Support NeoGAF

[The Mad Draklor]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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".

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)

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).

 

[LegendOfKage]

Who made this video, who had it taken down, and why was it considered hate speech?

Your post is kind of lacking some important details.

 

[BlackOlivesMatter]

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Who made this video, who had it taken down, and why was it considered hate speech?

What I have linked is TL;DR's rebuttal against Dan Olsen's 'Thermian Argument' video which is in the description on BitChute.

Who had it taken down? I assume Dan Olsen, but no solid proof. The timing is quite suspicious because TL;DR's video was uploaded just yesterday and Dan Olsen has engaged in activities similar to this before.

Why was it considered hate speech? I don't know nor should it have been taken down for hate speech. Whoever flagged the video did so with a Carlos Maza-esque mentality.

Your post is kind of lacking some important details.

I apologize. The video itself is over 25 minutes. If I tried to summarize the entire thing, the OP would be ridiculously long. I think I managed to cover enough of it so that people can get a gist of what's being presented.

 

[Al Abaster]

Dan Olsen argues that no story should ever be written that fails to comport to the moral code of his personal religion. Doing so constitutes a choice by the author to engage in heresy, a choice that should not be made since it offends Dan Olsen's religion. Heretics and apostates must be reviled and destroyed. All must come to embrace the obvious wisdom of Dan Olsen's religious code.

Looks like the gang that used to criticize church ladies has become the church ladies. And now they get all fascist about it. As for me, I prefer the company of racists, sexists, and homophobes to the company of fascists. Fascists make the other guys seem like saints.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm bemused at this idea that Dan Olsen apparently makes up an offensive fantasy book in his head elaborates on the salacious nature of the book in great detail and then is offended by it. ... and uses that as some argument whereby all authors are somehow accountable for whatever offends his sensibilities (which I hazard is everything).

 

[spandexmonkey]

Clearly the answer is to run all future fiction through a committee headed by Dan Olsen. It's only reasonable.

 

[Saruhashi]

I'm bemused at this idea that Dan Olsen apparently makes up an offensive fantasy book in his head elaborates on the salacious nature of the book in great detail and then is offended by it. ... and uses that as some argument whereby all authors are somehow accountable for whatever offends his sensibilities (which I hazard is everything).

It's actually even crazier than that since he even goes as far as to present imaginary strawmen to argue in favour of the imaginary book that he made up.

I am assuming he does this because to do it with actually existing works of fiction would leave him open to being completely debunked.

For example if the finish of Avengers Endgame involved Iron Man and Thanos falling in love on the battlefield and getting married you can't really argue that this is ridiculous because movies aren't real so it doesn't matter.

If Iron Man can grab 6 mystical jewels and snap Thanos out of existence then why can't they just bang and fall in love?

It's pseudo-intellectual shite BUT the purpose was probably just to popularise that phrase "Thermian Argument" so that if you argue that The Witcher 3 is based on Polish mythology so its fine for most characters to be white they have an established buzzword to shut you down.

There are no POC in Kingdom Come Deliverance because the game is set in a particular historical place and time when almost everyone was white (ie in game explanation to avoid the criticism that the game has no POC) That's the Thermian Argument! Dismissed!

"The Thermian Argument is a logical fallacy that occurs when a question or criticism concerning the political statements that can be gleaned from a game or other work of art are countered instead with an in-universe explanation for why the thing being criticized is actually valid. If someone asks “Why do the girls in this game wear skimpy, titillating armor while the men wear realistic and reasonable armor?” and you counter with the girls in this universe are actually more powerful with less clothes on and thus it's okay, then you've committed the Thermian Argument, so to speak."

Fiction isn't real so it can be anything.

This is often a "go to" for people who mock the idea of historical accuracy in games.

And if it can be anything then shouldn't it be politically correct and safe and inclusive and inoffensive to everyone?

If a creator makes something controversial then the argument just becomes "well they could have made anything at all and they chose this but maybe they should have made something different" and no justification can be made because all justifications are invalid.

 

[Clear]

Dan Olsen argues that no story should ever be written that fails to comport to the moral code of his personal religion. Doing so constitutes a choice by the author to engage in heresy, a choice that should not be made since it offends Dan Olsen's religion. Heretics and apostates must be reviled and destroyed. All must come to embrace the obvious wisdom of Dan Olsen's religious code.

Looks like the gang that used to criticize church ladies has become the church ladies. And now they get all fascist about it. As for me, I prefer the company of racists, sexists, and homophobes to the company of fascists. Fascists make the other guys seem like saints.

Yep, its the Spanish Inquisition basically. Their absolute moral authority allowing them to manufacture prosecutorial arguments so loaded against the accused they literally can offer no defense to charges levelled against them.

If you float you're a witch. If you drown... well, job done anyway.

 

[Kadayi]

S Saruhashi

I'll be honest I got as fas as the reveal of this 'orcs raping women' book being some insane fantasy that Olsen concocted in his head (initially I thought..is this a real thing? With that title? Japan maybe?) and bailed because frankly, I don't need to watch another 20 minutes to comprehend that Olsen is clearly mentally defective.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I'm bemused at this idea that Dan Olsen apparently makes up an offensive fantasy book in his head elaborates on the salacious nature of the book in great detail and then is offended by it. ... and uses that as some argument whereby all authors are somehow accountable for whatever offends his sensibilities (which I hazard is everything).

And in Dan's video, his fans like to mention Goblin Slayer and The Rising of the Shield Hero, which surprise surprise happened to be the two anime shows where the SJWs got all up in arms about over the past few seasons. For Goblin Slayer, they were upset about how there was rape in the 1st episode (which I need to laugh at because clearly they haven't watched anime from the 90s). For Shield Hero, they were upset because of the false rape accusation and depiction of slavery.

 

[Shai-Tan]

skipping through it seems like this video and the video it's responding to is amateur literary theory/criticism. what connection does it have to games aside from games having stories in them?

 

[spandexmonkey]

"The Thermian Argument is a logical fallacy that occurs when a question or criticism concerning the political statements that can be gleaned from a game or other work of art are countered instead with an in-universe explanation for why the thing being criticized is actually valid. If someone asks “Why are the women depicted as being able to fight in melee as effectively as the men?” and you counter with the girls in this universe are actually just as powerful as men and thus it's okay, then you've committed the Thermian Argument, so to speak."

Am I doing it right?

 

[ResilientBanana]

If art is required to be politically correct, by definition, it's not art.

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Am I doing it right?

Basically. The concept of the 'Thermian Argument' is complete nonsense when you can abuse this type of "criticism" on any work of fiction. It's largely, "I don't like this work of fiction because it has elements that are creepy and you're creepy, too, if you defend their depiction even if it makes sense", only that it's presented in a more deceptive, word salad fashion.

 

[llien]

Looks like the gang that used to criticize church ladies has become the church ladies. And now they get all fascist about it. As for me, I prefer the company of racists, sexists, and homophobes to the company of fascists. Fascists make the other guys seem like saints.

Brilliant!

 

[Kadayi]

And in Dan's video, his fans like to mention Goblin Slayer and The Rising of the Shield Hero, which surprise surprise happened to be the two anime shows where the SJWs got all up in arms about over the past few seasons. For Goblin Slayer, they were upset about how there was rape in the 1st episode (which I need to laugh at because clearly they haven't watched anime from the 90s). For Shield Hero, they were upset because of the false rape accusation and depiction of slavery.

Household names those two right there. Pillars of the highest fantasy up there with Tolkien no doubt.

The inherent problem with Dan Olsen's view is simply that his mindset of at odds with the old adage 'seek the approval of others and you'll forever be their slave' which is essentially the death knell of creativity. There's a time and place where 'design by committee' is acceptable, but it usually relates to urban planning and municipal works, not private creative endeavours like fiction.

 

[Ballthyrm]

There's a time and place where 'design by committee' is acceptable, but it usually relates to urban planning and municipal works,

Here lies the number 1 reason cities are badly designed.
'design by committee' anything is unacceptable.

Committee are for oversight, not actually for doing anything.

 

[GreenAlien]

Nevermind.

 

[GreyHorace]

Among the SJW clique in Channel Awesome (that composed of Lindsay Ellis (Nostalgia Chick), Alison Pregler (Obscurus Lupa), Elisa Hansen (Maven of the Eventide) and others), I always found Dan Olsen to be a creeper. I despise his smug pseudo intellectual take on things.

So what he's arguing is that all works of fiction should be overseen by a Ministry of Truth? No thank you Dan. Go back to browsing pedo websites to frame 4chan.

 

[Dontero]

Who is Dan and why should i fucking care what some idiot says ?

 

[strange headache]

I'm bemused at this idea that Dan Olsen apparently makes up an offensive fantasy book in his head elaborates on the salacious nature of the book in great detail and then is offended by it. ... and uses that as some argument whereby all authors are somehow accountable for whatever offends his sensibilities (which I hazard is everything).

Stories are "eternally mutable by creators"... but at the same time they can't have elements that Dan Olsen dislikes.
His argument is inherently self-defeating.

 

[Saruhashi]

Who is Dan and why should i fucking care what some idiot says ?

Don't know if you should "care" but it's a pretty interesting look into how people are trying to move the needle in terms of gaming criticism.

You have a guy pushing the idea that if you say, for example, "The Witcher is set in Poland so that's why most characters are white" then they can say "well that's an invalid argument" and make the point that a diverse cast of characters is good and a videogame developer has no excuse at all for not having a diverse cast.

So I could look at a game set in WW2 and say "where are the women" and you couldn't use "there were no women on the front lines in WW2" or "the game is trying to be historically authentic" because that's an invalid argument. Women are 45% of gamers so why doesn't your game based on the Battle of Dunkirk feature 45% women?

I would say that actually I'd rather have people publicly and visibly debunking these shitty ideas and exposing these dishonest tactics than just have an attitude of "why should I fucking care".

At the end of the day, the people who will be developing games in 10, 20, 30 years from now will be getting exposed to these ideas such as "The Thermian Argument" and "Stop Normalizing Nazis" and if there is no level-headed opposition then it will influence the industry in some fashion.

Not so say that you should "care" but just to say that the discussion of the idea isn't completely without merit.

 

[Kadayi]

Here lies the number 1 reason cities are badly designed.
'design by committee' anything is unacceptable.

Committee are for oversight, not actually for doing anything.

It's called feedback. It's an important part of the design process. The greatest mistakes of architectural folly have generally arisen because a singular vision didn't account for everything.

 

[GreenAlien]

It's called feedback. It's an important part of the design process. The greatest mistakes of architectural folly have generally arisen because a singular vision didn't account for everything.

That might be true for architecture. It's not true for fiction, because you want your work to be special.

 

[Kadayi]

That might be true for architecture. It's not true for fiction, because you want your work to be special.

I'm not disagreeing on that front. Maybe read my earlier posts.

 

[Daymos]

very interesting..

 

[DonF]

I heard the video and it's also concerning that YouTube removed it because they considered it "hate speech".
If anything that's censorship.

 

[strange headache]

Don't know if you should "care" but it's a pretty interesting look into how people are trying to move the needle in terms of gaming criticism.

You have a guy pushing the idea that if you say, for example, "The Witcher is set in Poland so that's why most characters are white" then they can say "well that's an invalid argument" and make the point that a diverse cast of characters is good and a videogame developer has no excuse at all for not having a diverse cast.

It is much worse than that, Olsen is basically arguing that story-telling has a moral duty. He wants stories to adhere to his narrow set of moral principles because he regards entertainment and artistic expression from the sole premise of its educative (or should I rather say "indoctrination") purposes. That is the only reason why he has no other choice but to defend this so called "Thermian argument", wherever the f*ck this made-up term is coming from. It's blatantly transparent.

One should take note that Olsen's video is from 2015 and apart from his own futile and desperate attempts at popularizing that notion, the "Thermian argument" didn't seem to have garnered much traction. A quick google search makes it pretty apparent that outside of Olsen's little ideological bubble, the notion has no basis in academic, linguistic or creative history. The only sources I was able to find was a "spacebattles forum", a subreddit called GamerGhazi and a sh*tty meme site that are both referring to Olsen's video.

In other words, there's nothing to see here.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Because people have an idea that Dorothy [Blue Velvet] was Everywoman, instead of being just Dorothy. That's where the problem starts. If it's just Dorothy, and it's her story - which it is to me - then everything is fine. When you start talking about "women" versus "a woman," then you're getting into this area of generalization. There's a billion of different stories and possibilities.

The only thing to say about all the controversy is, did I make all that up, or are there examples in real life? And there are countless examples like that in real life. So why do they get upset when you put something like this in a film?

 

[The Mad Draklor]

It is much worse than that, Olsen is basically arguing that story-telling has a moral duty. He wants stories to adhere to his narrow set of moral principles because he regards entertainment and artistic expression from the sole premise of its educative (or should I rather say "indoctrination") purposes. That is the only reason why he has no other choice but to defend this so called "Thermian argument", wherever the f*ck this made-up term is coming from. It's blatantly transparent.

Dan Olsen no different from the likes of Jack Thompson, Anita Sarkeesian, and Extra Credits. All 4 of these run on the notion that because a controversial element was depicted in a fictional work, therefore the work is supporting that controversial element.

"Is there gun violence in COD? Yes, so therefore, COD supports gun violence."
"Is 2B sexy and attractive in Nier Automata? Yes, so therefore, Nier Automata supports objectifying women."
"Can you play as a terrorist in CS:GO? Yes, meaning that CS:GO supports terrorism."
"Is there rape in Goblin Slayer? Yes, so Goblin Slayer glorifies rape and the author probably has some creepy fetish."

It's largely an Appeal to Consequences (with overt extrapolation) and Appeal to Emotion argument.

 

[protonion]

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.

 

[Kadayi]

Dan Olsen no different from the likes of Jack Thompson, Anita Sarkeesian, and Extra Credits. All 4 of these run on the notion that because a controversial element was depicted in a fictional work, therefore the work is supporting that controversial element.

"Is there gun violence in COD? Yes, so therefore, COD supports gun violence."
"Is 2B sexy and attractive in Nier Automata? Yes, so therefore, Nier Automata supports objectifying women."
"Can you play as a terrorist in CS:GO? Yes, meaning that CS:GO supports terrorism."
"Is there rape in Goblin Slayer? Yes, so Goblin Slayer glorifies rape and the author probably has some creepy fetish."

It's largely an Appeal to Consequences (with overt extrapolation) and Appeal to Emotion argument.

I think the biggest takeaway is that the presumption on their part that audiences are naturally inherently stupid and lacking in critical thought and require these self-appointed advocates to save them from themselves.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

I think the biggest takeaway is that the presumption on their part that audiences are naturally inherently stupid and lacking in critical thought and require these self-appointed advocates to save them from themselves.

And that is why the concept of the 'Thermian Argument' is completely invalid. Thermians are a fictional race that does not exist in real life and humans are not Thermians.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Sorry to bump when the thread already seems to have ran its course, but someone on KiA shared a link to a very well-written counterargument against Dan Olsen's idea of the 'Thermian Argument'.

https://divinedivisions.wordpress.c...d-the-importance-of-believable-hypotheticals/

 

[Clear]

The fundamental thing is that what Olsen is doing is creating a faux-rationalized justification for the primacy of his own taste.
Its wholly disingenuous and intellectually rotten.

 

[Derekloffin]

There is something to Dan's argument that defending a work just on the basis that it is internally consistent isn't a good defense.
However, his real argument is even worse as it amounts to 'I don't like it so I'll imply it does bad real world things but never even attempt to show such.'
Consumption theory is a thing in psych but these people always get it wrong. It is not a monkey see monkey do type theory. Just because we see X in media does not mean we'll engage more in activity X. In fact, there is a fair bit of evidence to the exact opposite, that seeing X in media makes us less likely to do X, but that's not a good conclusion either. Fact is it is just not that simple of an interaction.

 

[Tesseract]

good stories generally give good reasons for 'things' doing any such thing, like rape

usually sets the stakes, paints a picture of the kinda shock and trauma the world permits

at the same time, content creators are responsible for their works and rewrite or ignore their rules at crushing peril (defending stupid shit is another way of circling the drain)

comes down to expectations i think, logical consistency, and how fun the thing yer doing is (worth it to shock my audience with orc rape in the first episode of my anime dungeon crawler?)

 

[Kadayi]

Sorry to bump when the thread already seems to have ran its course, but someone on KiA shared a link to a very well-written counterargument against Dan Olsen's idea of the 'Thermian Argument'.

https://divinedivisions.wordpress.c...d-the-importance-of-believable-hypotheticals/

On point, but in truth, these long-winded treatises are kind of unnecessary. As one poster rightly says in the comments: -

.It occurs to me in hindsight that anyone who names their idea after a fictional race played for laughs in a fictional work is probably not taking this as seriously as they could be.

The internet has given us a great many things, (good and bad YMMV) however I think that there is a presumption on the part of the Dan Olsens of this world that the loudspeaker of social media somehow grants them an active sharehold in the creative endeavours of others. When in truth, no such contract exists. You have the right to be offended/upset if something doesn't align with your sensibilities/wishes and to express your frustration/exasperation, but that's as far as it goes. Like many, I was bummed out at the dismal nature of the ending of ME3 for instance, and albeit I expressed my disappointment here and elsewhere about it, I wasn't demanding Bioware change it. The most one would hope for is that they'd learn a valuable lesson from it going forward and don't repeat the same mistake.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

good stories generally give good reasons for 'things' doing any such thing, like rape

usually sets the stakes, paints a picture of the kinda shock and trauma the world permits

Goblin Slayer sets a pretty good example of using rape as a device as opposed to being a mere tool for shock factor. When Goblin Slayer and Priestess rescued Fighter Girl (and the other women) after she got raped and captured, Goblin Slayer found a secret spot where the goblin children were hiding. The series shows the painful reality that the goblins use the women as goblin baby-making machines and also partially explains Goblin Slayer's motivations.

at the same time, content creators are responsible for their works and rewrite or ignore their rules at crushing peril (defending stupid shit is another way of circling the drain)

comes down to expectations i think, logical consistency, and how fun the thing yer doing is (worth it to shock my audience with orc rape in the first episode of my anime dungeon crawler?)

That reminds me of the last leg of Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit. All of a sudden, the game went balls to the wall wtf with the protagonist all of a sudden going DBZ. And the game never really goes around to explain why that happened, so it just leaves the audience confused.

 

[Azure1088]

The whole thing feels like a double-bind meant to shame writers because they wish to use dark or 'unacceptable' themes in their work, contrary to Dan's politics or sensibilities. First it was 'Death of the Author', wanting people to come to their own conclusions with only the text. Now, they want to know exactly what the author was thinking. So, which is it?

I'm reminded by a line from the movie WarGames: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

 

[Azure1088]

If a writer bows to Dan Olson's ill-conceived criticisms, and they're not allowed to defend their own work...what can the author do but change it because fiction doesn't matter in the end? Why is Dan getting offended over fictional characters being harmed, presenting no real and present threat to reality? Answer: He wishes to control the narrative on what can and cannot be accepted in fiction, regardless of its defense. This is where Thermian Arguments can be abused. If there is no context, then it can be changed; according to Olson. A self-fulfilling logic loop.

 

[Clear]

The best way to approach an issue is to "steel-man" it. You construct the strongest possible argument for, and then attack and defeat that version, with your superior counterpoints and rationale.

You can't defeat a position you do not understand, especially if you make it clear in advance that you don't by presenting a weak straw-man version of your opponent's case. Its not going to convince anyone with a serious or considered alignment with that side, and in the end its just an empty point-scoring exercise for people who already share your views.

 

[Azure1088]

Exactly, and through the logic in his own video, he's already poisoned the well with ad hominem by calling anyone advocating the 'orc rape' scene 'creepy' and calling the logical arguments of context 'chump arguments'. It's just one of those things that writers contend with. No matter how they change it- they'll never win, as we've seen with the state of comics and movies. All you can do is shake your head and shrug.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

If a writer bows to Dan Olson's ill-conceived criticisms, and they're not allowed to defend their own work...what can the author do but change it because fiction doesn't matter in the end? Why is Dan getting offended over fictional characters being harmed, presenting no real and present threat to reality? Answer: He wishes to control the narrative on what can and cannot be accepted in fiction, regardless of its defense. This is where Thermian Arguments can be abused. If there is no context, then it can be changed; according to Olson. A self-fulfilling logic loop.

The concept of the 'Thermian Argument' is riddled with fallacies and the flaws pile up to the point that it should not be taken as a serious argumentative construct:

1. As already pointed out by multiple people, Dan Poisons the Well with a deliberate extreme example and resorts to ad hominem to his detractors.
2. Dan also resorts to another ad hominem attack when he claims that anyone that uses the 'Thermian Argument' uses it to shut down discussion.
3. To dismiss an element on the basis that it is "creepy" is an Appeal to Emotion.
4. Dan claims that only the implications and impact of a story are what matters, which is an Appeal to Consequences. On top of his opinion that it is "creepy", he dismisses the orc rape example because of the future implications of the audience reading about a story that has orc rape. I.E. "The implementation of Element X in Story Y is morally wrong because of the implications that may arise from the people reading the story."
5. Not only can the concept be abused and applied to any fictional work, Dan's rebuttal against the 'Thermian Argument' can also be used against itself. After all, the principle of the so-called 'Thermian Argument' is inspired from a fictional race that does not exist.

 

[Azure1088]

Well said, Mad. I completely agree as well. I just treat it as opinion and move on with my work. His rebuttal was about as opaque as a wet bar napkin.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

It is much worse than that, Olsen is basically arguing that story-telling has a moral duty. He wants stories to adhere to his narrow set of moral principles because he regards entertainment and artistic expression from the sole premise of its educative (or should I rather say "indoctrination") purposes. That is the only reason why he has no other choice but to defend this so called "Thermian argument", wherever the f*ck this made-up term is coming from. It's blatantly transparent.

One should take note that Olsen's video is from 2015 and apart from his own futile and desperate attempts at popularizing that notion, the "Thermian argument" didn't seem to have garnered much traction. A quick google search makes it pretty apparent that outside of Olsen's little ideological bubble, the notion has no basis in academic, linguistic or creative history. The only sources I was able to find was a "spacebattles forum", a subreddit called GamerGhazi and a sh*tty meme site that are both referring to Olsen's video.

In other words, there's nothing to see here.

I checked out the spacebattles forum and it's because of TL;DR's video that the thread got resurrected, lol. Most of the people over there agree that the idea of the 'Thermian Fallacy' as a legitimate argumentative construct is a crock of shit.

 

[Generic]

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.

But... isn't this how stories work? Lol

The TLJ example was bad though, since the previous movies established Leia's connection with the Force.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

But... isn't this how stories work? Lol

The TLJ example was bad though, since the previous movies established Leia's connection with the Force.

Leia does have some connection with the Force, but not to the point that she can use it proficiently to the point it saves her life in cold outer space. Maybe if she was shown to have practiced using Force powers over the years, then that scene would be more believable.