraph. An audience doesn't have to think a movie is good subjectively for it to be good objectively, same with bad movies. Plus, what happens when an audience is split like TLJ? Does that make the movie half-good half-bad? >a "plot hole" itself is subjective to the person pointing it out, and thus it cannot be an "objective" criticism any more than a criticism of themes. A plot hole is absolutely not subjective because it inherently requires information from the film that is contradictory with each other. Say for example I had a character escape a locked room by picking the door lock but the character was established to not be good at lockpicking, or he was never shown to have the lockpick before this and it just materialized from thin air without explanation. That is a plot hole which you can point to using things that are objectively in the movie. Also, themes can be criticized objectively as well. If the theme of the story is that failure is the best teacher but my main character never really failed at anything then that is a bad execution of the theme. Third paragraph, responding same as second. >The only point of calling a work of art "objectively bad" is to try to undermine the views of those who consider it to be good. That is a strawman/overgeneralization, people can call a work of art objectively bad for whatever reason they want. But in the context of MauLer and Wolf, they do it because they like discussing films, and promoting discussion. Also, nobody is forcing anybody to no longer like something because it's objectively bad. Like Mauler and Wolf said, there are films that are objectively bad that they both subjectively enjoy. >What ever happened to having a more substantiated opinion instead of just asserting your opinion as fact and sitting on your high horse How do they not have substantiated opinions? When were they asserting their opinions as fact? How are they on a high horse? You can't just say things without substantiated evidence. And lastly to respond the reply you made to your comment (which I don't know why you did when you can just edit the comment), the robot was not "made to perfectly replicate his opinion on how objectively good movies are", the robot is supposed to represent and help simplify/explain the concept of objectivity, or rather the framework of criticizing movies using objectivity that MauLer uses.

[@megamuffin3900]

​@@r.henryjr.1533 For the sake of brevity I'm not going to argue point by point for this 4 month old comment. TL;DR Any true objectivity that you can derive from art will be inherently subjective in it's framework, therefore its value as something objective more or less becomes meaningless to anyone besides the person making the framework. Mauler may be correct that "the robot" (himself) is being objective in that sense, but that doesn't seem to be what Mauler isn't arguing. I'm going to touch on the plothole part because off the top of my head, it just seems dumb. Plot holes are subjective because you can headcannon any explanation as to why any situation you view as "inexplicable" might have occured. For your lockpicking example, what if the character just got lucky? What if this was subtle implication that they were in fact lying about being bad at lockpicking? What if they hypnotized the guards to not see the lockpick and we were seeing the scene from their point of view? What if they have a magic superpower that can materialize lockpicks from thin air? You get the idea. You can make any outlandish, (or even reasonable) explanation for any perceived plothole. Each individual has different degrees at which such an "inconsistency" might be seen as such, and to what severity it hurt the film / art. I can explain more if you want, but the objectivity garbage is just so boring, since it's only ever used as a reason you shouldn't like "SJW movies" like Black Panther, Captain Marvel and The Last Jedi, (which people generally liked), and the end of Game of Thrones (which is probably 50% because Arya killed the Night King)

[@r.henryjr.1533]

@@megamuffin3900 >Any true objectivity that you can derive from art will be inherently subjective in it's framework, therefore its value as something objective more or less becomes meaningless to anyone besides the person making the framework. But the framework _is_ objectivity, how can objectivity be subjective in a framework of objectivity? Also, nobody made the framework, the framework is objectivity, it just inherently exists, just like reality inherently exists and you can't create a version of reality because then it wouldn't be reality (unless you believe in solipsism but you get the idea). >Mauler may be correct that "the robot" (himself) is being objective in that sense, but that doesn't seem to be what Mauler isn't arguing. Alright, what is Mauler arguing then? Also, the robot is not Mauler, the robot is the objective framework (or as Just Write put it, a perception) with which to critique, it just happens that Mauler uses an objective framework to criticize films. Responding to the 3rd paragraph and first sentence of the 4th paragraph: You can speculate as to why something happens in a movie, but it was never explained within the movie, hence it is an objective flaw with the movie. And as Mauler has said many times before, if you can come up with a plausible reason as to why something could happen, why wasn't it in the movie? >Each individual has different degrees at which such an "inconsistency" might be seen as such, and to what severity it hurt the film / art. No, an inconsistency in a movie is an inconsistency, you can have degrees of an objective inconsistency because it is what it is. However, to how much it affects your enjoyment of the movie is subjective, and that is fine. Responding to the last paragraph: That is a strawman. Let me give you an example that counters your point. Mauler and his friends use the objectivity metric in not just "SJW movies", but all the movies they watch so they know what is the objective quality of a movie, which also happens to inform their subjective opinions about it, which as he has said before, his objective thoughts and subjective opinions on a film not always going to be 1:1 (i.e. he enjoys Batman and Robin but also acknowledges it is an objectively bad film).

[@megamuffin3900]

​@@r.henryjr.1533 I made a response to this shitty reply, but decided to scrap it in order to avoid a length internet debate. Your entire opinion on this subject is likely copied and pasted from Mauler or some other creator you are a fan of, and you have done no good faith effort into seeing the other sides point of view (Which is ironically objectively correct) If you are around still in highschool or younger you have some hope to grow out of these shit opinions (as I did). If you are 18 or older I don't see much hope for you. Good luck buddy.

[@bilalkhares9337]

One thing people don't seem to realise is that subversion works if it gives you something that you didn't know you want wheras TLJ is disappointing which is worse than just giving us what we expect

[@jeggsonvohees2201]

So this is where the famed Reader Response meme began.

[@periodicpete]

It's always fun to see where memes are born. If you can think of any other streams from Wolf's channel that haven't resurfaced yet, leme know and I'll see what I can do.

[@jeggsonvohees2201]

@@periodicpete Will do. I have to admit though, Just write was really boring to listen to during their conversation. There's just not much substance when you keep circling back to saying everything is subjective.

[@r.henryjr.1533]

Reader-response theory? I only subscribe to Jared-response theory.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

1:41:41 The Realization.....

[@jeremypayne5078]

I'm sure plenty of LGBT people would question the idea that they have a specific and unique response to writing that's not shared by other groups. Especially if they don't see that aspect of their life as 90% of their personality.

[@walterwang4669]

It’s not hard. Emotion and themes are usually subjective where as plot and logic are always objective in analysis.

[@kossettereaditte7552]

People like Just Write dont think that way. They only care about they're emotions.

[@wannabehistorian371]

Wasn’t Just Write justifying TLJ based on objective principles and pretentious first year film school BS...? He literally said “rules”.

[@neropunkt]

i've watched this so many times and i just don't get why just write tism'd out so badly after this conversation.

[@theminingbat]

If you were disappointed in Rise of Skywalker then check out, Why Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker is a Cinematic Disaster kzbin.info/www/bejne/eovCl5JsZZuVbdk

[@michaelbell6894]

I don't think I agree with Mauler here, and I disliked TLJ. The scene from Jurassic Park for example: would the scene be more internally consistent without the cliff suddenly appearing? Sure. Would more internal consistency make for a better scene? I'm not sure how that logically follows. And I'm not sure how one would objectively analyze a David Lynch film, etc.

[@No1important88]

Plot holes are bad subjectively and objectively

[@mrmackellar3337]

The nostalgia

[@Fefnefef]

2:40:27 Theme and plot consistency are not mutually exclusive. That is a false binary presupposition.

[@magnoprium7038]

It is actually 2 different segments of the fence. But I will say the movie doesn’t show it well Fallen Kingdom is good

[@SDesWriter]

The film's you should have brought up our ones like Jaws, Alien, aliens, or the original Terminator. These are great sci-fi & action films that have incredible longevity due to their excellent writing and acting. Since the last Jedi is a piece of shit with tons of plot holes, it will be remembered as a middling film with really pretty visuals. And I wish I was there when he went on his rant about art. I've been a professional musician for 35 years and I can tell you when songs are objectively dogshit because they use the same 1-4-5 chord progression and melodic content as a hundred other popular songs before them. then you look at something like stairway to heaven which is routinely voted the number one song in history despite being over 40 years old and I can show you how the writing makes the song superior to Green day and seven Nation army. people judge art all the time and it's why some paintings hanging in museums and sell for millions of dollars while others get sold at garage sales. I despise that moronic argument because it's a crutch used by the less-informed.

[@periodicpete]

I would have certainly brought up those particular films if I was there. I wasn't the one who streamed this (as much as I wish I was), this is just a reupload of an older video from Wolf's channel before it got deleted. Honestly, I think about objectivity in its most practical terms. If you can use facts, logic, and reason to support your point about the thing you're talking about, that thing can be objectively measured. Subjectivity seems to be thrown around as an excuse to end conversation than anything else.

[@SDesWriter]

@@periodicpete I wasn't paying attention. This came up on a search of mauler's channel and I didn't pay attention to who actually posted it. I agree with your sentiment though. Subjectivity is the lazy Man's argument.

[@greedyclown851]

"That would make for really boring art"

[@GreatThinker-i8d]

Do you have wolf and mauler’s civil war discussion?

[@periodicpete]

No, but I don't imagine finding it would be that much harder for me than finding the JustWrite debate. Especially if no one else has uploaded it by then, I'll be sure to post it. Though, I do want to focus my efforts on making original content rather than just becoming a Wolf Archive channel. And I would hope that you'd check out my next video covering the Objectivity discussion when it's up. All that being said however, I'm more than happy to upload any of Wolf's streams that still haven't yet resurfaced on KZbin. Hope that helps

[@r.henryjr.1533]

Here it is: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYu4aaKnoc5-bMk

[@thefunkinator2435]

Ooff. just write needed to pause and think before talking a little bit more, if only for the sake that his constant pausing while trying to articulate himself was more distracting than this weak argument

[@MadAlienArt]

I feel inteligent

[@periodicpete]

That's subjectively objective

[@kingawesome5219]

2:10:30 when JustWrite joins the call

[@HolyReality]

Maulers video require a “bit of chewing” or even -mauling? To get thru 😂😂😂

[@thorthewolf8801]

I really think they missed a point to be made. Yes, how much a flaw in a movie bothers you is subjective, but we can objectively say that the more flaws there are the higher the chance of somebody being tapped out of the movie, thus we can categorize movies on their quality. Thats objective.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

3:02:47 onwards is juicy. We're getting somewhere lmao

[@Gooning_Chunguz]

I find it hard to believe he has a background on English literature when most of his vocabulary are of a soundcould rapper Right? Like...