DVDBeaver

[Brian C]

And the cover of said release.

[zitherstrings]

Sorry to drag politics up again.

But re: Gary—this is his livelihood and his livelihood is apolitical. Surely someone strongly opposed to Trump or the extreme right wing would support basic values like everyone deserves a living wage, everyone deserves food/shelter, etc. So if his website isn't political then it seems misguided to oppose it and essentially deny him a livelihood. Very different from Chick-Fil-A or something that actively engages in political action.

[swo17]

I'll give up Gary before I ever give up Chick-fil-A

[cdnchris]

"It's fucking delicious."

[Dansu Dansu Dansu]

Sorry to drag politics up again.

But re: Gary—this is his livelihood and his livelihood is apolitical. Surely someone strongly opposed to Trump or the extreme right wing would support basic values like everyone deserves a living wage, everyone deserves food/shelter, etc. So if his website isn't political then it seems misguided to oppose it and essentially deny him a livelihood. Very different from Chick-Fil-A or something that actively engages in political action.

Just speaking for myself, I am not denying Gary anything, but I don’t need to betray my sense of morality so he can love what he does for a living, either. This is about racism, not conservatism. Not that it isn’t for others, but this is personal for me, and the thought of visiting his page is incredibly unappealing. So I will not be returning, but I am not arguing for others to boycott his website. People have the information, they can make their own decisions.

At the same time, while Gary doesn’t seem to be rolling in profits, I have no idea what I am enabling by supporting him, even if supporting him allows him to participate in social movements I find morally repugnant. All races have the right to work as well, and obviously, political movements are a major factor in receiving and maintaining those rights. Latinos aren’t exactly having an easy time of it right now, antisemitism is on the rise, and, of course, “there were good people on both sides.” I get this is beyond his power, but there are a lot of livelihoods at stake, not just Gary’s.

Finally, Gary is a public figure of sorts (to us freaks, at least) and DVD Beaver is his brand, which exposes him to more scrutiny than, say, individual workers at your local Chic-fil-a, some of whom are presumably not ideological warriors but just paying their bills. I’m not helping with their bills, either, but at least they get to eat those delicious waffle fries. It is what it is.

[tarpilot]

That clicking a single button on Twitter constitutes "participation in a social movement" is exponentially more dangerous to any meaningful conception of politics or technology or social relations than whatever could result from said clicking.

But then, I think that ten year-olds sleeping with computers so they can more efficiently monitor the reach of their brand is a bad thing, too

[senseabove]

FWIW, he appears to have scrubbed his Twitter followings of the worst offenders, e.g. ProWhitesUnite isn't there anymore.

[Dansu Dansu Dansu]

Tarpilot, that almost seems to willfully misinterpret what I stated in my last reply, let alone the totality of what I have said in this thread.

[Zot!]

That clicking a single button on Twitter constitutes "participation in a social movement" is exponentially more dangerous to any meaningful conception of politics or technology or social relations than whatever could result from said clicking.

But then, I think that ten year-olds sleeping with computers so they can more efficiently monitor the reach of their brand is a bad thing, too

Agreed....the internet temperance union hardliners freak me out. I won't even tell you the kind of books my public library keeps on its shelves.

[MichaelB]

That clicking a single button on Twitter constitutes "participation in a social movement" is exponentially more dangerous to any meaningful conception of politics or technology or social relations than whatever could result from said clicking.

I agree, and this is compounded by the proliferation of torch-bearing mobs mostly/entirely comprised of people skulking behind pseudonyms.

People seeking to trash someone's reputation should at least have the moral courage to sign their own names to their denunciations.

[Grand Wazoo]

For what it's worth, he has been prone to that style of huffy aggrieved conservative-irony posting, which is really just an attempt at poor "pc-police" humor that likens him to Fox News Dads (trust me from experience). It's perhaps more ignorant than damning, but based on everything else we know I think it's clear where his overall political leanings lie. However given that I follow Trump and even John fucking Bolton on twitter, I also know full well that following does not equal endorsement. In Gary's case though I think we can at least agree that context clues + a literal white nationalist account can understandably cause some consternation and any choice to not support the site is valid.

[DarkImbecile]

There’s no need to make a pitchfork-wielding caricature out of what people have said here; navigating these issues at this particular political and technological point in history is not easy at all, and people individually choosing to visit a website or not for whatever reason probably doesn’t require a signed manifesto.

Many people, myself included, are deeply uncomfortable with and concerned about the increasing public acceptance of the use of fascist rhetoric and open affiliation with white supremacists. Exercising the right to choose who one associates with or financially supports — even if it results in the imposition of a social or professional cost, and even if that choice is based on limited information — can be an appropriate response to instances in which one perceives someone as crossing that line.

In this particular case, did Gary mean to follow this account because he agrees with its worldview, or just because he hits follow on every account that posts a meme that makes him chuckle? I don’t know, and I don’t judge anyone else for being more or less comfortable with changing their behavior based on that incomplete knowledge.

People have expressed a range of opinions on this question in this thread, and no one has tried to bully or shame others into taking one side or the other, which doesn’t sound like a reactionary mob to me.

[dustybooks]

That's a weird tweet (Gary's, two posts above). Presumably Filmstruck excluded Hitchcock and Kubrick on the assumption they'd win just about any potential bracket!? It's like putting the Beatles in your "band wars."

Edited to add: I totally agree with DarkImbecile's post. I don't believe in "follow policing" myself, but I think the extremity of the account that came under the microscope warranted some conversation.

[domino harvey]

That clicking a single button on Twitter constitutes "participation in a social movement" is exponentially more dangerous to any meaningful conception of politics or technology or social relations than whatever could result from said clicking.

I agree, and this is compounded by the proliferation of torch-bearing mobs mostly/entirely comprised of people skulking behind pseudonyms.

People seeking to trash someone's reputation should at least have the moral courage to sign their own names to their denunciations.

Members here are under no obligation to use their real name anywhere on this forum, including when discussing a public figure’s public actions. What you are doing here is trying to quiet dissent via shaming members who disagree with you, since it’s apparently not an issue when pseudonymous members support Gary. Gary trashed his own reputation by following a white supremacy account, we’re not the ones to blame for noticing it.

It’s interesting that when the followed account in question is a hateful white supremacist account, many posters here are falling over themselves to explain it away, and yet when Gary’s milder right wing Twitter follows were found before this, no one chimed in with calls to not assume his politics or support for those accounts...

[tenia]

I'm quite certain the majority of members here reading blu-ray.com are still doing so despite Svet's clear descent into right-wing anti-immigration pro-Trump explicit reviews (including propaganda posting on his blu-ray.com profile). While this stance is different than following a white supremacist feed and might be considered tamer, Svet has multiple times written reviews on blu-ray.com explicitly showing his own views of the world, while I still believe one'd have a hard time finding anything like this on DVD Beaver.

I understand the different intensity in reactions here, and I definitely understand how you're extremely unconfortable with it and absolutely don't want to judge you for that. I'm myself conflicting with Beaver because, again, Gary's politics are compartimented and kept quite away from his reviewing site. But I wonder why we then didn't have this discussion about stopping using blu-ray.com because of Svet's ramblings there, because Svet is actively promoting these views himself, which to me is a bigger problem.

[bearcuborg]

No change from me, I just didn't and don't like some of our members treating this like an intellectual exercise in faux-tolerance and finding ways to pretend this isn't exactly what it is. I don't financially support him via Patreon now, and do not plan to support him in that fashion in the future. His site still provides a useful service that outweighs moral outrage against his beliefs, for me at least, so I have no plans to stop visiting it. However, I think those who do give him money or support or hits should be aware of what they are supporting so they can make the decision themselves on how to proceed

I have to say, I agree with this-or at least that’s how I will justify my visiting his site. Really, I’m not sure what more needs to be said on the matter. Attempts to defend Gary just feel clumsy, or cringeworthy.

[Cremildo]

Time for mea culpa.

Given the controversy on this thread, I decided to check that ProWhitesUnite Twitter page myself to see if it was, indeed, a "white supremacist" account. I did so because it's not uncommon for right-wing accounts that legitimately criticize illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism or that express patriotic values to be unfairly labeled as such, so any rational person should be somewhat skeptical, but the term is accurate this time. It is white supremacist. There was even an anti-Brazilian meme, ffs.

I still maintain that if Gary didn't espouse that rhetoric himself, there should be room for the benefit of the doubt, and that summarily judging people for who they follow on social media can be dangerous if not checked properly (which, ironically, is what I failed to do), but now I concede that the suspicions cannot be helped and that it's understandable that some people might feel uncomfortable.

[bearcuborg]

You needed to check that twitter account? Really?

[Big Ben]

You needed to check that twitter account? Really?

There's a weird thing about Twitter names and irony, particularly among left leaning users. I realize how absolutely insane that may sound but I've seen more than one handle use particularly derogatory names for gay people in it's name and turn out to be very much Pro-LGBT. I realize there's a concept of reclamation involved with certain words but occasionally you'll see one that makes your head spin. I wish to stress that this obviously doesn't apply all the time to every account but on the hellscape that is Twitter sometimes you very much DO need to check.

[domino harvey]

I appreciate Cremildo’s post. This kind of thing is easier to defend when it’s treated in the abstract, but the reality of the account leaves no doubt to its intent

[Cremildo]

You needed to check that twitter account? Really?

Yeah, I was unfamiliar with it, so I decided to check it. Sorry not sorry for not taking what some of you guys write as gospel.

[jindianajonz]

I know a number of conservatives who fancy themselves pro-white without being anti-minority. They claim to celebrate white western culture in a way that doesn't disparage others, and pretty much just want a equivalent to black history month for themselves. I'm not saying there isn't any subconscious racism to their beliefs, nor do I endorse their views, but pro-white stances don't always necessitate pitchforks and explicit hate.

[Drucker]

I know a number of conservatives who fancy themselves pro-white without being anti-minority. They claim to celebrate white western culture in a way that doesn't disparage others, and pretty much just want a equivalent to black history month for themselves. I'm not saying there isn't any subconscious racism to their beliefs, nor do I endorse their views, but pro-white stances don't always necessitate pitchforks and explicit hate.

Counterpoint: whiteness is invented, evolving, and only exists in contrast to undesirables. It is inherently white supremacist.

[spectre]

I think we can get a little reductive with this stuff – like, I think we all understand on an intuitive level that identification is not solely a response to oppression (even if oppression is so often a powerful motivator for, say, in-group allegiance and solidarity), but rather something that emerges at least partially from deeper human drives. Feeling pride in gayness or blackness or femaleness is not just an act of resistance, and those feelings would surely not just suddenly disintegrate in a post-racist/sexist/homophobic world. What they’re really about at their core is how we construct our sense of self.

I’m not saying there aren’t fundamental differences between “pride” in dominant identity and pride in subjugated identity, and there’s absolutely no question that “white pride” serves little other function than to racialise outgroups. But where I think relatively mainstream conservatives can get dragged into some “white pride” discourse is through a defensive reaction to white guilt. That is to say, feeling a sense of specialness about possessing a hegemonic ethnicity is undeniably sinister, but pushing back against an (imaginary or otherwise) obligation to feel ashamed about that ethnicity is somewhat less psychologically abnormal, and probably carries a much broader appeal than many of us would like to admit.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that there’s some truth to what jindianajonz says, and that we shouldn’t automatically assume that someone who momentarily felt a sense of affinity with a sentiment from a “pro-white” Twitter page is a virulent racist. That may seem to still be way too generous to Tooze given the actual virulent racism of the account in question and the possibility that his politics actually are that far-right, but I somehow want to get through that this isn’t the desperate attempt to defend the indefensible that some posters are characterising it as – it’s about the general importance of not assuming the worst of our fellow human beings, and about understanding that a reluctance to throw someone in the trash on the basis of inconclusive evidence is not necessarily the same thing as apologism or enabling.

[DarkImbecile]

... we shouldn’t automatically assume that someone who momentarily felt a sense of affinity with a sentiment from a “pro-white” Twitter page is a virulent racist...

...I somehow want to get through that this isn’t the desperate attempt to defend the indefensible that some posters are characterising it as...

...a reluctance to throw someone in the trash on the basis of inconclusive evidence is not necessarily the same thing as apologism or enabling.

Who specifically here do you feel is doing these things?