the arguement of reaction videos on youtube

So there is this guy who does reaction vids who decided to defend himself when GradeAUnderA did a video about reactions and used him as a example of a bad reaction channel.



SIGH



This guy is just



Honestly, how much more fail can you get. I don't know about you but DAMN this guy is just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole here. He keeps claiming he is 'picking and choosing his arguments against him by picking the videos where he is quiet' ERRRRRM THEY ARE STILL ILLEGAL! You don't just go and steal something and say its ok because yesterday you committed no crimes. YOU STILL COMMITED THE CRIME! Also how is it picking and choosing when he is directly disproving your arguments you sent to him! What is he not allowed to do that? then why did you send it him?! OMG! and he calls him 'immature'. Well do you know what is 'immature'? Making a video against his and making a shit storm about it when you are already in deep shit! Also calling someone immature for sharing their opinion on the internet while using adult language is immature! And probably doing this myself is immature but bloody hell I just couldn't keep it in this guy made me SOOOOOO annoyed I just couldn't watch the whole video! really! I'm not even joking I couldn't finish it and that is amazing for me! What do you guy think about the whole 'remove reaction channels from youtube' argument then? let me know sigh

1, "he is a low level intelligence person" says the reaction person. obviously didn't do your research here. trying to form an argument without grounding to carry favor. GAUA is a teacher for a start which means that he must have passed a higher level of education. Given the curriculum and the things that IQ, the measure of intelligence is graded by, being of higher level education and passing directly implies that the individual has a higher level of intelligence, knowledge and understanding. That out of the way for a second, an intelligent person formulates an argument based on facts that can be measured and proven. Those without intelligence either slander an individual by throwing insults or discredit them by making accusations that have no real evidence to back them up. Ahem, GAUA gives an explanation of how the cash flow system of Youtube operates, he gives evidence of his conversations and examples of the other dude's videos that state his point. The other dude that ain't GAUA picks apart 1 video and the only arguments he has are "i didn't do that", "he does this" and several times of slagging GUAU off. Fair enough GUAU should not be calling the other dude names like "Pussy" but given the GUAU has given a full explanation of the other dude's character the statement is justified. The react man has no evidence to back up his statement of what he supposedly didn't do, no evidence to back up his statement of what GAUA supposed did do and therefore has no grounding to slander GUAU other than being a whiny little brat. Notice, i have given evidence here of why the react fellow is said whiny brat. The video above proves my argument that GAUA is capable of forming a well balanced argument with evidence and react gentlemen is not. Therefore my statement slandering react individual has the grounding needed for it not to be a blind insult and therefore a valid point.

2, This is my favorite part of the video BTW. React fellow says "I had no idea what he was angry with me about". Seconds later he sees GAUA states the exact reasons why with evidence of him stating it to the react dude. React dude realizing his argument has been destroyed mere seconds later says something along the lines of "I didn't know why he was angry, I knew that was what made him angry, but I didn't know why he was angry.". Does this guy even listen to himself talk? Surely anyone with any level of intelligence would have read that back and been like "Oh yeah...".

3, React person says that he got a message from GAUA telling him not to react to his video. React idiot openly admits that he just ignored it and then wonders why GAUA took action afterwards. Could it possibly be that GAUA's request was ignored? Surely that can't be the reason. It shouldn't have to get to the state where GAUA has to threaten legal action for the react man to do something about it. If you are getting requests by people all the time not to make reactions to their videos then you frankly should not be doing it and at the very least not be surprised when people don't like it. Even more you shouldn't go out of your way to argue with the person and try to put your own point across when you requested to stop beforehand and totally ignored the argument. If somebody doesn't want you to do something and you do it anyway and then they complain about it. What the hell makes you think you have any right to turn around and say "stop arguing with me"?

4, React delusional says "We all know Google has a group of warriors. Period point blank.". I think I might need to inhale through my teeth to get to grips with this one. Since he stating this as fact then there are already some glaring issues with the statement. The most obvious part is "We all know". Clearly not everyone could know. You could argue that it's a turn of phrase but not when he also states it's an absolute fact. Sorry for being a grammarai here but if not everyone knows it then you can't say "We all know, period." because clearly it isn't true. Sorry, I'm being a bit of a bitch here but that abuse of the English language struck a chord with me. Second and more importantly the statement that "Google has a bunch of warriors" is speculation and I'll tell you why. React groundless here makes no effort to use any sort of evidence to back up this statement. Therefore this statement is what's known as an opinion. If it is an opinion you can't follow it with "period" because that word says that there's no need to argue any more. There is a reason to argue the point because you haven't provided any evidence of it being true. Therefore a counter argument to this statement is totally justified. Therefore ending your statement with "period" implies that you personally don't want to discuss it even if others do. You can't say that you don't want to argue about something so vague as if it's fact without any proof given. If you just didn't want to get into an argument you should have stated such. Saying "period" means that any counter argument is destroyed and the conversation can move on. No, nothing has been proven. Therefore this is an arrogant statement claiming victory and refusing any other option. It's basically saying "I'm right 'cause i say i am so shut up about it.".

5, The job scenario is laughable. This is what the bearded follow is saying and i'll try to state the situation without saying my opinion on it until after we are clear that is what's said. Youtube is like a boss and the clients are its employees. GAUA is like an employee that goes to the boss and complains about the conduct of another employee. The boss is then says that they are not going to listen to GAUA's statement because they are always slagging off the boss. Are we all clear that this is the statement the bearded gentlemen is making right? Let me explain to you why this argument makes absolutely no sense at all although I can guarantee there are many people who have just read what i said the bearded person said and are either screaming at the screen or laughing their heads off. If an employee went to their boss and told them that another employee was harassing multiple employees in the workplace to the point where several employees were also irritated by this person and the troublesome employee was breaking the guidelines of the workplace, what crazy ass boss would just turn around to GAUA and say "yeah whatever, but i don't like you GAUA so i'm not going to listen."? That boss should be fired. They should be stripped of their title, marched out of the workplace and given a very cruel reference so that that person should never be given a position of any sort of authority again, if not arrested for misconduct. Imagine if the harassment was sexual harassment. One employee had been sexually harassing other employees and so GAUA goes to the boss to complain that it is not okay and the boss turns round and say "Why should i listen to you GAUA? You're an asshole.". On what planet is a boss like this totally acceptable?

6, "He likes to play games and he likes to lie" is the delusional reaction person's argument. He likes to lie does he? Seems that everything GAUA has said has been backed up by evidence. You know what that's called? Truth. React person has said many things that he can't prove. Do you know what that's called? Lying. Also it seem to me that GAUA has only made an argument when he has something to argue about. That's not playing games. That's expressing a point. Making multiple videos to slander another youtuber without any grounding sounds to me like you are trying to sway opinions. That's called playing games. The difference between the two is intention. If you intend to change people's opinions because you believe that you are in the right then you take the time to form a strong argument so that you can convince others. If you intend to change people's opinions because you want to win then you flood people with expressions of your feelings rather than a valid point hoping people will see how upset you are and want to take your side. Seems GAUA is the former and the reaction man is the latter.

Obviously my main argument in this has been that GAUA has some grounding to his arguments and therefore has more valid points. The react guy on the other hand has thrown accusations around and tried to sway opinions without having anything to back up his argument. More so, this video actually proves the opposite point of what the react guy intended by showing how GAUA can form a valid, well-thought-out argument with evidence, whereas the react man can only make silly faces and pull stuff out of his ass cause he has not a single leg to stand on. I am neither a fan of GAUA or the react guy but after seeing this I'm firmly on GAUA's side.

couldn't have said it better myself but wow that was a long rant jay

i don't think a tldr has ever been more appropriate

sorry

I actually read it all. I find jays writing pleasant to read unless it is about albion then it just goes over my head like a jet plane

the aviators would know

interesting how 1 argument can destroy all his other arguments

ignorance is self assuredness i suppose

that's arrogance

same diff

they are often in the same ball park as it were

human feels

not really

humans suck

ironically animals don't

depends on the animal

baltic squid is gay as fuck

you see there is a gay joke here autis is unaware of

oh

like..

saw that coming

that should be a meme

that is a meme