Today's breakfast, the champions that i'll be feasting on is some cereal with elves. I got the biblical smackdown laid on me by a youtuber and it's time to talk about it. This all started yesterday when i made the video our react: streamers, bad people. This was a response, video to a 14-page document posted by a youtuber, dark viper, a you there's.

Nothing today made a response to that video and it started a war, a bloody battle between good and evil, heaven and hell reactors versus darkness. I wanted to wait to talk about it further until i can have a conversation directly with him, but i've been getting just a ton of messages from his community and a lot of it's really nasty horrible. So i figured it'd just be better to get ahead of it and hopefully have that conversation. I'd like to go through his response and talk about it piece by piece, but before really getting into it.

As i mentioned in the beginning, i took a bit of an l plus ratio here, there's a lot of things that i got wrong. I've never been afraid to admit that about six videos over the last four years, where i just outright say yep. This is what i got wrong: here's what it was almost seems like a humiliation fetish at this point, but of course i get things wrong. Everybody does and i'm not afraid to admit it or die on a hill that is just outright incorrect and dark.

Viper points out things that i got wrong for sure, but it wasn't this malicious misrepresentation of his document or his perspective that he hints that it might have been. Why would i even do that? As i mentioned, dark viper is a creator that i liked and respected. I why what the would i gain from misrepresenting him? Someone that i actively like it'd, make no sense. Moyes critical knows that his video is going to reach far more people than will ever actually read that document, so he has free reign for misrepresent.

What's in it to 99.99, wait what was his argument? What what did the man say what this video is going to reach? Far more, i actively like it make no sense. Moist critical knows that his video is going to reach far more people than will ever actually read that document um guys how? How do you use that fact, though? So he has free range or misrepresent what's in it to 99.99999 of people, he didn't even have the courtesy to link the document, so people could fact-check him again. I wouldn't misrepresent his points on purpose, because it's a guy that i liked and before he made this video many people you're, saying you're, saying it's true, but if you're somebody who's a bigger size or a better creator, how do you react or, or or or watch Or comment on on a on a document in a way that somebody one uses arguments misunderstood his points as well. It wasn't just me you could go on his own subreddit happening people like yeah.

This document was very confusing to me as a fan of dark viper and as someone who liked him, it was confusing to me as well - and i thought i understood your points, but after watching this i can see it. I didn't now on to the next point where he says i didn't even have the courtesy to link the document directly in the description. This right here is a lose-lose situation. The only way to win is not to play here, because if i did link it, i would get called an for making it easy for people to go down.

Like oh, look at charlie being such a douchebag right to the document right to his tweet, where people could go him up and be mean to him directly, because i've had like that happened in the past, where i would talk about something, not a react. Video just a full-blown response, video to something and then there'd be people in the community that would go and just be a complete to that person, even though i'd actively discourage that behavior, i have no way of controlling it. Besides, saying, don't do that and by making easier access like a link in the description directly to it, i felt it could enable people to just go and harass him, which i never want to happen to anyone now, of course, i see the other side of the Argument that he's saying like, if i had directly linked it, people could have fact checked me on the video without having to go out of their way for it, which of course, is a good point. But i didn't know what the best way of navigating this was because, by directly linking it, there's a good chance.

There'd be unreasonable that aren't even there to read the document they're just there to harass him or get mad at him without anything else going on just unreasonable. So i thought by just showing where the document is letting people see where they can find the document if they want to backtrack it themselves, agreed agreed agreed. If you should watch the video right guys, guys, hey hey, according to his main argument that you're joining right technically people will, you know you know you know - would be the optimal play, but i can see here that this was not his preference. This was not the right way of approaching it, and now i understand he is so keen to poison you against this 14-page meticulously argued document that he goes to the length of finding tweets out of context.

He doesn't show the context and she's like here's. What the document's about it's 14 pages, i never said that's what the whole document was about. I never made a point even similar to that. I mentioned that there's a section where he compares reactors to someone who would likely commit sexual abuse wait.

14. It was 14 pages of against react, andy abuse and to say that i'm taking things out of context to poison the well is very disingenuous because i didn't take them out of context i'll show you the whole context right here. One of his fans pointed out their disappointment that he would compare react streamers to someone that would commit sexual abuse, and he argued with this person by saying that their behavior is similar to someone that would sexually abuse someone, and he literally uses that word, even though He says in his video: he never said that, let's play a game, let's see how many of these words are actually in this document, sexual, no uh, how about abuse? Oh we've got report abuse at the top here. How about criminals uh? No, how about creditor? No not that either how about rapists? No it's almost like charlie is making up, and i don't understand why none of those words are explicitly used in the document he does allude to them.

Wait, you don't even need contacts here, dude, it's black on the white at the bottom, it's black and white. You don't need comics for this guess. A lot of things in life don't need context. If you comment on somebody's comment directly for what the idea presents, you don't need context in that section and when pointed out by a fan that it's kind of up to compare react streaming to something that extreme.

He then does outright say that people that live this certain way by the very sort of people that may sexually abuse someone and just to give full context. So no one thinks i'm hiding anything. He does continue to argue with another fan, who was also disappointed in the statement, and he defends this by saying it's a hyperbole. It's supposed to be an exaggerated scenario, he's not trying to make them like equal or anything.

So, at the very best, it's an extremely shitty analogy and at worst it's a genuinely disgusting thing to say about someone you just don't like. So i really think it's pretty clear when you read this twitter argument as well as the hints that he drops in that section of his document. That myself and members of his community would easily see this as him trying to compare reactors to sexual abusers. Because that's how it comes across and what was really annoying is moisture left that video up his entire video.

That i corrected is wrong, as moist will now admit be left it up. Anyway, 1.3 million people did most critical, give false information too. They did not give two did not take. The video down did not submit attraction, did not give people actual information, no yeah, but what what? If his initial video or his initial uh comment or or or document, was wrong? Why didn't he take it down? He in the original case made a 10 minute video rambling about stuff.

That is completely untrue. This is a really weird section of his video for me and his own words poisoning of the well and defaming me trying to make it look like i'm knowingly, feeding people, false information, that's wrong! Well, that's not the case. You can easily disprove this part by just watching the video he made reacting to and correcting my video on how much youtubers make from short form content. The information i presented wasn't wrong.

The information was incomplete. This crucial detail is missing from charlie's video here, where he talks about how much youtubers make on short, film content. The crucial detail he's talking about is one that he also admits. He didn't know about for the longest time either.

He has far more experience here. So then learned that a video that is over 30 seconds and not a hashtag short makes significantly more money than a video, that's under 30 seconds and not a hashtag short something i and many others didn't know. So it was a great video, but that doesn't mean that all the information that precedes it is incorrect, because all of the information i provided was the earnings of the hashtag shorts, and i did mention that my other content that isn't just hashtag shorts wasn't making much Money either and that's because the majority of the content on that huge charles channel doesn't exceed 30 seconds. So all of it's in that lower bracket - and i didn't know that there was a distinction from 30 seconds below and 30 seconds above he did so that's why his video is even titled.

Charlie got everything wrong. He even made similar points to the ones i made. Where you're not going to make a lot of money off hashtag shorts and the only real way, this has nothing to do with with the actual reaction. He knew that absence doesn't make everything oh inside it's just.

He had more information. Oh it's all trash. It's an add-on once you've watched it. Do i rightful the reason i haven't taken that video down is because it is still useful information for people.

So not only do i really heavily attack that idea that anyone can transform a six-month work by pausing every once in a while and going huh. I think that's funny. Here's an idea for your revolutionary concept. How do you watch the video first and then, once you've watched the video you say hey, i actually have nothing of interest to add here.

I'm not gon na make a video out of it or, you might say, hey i what but that's boring as though that that's manufactured garbage, though that dude, what that's that's, pre-watched, garbage guys, that's like if i, if i was american idol and i watched the whole Thing: oh, wait! That's what they actually do: okay and have something interesting, dad i'm gon na! Take that individual part in the middle, where i have something to add and make my own video. Oh, that is a pretty revolutionary idea. You mean, like the majority of the content i've ever made. You know that i don't just do react.

You know that, but you still portray me as that to your audience as someone that has only ever reacted to full videos on stream and portray me as someone that only sits there and says ha ha when you know that's just not the case now. We can argue on what's transformative and what's not, and that's also going to be an argument that needs to be had with the creator or the video that gets reacted to because it's their content. You can't guys guys, i feel, really bad about this. Okay, guys, the people who made the the game dying light because i didn't sign any documents, no contract, because i was never sponsored, but they sent a big ass crate to my house, a huge dude and i feel bad, not opening it dude.

I didn't look inside of it, i don't yes, i i feel like. I want to open it now, but i know what's inside dude, should we open it and tell them what not and that's why it says when you know that's just not the case now we can argue on what's transformative and what's not, that's also going to be An argument that needs to be had with the creator of the video that gets reacted to because it's their content. You can't tell them what they should feel about it. However, i do fully concede that sure you can absolutely say: there's no way of transforming a work that makes it wholly original if you're watching it in its entirety.

I totally do understand the perspective and now that dark viper has explained that perspective in this video. I understand it deeper now than i did from just reading the script, which is why, with this newfound understanding, i'm actually going to create that. I guess i think it's better. I feel like it's better uh for live content.

You watch regardless, but if you make a video out of it, if it's not great and you don't add a lot to it, then sure don't re-upload the reaction, but that that's what i already do to be honest, that's what we already do to react is is Bad and we're only watching it, usually they don't upload it. This perspective, i will no longer be watching full youtube videos on stream. I'd rather take suggestions for youtube videos to watch, but not watch the whole thing on stream. I'd rather it watch it see.

If it's something i have anything to add to and then turn it into, perhaps a full video response, which is my normal content, contrary to what dark, viper kind of hints at i'm, not just a react. Streamer, it's a very small part of what i do. I do a lot of different things and reacting to content on stream is a very small part of it. So from now on youtube nights on my twitch streams, twitch.tv critical feel free to stop in and put a few exchanges on your penis from now on.

Those are going to look like people giving suggestions as they always have and we'll maybe check them out for a little bit to see if it's anything that i can add value to and if not we're done. If there is, then we're still done, because it's going to be a video that i will then watch the rest of on my own. If it is something that i can truly add something to and add more to for the content in order to branch off and talk more about it without showcasing the entire thing, it's worth, noting that all of the react videos on my channel, even the react ones That he hates they don't show just the full video. They are still just the parts where i am reacting to it, making jokes about it or talking about it deeper.

But i still do understand that that's still a large chunk of the video itself, so it is still pretty close to like almost the full run time in some cases yeah so again going forward. I won't just be rolling dice, hoping i can add to whatever video gets recommended on youtube night. I will be maybe checking them for a little bit and then, if it's something that i can add to i'll look at the rest on my own and maybe make content. I'm not so surprised, he's folding on this response to it, as opposed to a real-time reaction, which has always been the majority of my content anyway, i think what really helped me understand this perspective wasn't dark viper's video.

It was actually jxe's. They made a great video recently just going over the entire react ecosystem just going over everything from the perspective of someone that had their video reacted to by multiple people, myself included, it's actually the video that i mentioned. It was a very shameful moment for me, whereas the video i really liked but didn't realize i've already seen it, and i just i'm just basically shared with my community without adding anything to it and they were upset with that which i totally do get and they Made a video going over that whole situation and really helped put it in perspective for me to understand things: better, dark, viper, more focuses on dunking, which i in some cases he has every right too, because i got things wrong, but jay actually really painted the whole Picture that put it all like in a really good there's one thing i'd like to quickly tackle, and it's an important thing that i talked about in my video of dark viper's media share history on streams he used to sometimes have his community donate money to play. Clips from other creators, videos without their consent that dark viper would react to on stream while playing grand theft auto on the side.

He would then take those reaction, streams and post them on youtube, which made money off of it and to me that was similar to everything he was criticizing. The other react streamers for, however, in the very opening parts of his document, he does lay out the groundwork for his definition of react streaming, what it means to be a reactor, how it all works and by all of those definitions, the groundwork exposed guys guys. We don't do media while doing gta, and i thought that does it i mean expo is good, because actually i mean is hurtful guys, we do react, we do the most insane stale react. Okay, i don't give a that.

Doesn't i do not care, it's, not the full videos, that's being shared, it is clips from the videos still without consent and all of that, but it is still not exactly in the same ballpark, and i realize now that it was a mistake for me to put My own, i do not care if the people, if you people, don't want me to do it. Maybe with that, where are you? I will happily never watch your videos again and i will delete every piece icon. Every vod, okay i'll, even give them the ad rev from that particular thing. If you want to rip the whole thing, i do not care bias here, where i believe that it still fits.

But since i'm talking about his 14-page document, i needed to play by his definition of react, streamers, which i do understand. That was a mistake on my part, because that does not fit into the same category that he was criticizing, which was defined and laid out in the opening parts of the document. He says that i didn't include this, because i wanted to undercut his points, but it's just simply not the case. Reactors can therefore only ever be the middlemen in these platforms, taking impressions from all other original content creators and giving a small amount back to other people.

Reactors do not somehow manifest additional impressions. There is no free lunch in this industry. The impressions they give out are a portion of what they steal from other people. So this is where the cracks in what i understood start the show, because when reading the script, the idea is that he, okay, okay, so the art, this argument will never hold.

Okay, the amount that you steal if you're smart, is usually never even close to the amount that you create he's explaining here, don't convey super well to me and many others that read it. It's not just me, even though he's confused on how i ended up at this interpretation, even though this is how most people from what i saw in the comments and in his own subject, interpreted what he was saying. It was very hard to discern the real meaning before he came in here provided the context, but this is where things really fell. Apart in what i understood, what he's actually saying is the reactors.

Nobody understands it's just it's just it's such a simple context. If, if somebody gets 500 views, okay, okay, how many of chats are subscribed to this guy, there's probably about one or two okay by the amount that we steal will be two right and the amount that he's gon na generate for the people watching is incredibly larger Than two and his next video now you've been subscribed, it'll be like ramp. The up, if you're, going to go with analytics. This argument falls flat in its face.

Man apply a lot of the impressions that are not infinite on the platform and when those reactors are gone, those impressions will eventually make their way back onto the platform and other places. Now that the react content is gone, not necessarily to small channels. I went into this document under the impression that the entire pillar of the argument was that, without the react content, these smaller channels would be flourishing. All of those impressions that they're occupying in their absence would go to smaller channels, specifically and good channels, specifically good by his definition, which we'll get to in a minute which was different than the definition i had of good.

But what he's actually saying is they just get distributed to other channels in general, which is absolutely true? The reason i went in here thinking it was all about small channels is because that's the way he framed it in his initial tweet at least the way that i and many others understood it. He starts by saying all reactors are bad people, so i mean that's. Poisoning the well, as he says, and they've stolen millions of dollars from actual creators and stopped smaller creators from having a career. So to me going into this document that says that okay, so reactors have stopped small creators from having a career and i'm not going to skip it because, i would say: react: andy, okay, everybody hates the the concept of rat andy.

This tackles a problem. Okay, it's an interesting video, i'm finished without creator. Without the reactors, those small creators will be doing better, specifically small creators, so this changed the way that i digested the information he was presenting. I guess subconsciously.

The way i kept putting it back was that the point he is making ultimately isn't the fact that, obviously, without this content, more views are going elsewhere. It's without this content. These views are going to small creators like specifically to them, because i went in here under the impression that this was a about the small creators getting by reactors, but i now understand thanks to this video. That is not the overall point that he's making even says.

That's the worst argument, video that if every creator not just react creator but like if every big youtuber was gone, all the other creators would be doing better like the smaller channels and he's right because they occupy a lot of the market. You know creators occupied big chunks of the market, so if those chunks are gone, those impressions could find their way to the smaller creators or just other places in general, which is true. But when i first read this document, i approached it with this mindset that he is trying to say that good content is guaranteed to get those impressions. If that react, content, isn't there anymore to occupy the space which i totally disagree with, and he also would.

I imagine disagree with. No one is guaranteed those impressions. He says no one's guaranteed those impressions and then goes on to define his definition of good content which yeah yeah. This is saying like uh, oh, if i wasn't live soda and what, if i would get more viewers, was different than my definition of good content.

Admittedly, you have to have seen my other content to understand this, but when i say something is good, i mean an algorithmic sense. It appeals to the market which i would have used clips to substantiate. If you'd, let me make the video, it is very possible to make high quality content that no one wants to watch or to present it very poorly in regards to thumbnails and titles. But i can send a thumbnail to be a part of the package.

Good content is that which can be picked up by the algorithm. I didn't wait for his video to be made because his community had already started emailing me and sending me messages about being compared to a sexual abuser. So obviously i went to look at the document itself and respond to it because people kept emailing me about it from your community telling me some nasty. So that's why i didn't wait and talked about it now, but you're right had i waited.

You would have been able to more accurately get across this point than just on some words on a page. His definition of good is drastically different than mine. For me, as i said in my video good content, i thought high quality production. A lot of work goes into it very research topic, buttoned up just a general overall good piece of content from a production storytelling, whatever something innovative or something that people want for me is yeah, that's it for me, it's simple good kind of me is something that People want or something that you want to consume and a story standpoint now.

This definition is something that appeals to a large audience, something that can get picked up and spread around good thumbnail, good everything. That is not how i worked under the impression of good content. He also states that there's a multitude of reasons why that high quality production that i consider good content may never go anywhere. He says that in his definition, good content that does all these things right that can get picked up by the algorithm does the thumbnail perfectly.

All of that will eventually get exposure, and i am inclined to agree with that. Ludwig in his video also did prove that, to a certain extent as well. If you have a deep understanding of what makes content algorithmically viable and make it something that can be picked up, you stand a good chance of naturally getting exposure without someone reacting to the content. That is a point that i do agree with him on, but it is not something that i could pick up from the pages here, because the good content wasn't defined for me.

So i imposed my own definition of it, which doesn't work here, because no content is guaranteed impressions, even content that is algorithmically viable, is good. Content by his definitions is still not guaranteed impressions either, but it stands out in circles better chance of naturally getting that exposure again. It was just me not knowing what his definition of good content was, that he was working under nowhere in this document. Do i use small creators anywhere anywhere? The impressions logically would go to other people if a person uses react content on twitch to keep people from going to youtube.

That is the same thing. I'm not talking about youtube specifically twitch, specifically, why does it always use words? Like like, like from going in that, would be going in what what there's other there's also the other side of the coin, people that will be going, people, people that wouldn't have gone, there's also the things that people that they they were not going to do that. But now they will and that's usually much larger than people who did not because that's how it was it instagram, specifically the entire online creator marketplace, which is something i didn't pick up on at all he's right. He didn't discriminate, it wasn't just on youtube and it wasn't just about small creators, which is how i interpreted his initial tweet because he's talking about it stopped thousands of creators from having a career to me.

That says, small creators, because i mean dark viper - is not going to lose his career because there's an influx of react content somewhere on the site. So to me, the only people that that's referring to are going to be the small creators that might be affected by not being able to get in on those eyeballs. Somehow so i interpreted it incorrectly, then, if it's not about small creators, which it clearly isn't and the entire point isn't just about youtube, which i thought it was he's talking about. The broader creators fear which was lost on me because i went in there with the incorrect perceived notion of what the actual full subject was and the scope of it.

I focused too closely on what i guess. I hate that i feel like this. Thing's got a lot of hate and a lot of hate mail or whatever, that he's folding a lot of arguments that he was right on just because of the influence and he wants to shut down the negativity going towards him. Because i feel all the arguments he had were actually good and now he's fully on him thought.

His point was based on an extremely hostile opening statement on twitter, as well as some rants in the comment section with his community. So i went in there incorrectly digesting the information which he's right would have been an issue solved. Had i waited for the video, but again, why put these names in the script out there? You knew that your community would probably reach out to the people on there and tell them some crazy and say some horrible things, which is what got my attention to look at the document in the first place, and it seemed like something i needed to talk about Right now, because of how many people were bringing it to my attention, which i see it was a mistake and i should have waited for the video because then i would have actually understood past what was on this page. There's still a ton left in this video, but the point is still the same that i misunderstood from the very get-go and it changed my perspective of what he was actually saying.

You know we need a debate night about a react debate. Night number one react andy and it just multiple times throughout the night. The point wasn't that it's going to small creators, this is only about small creators or that all the impressions stay on youtube. It's the entire creator, atmosphere where without react, content, specifically those impressions go to somebody else which could cause the birth of the next big original content creator, which is a fact that i do agree with, but that's again, as he mentions the same with everyone, if every Big content creator right, i have never lost a debate on stream ever i am on disappear, all those impressions that are now homeless out in the cold, because when i don't know i don't do so.

Therefore, i always win because i only go into winning battles. Yeah dude, the rain, you know shooting their diapers and it will be the other creators that now have all that vacancy to occupy and he's right. But when i came into this document from that first tweet - and i guess maybe i was also going in there already hostel from the emails i received and the comparison to the sexual abuse thing. I went in there with a distorted view and to me everything i tried to spin back to him talking about how it's guaranteed, to help small content creators making good content.

The only reason why i have a really badly sometimes - and i speak about things that i don't know is because misinformation, okay is - is that sensational and people love hearing misinformation. So therefore, i'm just buffing the views, but i'm just i guess, i'm just stacking impressions. I say really bad alvin mistakes boom stacks and viewers because they come in then there's some real takes, as he reiterates. Multiple times is not what the goal of the post or the video was.

So i did misunderstand it of course, but what i really don't appreciate? Even still is that comparison that analogy that he defends so heavily about sexual abuse and react streamers. Even if i wasn't a reaction told you to compare them, i didn't even think that he's still up my point was consent matters and the idea of asking consent. After you've already done, the thing is clearly not good. That is not how consent works, and i mean flipping offhand examples: okay, consent when it comes down to video creation and consent when it comes down to sexual interactions, is a complete different ball game and comparing the two is absolutely outlandish and outright disingenuous, like i didn't.

Even say it explicitly, my exact words were, at the very end, to highlight the absurdity of that position. You cannot make these parallels, it's like, if you say somebody that goes to the grocery grocery store and picks up an apple. Did you ask the apple? If you want to be picked up, yeah you're, like a sexual harasser you're like you're like a you're like a sexual predator. What? How does it make sense - and you say dude dude - your analogy doesn't play this in his analogy: nope nope! No! No! It applies just as much.

These are the two different subjects and they're two different bomb games and you're, comparing the two disingenuously. So it does apply you. If you need to react at a party i suggest, covering your glass or outright tell them. You don't want them to you, because they seem keen to take a person's silence for consent.

Again, you did explicitly say it in your twitter argument. It is still a analogy: it's not an okay comparison to make imagine an actual victim of sexual abuse. Reading that and having it trivialized to something like react streaming like. Oh, these two are now comparable.

It's up and you got that response on twitter as well, and you know that it's a bad position to take, and i wish you would just let it go and just say yes, i got ta leave. Is there a gofundme somewhere go find me, we could buy charlie a some blinds, just just some blinds to have the sunlight to stop doing this. My man's got some sunbur dude. Look at that he's about to he he's grilling.

You know when you know that when you take a piece of piece of bread and you put it in a griller and it gradually grills, my man is - is tanning gradually based on how the sun is preterious over the day, dude a little too heated and says Something stupid well, yes, the issue of consenting to having your video reacted to is an important one. It's not okay to somehow use that to put these two on the same playing field, almost where sexual abuse and react streaming can be in the same sentence. It's not! Okay, to do that, yes again, i do agree that getting permission to watch something on stream is important, which is why going forward even when, given permission, i will not be watching the entire thing on stream. Anyway, i'm not changing my stance on that, but absolutely i took a peanut butter and l e sandwich on a lot of what i thought he was saying, because i got it wrong.

I really did, and he was right to defend it as he did in this video wait a second. This is just react content and the last video i watched was just him repeating stuff he'd, seen on twitter and with a few dick jokes. Why am i watching this? There has to be better content out there than this. If you read some of the comments under my original community post, many people had the same view you're once upon a time a decent content.

Creator we've become rich and lazy. This has nothing to do with this points at all. It's more just an ad hominem thing, but it is something i do want to talk about, because it's super weird to me when people say i was once upon a time a decent content creator, but i'm lazy. Now my content pre-2016.

I would sit down for 10 minutes, play a game and just make a checklist mentally and i've talked about this, where i'd say at least three times come: titties and nipples. That was every piece of content i made from 2010 to like 2016., and then i started branching into other forms of. But it's what people want, though, because it's what people want guys you can't fight the people. I said good content is something people want.

If something really lazy is what the people want. It's lazy, but it's good content by the definition, content that i just have a lot more fun doing and make me significantly happier. I very rarely mention something. Rarely even think of a time, i've even mentioned it in the last couple of months or years.

Honestly, i don't make a ton of dick jokes. I don't just sit down for 10 minutes, one take playing a shitty game and just go through my checklist of you got to be on my ass and i'm pissing on my dick pisser. You know like i'm, putting significantly more into these videos, and i'm doing so many other things just being fully transparent with the mask off. This is something that's always hurt me over the last few years where people say that my glory days were back then, like the 20 10 to 20 people saying asking to watch a video.

It's same thing as asking to watch a video game and, and people were making fun of that even on the jimmy kimmel stream, the most boomer argument, the most outdated cave in argument, dude dude watch. Nobody watch anybody play a game well now this is nobody watching people watch a video yeah. They do so what 15 content, because i was miserable making it. It was literally a mental checklist of mentioning penis common titties.

I don't think any of it was really all that great and i'd always say like xd random. Well, this is put look. Look at this. I'm going so fast, it'll put titties on a cactus, oh man, you got ta, be rubbing my ass cheek with five bricks, but not six, because six bricks is the shits, like none of that, i really think is like good stuff, but people always references like that's.

When charlie guys, guys watching sports is literally react, andy the man, the man, is watching the game. Okay, the game live and he's commentating on the game and you're watching, and i don't get it because now, i'm doing so many different things and i'm not just a one-trick pony mentioning nipples and of course, i'll still talk about penis sometime, because weiner is enjoyable to Joke about from time to time, but it's not every video and it's not every joke. I do so many different things. I just play.

Shitty video games like music videos, i've been very passionate about a full comic series. We've been working super hard on over the last. Almost two years now doing big scale productions like our own squid game or hosting our own professional go-karting race, on a legitimate indie track or making a potato cannon from scratch and firing a potato through a tennis racket to create french fries. On the other end like ed and eddie, training with an ungodly specimen of masks wanted to be.

It's been like specific point goggles, which is play. Gta talk about gta, speedrun, gta and he's good at it. Don't get me wrong, like i said i enjoy him, but all he really does is commit to one thing, one area and then rant. That's it you're, not some beacon of incredible creativity, man.

You live in one single level, the rock star bosom that you continue to suckle on and then still have the audacity to say, like i'm, only a react: streamer all moist critical is a react streamer now he doesn't do anything else. It sucks and yeah. It absolutely does hurt you mentioned many times throughout your streams, at least in the past, from what i've watched like actually miserable. You are like.

You are pretty much a loner who has committed 100 to the grind and really there's nothing wrong with the grind like that. But i would argue, you'd be a lot happier if you did more than just obsessively focus on one area, i'm sure you and your community remember the entire unnamed okay guys. I don't agree with this guy. I think i think grilling his content because he's one dimensional.

It's not very nice. I think i think that was out of pocket a little out of pocket where uh to bring everyone up to speed on the lord dark. Viper was going for an incredible record and he was beaten to it by someone named unnamed and in response. Dark viper really had a rough go of it.

He kind of had a bit of a meltdown, and it was a big disaster in the whole dark. Viper anime arc. It was a very dark time for the community and i was there for it. I saw all of it, but i still supported dark viper as a person.

I still thought his content was good. I still enjoyed like watching and hearing from him, but for you to go out and call these people just this, that's all they are and you can spit on them because you're so much better, because all you are is the gta ranting guy and that's a lot Better, it's just so silly. I really think it is so yeah. I went on a bit of a rant about this, because this is something that i've been wanting to talk about a little bit more, because this perspective is something that always hurts it really.

How am i the gta or ranting guy? I don't rent people one thing and one thing: only dance monkey charlie play bad games, nothing else, that's when he was at his best and it hurts, because i didn't like doing that exclusively. What i'm doing now is so many different things to keep portraying me is just one person, one guy doing this one thing sucks so yeah again he had every right to dunk on me for the things i got wrong, uh overall, i think this has been a Pretty eye opening experience and i feel, like i've, learned a lot, not all from dark viper. I think jxe did a really great job with it. To be honest, yeah, that's something that i definitely wanted to talk about and that's it see ya guys, try hard.

I think we need to have it debate night episode, one react andy and just have a bunch of react. Lords and anti-react lords like middle ground, and we go bing. It goes. I think reacting is good.

My channel has 20 thousand views. You know, you know, give me.