The Mad Draklor
Member
So I'm not actually sure if this should be put into Gaming or Off-Topic as this topic can apply to any medium, including video games. Anyways, here is the video in question on BitChute. (Why BitChute, you may say? Well a certain someone had the YouTube version taken down because it had "hate speech". I kid you not.)
UPDATE: Someone uploaded a mirror on YouTube if anyone prefers using YouTube over BitChute.
Since the video is pretty lengthy, I will summarize the first half of the video with timestamps because otherwise, this OP will be way too long:
UPDATE: Someone uploaded a mirror on YouTube if anyone prefers using YouTube over BitChute.
Since the video is pretty lengthy, I will summarize the first half of the video with timestamps because otherwise, this OP will be way too long:
'Thermian Argument' preface said:1:45 - Dan Olsen's 'Thermian Argument' is composed in two parts: (1) Some elements in media are criticized, usually for racism or sexism and (2) Fans defend these elements by citing in-universe reasons for why the story is written the way it is. He argues that this defense is not valid because stories are "eternally mutable by creators", i.e. the only reason why the story is written the way it is is because the writer made it that way.
Dan claims that the defense of the implementation of controversial elements aims to dismiss criticism, suggesting that aren't any problems with a story as long as the elements are consistent with the in-universe logic and rules.
Dan's justification that the 'Thermian Argument' is real and why it's flawed said:3:29 - Dan Olsen criticizes the notion that the story is given priority over the text as a cultural product. He claims that the rationale behind a 'Thermian Argument' is contradictory and gives an example of two medieval games of different styles: one is 'historically accurate' while the other has women wearing chainmail bikini when fighting.
He once again claims that the argument of "It is how it works in that fictional world" is 'deeply flawed' because fiction isn't real and stories are "eternally mutable by creators". Because fiction isn't real, what only exists is the text and the ideas it represents.
Dan's conclusion said:4:54 - Dan claims that in the world outside of the fictional story, i.e. the real world, only the implications and impact of the story actually matter (doesn't this remind you of the logic of Extra Credit's "Stop Normalizing Nazis" video a bit?) and therefore, justifying the implementation of a controversial element by citing the in-universe rules and logic of the story is a 'chump' argument. He also claims that the 'Thermian Argument' only serves to shut down discussion.
Tl;DR's condensed summary and criticism said:5:35 - TL;DR summarizes Dan's argument as "the internal facts of a work of fiction are irrelevant to how any internal element be judged". He criticizes the 'Thermian Argument' by saying "because fiction is not real and the artist can change the work at any time, therefore, they should fit more closely with Dan's sensibilities".
TL;DR mentions how Dan's video starts off by talking about orcs ripping women apart in a rapey fashion, and how he finds that and the justification of the element through in-universe explanations to be 'creepy garbage', hence setting off TL;DR's alarm bells that Dan's criticism of the 'Thermian Argument' is nothing more than "I don't like this thing because muh feelz".
Dan's orc example is a strawman and Poisoning the Well tactic said:7:43 - TL;DR criticizes Dan's orc example as the work that actually has that kind of element is hypothetical and Dan doesn't really cite an actual work. In addition, out of countless examples, Dan's example actually does exist, his example falls squarely in the pornographic work or erotica literature genres. He calls Dan out for using a shame-based argument by purposely using an extreme example to make the audience feel creeped out.
10:35 - TL;DR points out that feeling revulsion towards a certain element of a fictional work is not an argument and only an opinion. He calls Dan out for using an extreme example as a Poisoning the Well tactic to attack the character of his argumentative opponents (basically, an ad hominem)
Why Dan's "stories are eternally mutable by creators" is flawed said:11:14 - TL;DR explains why Dan's claim that stories are just a pile of choices made by the author(s) is a flawed argument. TL;DR argues that to make a believable world and story, you have to come up with logical and consistent reasons to explain why this certain set piece happened in the story. If the story does not have internal consistency, then the set pieces will not be believable and will disengage the audience. Later in the video, TL;DR cites Star Wars: TLJ as one such example of a fictional work with poor consistency (at 16:33).
Last edited: