• Youtube Rewind 2016 (Videogamedunkey)
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=choco cookie;51530553]Well retreating from a debate, even if it is badly constructed, means you lose the debate.[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily true.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51530958]That's not necessarily true.[/QUOTE] Situationally, i'd say. Its certainly true in this case.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51530958]That's not necessarily true.[/QUOTE] In fact, I'd consider some people winners for knowing when to stop instead of continuing shit flinging with someone that won't get it. Unfortunately, I don't think that's applicable here.
I wish he included an actual Commentetiquette clip, I think the video would've been even better if just to top it all off he had a clip of Salvia leaving polite and respectful youtube comments
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51529838]Man who[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51448016#post51448016"] hyperbolizes valid complaints said by people with comfier careers than him in order to paint them as greedy ungrateful sacks of shit [/URL]whilist demeaning them and[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51446915#post51446915"] considering their livelihood as being "not a job"[/URL], and when called out on this resorts to[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51447980#post51447980"] calling the opposing poster a troll[/URL], claims someone else is close minded and coming up with excuses to hate things. [URL]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony[/URL][/QUOTE] Yeah, it would've been nice if instead of strawmaning and saying he's being ironic/a hypocrite someone had actually expanded on his claim that youtubers featured in the official Rewind actually do have insights and talents and are interesting, a point that nobody has really mentioned up until now. I don't know the youtubers in the official Rewind because I stick to the gaming-culture side of Youtube (and I don't really browse Youtube in general), clearly the people in the official Rewind are involved in other areas of Youtube that's not games and have their own audience and obviously this is why Facepunch recognizes Dunkey's people more than the Official YT ones, but people are very quick to dismiss the people featured in the official rewind as people who don't have the same personality as the youtubers they are familiar with and are not are instantly not as good as the ones they do know. I definitely identified more people in Dunkey's Rewind than in the official one, but I don't think that Youtube apparently completely missed the mark on popular Youtube personalities; I mean there's got to be a reason these people were featured, and I think dismissing them as "not real" youtubers so fast just because people in one community who shares the same interests don't know them is quite silly I thought it was an interesting point and I would've liked to see a discussion on it rather than someone bringing up old post history to completely shaft over the poster's original point of discussion. I don't really care if in some other argument with you he was being immature, it really didn't need to be brought up in this thread, doing so was already kind of childish and further arguing with him about his other posts was even more childish, I don't see why you have to argue in this thread over his character when it's completely unrelated to the topic. He had an interesting point and now it is covered up over some strange grudge you seemingly hold on him not furthering his debate with you. This entire discussion and debate over his character was totally unnecessary/derailing and honestly quite annoying to read.
How about a little change of pace in this thread with all the discussion: [video=youtube;WqnXp6Saa8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqnXp6Saa8Y[/video] A classic by Dunkey.
even all my normie friends know the vape nation meme most of them don't even know h3h3
[QUOTE=SirJon;51533755]even all my normie friends know the vape nation meme most of them don't even know h3h3[/QUOTE] Wow, do you seriously care that much about your memes?
[QUOTE=Tacooo;51524778]Just noticed Youtube unsubbed me from Dunkey. wtf.[/QUOTE] Oh fuck me, me too
Man, I could recognize maybe 5 or 6 people from the list at the end of the "official" video, yet I know just about everyone in Dunkey's.
[QUOTE=t h e;51532793]Yeah, it would've been nice if instead of strawmaning and saying he's being ironic/a hypocrite someone had actually expanded on his claim that youtubers featured in the official Rewind actually do have insights and talents and are interesting, a point that nobody has really mentioned up until now.[/QUOTE] Is it strawmaning if all of it is true and i linked to where he said it? My point here was he's constantly starting shit. That whole topic was brought up because he said "It's practically Dunkey saying "what I watch is the real Youtube" because anyone who watches stuff that was shown in the original Rewind aren't "real" Youtubers for some reason." He keeps doing this shit, bitching about youtubers, putting words in their mouth, projecting onto them to bitch and complain to get attention, he's done this in 3 or 4 threads now. [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51446969&viewfull=1#post51446969]"Man look at Ethan bitch and whine about not getting ALL the ATTENTION[/url][url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51446841&viewfull=1#post51446841] wow what a greedy fuck youtube isnt even a JOB"[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1544796&p=51508277#post51508277]"Man look at IHE bitch and whine like a spoiled shit he's OBVIOUSLY complaining about HIS stuff not getting spotlighted what a fucking asshole."[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1545151&p=51528864#post51528864]"Man look at Dunkey bitch and whine because he feels entitled and watches the REAL youtube what a fucking loser."[/url] He doesnt want to start a conversation, he wants people to pay attention to him by posting shit he knows he'll get flak over, time and time again. I might believe he's genuine if he ever listened to what anyone else said ever, but as it is i can only assume he keeps doing this so people look at him. Like yeah the discussion he started could be interesting sure, but it could do without the holier than thou self righteous envious attitude he has.
[QUOTE=Nemisis116;51527569]Jerma is one of the best channels on youtube [video]https://youtu.be/u3JlXhXXA-Q[/video] Here he is playing 700,000 games[/QUOTE] Did someone say Jerma? [video=youtube;B0fm2lRrEg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0fm2lRrEg0[/video]
[QUOTE=yellowoboe;51534433]Did someone say Jerma? [video=youtube;B0fm2lRrEg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0fm2lRrEg0[/video][/QUOTE] Him moving to a consistent 3 day a week streaming schedule is the best shit ever.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;51534092]Wow, do you seriously care that much about your memes?[/QUOTE] what, where did that even come from im just saying h3h3 is pretty pop cultural and should be in a rewind
Perhaps the reason the more genuine and community oriented youtubers don't get recognition in this video is their use of language, the nature of their content, and the occasional anti-youtube message. If I were youtube I would actually want some lame, family friendly nobodies with non-edgy content to play it safe in the public eye.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51534430]Is it strawmaning if all of it is true and i linked to where he said it? My point here was he's constantly starting shit. That whole topic was brought up because he said "It's practically Dunkey saying "what I watch is the real Youtube" because anyone who watches stuff that was shown in the original Rewind aren't "real" Youtubers for some reason." He keeps doing this shit, bitching about youtubers, putting words in their mouth, projecting onto them to bitch and complain to get attention, he's done this in 3 or 4 threads now. [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51446969&viewfull=1#post51446969"]"Man look at Ethan bitch and whine about not getting ALL the ATTENTION[/URL][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1543424&p=51446841&viewfull=1#post51446841"] wow what a greedy fuck youtube isnt even a JOB"[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1544796&p=51508277#post51508277"]"Man look at IHE bitch and whine like a spoiled shit he's OBVIOUSLY complaining about HIS stuff not getting spotlighted what a fucking asshole."[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1545151&p=51528864#post51528864"]"Man look at Dunkey bitch and whine because he feels entitled and watches the REAL youtube what a fucking loser."[/URL] He doesnt want to start a conversation, he wants people to pay attention to him by posting shit he knows he'll get flak over, time and time again. I might believe he's genuine if he ever listened to what anyone else said ever, but as it is i can only assume he keeps doing this so people look at him. Like yeah the discussion he started could be interesting sure, but it could do without the holier than thou self righteous envious attitude he has.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is[B] still [/B]strawmanning, clearly you don't know the definition of it because whether your facts are true or not is completely irrelevant to what a strawman argument is. Pay attention to the last sentence: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FTZgqbC.png[/IMG] He was arguing that the personalities in the official Rewind actually had talent and were interesting; something you did not address at all. So yes, you are strawmanning. I also find it [I]very[/I] ironic that you're criticizing him for putting words in people's mouths like how he says [quote] It's practically Dunkey saying "what I watch is the real Youtube" because anyone who watches stuff that was shown in the original Rewind aren't "real" Youtubers for some reason.[/quote] and you paraphrase it and link to his quote like such: [quote]"Man look at Dunkey bitch and whine because he feels entitled and watches the REAL youtube what a fucking loser."[/quote] Like is this a joke? Are you joking? Being hyperbolic was what you were criticizing him for but you're actually doing the same thing two seconds later. I thought you did that on purpose, but there's no actual point in being a hypocrite in your own post, and then you go on to say "I just assume he posts that way because he wants attention" rather than thinking "oh maybe he's misinterpreting these guys". I'm speaking within the context of this thread here, because what he says is "A lot of the people in the original video are actually very insightful and talented people, you're closed minded for thinking they're 'a mob of nobodies willing to shill for Youtube's best interests'" and the first reply he gets from you is "oh look at your post history". You [I]are literally baiting him[/I] into a discussion about his previous posts which is [I]completely irrelevant to the current thread and topic[/I], he wasn't wrong in saying that was bait. It's very easy to construe the video that way he said, where he thinks that Dunkey is saying these people are the [I]real[/I] Youtubers, and I'm sure that's not what Dunkey is actually saying, but a lot of people on Facepunch are basically saying the same thing. "Oh, I don't know any of the people in that thumbnail, why did Youtube choose random nobodies?" or "I don't know any of them, and I don't want to, that second guy from the right has the most punchable face ever" or "the people in Youtube's official Rewind have no personality, they just have a lot of views from clickbait". Like seriously? A lot of people on Facepunch have dismissed the people in the official Rewind being actual youtubers because they simply don't know them. This isn't something Toothpick is just randomly making up, people are legitimately thinking these people don't have personality. And I find it interesting because nobody has ever mentioned once that maybe the Youtubers in the official Rewind are maybe just personalities that don't talk about gaming and that's why we don't know them. You say he wasn't trying to start a conversation, but he was just presenting how he interpreted the video (which was not even a totally impossible way to interpret it), and he was disagreeing with someone's opinion as being dismissive of Youtubers. What part of that isn't building on a conversation? I wanted to see where that conversation would've went because no one has mentioned his point before, but immediately he is shut down because instead of taking his posts individually you have to go back and talk about his previous post history. Literally in the same post you say "He doesnt want to start a conversation" and "yeah the discussion he started could be interesting sure", like what? I'll be honest, I thought the only person being non-conductive to the conversation here was you. There was no point in bringing up his attitude from before, there really was no need to bring it up in this thread until he started acting that way. Saying he's going to act a certain way before he actually does is just assumptional (wow, ironic) and also just derailing. If you want to criticize the way he posts, do it [I]after [/I]he acts that way, not before. It really just destroys whatever discussion could've been had.
[QUOTE=t h e;51536849]Yes, it is[B] still [/B]strawmanning, clearly you don't know the definition of it because whether your facts are true or not is completely irrelevant to what a strawman argument is. Pay attention to the last sentence: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FTZgqbC.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/eGodJCQ.jpg[/t] Ive always been under the assumption and seen the usage of the term "strawman" (Here, elsewhere, and hey look even in that wikipedia article you took a picture of, how about that? I took a screenshot too.) in reference to painting an overtly negative (Read: FALSE, the important word here is [b]FALSE[/b]) image of an opposing persons opinion by taking what they're saying and morphing it to create an artificial target to argue against that isnt actually related to what they're saying. Considering i linked to numerous examples of when he's done things (though not quite as hyperbolized, i'll get to why i do that in a second), no, i would not consider it a strawman. [QUOTE=t h e;51536849]He was arguing that the personalities in the official Rewind actually had talent and were interesting; something you did not address at all. So yes, you are strawmanning. I also find it [I]very[/I] ironic that you're criticizing him for putting words in people's mouths like how he says[/QUOTE] See above, and secondly, i didnt address his argument because it was irrelevant to why i was arguing with him, if you paid attention to what i was saying and why i was saying it, i was pointing out his blatantly argumentative, projective statements and opinions that due to the past few threads he's surely aware of the result. Actually, thanks for bringing up strawmanning, because he was doing exactly that numerous times. [QUOTE=t h e;51536849]and you paraphrase it and link to his quote like such: Like is this a joke? Are you joking? Being hyperbolic was what you were criticizing him for but you're actually doing the same thing two seconds later. I thought you did that on purpose, but there's no actual point in being a hypocrite in your own post, and then you go on to say "I just assume he posts that way because he wants attention" rather than thinking "oh maybe he's misinterpreting these guys". [/QUOTE] I hyperbolized it to make it clear the exact problems i have with what he's saying, where he's saying it, and to whom he's directing it. Take the H3H3 thread for example, in which he blatantly paid little or no attention to the video in order to strawman Ethan into an attention seeking greedy jobless ingrate, notably lying in atleast one post, its exactly what he was doing. In the IHE thread, he did similarly, taking a very deliberate stance in the video, about Youtube misrepresenting what Youtube is by showcasing notable non youtube celebrities like The Rock, and spinning it into what he says was a cry for attention, that IHE was complaining that Youtube wasnt spotlighting him. And here, where he takes Dunkeys video and views, and attempts to make it about Dunkey wanting Youtube to showcase his exact tastes and bow to his whim. Not to mention his clear insult towards New Cidem for holding a different opinion than him. Its fucking ridiculous and the fact that you're throwing around that term and not noticing that of all the people here he's the one blatantly partaking in it is laughable and makes me seriously question if you're confronting me over a genuine sense of wrongdoing on my part or if theres some other motive. [QUOTE=t h e;51536849]I'm speaking within the context of this thread here, because what he says is "A lot of the people in the original video are actually very insightful and talented people, you're closed minded for thinking they're 'a mob of nobodies willing to shill for Youtube's best interests'" and the first reply he gets from you is "oh look at your post history". You [I]are literally baiting him[/I] into a discussion about his previous posts which is [I]completely irrelevant to the current thread and topic[/I], he wasn't wrong in saying that was bait. It's very easy to construe the video that way he said, where he thinks that Dunkey is saying these people are the [I]real[/I] Youtubers, and I'm sure that's not what Dunkey is actually saying, but a lot of people on Facepunch are basically saying the same thing. "Oh, I don't know any of the people in that thumbnail, why did Youtube choose random nobodies?" or "I don't know any of them, and I don't want to, that second guy from the right has the most punchable face ever" or "the people in Youtube's official Rewind have no personality, they just have a lot of views from clickbait". Like seriously? A lot of people on Facepunch have dismissed the people in the official Rewind being actual youtubers because they simply don't know them. This isn't something Toothpick is just randomly making up, people are legitimately thinking these people don't have personality. And I find it interesting because nobody has ever mentioned once that maybe the Youtubers in the official Rewind are maybe just personalities that don't talk about gaming and that's why we don't know them. You say he wasn't trying to start a conversation, but he was just presenting how he interpreted the video (which was not even a totally impossible way to interpret it), and he was disagreeing with someone's opinion as being dismissive of Youtubers. What part of that isn't building on a conversation? I wanted to see where that conversation would've went because no one has mentioned his point before, but immediately he is shut down because instead of taking his posts individually you have to go back and talk about his previous post history. Literally in the same post you say "He doesnt want to start a conversation" and "yeah the discussion he started could be interesting sure", like what? I'll be honest, I thought the only person being non-conductive to the conversation here was you. There was no point in bringing up his attitude from before, there really was no need to bring it up in this thread until he started acting that way. Saying he's going to act a certain way before he actually does is just assumptional (wow, ironic) and also just derailing. If you want to criticize the way he posts, do it [I]after [/I]he acts that way, not before. It really just destroys whatever discussion could've been had.[/QUOTE] Lotta text, but i'll sum up my answer short and swift: You cant conduct through rubber, and you cant hold a conversation with someone who's only making statements and isnt willing to listen, and he's proven he doesnt want to listen to opposing viewpoints. Attempting to convince men without ears because they cut them off why they're wrong is hardly going to be productive unless you yell loudly. Oh and: [QUOTE=t h e;51536849]I'll be honest, I thought the only person being non-conductive to the conversation here was you. There was no point in bringing up his attitude from before, there really was no need to bring it up in this thread until he started acting that way. Saying he's going to act a certain way before he actually does is just assumptional (wow, ironic) and also just derailing. If you want to criticize the way he posts, do it [I]after [/I]he acts that way, not before. It really just destroys whatever discussion could've been had.[/QUOTE] Considering he was making the same type of inflammatory dialogue as before mixed with blatantly insulting other users, uh, yeah no he was doing the same shit, so you can stop that.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204][t]http://i.imgur.com/eGodJCQ.jpg[/t] Ive always been under the assumption and seen the usage of the term "strawman" (Here, elsewhere, and hey look even in that wikipedia article you took a picture of, how about that? I took a screenshot too.) in reference to painting an overtly negative (Read: FALSE, the important word here is [B]FALSE[/B]) image of an opposing persons opinion by taking what they're saying and morphing it to create an artificial target to argue against that isnt actually related to what they're saying. Considering i linked to numerous examples of when he's done things (though not quite as hyperbolized, i'll get to why i do that in a second), no, i would not consider it a strawman. See above, and secondly,[B] [highlight][I]i didnt address his argument because it was irrelevant to why i was arguing with him[/I][/highlight][/B], if you paid attention to what i was saying and why i was saying it, i was pointing out his blatantly argumentative, projective statements and opinions that due to the past few threads he's surely aware of the result. [/QUOTE] You've completely lost me, every post I've replied to thus far with you has you contradicting yourself, and it's incredible. Did you read the screenshot you just posted? Did you read your own post afterward? You straight up say that you [I]didn't address his argument[/I], which is [I]exactly what strawmanning is[/I] (when you don't address someone's argument and argue against something else instead), and say it's irrelevant. You're arguing against his argument, he's not arguing against yours, so he's not doing the strawmanning here, [I]you are[/I]. That's the entire point I'm trying to make. If you want me to clear it up, his first statement is: [quote]The youtubers in the original Rewind have talent and are interesting, you are just close-minded for thinking otherwise."[/quote] Your reply to him is: [quote]Look at your previous post history[/quote] I don't know how else to make it clear to you. You're not arguing against his initial discussion statement, you're arguing against his posting habits which is not his point of discussion at all, so you're strawmanning. There's really no other way to look at it. [QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204]Actually, thanks for bringing up strawmanning, because he was doing exactly that numerous times. I hyperbolized it to make it clear the exact problems i have with what he's saying, where he's saying it, and to whom he's directing it. Take the H3H3 thread for example, in which he blatantly paid little or no attention to the video in order to strawman Ethan into an attention seeking greedy jobless ingrate, notably lying in atleast one post, its exactly what he was doing. In the IHE thread, he did similarly, taking a very deliberate stance in the video, about Youtube misrepresenting what Youtube is by showcasing notable non youtube celebrities like The Rock, and spinning it into what he says was a cry for attention, that IHE was complaining that Youtube wasnt spotlighting him. And here, where he takes Dunkeys video and views, and attempts to make it about Dunkey wanting Youtube to showcase his exact tastes and bow to his whim. Not to mention his clear insult towards New Cidem for holding a different opinion than him. [/QUOTE] Do you not understand what I've been saying? I don't care about his post history. How many times do I have to say that his post history is so irrelevant to the discussion he was trying to have? You're strawmanning right now by bringing up him strawmanning, what does that have to do with my original point? My entire point is you're disrupting potential discussion and conversation because you want to jab at his previous post history in other threads before actually conversing with him. [QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204] Its fucking ridiculous and the fact that you're throwing around that term and not noticing that of all the people here he's the one blatantly partaking in it is laughable and makes me seriously question if you're [B]confronting me over a genuine sense of wrongdoing on my part or if theres some other motive[/B]. [/QUOTE] Do you see what you're saying? You're questioning if I have some other motive? Let me know if you find a reason for saying this, because this is by far the most useless and irrelevant statement I have read that has not contributed to this discussion. To respond, no, I have no "other motive", I saw dumb argument about someone's posting history disrupting a discussion on a point I wanted to hear expanded on more and decided to point out that it was an utter waste of time. Yes, I think there was some wrongdoing on your part, you'd realize where I think that if you were actually understanding what I'm trying to say. [QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204]Lotta text, but i'll sum up my answer short and swift: You cant conduct through rubber, and you cant hold a conversation with someone who's only making statements and isnt willing to listen, and he's proven he doesnt want to listen to opposing viewpoints.[/QUOTE] I'll sum up my answer short and swift: engage in another conversation before you start saying he doesn't want to listen. If you go into every discussion with the mindset "oh this person is the exact same as before" you're quite honestly disrespecting the other person, being assumptional, and also being hypocritical. Yeah, before he was posting some pretty outrageous stuff (note: i don't care what he posted before, so I actually haven't looked at his other posts at all because they're just that irrelevant) but instead of trying to discuss with him you're immediately saying "look at your previous posts" doesn't help anyone in any discussion if you don't even engage in proper conversation with him. I don't go to every discussion and if someone's been banned for trolling say "oh, you were banned for trolling before whatever statement you just made whether valid or not is not even worth discussing". [QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204] Attempting to convince men without ears because they cut them off why they're wrong is hardly going to be productive unless you yell loudly. [/QUOTE] Ok, thanks for the nice image? [QUOTE=AaronM202;51537204] Considering he was making the same type of inflammatory dialogue as before mixed with blatantly insulting other users, uh, yeah no he was doing the same shit, so you can stop that.[/QUOTE] Except he wasn't doing the same shit you're criticizing him for. He was being rude, yes, but that's not at all what you were criticizing, you were criticizing his tendencies to be hyperbolic, misinterpretive and unlistening, which he had not even displayed yet before you started criticizing him for doing it. Do you see what I am getting at? I am honestly baffled replying to you because you are missing my entire point and you reply with nonsense. I didn't want to do an entire chopped up "reply to every segment of this post" style post because now it's exactly what I wanted to avoid, a dumb derailing argument that's not conducive to the topic's discussion at all. Do you realize how many posts of yours have been so irrelevant to the thread topic and have actually stinted discussion? Because that is [I]my[/I] main issue here, and unless you can convince me that somehow, criticizing Toothpick for previous posts before letting further discussion occur has somehow contributed to discussion in this thread on this topic, whatever you're saying is irrelevant, because that is literally my only problem here and to argue about something else is, to put it, strawmanning. You still haven't even refuted my initial argument that your bringing up of post history stinted discussion, and instead have only said "he's not going to listen to anyone" without actually having given him a chance, which is [I]my entire problem[/I]​. I don't care if you can prove that Toothpick has no posting credibility, I don't care if you can prove to me that he is strawmanning. Unless you can convince me that you somehow did [I]not[/I] ruin potential discussion that Toothpick brought up and that you bringing up his old posts was somehow justifiable before he had actually behaved in such a way, there is no point in replying to me, because whatever other topics you want to bring up are just clogging up the thread more, and I really am getting tired of writing posts refuting points that I'm not even arguing just to further clog the thread with long and irrelevant posts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.