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

[Slimy Time]

I think it's partially leftover arrogance from when they had one of the largest empires in history and partially because American media tends to cast Brits as intelligent and highly cultured characters (villains or otherwise), so it might feel natural to slip into that part if your audience is mainly Americans.

reminds me of Arch Warhammer, That dude has the most cringy fake accent in his videos it makes them hard to watch.

Both of them hang out with Sargon and are mods/admins on his discord iirc. They are all in the same sphere of being fart huffing pseudo-intellectuals who pretend to have an "intellectual" British accent with none of the academic credentials to justify being an "intellectual". The average Bong probably think of these guys as faggots, especially Mr Rape Joke. They are all in the same cringe inducing skeptic sphere that most people don't like.

 

[biscuitscilia]

But muh objective analysis though.
Mauler's style of critique would be joyless and autistic even if he actually knew shit about movies beyond surface-level normie shit.
But that's just it.
He doesn't have a deeper knowledge of film and filmmaking.
That's how you get him criticizing flickering lights in a dropship as a flaw instead of as the mood and tone-setter it actually is.
It's also how you get the idiotic notion that fictional characters have all the information that the audience does and should act like soulless automatons who always make the "rational" decision.
Mauler really is just a blockbuster loving normie who fell ass-first into being seen as a "Smart Reviewer" by the NEET crowd.

What's worst is the fanbase that surrounds him that does buy into his intellectual shtick. They shill for him, defend him, and even source him as if he actually is some reliable reference of information. It's mostly the same pedantic Reddit crowd that likes Sargon or Rick and Morty for being "edgy smart." They enable every shitty thing he does and are smug as fuck about it too.

 

[HavaLottaTimetoSpare]

Mauler got known off the back of that 9 hour response to Hbomberguy. He's never had his own fans, just people who hate the same people he does.

 

[A.Shitposter]

Both of them hang out with Sargon and are mods/admins on his discord iirc. They are all in the same sphere of being fart huffing pseudo-intellectuals who pretend to have an "intellectual" British accent with none of the academic credentials to justify being an "intellectual". The average Bong probably think of these guys as faggots, especially Mr Rape Joke. They are all in the same cringe inducing skeptic sphere that most people don't like.

View attachment 1220496

Isn't Sargon the guy who ran for public office and completely humiliated the entire party he was representing and basically killed their chances because he tried running while acting like an edgy youtuber or am I thinking of some other pseudo-intellectual commentary youtuber.

 

[Slimy Time]

Isn't Sargon the guy who ran for public office and completely humiliated the entire party he was representing and basically killed their chances because he tried running while acting like an edgy youtuber or am I thinking of some other pseudo-intellectual commentary youtuber.

Yes and then he said he did everything right by taking the heat for Farage. He was so proud of how he was engaging in "Pan European politics" compared to other internet personas like Metokur, but ended up as a national joke, with people throwing milkshakes and fish at him, and him being known about threatening to rape a female Labour MP.

This is the guy Mauler and Archwarhammer follow...pseudo intellectuals are the worst.

 

[CapeKnight]

Mauler's criteria are broken. I'm sure a lot of people have said it in this thread already. He doesn't actually need to specify what he means by objectivity, you can see he applies pure logic to it. Which doesn't work. He doesn't understand the degrees of separation between objectivity and subjectivity enough, because they are reliant on each other to work. There's objective-subjectivity, and subjective-objectivity, and the little nuances in between them.

Mauler's biggest crime is showing up on YouTube to inspire a bunch of people to use "objective" as a buzzword, even if he did it out of annoyance of people using subjectivity as a shield, he was the wrong guy to take up the helm.

 

[thatoneguyfromdirtyharry]

Mauler's criteria are broken. I'm sure a lot of people have said it in this thread already. He doesn't actually need to specify what he means by objectivity, you can see he applies pure logic to it. Which doesn't work. He doesn't understand the degrees of separation between objectivity and subjectivity enough, because they are reliant on each other to work. There's objective-subjectivity, and subjective-objectivity, and the little nuances in between them.

Mauler's biggest crime is showing up on YouTube to inspire a bunch of people to use "objective" as a buzzword, even if he did it out of annoyance of people using subjectivity as a shield, he was the wrong guy to take up the helm.

Pretty much every objectivity vs subjectivity arguments I've seen from those guys usually devolve into semantics and analogies.

 

[CapeKnight]

Pretty much every objectivity vs subjectivity arguments I've seen from those guys usually devolve into semantics and analogies.

Callum went to art school. If anything, he should have been a "it's all subjective"-tard. That's the part I'm more confused about. I genuinely wonder if he's an outcast to the point where he doesn't mind the influence he's had on the type of talk that goes on now. He may have brought the debate to the table, but I'd argue there's nothing to be debating about. There's a reason the people who went against are YouTube Essayists... and not actual film critics or have ever produced a literary piece (maybe some of them have, but I'd wager it's one or two of them), and that is because they're easy targets. A lot of them wouldn't survive in a real literary discussion because they'd be that kid listening and trying to make a point but everyone of them knows their point is... pointless. I'd be discounting Lindsay Ellis too because she likes to throw different perspective lens on things you probably shouldn't be applying onto them. And word salad.

Edit: forgot to mention that he's technically regressed the debate on Objectivity and Subjectivity rather than bringing it to the table.

 

[buying gf]

I can't remember which EFAP it was, but the video they were responding to brought up reader-response theory, which none of them seemed to have heard of it before or know anything about it, and began to make fun of the term on face value - "how can you read a movie lol its a picture".

Regardless of what you think of it, it is an actual school of literary criticism. I don't doubt that whichever video essayist who brought it up was just regurgitating their Intro to Literary Analysis class, but the attitude of uninformed certainty that Mauler has really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[CapeKnight]

I can't remember which EFAP it was, but the video they were responding to brought up reader-response theory, which none of them seemed to have heard of it before or know anything about it, and began to make fun of the term on face value - "how can you read a movie lol its a picture".

Regardless of what you think of it, it is an actual school of literary criticism. I don't doubt that whichever video essayist who brought it up was just regurgitating their Intro to Literary Analysis class, but the attitude of uninformed certainty that Mauler has really rubs me the wrong way.

You're thinking of Just Write. To be fair, he sometimes knows what he's talking about, and other times, not really. I'd say that the times he actually knows what he's talking about, it's at the basic college freshmen level basics.

 

[AnAccount]

The problem with objectivity, Is it literally needs to be well objective. I've never seen a single of Mauler arguments show why, that even in absence of any Human judgement, If say, A copy of star wars TLJ was playing on loop on an empty planet, Absent of any subjective observers, I haven't seen any argument explain why that would be 'bad' what would make it 'objectively bad' and what is passing said objective judgement.

Like okay, Star wars fans don't like it, but how is whatever happens in that movie, objective by any measurable, universal metric?

 

[CapeKnight]

The problem with objectivity, Is it literally needs to be well objective. I've never seen a single of Mauler arguments show why, that even in absence of any Human judgement, If say, A copy of star wars TLJ was playing on loop on an empty planet, Absent of any subjective observers, I haven't seen any argument explain why that would be 'bad' what would make it 'objectively bad' and what is passing said objective judgement.

Like okay, Star wars fans don't like it, but how is whatever happens in that movie, objective by any measurable, universal metric?

Mauler should have never used his robot analogy. There's so many fucking ways I can think of to break that robot. Mauler should have instead used objectivity as in "the edge of the limitations humanity can push for that can be considered objective", in other words, pragmatic.

If the Hero's Journey is the universal standard for humans in terms of how a story is told, unless you prove that what psychologically feels good as a narrative corresponds to the universe's own metrics, then you can't use objectivity in it's purest form as a statement of any kind. I don't think Mauler understands that for him to be able even use Objectivity as an argument, in it's purest form, he'd have to first prove somehow that human consciousness and psychology is validated by the universe itself, therefore, his statements would then begin to have any weight.

I'll be honest, when I use "objective", I'm mostly saying pragmatic, but I use it anyways. Mauler seems to be double-speaking here, and not in the way he thinks he is, but that he's confusing objectivity for pragmatic, to a point where he thinks the definition for objectivity is what being pragmatic is.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

You could probably argue that some works are objectively bad or good but those are usually due to falling into an extreme of either end. But 99.99% of media is in the middle and that means that no matter how you try to break it there will be something that some people (who aren't insane) will find good. Looking at individual components of a film is also not really helpful since sometimes it's the combination of bad factors that can be something good or under the influence of an external factor.

 

[CapeKnight]

You could probably argue that some works are objectively bad or good but those are usually due to falling into an extreme of either end. But 99.99% of media is in the middle and that means that no matter how you try to break it there will be something that some people (who aren't insane) will find good. Looking at individual components of a film is also not really helpful since sometimes it's the combination of bad factors that can be something good or under the influence of an external factor.

I can give an example of the combination of bad factors, because I have one I point to the most: The concept of a Pirate King, in both Pirates of the Caribbean and One Piece. In POTC, that concept comes into play in the third film, and very briefly, the story doesn't exactly suffer for it, even if you can technically work your way into the results the scene tries to achieve without invoking an asinine concept such as a Pirate King. In One Piece, you literally can't get around it. It's the main character's primary motivation and a crucial part of world building and the pseudo "philosophy" a bunch of One Piece wankers like tout around. In POTC, I can get away with dismissing the concept and enjoy the movie for what it is. I can't comprehend why people even like One Piece because the concept of a Pirate King itself is logically inconsistent and a contradiction of the idea of being a Pirate. It's why I can point to POTC being much more enjoyable, even if it all goes downhill after the first film, and One Piece to being a complete waste of time since it doesn't adhere to any kind of logic people normally have when you think about what the heck the main character's trying to achieve and the tone it's setting itself up for, which is somehow an epic, as opposed to POTC which is from time to time, a comedy-adventure.

By Mauler's objective criteria, he would have struck the film and the anime, but knowing him and how he shills for blockbusters, whichever one of these is the most popular in his view and relevant, he'll simply vouch for it and make up some bullshit and tackle justifying the pseudo-philosophy of it all.

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

So I went and got the game Empires of the Undergrowth so I can play with ants like an autistic child and who else narrates the game but Mauler!

Gonna be honest, he's got a good voice for narration. I now want him to narrate more autistic shit about ants.

 

[José Mourinho]

I never really got the idea of ripping on a movie and sperging out on every single scene (or frame) why it's (objectively) bad to begin with. It doesn't make it entertaining at all and just makes you more like Nostalgia Critic but even more boring and unfunny. Not surprising to see him and his crew hanging out with Sargon either.

Spoiler: Unfunny joke

Also Mauler more like Mueller

 

[AnAccount]

Mauler should have never used his robot analogy. There's so many fucking ways I can think of to break that robot. Mauler should have instead used objectivity as in "the edge of the limitations humanity can push for that can be considered objective", in other words, pragmatic.

Yeah, I've had a very similiar conclusion during a discussion with someone before about objectivity in media. They closest you can get, is a group of people Coming to a conclusion of Standards, Rules and Expectations, that they use to judge media. This conclusion is ultimately subjective in nature, but within this pre established Rule set, you can come to a 'sort of' objective conclusion, since you are using a pre established rule set, but it's always ultimately going to be Subjective in some way.

 

[HavaLottaTimetoSpare]

The irony is, Mauler's criteria are incredibly subjective. He only cares about script construction. Actual dialogue, acting, lighting, sound design, music, SFX, all irrelevant. I suspect his ideal film would be all the actors standing in a line, reading a detailed plot synopsis.

 

[Lensherr]

I can't remember which EFAP it was, but the video they were responding to brought up reader-response theory, which none of them seemed to have heard of it before or know anything about it, and began to make fun of the term on face value - "how can you read a movie lol its a picture".

Regardless of what you think of it, it is an actual school of literary criticism. I don't doubt that whichever video essayist who brought it up was just regurgitating their Intro to Literary Analysis class, but the attitude of uninformed certainty that Mauler has really rubs me the wrong way.

When me and my best friend watched a 1-hour video of three guys arguing over Flat Earth Theory, he brought up a good point with regards to the guy arguing in favor of a flat earth. That is, that he was relying solely on his own intuition to make his case, which my friend argued isn’t sufficient on its own, since one’s intuition is often unreliable.
Now I’m not saying that MauLer is the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther, but he does seem to rely solely on his own intuition for his arguments, hence the attitude of uninformed certainty that you referred to and him criticizing people in the past for what he perceives to be relying too heavily on literature to source their arguments.

 

[biscuitscilia]

Yes and then he said he did everything right by taking the heat for Farage. He was so proud of how he was engaging in "Pan European politics" compared to other internet personas like Metokur, but ended up as a national joke, with people throwing milkshakes and fish at him, and him being known about threatening to rape a female Labour MP.

This is the guy Mauler and Archwarhammer follow...pseudo intellectuals are the worst.

I think Sargonites are just the most obnoxious fucking people on YouTube. They're worse than pseudo-intellectuals because they all fall in under Sargon's school of thought and mimic his actions almost exactly. We really need more Metokurs, people who really know how to piss these smug fucks off, to reveal how retarded they are.

Callum went to art school. If anything, he should have been a "it's all subjective"-tard. That's the part I'm more confused about. I genuinely wonder if he's an outcast to the point where he doesn't mind the influence he's had on the type of talk that goes on now. He may have brought the debate to the table, but I'd argue there's nothing to be debating about. There's a reason the people who went against are YouTube Essayists... and not actual film critics or have ever produced a literary piece (maybe some of them have, but I'd wager it's one or two of them), and that is because they're easy targets. A lot of them wouldn't survive in a real literary discussion because they'd be that kid listening and trying to make a point but everyone of them knows their point is... pointless. I'd be discounting Lindsay Ellis too because she likes to throw different perspective lens on things you probably shouldn't be applying onto them. And word salad.

Edit: forgot to mention that he's technically regressed the debate on Objectivity and Subjectivity rather than bringing it to the table.

That's because you're looking at it wrong. Mauler's degree in art, I'm pretty sure, is only relative to either performing arts or specific art forms like video games. You gotta remember, this is the same guy who dismissed having a formal education on a subject because he knows he lacks the credentials to dictate how people should look at art. So chances are he never even took a single semester in Film, he doesn't occur to me as the kind of guy who wouldn't brag about it.
I think the reason why it's hard to tell what's going on with Mauler is because we're looking at him as if he genuinely likes movies and not just using it as a front to become e-famous and attack people. I have two reasons, a reason for why he's popular and a potential reason why he acts the way he does.

REASON ONE:
His popularity is because his platform is based on hating and liking the "right" things. The things that fans of franchises, like Star Wars, hate or like.
Really, he came at the best time. The Last Jedi came out, a large portion of Star Wars fans fucking hate the Last Jedi and they hate people who like it. Then comes Mauler who tells people there's an objective way to look at art so it gives people who hate the Last Jedi the ability to tell people who like it that they're fucking retards and that it is objectively shit.
The Last Jedi, by the way, is shit. But this is important because it characterizes Mauler and his relationship to his fanbase.
It's all about having the right opinion and picking the right targets. People fucking hate Hbomberguy, Quinton, Just Write, Patrick Williams, Jenny Nicholson, RalphTheMovieMaker etc. Making fun of them then means that at least some portion of their detractors are going to gravitate towards you because if you hate them, that means you're right.

But by bolstering a fanbase like this that are totally intolerant of dissenting opinions and follow you because you always have the "right" opinion all the time, well, it's a ticking time bomb waiting to explode if you ever have what they consider a "bad take." A time bomb that almost went off when they talked about Avatar: The Last Airbender because it's one of the most beloved animated shows in the medium's history. It was a blessing that Rags is so fucking retarded because it really woke a lot of people up. If they gave their opinions on the show, they would have been fucked. This is a community that only follows you for being "right" so if you're "wrong", they will turn on you.

There's no loyalty.

It's like when a woman leaves her boyfriend of five years for a guy she's only known for a day. Mauler's fanbase will leave him if someone appears and successfully challenges him on something that he hates but they like so always having the right opinion on stuff is key to his survival. Any dissenting opinions are usually on things that don't matter to his audience because his audience don't care about movies either, just franchise films and only certain franchises at that.
It's why he's yet to actually discuss Avatar yet. Because his fanbase has already decided that the winner is whoever has the right opinion. A "good take."
I think he knows this and he's not sure what to do now and we can thank his furfag best friend for putting him into this situation.

REASON TWO:
I wondered for the longest time why Mauler is so obsessive over people he covers on EFAP. It's clearly not just because they are "objectively wrong" or that he's just trying to refute retarded arguments. Mauler likes to humiliate people. He gets a rush from this, obviously. He likes to break and submit people to his school of thought. And then I noticed whenever he is not on EFAP, how different his actions are compared to what he says. How he talks on his streams. How he acts on Twitter or towards people. If you watch his debates, you'll notice that he will often lull his opponent by appearing to be sincere and genuine. Only to then humiliate them once the debate is over.
You could say it's because he's a hypocrite but I think there's something more malicious there. I'm going to read the PCL-R because I think Mauler might fall under the traits for being a psychopath. From everything I've read in this 39-page thread, I do notice reoccurring traits that Mauler possesses that are listed under the PCL-R's criteria for one. I'm not too sure yet, take this with a grain of salt but it's something I think is worth looking into.
Maybe if someone on here is an expert in psychology and is familiar with the PCL-R, if they could comment on this, it'd be neat to see their conclusion on it.