Callum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer and the EFAPshere - Objective discussion about not-Channel Awesome featuring Rags, Southpaw and more!

  • Thread starter Thread starter LN 910
  • Start date Start date

Are MauLer's videos too long?

  • Yes

    Votes: 186 13.1%
  • No

    Votes: 386 27.1%
  • Fuck YES

    Votes: 851 59.8%

  • Total voters
    1,423
Az 'tismed out, made a fool of himself, and got laughed at by many, including Act Man. Nevertheless, he was correct.
That's the real problem, Az gave his detractors a really easy way to just dismiss his criticisms because he screamed until he was red in the face over a fucking videogame.
Mockery is the easiest way to discredit your opponent's arguments, and Az unwittingly handed instant mockery (just add water!) to his opponents on a silver platter. I'm still glad all this Sweet Baby Inc. stuff came to light though cuz his detractors were being annoying dishonest faggots.

Anyway, this is the best thing to come out of the whole debacle:
 
That's the real problem, Az gave his detractors a really easy way to just dismiss his criticisms because he screamed until he was red in the face over a fucking videogame.
His complaints where valid but he is the stereotype of a gamer man-child down to a T. Then him getting overly emotional was just icing on the cake and just becomes really hard to defend with out putting your self on the same level. He hurt more then he would help but i do hope he becomes the Sargon of GamerGate 2.0. He is large enough to live up to this title.
 
Found this guy from a comment on another video
252353464654646.PNG

He's directing people to the first video in this playlist, where he lists out all the reasons why Mauler actually supports DEI since he likes GOW:R so much. I put it here to save a trip to the video, but it's really nothing that hasn't been said before.

Mauler is pro-DEI, his responses to chat's comments in this stream about anti-white race-swapping are the receipts. Angrboda is a white Norse girl in Norse mythology. Mauler said he's fine with a Norse character being black. This is the core of DEI, erasing white people from their own history and stories. Mauler is fine with this, meaning he is fine with DEI.

3:11:07 - "In Norse mythology, you'd expect everybody to be white. I don't know if that's true, I haven't looked into it. In terms of consequence it's basically zero". Mauler's stance is that race-swapping white people out of their own history is of no consequence. Also he claimed he doesn't know that Norse people are all white.

3:12:19 - Mauler calls someone a fuqing moron for calling out the anti-white race-swapping, saying that he's tired of "that crap" (that crap meaning people who are anti-DEI) and he says the anti-white race-swap is because "it's a magical fuqin world". He then says because he hasn't read Norse mythology he has no idea that the Norse are white. This is a disingenuous deflection at best, and more likely a sign of Mauler's anti-white wokeness coming out. He is from Wales afterall, the most woke part of Britain.

3:12:46 - Mauler says (with a sniggering voice) that no-one is familiar with Norse mythology, and that the notion of being faithful to it is pointless due to Mauler's own feigned unfamiliarity with it that he projects onto everyone else, as an excuse for anti-white race-swapping

3:12:55 - Mauler says anti-white race-swapping is fine as long as the character interaction is ok. This is DEI's stance.

3:13:51 - Mauler says Norse mythology is hard to read, meaning he won't read it, and he also apparently doesn't know how to google Angrboda and see images of her pre-blackwashing, and doesn't know that 100% of Norse people are white.

3:14:05 - Norse mythology is very easy to access. Just google it and find the texts. Or watch youtube videos on it by Arcane Engine and Jackson Crawford. Mauler as a tech guy who runs youtube channels does know how to do this, but he is deflecting hard here because he is pro anti-white race-swapping, or doesn't want to get cancelled for speaking out against anti-white race-swapping. Norse mythology is as easy to access as The Bible is. Mauler's excuse that's it's not a recent-written thing is yet another deflection.

3:14:36 - "It's a magical world"... so according to Mauler's deflecting, the anti-white race-swapping is an act of magic, despite the game not saying this anywhere. The DEI game devs just made Angrboda black. Nothing more. Mauler's disingenuous attempts to wiggle out of the question and justify it by saying "a wizard did it", is extremely bad faith to his audience who up until this point mostly thought he was against wokeness, but from this incident realised Mauler is actually pro-DEI. He then compares anti-white race-swapping to the rings in LOTR because "it's a fantasy". Mauler then doubles down by saying the commenter has it backwards for calling out race-swapping and Mauler's hypocrisy for defending it here when elsewhere previously he would have called it out. He then says race-swapping is magic.

3:15:15 - "I'm fine with adaptations doing whatever they want." There you have it folks, Mauler gives carte blanche for DEI doing whatever they want. Make all the white people black, because it's an adaptation, and it's a magical world.

3:15:23 - "Just gotta stay true to what they set in stone", as in 100% of Norse people being white?

3:15:35 - Mauler is woke. He then says all of his pro-DEI sperging has been EFAP policy for years, and that no-one is listening. If that were the case, Mauler, then why are people surprised here that you're pro-DEI? Are you suggesting your loyal audience all these years weren't listening to all your pro-DEI takes that were apparently in EFAP all along?

3:17:01 - consistency is Mauler's MO according to Mauler, meaning he was always pro-DEI and pro anti-white race-swapping apparently.

3:22:40 - one way street of race-swapping. Mauler is fine with this, then does some epic mental gymnastics to say that Angrboda being black is proof of the absence of an agenda, and that playing the game to see what it does... somehow is relevant to this in Mauler's mind? He says that anti-white race-swapping isn't due to an agenda, but those who are against anti-white race-swapping have an agenda as opposed to just playing the game. Yes Mauler, games are things that are played. We make judgments on things. DEI agendas exist. Your entire career is about analysing media and its various shortcomings and agendas. Yet here in this instance of anti-white race-swapping a white girl to a black girl you suddenly invert your entire analytical capacity and become a Teflon person, deflecting all criticisms about DEI, and pointing the finger at people who are anti-DEI and calling your commenters the ones with the agenda, insinuating that the people who are disturbed by anti-white DEI are the ones at fault, and that your pro-DEI pro anti-white race-swapping stance has always been the norm for you and EFAP. This is you gaslighting your audience to its extreme.

3:23:08 - Mauler thinks anti-white race-swapping can be legitimised if the game earns its place by Mauler liking the game. So anti-white racism is fine according to Mauler, as long as the media it's instilled into is enjoyable by Mauler. And that "all the work they've done" with the other characters means that anti-white racism is ok.

3:23:35 - Mauler says he's always been an anti-white racist. Who knew. "Let a thing speak for itself"... like how you and the Nerdrotic crew, rightly so, judged Rings of Power for the DEI anti-white race-swapping it did? You had a problem with that DEI then, which was before GoW Ragnarok came out, but then don't have a problem with the exact same DEI agenda for this game. Very curious indeed. Mauler then says chat being against anti-white DEI race-swapping is "not having an argument", and that it's "a little bit awkward".

3:24:10 - "I never make arguments like this".. so your endless videos and streams about Rings of Power's anti-white race-swapping was just a figment of our imagination then?

There's more timestamps during this stream and his other episodes of him playing this game, showing his pro-DEI stance, but the ones I wrote here are the main part.

The situation between The Act Man and Heelvsbabyface about Sweet Baby Inc, DEI and Act Man's disingenuous feigning obliviousness to the problem of DEI is exactly the same as Mauler's disingenuous feigning obliviousness here in this stream. Is this because Mauler is a fence-sitter in attempt to not fall on either side of the DEI battle, for fear of getting cancelled, or is Mauler actually pro-DEI in his heart. For my part, from everything Mauler said in this stream, it seems doubtless that he is indeed pro-DEI and pro anti-white race-swapping in the deepest cockles of his woke Welsh heart. His Welsh longbowmen ancestors would be spinning in their graves knowing that modern Welsh men such as Mauler are pro white erasure.

He's getting a mixed response in the replies while arguing with those who disagree. While it'd be real funny if Mauler starts to argue with this guy, I don't think anything will come from it. Maybe his rambling will change the mind of a true blooded Mauler fan, who knows?
 
Last edited:
Az is a fucking autist, but he's our fucking autist. Can't contain himself very well, but his heart's in the right place.
You can keep him. I actually tend to agree with him, but there are plenty of people who can comment on this nonsense without being nonsensical himself.
 
That objective shit is retarded and made me immediately stop watching mauler when he was pushing it because it's so easily demonstrated to be stupid. If you remove god from the equation or some other objective observant third party, and a movie plays on mars, who determines if its bad? Spoiler. No one, duh.
 
All movies are subjective art, doesn't matter if it's Lost Highway or Max Keeble's Big Move.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DEBIRU MAN
That objective shit is retarded and made me immediately stop watching mauler when he was pushing it because it's so easily demonstrated to be stupid. If you remove god from the equation or some other objective observant third party, and a movie plays on mars, who determines if its bad? Spoiler. No one, duh.

I don't think that Mauler's inherently wrong in stating that there is objective elements in art.

Objective elements are things like; understanding certain decisions from the standpoint of the writer/director, and why a scene/dialogue section exists ( foreshadowing, establishing a character trait etc.).

If you have this understanding of the material, you can make assertions for why the end product felt narratively unsatisfying (like being able to say "This plot twist has absolutely no build up in it, and even on a rewatch there was nothing that hinted at it. The author clearly decided at the last minute decided to throw it in for shock value.") And of course, other objective measures include things like how dialogue is written and the strength of the prose.

It's also important if you're talking about art, to be able to delve into WHY you didn't like it beyond your own personal pet peeves. There are a lot reviewers who say something is good or bad based on their head canons and personal agendas.

To summarize; it's important to understand what a piece of media is, outside of your own bias, before you can give it a fair assessment.

However, the fundamental issue with Mauler is that he uses objectivity to state whether something is good or bad. And of course, he doesn't use his standards consistently.

Subjective elements (how it resonates with the viewer) are what ultimately give art meaning, which is something that Mauler completely neglects.
 
That objective shit is retarded and made me immediately stop watching mauler when he was pushing it because it's so easily demonstrated to be stupid. If you remove god from the equation or some other objective observant third party, and a movie plays on mars, who determines if its bad? Spoiler. No one, duh.
Back when MauLer and Wolf debated Just Write, before EFAP was even a thing, he explained his objetivity point by saying something along the lines of: "If you gave a movie to a robot and he couldn't find any flaw or plot holes in it, than that's an objectively good movie", which is just... weird.
Movies and art in general aren't made by or for robots. They are made by people, for people. I'd say art is more about the relationship between the ideas that the artist wants to communicate through their art and how they communicate it, and whether or not the audience is being receptive to the work itself, which is always a case by case situation. You can take the most expertly crafted movie ever and it might still not be appealing to everyone. You can take the most flawed and unimpressive movie ever and still might still mean a lot to someone.
Some people might get a lot out of the experience of watching a purely visual, non-narrative film, and others might find it boring. Some people might get really impressed by the spectacle of a blockbuster film, while others might find it pretty hollow.
Of course, there are certain things in art that are generally considered the standard, but I don't think those are universal, either. Good cinematography doesn't mean pretty shots. Good dialogue doesn't mean clever or funny lines. Good character doesn't mean likeable character.
MauLer's idea of what makes a good movie ultimately is about whether or not he can nitpick "plot holes" out of it. And that's not a very good metric for asserting the quality or lack thereof of any piece of fiction. It's no wonder why their EFAP "approved" movies list feels so dull and void of an actual personality.
 
Last edited:
Mauler really just phrases his point weirdly, probably on purpose because it baits people into a misunderstanding that he can exploit for engagement. When most people hear "objectively bad/good" they'll think the objective metric here is the ultimate quality of the work, but Mauler's said that what he means by the term is more like "bad/good according to objectively discernable metrics." The ultimate quality of the work isn't the objective property, but you'd only know that if you happened to be around really early on when he says that offhandedly and then never brings it up again while pretending that everyone who takes issue with him calling something objectively x has signed on to his same definition of the phrase.

Of course, even with that in mind there's still going to be subjectivity inherent in why we value said criteria. It's cool that you can measure some stuff with numbers, but why do we care about those measurable qualities? Generally you're not going to have a completely objective metric for why we think the things that are good are good, so it's pretty silly to pretend like you've excised all subjectivity even without misleading phrasing.
 
While it is true that the "quality" of all art is entirely based on the audience member's personal opinion, I think there are some things you can point to and reasonably say they are objectively bad. Maybe not TRULY objective but close enough in my opinion.

Audio mixing being so fucked that you can't hear characters say dialogue that is crucial to understanding the plot is something I would say is objectively bad. Or a shot being out of focus, poorly framed, or so poorly lit that it's hard to make out important information, or with videogames buggy/unreliable mechanics or softlocks.
I would say these things are objectively bad because they obfuscate the intended message of a piece of media. (Sure all of these things can still be regarded as good to an individual, but so can real world things that are objectively bad like self-mutilation.)

The problem is that I really don't think you can say a piece of media is objectively good. Like what Ronnal had mentioned with Rags saying a film that is just one still shot of a wall is objectively perfect. Being devoid of obvious mistakes doesn't make art good, it just makes it competent, the rest after that is down to one's own personal standards.
 
MauLer's idea of what makes a good movie ultimately is about whether or not he can nitpick "plot holes" out of it. And that's not a very good metric for asserting the quality or lack thereof of any piece of fiction. It's no wonder why their EFAP "approved" movies list feels so dull and void of an actual personality.
It amuses me that he included this among the Oscar winners and pop-culture giants since it was a forgettable, "fuck you, it's January" movie :story:
1000002010.jpg
 
Back