Used to be a time (before the woke cancer took over) that people with different views, political or otherwise, could be friends and share a common ground or hobby. Not anymore though and when people throw others under the bus publicly it's only done so the alphabet mafia don't take them down, which seems to be the case here. It's extremely sad how awful this world has become and only getting worse. Good job...
Something you failed to do Matt. Shad was your friend, a man who had helped you. You decided that as he possessed a different worldview it was ok to treat him maliciously. You then without talking to him released a ritualistic denunciation of him to both espouse your own virtue and paint him as lacking, ergo ripe for demonization. An act you hoped would garner you praise while also subjecting Shad to abuse. Matt, the above paints a pretty clear picture of who you are and it is far from favourable. Indeed, you and your actions are bereft of chivalry.
Shad already fell out with Skallagrim, can be checked on twitter. And I find Shad disingenuous personality can be well observed when watching Jack Saint's "Knightfall" video. Personally I stopped watching Shad in early 2023 after his AI video, and after reflecting on his opinions over on Knightswatch I don't regret it.
Yes mate l've just found out that Skalagrim doesn't speak to him anymore. It seemed more an opinion of his videos, which l can completely understand. I did watch a lot less when l got tired of his shouting and rage face on the thumbnail.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 as far as i was able to judge the situation between those two, Skall made a, fairly judging, dumb joke about Shad's viewers under someone making fun of these rage face thumbnails, and Shad tweeted himself angry about it, in multiple walls of text. I cannot fault Skall for removing himself from Shad after that
Yes on a personal level I completly agree and as I say they both adults and can talk to who they please, I just worry sometimes that genuine friendships end because of political differences. If Matt turned around and just said he was annoying I wouldn't have made this video. @@bl4cksp1d3r
When was that? I remember not too far back that Skall was in quite a bit of trouble, and Shad helped him out... bad financial situation for Skall, if I remember.
where did matt infringe on shad's freedom of speech? What about freedom of speech means he has to entertain someone who will complicate his life or that he should engage with certain views merely because someone else has them? Why does matt have to provide a platform or opportunity for someone else to speak? Where is matt's freedom of speech?
we get it, you hate conservatives. But Matt is telling his friends to not associate with Shad as well, as if this was highschool and he was a cheerleader
@@taistelusammakko5088 he can do it if he wants , but he ends up looking like a middle school girl by going: "plz _don't befriend this person, i hate him cuz boo_ hoo" 😂
@@Dan_Kanerva We are still waiting for the part where anyone's freedom of speech was infringed upon. You look pathetic when your only response to someone's criticism is to compare them to an unrelated situation in an attempt to belittle them. You should honestly be embarrassed. I mean jesus christ what a fucking clown lol
I think it is important to remember that they weren't friends to start with. They had an overlapping areas of interest and being businessmen collaborated on a few things. For reasons I can't understand Shad has a much bigger subscriber list than Matt. Matt is taking a stand on his morals that he must know may negatively impact his brand's reach. That is a commendable thing to do IMHO. I do wonder how much of Shad's second channel you've watched. Especially lately, he has made it clear that he wants to further marginalizing already marginalized community. Matt wants the exact opposite; to improve access for that community through his HEMA events. I can understand why Matt would sever ties with Shad. I can only think that Shad wants to maintain a working relationship with someone who so fundamentally disagrees with for the business aspect.
Thanks for your comment mate. I did this video a while ago so not sure I covered all your points in it so just to clarify, I was aware that they weren't close friends and more polite aquaintances through work. I believe that Matt has less of a following that Shad mostly because Shad does more pop culture videos and 'fun' video's for lack of a better term. Also I think he releases a lot more video's than Matt due to it being his full time business rather than Matt who has another Job. I've watched none of Shad's second channel for some time now. I find his shouty style annoying and he is a bit opinionated for me and a bit of a broken record. I might watch a shorter one now and then if its about something I'm interested in. I do think that what Shad does, as odd an offensive as it seems to us more secular folk, is not from a place of hatred and that should be taken into consideration when judging him. Also I know what chinese whispers are like and worry that Matt based his decision, which I complete agree with you is commendable from a moral stand point, on inaccurate information. To give an example there was a politician over here who used to live in Afganistan, he was interviewed by a newspaper and asked if he'd ever done drugs. He said 'no unless you count smoking an opium pipe at an afgan wedding,' I'm sure you can guess what the paper led with that next morning. I'm not suggesting that wha'ts been said about Shad is that duplicitus. And as you say I've not watched his video's lately. But I can see things getting blown out of proportion by the time its moved through 3 people who haven't heard his whole speel. Anyway again thanks for the polite comment.
you may or may not realize that shad's "views that are not from a place of hatred" are nonetheless about shutting down other people's free speech and their right to freedom from government involvement in their lives.
@joejoelesh1197 Broadly speaking, I think people on the right tend to consider their views on these matters to be political disagreements, whilst those on the left consider these views to be a matter of fundamental morality. It's easier to continue working with someone with whom you have a political disagreement than one with whom you have a fundamental difference of morality. So whereas Matt's community see working with Shad as morally wrong, Shad and his community see it simply as working with someone you disagree with politically.
I mean, it's pretty clear why Shad has a bigger subscriber list. They're going for different demographics. Matt's aiming at historical scholarship, Shad's overlapping slightly, but mostly is about hands on testing rather than historical research. For most people, pop culture is more interesting than actual history, and Shad both plays into that a lot more with the whole testing pop culture, and has more visually appealing content with actually swinging things around, generally fitting music, setting things on fire, etc. Matt's channel is for learning, Shad's is for mostly turning your brain off and relaxing.
Shad has allways struck me as a bit of a limited innocent without much perspective beyond a childlike delight in castles. I came here wondering what the row was about and find this clear and coherent ,Thank you
Yours is the most even handed discussion on this that I have seen. I would not try to force anyone to go against their conscience as I would not want anyone to force it on me. However, history and experience have shown friendships/partnerships between adversaries on particular issues. Learning about anothers experience or perspective does not surrenders your position, but refines it (as iron sharpens iron) I have found that the internet tends to create a false impression that both the right and the left are monolithic in their opinions when it is the loudest and most extreme that are rewarded with clicks. Even if Matt and Shad didn't create content on their differences (I would hope not since it is not my business) I think that a rational, respectful conversation would benefit both.
I don't like Shad that much but Matt is one of those people where if you have a rough idea of his worldview then you know what his approach to 95% of topics will be which to me is just a bit boring and it makes me value his opinions less because they come across as less considered and more regurgitory. Refusing to associate with someone who hasn't personally attacked you and isn't some sort of convicted criminal is very childish and performative in my opinion too.
Yes I generally like Matt, and I would fall short of calling this childish, but it was dissapointing that he made no attempt to hash it out
ปีที่แล้ว +17
Yeah, Shad has grown quite a bit arrogant over time. I think his bubble has gone to his head substantially. Very good assessment though and I agree with your message to both sides. Cheers
Matt is an even bigger prick than Shad, I've noticed it over the years, it was about small things so I overlooked it until that happened with Shad, I've pretty much completely disassociated myself from Matt's channel and dislike any videos from other channels in which he is included or I dont watch them at all, yes, hes free to disassociate from whoever he wants, but so can I, and I have, don't get me wrong, Matt is very knowledgeable about things and you can learn a lot from him, but I believe my time as one of his subscribers has past and I have no regrets over it
Personally stopped watching Shad about his extremely delusional takes on Ai-Art, and using his platform to shout out his anti-artist opinions. Though this was more like the straw that broke the camels back, he was ok being a cringey/annoying hobbyist that I watched every once in a while. Being a Mormon is whatever, but it seems most people outside of Mormonism don't view it in a positive light. I find it funny that so many right-wing drama channels are jumping on this chance to comment on a pair of channels most of them never watched to begin with.
Yeah l mean l watch them occasionally and this waa partly for views. Its currently one of my most wached videos though. And as l say l don't like seeing another line of conversation between the left and right severed. Again if Matt had just found him annoying on the day they met l wouldn't have bothered
On the obverse side of the coin, don't you think that those politically offended against shad are also jumping in on content they do not have an interest in the content of either channel? I think that's a confirmed yes. Now as to Matt's personal opinions, fine then, but clearly it was such people "informing" him politically, thus this is hardly a checkmate. A bit of a non-point.
Matt handled the situation rather gracefully, neither exposing Shad's ridiculous views nor asking for a boycott of any sort but that everyone may judge for themselves. Regarding the far/alt-right thing, it is the silly conspiracy stuff that he believes in that matches 1-1 with their rhetoric. Equating homosexuality to child abuse and grooming does too so he fully deserves that label. That is an alt-right position and going into the specifics, with all that nonsense regarding Disney, it is relatively clear what company he keeps. And I perfectly understand anyone who opposes such views wishing to disassociate themselves with him. Whether he would personally react like this or that to a person doesn't matter much when the narrative he pushes is (!) the reason why members of the LGBTQ+ community face hate and oftentimes violence in the western world, to this very day.
@@chrisclement5091 Equating the teaching of diversity to grooming and thus homosexuality to child-abuse undeniably is an alt-right position and Shad is as much of s scumbag as the rest of them. No need to be protective of such a vile person.
Very even handed video, thanks. I was a subscriber of Matt's for many years, and while I like Shad's castle related videos, I share your annoyance with his shouty style and wasn't subbed. I was really taken aback by Matt's denunciation of Shad and made some polite but critical comments on Matt's following video, all of which were hidden by Matt or TH-cam. The crux for me is that if Matt considers Shad unworthy of association based on Shad's views alone, it follows that everyone who shares those views (including me) is equally unworthy of association. Yet Matt is assuring conservatives and Christians in the comments that they remain welcome. How does he square this? It strikes me that while Matt doesn't like people like me, he does like our algorithmic and monetary support. He's fine if Shad is cancelled, but doesn't want to cancel himself by alienating a large proportion of his supporter base. I suspect that the offending views were related to issues of "Gender", rather than sexuality, misogyny, or most especially racism despite Matt's insinuation. It was quite annoying that Matt implied Shad's offenses rather than enumerating them clearly.
I'm a bit late to this whole thing, but I'm grateful with how diplomatic you were with addressing what's been going on. You've earned a sub from me 👍. Personally, I'm neutral on the subject since I still don't know all the facts nor do I know what Shad talked about and in what context. As a long time Shadiversity viewer, I too find Shad to be... difficult at times. While he does talk sense at times, there are things I don't agree with and he IS ignorant/arrogant about certain things at times. His Knights Watch videos can also get very heated and toxic. Furthermore, at times, he does bring in politics (despite saying that he keeps politics out of his videos) and sometimes makes generalizations about people and groups. For example, when talking about crappy shows and films that have been twisted by Disney, he originally addressed the creators/writers as "far left" (which they mostly are though not always). Nowadays, when Shad makes a review for a film or show (regardless if its good or bad), he tends to just say "left" or "the left" or "woke" which is a very bad generalization. His takes on Wheel of Time and Rings of Power were great, but now he sees everything as woke even when they're not. Furthermore, while I don't remember Shad saying that all queer people were "child groomers", if he DID say that then that's also a major issue that should be addressed. However, to date, I am unaware of him ever verbally or subtly stating that he hates queer people (though he might have and I just missed it). In his Arcane review for example, he knew that the Character Vi was gay, yet he loved her as a character regardless of that fact and he even praised the writers. As you said, Shad might not like the LGBT community as a whole (given his views) but that does not automatically mean that he outright hates queer people (as far as I'm aware). However, I will fully admit that Shad has also done and/or said stuff that is either wrong or sus, and that's just regarding the stuff I currently know of. Just look at his falling out with Skallagrim. I only learned that they severed ties a few weeks ago. In regards to Matt, I think its right for him to support the LGBT community even though he is not apart of the community. That's his right and there are millions of other people who do the same. Heck, I'm not gay yet I support gay people. However, I will say that Matt is being a little childish in completely cutting off relations with Shad rather than discussing things like adults. Though I can understand his reasons for wanting to avoid unwanted hate being lobbed at him since that's a given these days. Why can't there just be a civil discussion, let alone a discussion to clear up any potential misinformation? Perhaps one day the two of them will put their differences aside and talk it out like civilized adults. Granted, there is still a lot of stuff I'm unaware of regarding this situation and I don't fully know who's in the right or wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edit: After doing some digging, I was wrong about Shad... he does have issues with queer people and in a very negative way. In the link to one of his videos, he starts out saying that he "supports freedom of choice" and that if his kids were queer then he would love them all the same, then as he goes on he quickly turns heal and says bs like how only straight people can be happy because they can create life while queer people can't and how queer people can only adopt (which is false), and how teaching children about queer people can turn your children gay (which is laughably false). I also found it hypocritical that he talks about teaching children about gay people as being "grooming"... yet he admits that he plans to raise his children to be conservative and grow up the way "he" thinks is right... which is a form of grooming 🙄. He also goes on talking about "embracing traditional marriage" and "rejecting" the idea that gay couples are equal to straight couples. He also contradicts himself at several points such as saying that we should accept everyone and reject discrimination (even though he was discriminating gay people minutes prior and does so later on). And this is just one video that shows this. Apparently there are other videos from Knights Watch where Shad makes generalizations about the LGBT community and he includes very anti-gay stuff (again contradicting his "no politics" rule). th-cam.com/video/MKEz4uWW_sM/w-d-xo.htmlm42s
I just wanted to point that he never said he abstains from politics altogether, only that he abstains on his main channel, which is largely true. Sure, you can guess some of his views the same way you can with a lot of youtubers, but he doesn't actively bring it up. He's way more outspoken on his secondary channel, which is 100% assumed, and I respect that. I agree that he nowadays gets triggered way too easily with wokeness in media though, and also tends to react badly to criticism, even when he's right, which is disappointing. I feel like things went downhill in that regard when he started more consistently employing friends to create content on his channel, as it looks to me like that by doing so, he inadvertently trapped himself in an echo chamber with similarly-aligned people, which makes it harder for him to take a step back on an argument and inflates his ego a bit. The content on Knights' Watch is also mostly unscripted, which doesn't always make for the most well thought-out reflections.
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of writers/creators of Disney/Hollywood or whatever are not "far left" but liberal at best - which is just as far from left positions as it is from right positions. Equating "liberal" with "left" is another instance of the american tendency to strip once defined, established and agreed upon terms of any meaning.
Wow, I can't believe anyone can still support Shad after publicly sharing homophobic views like that. It's disgusting. That can't just be brushed off as having a different opinion about something, that's actively promoting hateful or discriminatory behaviour and it needs to be challenged. Intolerance cannot be tolerated. Well done to Matt for stopping collaborating with him.
@@kai_plays_khomus Completely correct. Americans have been conditioned since McCarthyism that the want social justice, but hate the idea of implementing social justice. It’s a complete mess.
I don't think Shad is Far Right, I just think he's really weird. His takes on A.I. art and pop culture issues are strange and stupid. The whispered stuff you hear about Shad that have been circling around a couple of years are his views on dating under age girls. I believe he's said it should be legal, and it is in most of the USA anyway, to marry under age girls with only parental permission. I think Shad is strange with fringe beliefs.
He's pretty far right. Most ultra-conservative Mormons, like him, are. And when you have to got o *any* lengths to defend or explain someone's opinion on dating underaged children that is a pretty fucking massive red flag.
Obviously if it's only a rumor then you can't make any judgements because it might be untrue but if he actually does think it should be legal to marry underage girls then he's not just really weird he's a literal pedo and that's way way worse than this far right stuff
@@Michael-bn1oi I have a very mixed opinion of Mormons. I have known a lot of great people who were Mormons, but the organization is really troubling when you dive deep into it. They are considered a cult by most groups that track that kind of thing.
I'm late to this whole drama, but I think this is a very fair analysis. I've never seriously watched Shad's content: I'm an olympic foil fencer and Shad's not really the best resources on the parts of historical fencing I'm interested in. With that out of the way, a few comments though: 1. I don't think it's fair to assert that Matt Eason is left-wing. I consider myself a centrist and find the hardcore woke stuff from parts of the left just as unpalatable as the homo/transphobia from parts of the right. I would professionally distance myself from someone who was openly bigoted as well. I'm less convinced about 'locker room recordings', but Shad wasn't hiding it. He had a podcast to share his views and should expect to be criticized for it. Not associating with someone due to their beliefs is free speech. A church has just as much of a right to not have an atheist preach at the pulpit as I have to not work with someone who is (as an exmaple) a virulent racist. A small aside, but I personally believe that if you want to widen professional connections, you have to keep your politics private. We can whine about 'cancel culture' all we like, but humans have built communities based on shared principles and beliefs for a long time. If you want a wide net of people to accept you, keep the divisive issues to yourself. 2. (Approx 6:00 and later) In my view the HEMA group has complete discretion on who they wish to associate with. Every fencing club I've either been a member or coach at has strict policies for instance on being hostile to people of different races/religions. They don't investigate every person to see what their innermost thoughts are, but if you broadcast something that is against the collective beliefs of the club, you'll be asked to leave simply because the community is valued over any one individual. Regarding 'debates': To me, Matt Easton is a fencing coach and antique dealer. He's not a politician or a journalist and isn't required to debate anybody. It's not his (or the HEMA community's) job to bring Shad around. They are interested in teaching people to fence following historical sources, that's all. I sound like a broken record, but if you want wide professional/hobbyist connections you keep your most contentious issues private. IMO both left and right wing folks are wrong on this issue. It wasn't that long ago that talking politics with strangers was considered deeply taboo. That was for good reason. Whether people understood it or not, having a strict demarcation between your profession and your politics allows for a wider group of people to live harmoniously in society. Shad decided to air his political laundry in the open and a lot of people have decided to distance themselves as a result. I don't know what Jason Kingsley of Modern History TV believes and I prefer it that way. He runs a great youtube channel that I watch without having to do the political calculations because he keeps his politics close to his chest. It's really that simple.
I want this out in the open, not out of any spite, rather to offer some perspective for the matter. I find Shad to be a troll. One of the higher order ones. Back a while he asked a question on a General Relativity bent, how would something like this work under this circumstance. I answered as best as I could, General Relativity gets complex, complicated and counter intuitive. The Speed of Light is not additive, subtractive as only one example. Observations of planetary orbits have proven this. So I answer the question as best as I can, something about a 'force' being applied to a ship in a particular direction. I make it clear that I'm a student of, that I'm answering this to the best of my ability. That it doesn't work that way and due to being inside the frame of reference, they wouldn't notice it. I get a whole heap of abuse, how I was stupid, didn't understand the question, didn't know anything. The questions was so obvious and simple that there's the way it works and it's nothing like what I know. Straight to abuse, insults. Personal insults. No questions about my logic, no attempt to clarify. If Shad has treated others with the open and unbridled contempt that I was, then I would argue that this is the pigeons coming home to roost. I don't care for or about his personal religious or political views. If the titles are anything to go by? I already disagree and see no reason to involve myself with. This is not out of a creative dislike either, I run a game studio, I have my own projects and they're deliberate, targeted to achieve certain things. If I'm not in the mood, I don't play or involve myself in games I'm not in the mood for. What I want to make clear and sure is understood here, is that my dislike is on a personal level. I don't have such trolls in my life. When someone says 'this person is a troll', they were bullied by them the reaction shouldn't be 'well, he's not that bad to me'. The like. If you don't see it, it is true. Very very true. Should Shad have treated so many with contempt, belittled, mocked, abused, then that's on him. Should so many people have such personal reactions to him, to not wish the person that bullied them to be promoted, presented to them as good, that's a fair reaction and request for them to make. To be forced to have to endure that presence is causing them stress and even distress. Matt did the right thing here, Skall made a choice for his own reasons and did what he thought was best for his own situation. Choosing who is in a person's life, social circle is something we're all free to do. Forcing the people you think should be in their life on them? That's on you. Listen to the bullied and it might change your view on some of these people.
Thanks for your comment mate. I assume that this abuse you speak of came directly from Shad? I would be interested in the context of how the abuse was delivered. That is to say I assume it was public and on his channel but if you could confirm that I'd be grateful. Please don't feel any pressure to do this if you feel it' not appropriate. Also, I'll state that I hope any disagreements in this thread will be civil. I agree with you that if anything Shad has done has been proven then we would have more of an idea of an appropriate response. An example could be I supported him on patreon when he made an appeal for funds, then I greatly reduced my support when he went out and bought an expensive car. I was going to cancel my financial support completely when I found he was having a holiday in the UK. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what he's done. Or what these beliefs are that Matt opposes. Some people think it’s his stance on LGBTQ+ some people think it’s because of groomer accusations. It’s never actually come out. Also, the people who have made these accusation are unknowns. And their sources are also unknowns. They could be acting in malice or under misinformation. Now if someone came out with a full in context video or evidence of Shad doing something I'd be the first to disown him, but I hope you can see the conundrum. But anyway again thanks for your post.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007Directly from Shad and may still be up on the vid where he asked the question. You'll have to forgive me if I don't link to which vid. Title was something along the line of how would this work in science? You're going to need to go back years, at least four years. Directly on his channel. Direct reply to my comment where I specified the logic of General Relativity as I understood it then. I also feel the need to argue on some level. Here's the thing, you don't need the proof in this case. You don't. Especially when victims find it hard to discuss. Even more so when they do not want to and have expressed that desire. You can respect their requests and you can show them that you are listening. You can choose to not add to the suck they're dealing with. You can choose not to worsen their suck, add to their stress and distress. To not support, promote a person who is the cause of harm done to them. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean that is has never happened. I'm not going to make any claims, suggest anything other than my own. That the individual has behaved in a way that was hostile, offensive and to this date has had no retraction or apology. If there are other claims, I am also ignorant of them. Should others have been treated the way I was, abused in the way I was, then there's more of us. Again, to repeat the point, because it's not done to you, not happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened. A personal example on my part. A person in my part of the world had a vendetta against me. To the point of a false report to the police. I told the truth about this and who was the person who told not to be a problem? Am I obliged to prove that before it's true? To have really happened? Do I need the police report document made with his name on it before it becomes true? Should I have had copies of the messages where I was accused of facing criminal charges? Later messages with worse? At what point does it become true? The more evidence you demand before it's true, it favours the abuser. To me, the situation is clear. Matt, Skall, made a choice. It's a choice I respect on an individual level. I prefer their presentation, style and content. I do not watch the content I have no interest in. Am I judging a book by its cover? Well, yeah, I am. Only so many hours in the day. Got a game studio to launch, games to be made. I would encourage and support those who have what they feel is enough to take the police if there's a criminal offence, harm being done to others, to do so. I would encourage those who have been abused, harm done to them by, to come forward should they feel able to do so and have the will, desire to do so. I would be happy to be support for them, should they wish it. To be an ear for them if they want it as well. Note that I'm talking about them first, the source of the stress, distress, pain second if at all. I'm no saint, all I do is try not to be an arsehole. Not to add to other's suck. If it's adding to the suck for them to be around certain people? Well, I won't ask them to do that. It's all I can do. Seems like Matt's doing the same and I don't see any need to argue with it.
@leonpeters-malone3054 Well I doubt Matt will do anything he doesn't want to do and I wouldn't try to influence that after my first thoughts. I don’t know what information he has or how accurate it is but it is entirely his decision on how he acts with it. As I said in the video they're both adults and can talk or not talk to whoever they like. He does not seem unintelligent. As for needing legal level evidence I do take your point, but there is a wide margin between needing something that would convict in court and believing writing on the internet. And please believe that I don’t aim that last comment at you, I’m not calling you a liar in any way, I do know Shad can be unreasonable and rude.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 Wasn't taken that way at all. All it was meant to say is that at the end of the day, they've made a choice. We have to respect that choice. The more we don't like or disagree with the point? Even more so. It is the way things are now, it is something we can see and it is something we should respect. I have to admit I've not watched the video, there was some spite that came out in my first comment. Towards Shad and towards the attitude of others. How it's 'woke', 'political', how it's manipulated to a us versus them, in-group, out-group mechanic. Which for me, it's not. You want be troll? I won't interact, subscribe. A lot of the time, across the genders, presentations, whatever the victim is the last person believed. If people have come out against Shad, they've done it for their own reasons. Those reasons could make them extremely uncomfortable, you don't need to hear every story, every interaction, every moment of Shad being the troll. You either add to the suck or you don't. I choose not to add to the suck. More so and perhaps more strongly after the suck that another person put me through. How despite clear messages that it was going on, that it happened, it still wasn't true because they didn't see it.
as a person of the lgbtq+ community who also finds that acronym hard to say the queer community means the same thing but is a lot easier to say (i know it doesnt matter and isnt relevant to the video but eh)
You're wrong about Shad not being far right. He hangs out with Sargon of Akkad and appears on Sargon's "show", if you can even call it that. I'm proud of Matt for disassociating with him.
I'm only vaugly aware of Sargon. I tried the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters but found them a little unpalatable. But l'm interested mate in your definition of Far right. What to you differentiates Right to far right.
Shad is a mormon, one that basically had an arranged marriage, he's talked about it. The mormon church will literally excommunicate and ostracize you for being gay, and had a straight up racial hierarchy built into it that was only edited out in the 1970s. You don't meet many practicing mormons that aren't further right than most folks for a reason. Mormonism is also pretty garbage towards women and in his knights watch media reviews he's been spouting off tripe about "the degenerates corrupting the west" over stuff like peach wearing pants in the mario movie trailer for a moment and people wanting better done female characters in media. He goes on and on yearning for an absurdly rosy picture of the past, "when men were men and had real honor", etc...@@thegrumpygeordie9007
I don't think there's an easy answer to that mate. I gather the problem is less Shad's views and more that he's very vocal about them. Even if the views that Matt has been led to believe him talking about are false Shad has never been a shrinking violet. I'm more frustrated that he didn't, to my knowledge at least, talk to Shad about this before cutting him off. I do think though that if a Muslim did start spouting Islamic extremism and violence etc then Matt would cut him off also.
@thegrumpygeordie9007 to be honest, if you didn't watch Shad's other channel, you'd have no idea of his politics, other than knowing he's religious. What Matt did highlights everything wrong with modern culture, only people with a very childish mentality think you can't associate with people that have different beliefs than yourself, either that or you are bowing to the will of people who complain about somebody else to you. So either you end up a coward that is terrified what people think of him on the Internet or he's a child that can't come to terms with other people holding different beliefs.
Frankly someone can be a screaming "previous German political party memeber" or a demented Maoist and normal people DO NOT CARE until they DO something objectively horrible. Turning around and posing as "I am good and this person bad so me take high ground, look at me!" as Easton did is cowardly. If you think something is a bad thing then confront it and seek truth. but then, that wouldn't keep pulling in that sweet youtube gold, would it?
One common thing I noticed about the more current left-leaning thinking, is the notion that "if you think this one thing, then you must also think this and that as well, and be part that group, whom I don't like, and therefore you're literally Hitler reincarnated". Or to put in simpler terms, saying to someone after stating they loved pancakes, that they "must therefore also hate waffles, but I like waffles, so therefore I hate you." ...even though waffles were never a point in the conversation at all. It's such a childish mindset. Gone are the days of "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend your right to say it" or at least it's rarely seen from anybody else besides conservatives and occasional libertarians, when this used to be a liberal stance. Everything is so polarizing, and this ostracizing happening with cancel culture that's consistent with communist era tactics that my parents lived though, is all so exhausting. There is no nuance, no dialogue, and no adults in the room. I watched both those channels, and even though I didn't like everything I saw, whether I disagreed with something or something rubbed me the wrong way, I still liked some of the other things enough to stick around. But after this incident with Matt, he's lost all respect from me and my subscription, since apparently the only "views" he likes are _video views_ and revenue, as opposed to traditional and religious views. At least Shad was the more mature one here and wanted to talk it out.
Shad literally says shit like "the west is being corrupted by degenerates" over the mario movie trailer, and he is AWFUL at taking any sort of criticism. There is no arguing with him.
Bit of a conservative here, and i've watched both of these fellows in the past. I live in the us and i can kinda see why this went the way it did. It seems like when it comes to politics, people can only react in the most extreme ways, leaving no room for any middle ground. Even being seen talking to someone with differing views is seen as you agreeing with all of their political views. I can see shad's (not a regular viewer so unaware of any specific instances) views on the child groomers thing getting blown out of proportion. For instance, i think over in florida, there was a bill called " the don't say gay bill". People on a certain political spectrum claimed that florida was trying to ban saying the word "gay" in schools. When in reality, the bill was actually called "the parental rights act" and all it did was prevent teachers from talking to students about their sexualities below a certain age. I think the age was like 12 and below or something. Which i felt is understandable. Another instance concerns the lgbt community, you see the things called MAPS (minor attracted persons, basically pedos) began to include themselves in the lgbt community. And anyone criticizing them got labeled as bigots. And yes, while some members of the lgbt community defended the maps, even more tried to disavow them. It could also be that shad might not agree with things like puberty blockers for kids. Which is enough to get the label of being transphobic. Additionally, there are videos of people marching in pride parades chanting "we're coming for your kids" which i am pretty sure is just them trolling but it still doesn't help their image. All of this gets really tiring. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree? Edit: the parental rights act just protected parents rights concerning their kids and a lot of them didn't want kids below a certain age talked to about their sexuality by their teachers.
That bill was rapidly expanded to higher grade levels once it was put into practice. The bill was so draconian about barring talking about the LGBTQ, that just mentioning that someone had two moms or two dads was not allowed.
@@Miolnir3 How is it good? The enforcement of the rules are so draconian that kids with same sex parents can't say "My Dads/Moms and I did this over the weekend" but kids with hetro parents can talk about their parents all they want. It's a double standard. These restrictions were pushed up into the high school levels. Not everything taught about the LGBTQ+ is their sexual practices. Sometimes it's just that they exist. The Florida law wants to prevent kids from learning they even exist.
I get what you're saying but a difference in political views should be stuff like "I believe we should have lower taxes" versus "I believe we should increase taxes so we can spend more on education". That's the sort of political differences you could have a reasonable discussion about and end up agreeing to disagree. However, if your political difference is "I believe a certain group of people don't deserve basic human rights and freedoms such as the ability to love who they want and still be treated the same as everyone else" then that can't just be left unchallenged as it's inherently wrong to discriminate against people like that and if views like that are tolerated it can be very damaging to people's lives. If you consider yourself a person with good morals then hate and bigotry should be called out and spoken out against whenever possible.
I am far left, but I see no reason why historical TH-camrs with different political opinions should not make content together. I like both Shad Brooks and Matt Easton, sad that they don´t get along anymore.
Shad is a blowhard that is absolutely awful at taking criticism from anyone on anything even if they have exponentially more experience in the subject than he does. This behavior has gotten him blacklisted by the entire Australian HEMA community over the years and no one else has to tolerate it either.
The main reason for the drama is politics or rather misrepresented politics, but the reason reasonable people don't like Shad is because he has become pretentious and misrepresents other people's videos to sooth his ego and his subscribers who behave like manchildren seeking attention just make things worse.
Lol Shads quote is a bit rich coming from a Mormon. But waaaaait isn't this hate on hate propagation? Yeah.... Honestly it surprises me, he's always been a few cherries short a fruitcake but he's been careful to not publicize it. Matt is pretty much bang on. The thing is people get very fixated on the old "tarring all with the same brush" concept like it always equates with unfounded bigotry. In the case of religion though they're literally a giant club that has it's own book with concrete literal prescriptive rules for said club. So the tarring all with the same brush actually becomes legitimate provided of course that said member is actually adhering to the rules properly. If X member in Y religion is told to hate Z and they hate Z by all definition they're being a good member of X religion.
Out of abundant respect for Matt's beliefs, when his fellow travelers inevitably turn on him, I'll sell them pitchforks, torches, and rope, then sit back with popcorn and beer to enjoy the show.
You mean when he say's something that goes against their politics and they throw him under the bus? Its the sword that hangs above us all mate. Wait till I get enough followers to be pissed off at me lol.
I don't think he has to worry about saying anything as dumb as stuff like "the west is being corrupted by degenerate" over shit like Peach wearing pants in part of the mario movie trailer.
My Ex girlfriend is very catholic, even criticising me for eating meat on a Friday, but despite that and the famous conservatism of the catholic church, she was the one to tell me that a mutual friend of ours had a boy friend and that she was happy for them. I never even knew he had come out, let alone found a partner. What I'm saying is, just because you're raised in a particular church with less progressive view points, doesn't mean that you have them yourself. unless someone can present to me evidence that Shad has those views himself, I'm not taking them as anything other than Strawmaning. (as someone who also has strong Christian views, I don't condone that strawman mindset, since any evidence of such accusations being true can be attributed to a few bad apples)
didn't know he had any that would preclude him, not that familiar at all tbh I take scholagladiatoria's word with more weight than most others on account of he puts the shit into practice @@thegrumpygeordie9007
Shad used to have a youtube presence that just discussed castles and swords and medieval geeky things. Then he started a politically conservative channel that seem to espouse strange views, about masculinity and seems to be anti gay. Now he has started a new channel that supports AI art as opposed to traditional. They guy has destroyed his support base with the mainstream, and seems to be pandering to niche conservative males.
I’m kinda disappointed in Matt, First off because hes shills predatory freemium games to his ton of fans, and i think its dishonest to act like there isn’t grown men in dresses pushing to “ Storytime “ with children and confuse them with things like sexuality and gender , things i don’t believe they should be exposed to so early.
for the sake of completion, it should be noted that shad regularly participates in a streaming group with Nerdrotic. The group, overall, is, apparently by their own description, "anti-woke". in the USA, right now, that qualifies as "Right Wing" to start. assertions such as calling the LGBTQ+ community, ad hoc, "groomers" is squarely in the camp of "Alt Right" here in the USA. I feel I should also clarify that these designations are classified and recognized by US Law Enforcement and Domestic Intelligence Agencies. As a counterpoint: I do not believe that Shad has the mental/emotional capacity for understanding his problematic views on anything in particular. I do not say this to merely deride him, I've gotten over my lividity over his politics, and his views on AI. Now I just feel sorry for him, and empathy for his brother Jazza, who must deal with some of the backlash brought on by Shad's child-like actions.
I have to agree with you I despise the word woke now. I've seen a little of Nerdrotic, mostly when he colaborated with the Critical Drinker. I have to admit that I find a stream that would involve Shad and Nerdrotic like a broken record. I'm still skeptical that Shad tarred all of the LGBTQ+ group with the grooming brush. Of course its entirely possible that I missed that video because as I say I watch little to none of his content at the moment, but because I find him annoying more than abhorrant. Anyway thanks for you comment I hope you have a good day.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 Thank you! and I should Clarify that I haven't watched much of his political content, so I do not know if he's made any anti-LGBTQ+ assertions out of his own mouth (beyond regurgitating his Mormon anti-queer-marriage views). However, active participation in a group that HAS made such assertions amounts to a Tacit Endorsement of the groups views, imo. NOTE: "Guilt by association" typically assumes the association in question is *Passive*. If you're a barber, and a gangster was your long time client, your association was passive and you're not accountable for his views and actions, even if you were friendly with him. BUT, if you're also actively in the gang he led, then you ARE accountable, which is the basis of RICO statutes in the USA. I believe that he's been an active participant in that group for some time. Cheers! 👍
Anti-woke doesn't automatically qualify as right wing. I'd be considered left wing in my beliefs, but still consider myself anti-woke because it feels like "woke" implies aggressive intolerance to force compliance rather than setting an example by the way you live.
@@Aquilenne Woke is an interesting one. I believe it was used to indicate that someone was 'aware of racism and equality' and such like, but was coined by their detractors into a slur. I'm reading a book at the moment describing populism in politics using ill-defined third-party groups 'The Woke,' 'The Alt Right', 'The privileged' We could also look how the word Right has been used to slur certain ill-defined groups and to tar people who I tend to steer clear of the word as much as possible myself. I myself probably fall left of the line much as yourself but find much to criticize in modern culture, hence making a TH-cam Channel I suppose. Anyway thanks for your comment.
I see an element of Matt getting mainstream attention, and (predictably) the mob is calling him out to “appease” and denounce. Not to suggest he’s a victim of these Maoists tactics. They have lots of fellow-travellers, and he could be sincere, even if placatory.
Theres nothing I hate more than petty, ignorant & immature people who censor anyone who doesnt immediately & overtly agree with them. Specially when that person is neutral and is speaking respectfully and they themselves are rude as hell. Theyre absolute tyrants. I'm specifically complaining about you being restricted in that HEMA community.
Shad is absolutely not Alt Right. He is Alt Left. Shad holds what could BROADLY be considered 'right' points of view on some topics. Probably. To be honest I find Shad's ability to actually put forward an argument is tedious and I have better things to do than listen to him constantly talk over other people. Remember, "I didn't like it. It was rubbish" is not an argument, it is an opinion. However Shad acts like an angry Leftie in defence of his arguments. Lefties - rightly or wrongly - believe they have all the answers. They - rightly or wrongly - believe they can make the world a better place and if you disagree then you are WRONG. Conservatives have a much narrower scope. They want to be left alone to do what THEY believe is best for their family and loved ones. If they consider something not to be best for them they won't do it. You can do it, provided you don't threaten them or their family. So if you want to do something... "different" then you go off and do it, but do not come anywhere near my kids. That is how Conservatives think and how Conservatives get angry. It is not banning outright for the most part, it is just they don't want you near their kids. Lefties by comparison find offense that someone disagrees at all. If someone wants to go "different" then they should have the right to be "different" anywhere they want and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Conservatives see it differently. Go and be different at your own home and stop trying to insist you can come and do so in front of my kids. If a topic doesn't directly affect a Conservative directly they will just avoid it. They have better more enjoyable things to do and goes a long way to explain why Conservatives are considered happier in life than progressives... provided you stay the fk away from their loved ones. So Shad holds a non Left mind set on some topics with a Leftist style absolute belief that he has the right to hold and spread those views. Shad's problem is... well one of Shad's problems, he has many... Is that he mistakes the 'Freedom of Expression' concept with 'Freedom From Responsibility'. When this sort of topic comes up, and it comes up regularly with him, he plays the 'This is my Religion and I make no apologies for that' card. Now faith is a fine thing, but you - and your faith - are still responsible for anything they make a stand on. The fact it is or isn't your religion does not give you 100% freedom from repercussions. As SG mentioned in his post, the right of reaction exists. Put it this way, if you went around telling everyone that your mate's wife was a fat ugly slag, and she found out and banned you from ever visiting their house again who is to blame? You were only expressing your freedom of speech rights after all? (also I don't fully support freedom of speech. If you found my medical records I do not believe it is your freedom to publish them online. Another example is Doxing someone. There is a limit to how far freedom of speech should go and even before that limit you are still fully responsible for any affects of your statements.) So, other thing to remember is that as I understand it SG runs a HEMA school. People pay him to get their HEMA on and, reading between lines, SG has a policy that at HEMA Club we do HEMA stuff and provided you are here to HEMA than all is cool. Do not use HEMA club to force any non HEMA topics onto fellow club members. Shad - probably, I find his sword channel to be basically LOL Cow Clickbait and his Knights channel to be him screaming because shouting makes your opinion more valid - has on more than one occasion suggested that some people have sexual preferences that he disagrees with. Or something. So, again reading between the lines, if SG was to have some of those sorts of people as active members of his school you might see how those members might ask SC to reconsider publicly spending time with Shad. This is not the 'Woke Cancel Mob' that the Shad Simps seem to believe pressured SC, this seems to be his direct students. And if it WAS the Woke Cancel Mob then it would have been all over twitter. The Cancel Mob don't ask. They demand. OR... it might have been because Shad has a long standing history of basically pissing off the HEMA community because he refuses to accept that HEMA people don't take foam sword TH-cam bogans that seriously. Shad is not universally well regarded in all the 'Sword Community'. He is regarded as a 'sword owner' by many and that is when they are being polite. He can't or won't fight - there is some medical history apparently - but feels self important enough to tell people who do fight that they are doing it wrong. This has carried over into the writing community where he took a bunch of lessons, name dropped Brandon Sanderson, and declared himself a successful novel writer with a great novel. After four years book 2 hasn't been published - normally not a great sign that you are a career novelist - and given Shad's massive subscriber base of a million plus he has gotten a rather poor amount of support from his subscriber base. His novel is also... a bit... odd... The motivation and ethics of his point of view character in regards to some topics are... slightly unusual and there has been some public comment on this. So Shad took it all personally and went off to make a video where he quoted all the 5 star reviews from Goodreads. Seriously Shad, just write and publish book 2, 3 and 4 and wave your sales figures at people. Seriously. But yes. Shad is an expert novel writer. And his AI Art. That is cringe. He is not saying "Hey, been trying out this AI thing and I actually enjoy it", he is saying "I am an expert artist and I challenge others to do better". So he was challenged. And he had a massive cry about it. This is Shad to a letter. He feels he does no wrong. He feels he is beyond criticism. He feels if anyone does criticise him then HE is the victim and rushes out a new video describing how much a victim he really is. Shad's reaction to the falling out with SG could have been him simply saying "We had planned to do a combined video while I was here in Britain with a number of other history based creators. However even though the event was filmed SG decided to withdraw his permission based on some differing points of view the two of us have on some non sword related topics. While I am deeply disappointed by this development I wish SG success both in personal life and on his channel". THAT is what he could have said. Nope. He went and had a sook and claimed he did nothing wrong. Shad would do himself a lot of favours if he just realised that the majority of Gen Z have already forgotten the conversation and dragging it back into the spot light only makes you look thin skinned and/or attention seeking. You are NEVER going to make everyone happy at once. People are going to disagree with you in life. Stop acting like a screaming Leftie who thinks they can fix the world and just move on. It is perfectly acceptable to just say that you and SG no longer make content together and move on. SG moved on. Can't see why Shad refuses to. Pity really. Some of Shad's earlier stuff where he was just a harmless bogan with a bit of a castle fetish were very watchable. Then he started to believe that Subs made him an expert. Oh well. (also - yes, I wrote a lot of words. It's called procrastination, autism, being a horrible person and all of the above. Also Shad is Victorian. It is un-Australian not to constantly remind Victorians that the rest of us thinks that their entire state is filled with wankers.)
There is a reason Shad is getting ostracized by multiple communities on youtube. Shad and others like him have been normalizing using the term groomer. Judging from this peron's video and comments, i highly suspect this guy thinks that Chinese influence is at play. You defend Shad since you deem Shad not to have malice and yet its clear that Shad was making harmful accusations to an entire group of people based on his personal views and ignorance. You deride when people use the term alt right and how that term loses value when overused and then you play as an apologist for people that use the term groomer! You would have garnered my respect had you been even handed but your bias is clear. Its not the person angrily yelling groomer and forming an exclusive and toxic online community that has a burden to be better but its the peraon who is trying to remove toxicity and improve inclusivity from their community. Unreal
Sadly too many on the left don't care to be good faith with their political opponents. We need *both left and right* but the divide cannot be mended when one side defend their extremist (for example, no one should be defending MAPs but there are progressives doing just that) while the other actively try to weed out the extremist on their side. ( It's why there's a massive divide on the right since a new your liberal became the conservative representative) I can understand why Matt wants to distant himself from anyone who's counter to his political narrative, but this won't help him in the long run. Especially when they turn on him. The exact same thing is happening to Ethan Klein. Jordan Peterson warned him. Shad tried to warn Matt, but sometimes the lessons won't be learned without experience.
To believe the Daily Wire is far right makes you far left. Your statement about fear and hate is ironic, considering you believe the largest conservative network is "far right". The right wins on the issues, the left simply fear mongers.
The daily wire are on the right of the American republican party, they are constitutionalists and political liberals (meaning they support democracy and personal freedom), their views were largely mainstream a few decades ago. The far right wouldn't even want to associate with them given their connection to Ben Shapiro, the neo-cons and the Israel lobby, the far right are ultra paranoid about and detest all three, they are also anti-enlightenment so anti-liberal to the very core.
It was funny watching how the subtitles interpreted your accent.
Chrsit I'm scared to watch lol. In my defense this is me toning it down.
Thank you for your thoughts. It's nice to see a calm view.
Thank you for your comment, l've enjoyed your channel for quite a while now.
Used to be a time (before the woke cancer took over) that people with different views, political or otherwise, could be friends and share a common ground or hobby. Not anymore though and when people throw others under the bus publicly it's only done so the alphabet mafia don't take them down, which seems to be the case here. It's extremely sad how awful this world has become and only getting worse. Good job...
@@thegrumpygeordie9007many of us have
Something you failed to do Matt. Shad was your friend, a man who had helped you. You decided that as he possessed a different worldview it was ok to treat him maliciously. You then without talking to him released a ritualistic denunciation of him to both espouse your own virtue and paint him as lacking, ergo ripe for demonization. An act you hoped would garner you praise while also subjecting Shad to abuse. Matt, the above paints a pretty clear picture of who you are and it is far from favourable. Indeed, you and your actions are bereft of chivalry.
@@Andy_466 Matt is a cuckold that is perfectly fine with his children being a minority in their own homeland.
Shad already fell out with Skallagrim, can be checked on twitter. And I find Shad disingenuous personality can be well observed when watching Jack Saint's "Knightfall" video.
Personally I stopped watching Shad in early 2023 after his AI video, and after reflecting on his opinions over on Knightswatch I don't regret it.
Yes mate l've just found out that Skalagrim doesn't speak to him anymore. It seemed more an opinion of his videos, which l can completely understand. I did watch a lot less when l got tired of his shouting and rage face on the thumbnail.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 as far as i was able to judge the situation between those two, Skall made a, fairly judging, dumb joke about Shad's viewers under someone making fun of these rage face thumbnails, and Shad tweeted himself angry about it, in multiple walls of text. I cannot fault Skall for removing himself from Shad after that
Yes on a personal level I completly agree and as I say they both adults and can talk to who they please, I just worry sometimes that genuine friendships end because of political differences. If Matt turned around and just said he was annoying I wouldn't have made this video.
@@bl4cksp1d3r
When was that? I remember not too far back that Skall was in quite a bit of trouble, and Shad helped him out... bad financial situation for Skall, if I remember.
@@Shrapnel82 I think June, July, of this year
This guy looks like a 60/40 cross of Matt Easton / Shad from Shadiversity
You just blew my mind, 😂😂😂
@@robsright4256 mine too
I felt neutral about him untill i saw him interacting with his brother which gave me a really bad impression about shad's personality
It's fair enugh mate, as I say I went off him a bit myself. Thanks for the comment
where did matt infringe on shad's freedom of speech? What about freedom of speech means he has to entertain someone who will complicate his life or that he should engage with certain views merely because someone else has them? Why does matt have to provide a platform or opportunity for someone else to speak? Where is matt's freedom of speech?
we get it, you hate conservatives. But Matt is telling his friends to not associate with Shad as well, as if this was highschool and he was a cheerleader
@@Dan_Kanerva why cant matt do that?
@@taistelusammakko5088 he can do it if he wants , but he ends up looking like a middle school girl by going: "plz _don't befriend this person, i hate him cuz boo_ hoo" 😂
@@Dan_Kanerva We are still waiting for the part where anyone's freedom of speech was infringed upon.
You look pathetic when your only response to someone's criticism is to compare them to an unrelated situation in an attempt to belittle them. You should honestly be embarrassed. I mean jesus christ what a fucking clown lol
@@Dan_Kanerva you right wingers sure know a lot about middle school girls, you should try dating someone older
I think it is important to remember that they weren't friends to start with.
They had an overlapping areas of interest and being businessmen collaborated on a few things. For reasons I can't understand Shad has a much bigger subscriber list than Matt. Matt is taking a stand on his morals that he must know may negatively impact his brand's reach. That is a commendable thing to do IMHO.
I do wonder how much of Shad's second channel you've watched. Especially lately, he has made it clear that he wants to further marginalizing already marginalized community. Matt wants the exact opposite; to improve access for that community through his HEMA events.
I can understand why Matt would sever ties with Shad. I can only think that Shad wants to maintain a working relationship with someone who so fundamentally disagrees with for the business aspect.
Thanks for your comment mate. I did this video a while ago so not sure I covered all your points in it so just to clarify, I was aware that they weren't close friends and more polite aquaintances through work. I believe that Matt has less of a following that Shad mostly because Shad does more pop culture videos and 'fun' video's for lack of a better term. Also I think he releases a lot more video's than Matt due to it being his full time business rather than Matt who has another Job.
I've watched none of Shad's second channel for some time now. I find his shouty style annoying and he is a bit opinionated for me and a bit of a broken record. I might watch a shorter one now and then if its about something I'm interested in.
I do think that what Shad does, as odd an offensive as it seems to us more secular folk, is not from a place of hatred and that should be taken into consideration when judging him.
Also I know what chinese whispers are like and worry that Matt based his decision, which I complete agree with you is commendable from a moral stand point, on inaccurate information.
To give an example there was a politician over here who used to live in Afganistan, he was interviewed by a newspaper and asked if he'd ever done drugs. He said 'no unless you count smoking an opium pipe at an afgan wedding,' I'm sure you can guess what the paper led with that next morning.
I'm not suggesting that wha'ts been said about Shad is that duplicitus. And as you say I've not watched his video's lately. But I can see things getting blown out of proportion by the time its moved through 3 people who haven't heard his whole speel.
Anyway again thanks for the polite comment.
you may or may not realize that shad's "views that are not from a place of hatred" are nonetheless about shutting down other people's free speech and their right to freedom from government involvement in their lives.
@joejoelesh1197 Broadly speaking, I think people on the right tend to consider their views on these matters to be political disagreements, whilst those on the left consider these views to be a matter of fundamental morality. It's easier to continue working with someone with whom you have a political disagreement than one with whom you have a fundamental difference of morality. So whereas Matt's community see working with Shad as morally wrong, Shad and his community see it simply as working with someone you disagree with politically.
@@jbaidley ehhh, the right's political views stem from their sense of morality too. Political view don't just appear out of the ether.
I mean, it's pretty clear why Shad has a bigger subscriber list. They're going for different demographics. Matt's aiming at historical scholarship, Shad's overlapping slightly, but mostly is about hands on testing rather than historical research.
For most people, pop culture is more interesting than actual history, and Shad both plays into that a lot more with the whole testing pop culture, and has more visually appealing content with actually swinging things around, generally fitting music, setting things on fire, etc.
Matt's channel is for learning, Shad's is for mostly turning your brain off and relaxing.
Shad has allways struck me as a bit of a limited innocent without much perspective beyond a childlike delight in castles. I came here wondering what the row was about and find this clear and coherent ,Thank you
He was raised ultra-conservative Mormon. He's basically lived in a box his whole life lol Think you might have hit the nail on the head.
Yours is the most even handed discussion on this that I have seen. I would not try to force anyone to go against their conscience as I would not want anyone to force it on me. However, history and experience have shown friendships/partnerships between adversaries on particular issues. Learning about anothers experience or perspective does not surrenders your position, but refines it (as iron sharpens iron) I have found that the internet tends to create a false impression that both the right and the left are monolithic in their opinions when it is the loudest and most extreme that are rewarded with clicks. Even if Matt and Shad didn't create content on their differences (I would hope not since it is not my business) I think that a rational, respectful conversation would benefit both.
I don't think Matt needs to engage with Shad at all, and I don't think he would benefit from doing so.
I don't like Shad that much but Matt is one of those people where if you have a rough idea of his worldview then you know what his approach to 95% of topics will be which to me is just a bit boring and it makes me value his opinions less because they come across as less considered and more regurgitory. Refusing to associate with someone who hasn't personally attacked you and isn't some sort of convicted criminal is very childish and performative in my opinion too.
Yes I generally like Matt, and I would fall short of calling this childish, but it was dissapointing that he made no attempt to hash it out
Yeah, Shad has grown quite a bit arrogant over time.
I think his bubble has gone to his head substantially.
Very good assessment though and I agree with your message to both sides.
Cheers
Matt is an even bigger prick than Shad, I've noticed it over the years, it was about small things so I overlooked it until that happened with Shad, I've pretty much completely disassociated myself from Matt's channel and dislike any videos from other channels in which he is included or I dont watch them at all, yes, hes free to disassociate from whoever he wants, but so can I, and I have, don't get me wrong, Matt is very knowledgeable about things and you can learn a lot from him, but I believe my time as one of his subscribers has past and I have no regrets over it
Personally stopped watching Shad about his extremely delusional takes on Ai-Art, and using his platform to shout out his anti-artist opinions. Though this was more like the straw that broke the camels back, he was ok being a cringey/annoying hobbyist that I watched every once in a while. Being a Mormon is whatever, but it seems most people outside of Mormonism don't view it in a positive light. I find it funny that so many right-wing drama channels are jumping on this chance to comment on a pair of channels most of them never watched to begin with.
Yeah l mean l watch them occasionally and this waa partly for views. Its currently one of my most wached videos though. And as l say l don't like seeing another line of conversation between the left and right severed. Again if Matt had just found him annoying on the day they met l wouldn't have bothered
On the obverse side of the coin, don't you think that those politically offended against shad are also jumping in on content they do not have an interest in the content of either channel? I think that's a confirmed yes. Now as to Matt's personal opinions, fine then, but clearly it was such people "informing" him politically, thus this is hardly a checkmate. A bit of a non-point.
Shad is a a grifter who repeats all the anti sjw anti woke nonsense that every other TH-cam grifter does. @@thegrumpygeordie9007
Thank you for taking the time. I'm glad you (basically) said Talk to Each other! Cancel culture is sh%!.
Matt handled the situation rather gracefully, neither exposing Shad's ridiculous views nor asking for a boycott of any sort but that everyone may judge for themselves. Regarding the far/alt-right thing, it is the silly conspiracy stuff that he believes in that matches 1-1 with their rhetoric. Equating homosexuality to child abuse and grooming does too so he fully deserves that label. That is an alt-right position and going into the specifics, with all that nonsense regarding Disney, it is relatively clear what company he keeps. And I perfectly understand anyone who opposes such views wishing to disassociate themselves with him. Whether he would personally react like this or that to a person doesn't matter much when the narrative he pushes is (!) the reason why members of the LGBTQ+ community face hate and oftentimes violence in the western world, to this very day.
NO rational person believes his rhetoric is equal to the far right.
@@chrisclement5091 Equating the teaching of diversity to grooming and thus homosexuality to child-abuse undeniably is an alt-right position and Shad is as much of s scumbag as the rest of them. No need to be protective of such a vile person.
Very even handed video, thanks. I was a subscriber of Matt's for many years, and while I like Shad's castle related videos, I share your annoyance with his shouty style and wasn't subbed. I was really taken aback by Matt's denunciation of Shad and made some polite but critical comments on Matt's following video, all of which were hidden by Matt or TH-cam.
The crux for me is that if Matt considers Shad unworthy of association based on Shad's views alone, it follows that everyone who shares those views (including me) is equally unworthy of association. Yet Matt is assuring conservatives and Christians in the comments that they remain welcome. How does he square this? It strikes me that while Matt doesn't like people like me, he does like our algorithmic and monetary support. He's fine if Shad is cancelled, but doesn't want to cancel himself by alienating a large proportion of his supporter base.
I suspect that the offending views were related to issues of "Gender", rather than sexuality, misogyny, or most especially racism despite Matt's insinuation. It was quite annoying that Matt implied Shad's offenses rather than enumerating them clearly.
I strongly suspect Shad's view's have been misrepresented. Its happened to me enough times to know its possible.
Anything shad has done specifically or is it more a case hes being disavowed because he is somewhere right leaning
Not 100% sure.
I'd just really like to find out what video this whole kerfuffle is about
I'm a bit late to this whole thing, but I'm grateful with how diplomatic you were with addressing what's been going on. You've earned a sub from me 👍.
Personally, I'm neutral on the subject since I still don't know all the facts nor do I know what Shad talked about and in what context.
As a long time Shadiversity viewer, I too find Shad to be... difficult at times. While he does talk sense at times, there are things I don't agree with and he IS ignorant/arrogant about certain things at times. His Knights Watch videos can also get very heated and toxic. Furthermore, at times, he does bring in politics (despite saying that he keeps politics out of his videos) and sometimes makes generalizations about people and groups. For example, when talking about crappy shows and films that have been twisted by Disney, he originally addressed the creators/writers as "far left" (which they mostly are though not always). Nowadays, when Shad makes a review for a film or show (regardless if its good or bad), he tends to just say "left" or "the left" or "woke" which is a very bad generalization. His takes on Wheel of Time and Rings of Power were great, but now he sees everything as woke even when they're not. Furthermore, while I don't remember Shad saying that all queer people were "child groomers", if he DID say that then that's also a major issue that should be addressed. However, to date, I am unaware of him ever verbally or subtly stating that he hates queer people (though he might have and I just missed it). In his Arcane review for example, he knew that the Character Vi was gay, yet he loved her as a character regardless of that fact and he even praised the writers. As you said, Shad might not like the LGBT community as a whole (given his views) but that does not automatically mean that he outright hates queer people (as far as I'm aware). However, I will fully admit that Shad has also done and/or said stuff that is either wrong or sus, and that's just regarding the stuff I currently know of. Just look at his falling out with Skallagrim. I only learned that they severed ties a few weeks ago.
In regards to Matt, I think its right for him to support the LGBT community even though he is not apart of the community. That's his right and there are millions of other people who do the same. Heck, I'm not gay yet I support gay people. However, I will say that Matt is being a little childish in completely cutting off relations with Shad rather than discussing things like adults. Though I can understand his reasons for wanting to avoid unwanted hate being lobbed at him since that's a given these days. Why can't there just be a civil discussion, let alone a discussion to clear up any potential misinformation? Perhaps one day the two of them will put their differences aside and talk it out like civilized adults. Granted, there is still a lot of stuff I'm unaware of regarding this situation and I don't fully know who's in the right or wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: After doing some digging, I was wrong about Shad... he does have issues with queer people and in a very negative way. In the link to one of his videos, he starts out saying that he "supports freedom of choice" and that if his kids were queer then he would love them all the same, then as he goes on he quickly turns heal and says bs like how only straight people can be happy because they can create life while queer people can't and how queer people can only adopt (which is false), and how teaching children about queer people can turn your children gay (which is laughably false). I also found it hypocritical that he talks about teaching children about gay people as being "grooming"... yet he admits that he plans to raise his children to be conservative and grow up the way "he" thinks is right... which is a form of grooming 🙄. He also goes on talking about "embracing traditional marriage" and "rejecting" the idea that gay couples are equal to straight couples. He also contradicts himself at several points such as saying that we should accept everyone and reject discrimination (even though he was discriminating gay people minutes prior and does so later on). And this is just one video that shows this. Apparently there are other videos from Knights Watch where Shad makes generalizations about the LGBT community and he includes very anti-gay stuff (again contradicting his "no politics" rule).
th-cam.com/video/MKEz4uWW_sM/w-d-xo.htmlm42s
I just wanted to point that he never said he abstains from politics altogether, only that he abstains on his main channel, which is largely true. Sure, you can guess some of his views the same way you can with a lot of youtubers, but he doesn't actively bring it up. He's way more outspoken on his secondary channel, which is 100% assumed, and I respect that.
I agree that he nowadays gets triggered way too easily with wokeness in media though, and also tends to react badly to criticism, even when he's right, which is disappointing. I feel like things went downhill in that regard when he started more consistently employing friends to create content on his channel, as it looks to me like that by doing so, he inadvertently trapped himself in an echo chamber with similarly-aligned people, which makes it harder for him to take a step back on an argument and inflates his ego a bit. The content on Knights' Watch is also mostly unscripted, which doesn't always make for the most well thought-out reflections.
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of writers/creators of Disney/Hollywood or whatever are not "far left" but liberal at best - which is just as far from left positions as it is from right positions.
Equating "liberal" with "left" is another instance of the american tendency to strip once defined, established and agreed upon terms of any meaning.
Wow, I can't believe anyone can still support Shad after publicly sharing homophobic views like that. It's disgusting. That can't just be brushed off as having a different opinion about something, that's actively promoting hateful or discriminatory behaviour and it needs to be challenged. Intolerance cannot be tolerated. Well done to Matt for stopping collaborating with him.
@@kai_plays_khomus Completely correct. Americans have been conditioned since McCarthyism that the want social justice, but hate the idea of implementing social justice. It’s a complete mess.
Seeing as how Shad has completely fallen off and started producing crazy nonsense I think Matt called it correctly
I don't think Shad is Far Right, I just think he's really weird. His takes on A.I. art and pop culture issues are strange and stupid. The whispered stuff you hear about Shad that have been circling around a couple of years are his views on dating under age girls. I believe he's said it should be legal, and it is in most of the USA anyway, to marry under age girls with only parental permission. I think Shad is strange with fringe beliefs.
He's pretty far right. Most ultra-conservative Mormons, like him, are.
And when you have to got o *any* lengths to defend or explain someone's opinion on dating underaged children that is a pretty fucking massive red flag.
Obviously if it's only a rumor then you can't make any judgements because it might be untrue but if he actually does think it should be legal to marry underage girls then he's not just really weird he's a literal pedo and that's way way worse than this far right stuff
@@Michael-bn1oi I have a very mixed opinion of Mormons. I have known a lot of great people who were Mormons, but the organization is really troubling when you dive deep into it. They are considered a cult by most groups that track that kind of thing.
If you read his book, including an obvious self insert character it's not whispering, and it's not "dating".
@@ididthisonpulpous6526 "If it looks like duck" as they say
I'm late to this whole drama, but I think this is a very fair analysis. I've never seriously watched Shad's content: I'm an olympic foil fencer and Shad's not really the best resources on the parts of historical fencing I'm interested in.
With that out of the way, a few comments though:
1. I don't think it's fair to assert that Matt Eason is left-wing. I consider myself a centrist and find the hardcore woke stuff from parts of the left just as unpalatable as the homo/transphobia from parts of the right. I would professionally distance myself from someone who was openly bigoted as well. I'm less convinced about 'locker room recordings', but Shad wasn't hiding it. He had a podcast to share his views and should expect to be criticized for it. Not associating with someone due to their beliefs is free speech. A church has just as much of a right to not have an atheist preach at the pulpit as I have to not work with someone who is (as an exmaple) a virulent racist.
A small aside, but I personally believe that if you want to widen professional connections, you have to keep your politics private. We can whine about 'cancel culture' all we like, but humans have built communities based on shared principles and beliefs for a long time. If you want a wide net of people to accept you, keep the divisive issues to yourself.
2. (Approx 6:00 and later) In my view the HEMA group has complete discretion on who they wish to associate with. Every fencing club I've either been a member or coach at has strict policies for instance on being hostile to people of different races/religions. They don't investigate every person to see what their innermost thoughts are, but if you broadcast something that is against the collective beliefs of the club, you'll be asked to leave simply because the community is valued over any one individual.
Regarding 'debates': To me, Matt Easton is a fencing coach and antique dealer. He's not a politician or a journalist and isn't required to debate anybody. It's not his (or the HEMA community's) job to bring Shad around. They are interested in teaching people to fence following historical sources, that's all. I sound like a broken record, but if you want wide professional/hobbyist connections you keep your most contentious issues private.
IMO both left and right wing folks are wrong on this issue. It wasn't that long ago that talking politics with strangers was considered deeply taboo. That was for good reason. Whether people understood it or not, having a strict demarcation between your profession and your politics allows for a wider group of people to live harmoniously in society. Shad decided to air his political laundry in the open and a lot of people have decided to distance themselves as a result. I don't know what Jason Kingsley of Modern History TV believes and I prefer it that way. He runs a great youtube channel that I watch without having to do the political calculations because he keeps his politics close to his chest. It's really that simple.
I want this out in the open, not out of any spite, rather to offer some perspective for the matter.
I find Shad to be a troll. One of the higher order ones.
Back a while he asked a question on a General Relativity bent, how would something like this work under this circumstance. I answered as best as I could, General Relativity gets complex, complicated and counter intuitive. The Speed of Light is not additive, subtractive as only one example. Observations of planetary orbits have proven this.
So I answer the question as best as I can, something about a 'force' being applied to a ship in a particular direction. I make it clear that I'm a student of, that I'm answering this to the best of my ability. That it doesn't work that way and due to being inside the frame of reference, they wouldn't notice it.
I get a whole heap of abuse, how I was stupid, didn't understand the question, didn't know anything. The questions was so obvious and simple that there's the way it works and it's nothing like what I know. Straight to abuse, insults. Personal insults. No questions about my logic, no attempt to clarify.
If Shad has treated others with the open and unbridled contempt that I was, then I would argue that this is the pigeons coming home to roost.
I don't care for or about his personal religious or political views. If the titles are anything to go by? I already disagree and see no reason to involve myself with. This is not out of a creative dislike either, I run a game studio, I have my own projects and they're deliberate, targeted to achieve certain things. If I'm not in the mood, I don't play or involve myself in games I'm not in the mood for.
What I want to make clear and sure is understood here, is that my dislike is on a personal level. I don't have such trolls in my life. When someone says 'this person is a troll', they were bullied by them the reaction shouldn't be 'well, he's not that bad to me'. The like. If you don't see it, it is true. Very very true.
Should Shad have treated so many with contempt, belittled, mocked, abused, then that's on him. Should so many people have such personal reactions to him, to not wish the person that bullied them to be promoted, presented to them as good, that's a fair reaction and request for them to make. To be forced to have to endure that presence is causing them stress and even distress.
Matt did the right thing here, Skall made a choice for his own reasons and did what he thought was best for his own situation. Choosing who is in a person's life, social circle is something we're all free to do. Forcing the people you think should be in their life on them? That's on you.
Listen to the bullied and it might change your view on some of these people.
Thanks for your comment mate. I assume that this abuse you speak of came directly from Shad? I would be interested in the context of how the abuse was delivered. That is to say I assume it was public and on his channel but if you could confirm that I'd be grateful. Please don't feel any pressure to do this if you feel it' not appropriate.
Also, I'll state that I hope any disagreements in this thread will be civil.
I agree with you that if anything Shad has done has been proven then we would have more of an idea of an appropriate response. An example could be I supported him on patreon when he made an appeal for funds, then I greatly reduced my support when he went out and bought an expensive car. I was going to cancel my financial support completely when I found he was having a holiday in the UK.
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what he's done. Or what these beliefs are that Matt opposes. Some people think it’s his stance on LGBTQ+ some people think it’s because of groomer accusations. It’s never actually come out.
Also, the people who have made these accusation are unknowns. And their sources are also unknowns. They could be acting in malice or under misinformation.
Now if someone came out with a full in context video or evidence of Shad doing something I'd be the first to disown him, but I hope you can see the conundrum.
But anyway again thanks for your post.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007Directly from Shad and may still be up on the vid where he asked the question. You'll have to forgive me if I don't link to which vid. Title was something along the line of how would this work in science? You're going to need to go back years, at least four years.
Directly on his channel. Direct reply to my comment where I specified the logic of General Relativity as I understood it then.
I also feel the need to argue on some level. Here's the thing, you don't need the proof in this case. You don't. Especially when victims find it hard to discuss. Even more so when they do not want to and have expressed that desire. You can respect their requests and you can show them that you are listening. You can choose to not add to the suck they're dealing with. You can choose not to worsen their suck, add to their stress and distress. To not support, promote a person who is the cause of harm done to them.
Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean that is has never happened.
I'm not going to make any claims, suggest anything other than my own. That the individual has behaved in a way that was hostile, offensive and to this date has had no retraction or apology. If there are other claims, I am also ignorant of them. Should others have been treated the way I was, abused in the way I was, then there's more of us.
Again, to repeat the point, because it's not done to you, not happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
A personal example on my part. A person in my part of the world had a vendetta against me. To the point of a false report to the police. I told the truth about this and who was the person who told not to be a problem? Am I obliged to prove that before it's true? To have really happened? Do I need the police report document made with his name on it before it becomes true? Should I have had copies of the messages where I was accused of facing criminal charges? Later messages with worse? At what point does it become true?
The more evidence you demand before it's true, it favours the abuser.
To me, the situation is clear. Matt, Skall, made a choice. It's a choice I respect on an individual level. I prefer their presentation, style and content. I do not watch the content I have no interest in.
Am I judging a book by its cover? Well, yeah, I am. Only so many hours in the day. Got a game studio to launch, games to be made.
I would encourage and support those who have what they feel is enough to take the police if there's a criminal offence, harm being done to others, to do so. I would encourage those who have been abused, harm done to them by, to come forward should they feel able to do so and have the will, desire to do so. I would be happy to be support for them, should they wish it. To be an ear for them if they want it as well.
Note that I'm talking about them first, the source of the stress, distress, pain second if at all.
I'm no saint, all I do is try not to be an arsehole. Not to add to other's suck. If it's adding to the suck for them to be around certain people? Well, I won't ask them to do that. It's all I can do.
Seems like Matt's doing the same and I don't see any need to argue with it.
@leonpeters-malone3054 Well I doubt Matt will do anything he doesn't want to do and I wouldn't try to influence that after my first thoughts. I don’t know what information he has or how accurate it is but it is entirely his decision on how he acts with it. As I said in the video they're both adults and can talk or not talk to whoever they like. He does not seem unintelligent.
As for needing legal level evidence I do take your point, but there is a wide margin between needing something that would convict in court and believing writing on the internet.
And please believe that I don’t aim that last comment at you, I’m not calling you a liar in any way, I do know Shad can be unreasonable and rude.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 Wasn't taken that way at all. All it was meant to say is that at the end of the day, they've made a choice. We have to respect that choice. The more we don't like or disagree with the point? Even more so. It is the way things are now, it is something we can see and it is something we should respect.
I have to admit I've not watched the video, there was some spite that came out in my first comment. Towards Shad and towards the attitude of others. How it's 'woke', 'political', how it's manipulated to a us versus them, in-group, out-group mechanic. Which for me, it's not. You want be troll? I won't interact, subscribe.
A lot of the time, across the genders, presentations, whatever the victim is the last person believed. If people have come out against Shad, they've done it for their own reasons. Those reasons could make them extremely uncomfortable, you don't need to hear every story, every interaction, every moment of Shad being the troll. You either add to the suck or you don't.
I choose not to add to the suck. More so and perhaps more strongly after the suck that another person put me through. How despite clear messages that it was going on, that it happened, it still wasn't true because they didn't see it.
How would what work in science?
as a person of the lgbtq+ community who also finds that acronym hard to say the queer community means the same thing but is a lot easier to say (i know it doesnt matter and isnt relevant to the video but eh)
You're wrong about Shad not being far right. He hangs out with Sargon of Akkad and appears on Sargon's "show", if you can even call it that. I'm proud of Matt for disassociating with him.
I'm only vaugly aware of Sargon. I tried the Podcast of the Lotus Eaters but found them a little unpalatable.
But l'm interested mate in your definition of Far right. What to you differentiates Right to far right.
Neither of the people you mentioned are far right
🤣
Shad is a mormon, one that basically had an arranged marriage, he's talked about it. The mormon church will literally excommunicate and ostracize you for being gay, and had a straight up racial hierarchy built into it that was only edited out in the 1970s. You don't meet many practicing mormons that aren't further right than most folks for a reason. Mormonism is also pretty garbage towards women and in his knights watch media reviews he's been spouting off tripe about "the degenerates corrupting the west" over stuff like peach wearing pants in the mario movie trailer for a moment and people wanting better done female characters in media. He goes on and on yearning for an absurdly rosy picture of the past, "when men were men and had real honor", etc...@@thegrumpygeordie9007
Mostly both of them are in the right
Followers of Islam will likey have similar views to that of Shad - are they one of the marginalised groups that Easton wants to support and protect?
I don't think there's an easy answer to that mate. I gather the problem is less Shad's views and more that he's very vocal about them. Even if the views that Matt has been led to believe him talking about are false Shad has never been a shrinking violet.
I'm more frustrated that he didn't, to my knowledge at least, talk to Shad about this before cutting him off.
I do think though that if a Muslim did start spouting Islamic extremism and violence etc then Matt would cut him off also.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 yep I agree , not talking to Shad about it and then doing a public Facebook post instead , is, in my opinion, pretty weak.
@thegrumpygeordie9007 when has Shad advocated for extremism or violence?
@Rocko130185 to my knowlege he hasn't. If l knew he had l'd not have made this video.
@thegrumpygeordie9007 to be honest, if you didn't watch Shad's other channel, you'd have no idea of his politics, other than knowing he's religious. What Matt did highlights everything wrong with modern culture, only people with a very childish mentality think you can't associate with people that have different beliefs than yourself, either that or you are bowing to the will of people who complain about somebody else to you. So either you end up a coward that is terrified what people think of him on the Internet or he's a child that can't come to terms with other people holding different beliefs.
Frankly someone can be a screaming "previous German political party memeber" or a demented Maoist and normal people DO NOT CARE until they DO something objectively horrible. Turning around and posing as "I am good and this person bad so me take high ground, look at me!" as Easton did is cowardly. If you think something is a bad thing then confront it and seek truth.
but then, that wouldn't keep pulling in that sweet youtube gold, would it?
Very interesting. Subscribed
Thank you
goood go collect youre lemming money from the lgbt maffia
nerd fight!
One common thing I noticed about the more current left-leaning thinking, is the notion that "if you think this one thing, then you must also think this and that as well, and be part that group, whom I don't like, and therefore you're literally Hitler reincarnated". Or to put in simpler terms, saying to someone after stating they loved pancakes, that they "must therefore also hate waffles, but I like waffles, so therefore I hate you." ...even though waffles were never a point in the conversation at all.
It's such a childish mindset. Gone are the days of "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend your right to say it" or at least it's rarely seen from anybody else besides conservatives and occasional libertarians, when this used to be a liberal stance. Everything is so polarizing, and this ostracizing happening with cancel culture that's consistent with communist era tactics that my parents lived though, is all so exhausting. There is no nuance, no dialogue, and no adults in the room.
I watched both those channels, and even though I didn't like everything I saw, whether I disagreed with something or something rubbed me the wrong way, I still liked some of the other things enough to stick around. But after this incident with Matt, he's lost all respect from me and my subscription, since apparently the only "views" he likes are _video views_ and revenue, as opposed to traditional and religious views. At least Shad was the more mature one here and wanted to talk it out.
Shad literally says shit like "the west is being corrupted by degenerates" over the mario movie trailer, and he is AWFUL at taking any sort of criticism. There is no arguing with him.
The West is being corrupted by degenerate Marxists just look at any university and the opinions that are pushed in the media its obvious
Bit of a conservative here, and i've watched both of these fellows in the past.
I live in the us and i can kinda see why this went the way it did.
It seems like when it comes to politics, people can only react in the most extreme ways, leaving no room for any middle ground. Even being seen talking to someone with differing views is seen as you agreeing with all of their political views.
I can see shad's (not a regular viewer so unaware of any specific instances) views on the child groomers thing getting blown out of proportion.
For instance, i think over in florida, there was a bill called " the don't say gay bill". People on a certain political spectrum claimed that florida was trying to ban saying the word "gay" in schools.
When in reality, the bill was actually called "the parental rights act" and all it did was prevent teachers from talking to students about their sexualities below a certain age. I think the age was like 12 and below or something. Which i felt is understandable.
Another instance concerns the lgbt community, you see the things called MAPS (minor attracted persons, basically pedos) began to include themselves in the lgbt community. And anyone criticizing them got labeled as bigots.
And yes, while some members of the lgbt community defended the maps, even more tried to disavow them.
It could also be that shad might not agree with things like puberty blockers for kids. Which is enough to get the label of being transphobic.
Additionally, there are videos of people marching in pride parades chanting "we're coming for your kids" which i am pretty sure is just them trolling but it still doesn't help their image.
All of this gets really tiring. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?
Edit: the parental rights act just protected parents rights concerning their kids and a lot of them didn't want kids below a certain age talked to about their sexuality by their teachers.
That bill was rapidly expanded to higher grade levels once it was put into practice. The bill was so draconian about barring talking about the LGBTQ, that just mentioning that someone had two moms or two dads was not allowed.
@@Kahtini that is good news.
@@Miolnir3 How is it good? The enforcement of the rules are so draconian that kids with same sex parents can't say "My Dads/Moms and I did this over the weekend" but kids with hetro parents can talk about their parents all they want. It's a double standard. These restrictions were pushed up into the high school levels.
Not everything taught about the LGBTQ+ is their sexual practices. Sometimes it's just that they exist. The Florida law wants to prevent kids from learning they even exist.
This!!!!
I get what you're saying but a difference in political views should be stuff like "I believe we should have lower taxes" versus "I believe we should increase taxes so we can spend more on education". That's the sort of political differences you could have a reasonable discussion about and end up agreeing to disagree. However, if your political difference is "I believe a certain group of people don't deserve basic human rights and freedoms such as the ability to love who they want and still be treated the same as everyone else" then that can't just be left unchallenged as it's inherently wrong to discriminate against people like that and if views like that are tolerated it can be very damaging to people's lives. If you consider yourself a person with good morals then hate and bigotry should be called out and spoken out against whenever possible.
I am far left, but I see no reason why historical TH-camrs with different political opinions should not make content together. I like both Shad Brooks and Matt Easton, sad that they don´t get along anymore.
Shad is a blowhard that is absolutely awful at taking criticism from anyone on anything even if they have exponentially more experience in the subject than he does. This behavior has gotten him blacklisted by the entire Australian HEMA community over the years and no one else has to tolerate it either.
The main reason for the drama is politics or rather misrepresented politics, but the reason reasonable people don't like Shad is because he has become pretentious and misrepresents other people's videos to sooth his ego and his subscribers who behave like manchildren seeking attention just make things worse.
Lol Shads quote is a bit rich coming from a Mormon. But waaaaait isn't this hate on hate propagation? Yeah.... Honestly it surprises me, he's always been a few cherries short a fruitcake but he's been careful to not publicize it. Matt is pretty much bang on. The thing is people get very fixated on the old "tarring all with the same brush" concept like it always equates with unfounded bigotry. In the case of religion though they're literally a giant club that has it's own book with concrete literal prescriptive rules for said club. So the tarring all with the same brush actually becomes legitimate provided of course that said member is actually adhering to the rules properly. If X member in Y religion is told to hate Z and they hate Z by all definition they're being a good member of X religion.
Out of abundant respect for Matt's beliefs, when his fellow travelers inevitably turn on him, I'll sell them pitchforks, torches, and rope, then sit back with popcorn and beer to enjoy the show.
You mean when he say's something that goes against their politics and they throw him under the bus? Its the sword that hangs above us all mate. Wait till I get enough followers to be pissed off at me lol.
I don't think he has to worry about saying anything as dumb as stuff like "the west is being corrupted by degenerate" over shit like Peach wearing pants in part of the mario movie trailer.
My Ex girlfriend is very catholic, even criticising me for eating meat on a Friday, but despite that and the famous conservatism of the catholic church, she was the one to tell me that a mutual friend of ours had a boy friend and that she was happy for them. I never even knew he had come out, let alone found a partner.
What I'm saying is, just because you're raised in a particular church with less progressive view points, doesn't mean that you have them yourself. unless someone can present to me evidence that Shad has those views himself, I'm not taking them as anything other than Strawmaning. (as someone who also has strong Christian views, I don't condone that strawman mindset, since any evidence of such accusations being true can be attributed to a few bad apples)
Does shad even compete?
Don't think so mate. Probably couldn't with all his medical issues
didn't know he had any that would preclude him, not that familiar at all tbh I take scholagladiatoria's word with more weight than most others on account of he puts the shit into practice @@thegrumpygeordie9007
Shad used to have a youtube presence that just discussed castles and swords and medieval geeky things. Then he started a politically conservative channel that seem to espouse strange views, about masculinity and seems to be anti gay. Now he has started a new channel that supports AI art as opposed to traditional. They guy has destroyed his support base with the mainstream, and seems to be pandering to niche conservative males.
Nothing he has said is anti gay, and what exactly is strange about masculinity?
@@chrisclement5091he’s a soy boy who plays pretend
I’m kinda disappointed in Matt, First off because hes shills predatory freemium games to his ton of fans, and i think its dishonest to act like there isn’t grown men in dresses pushing to “ Storytime “ with children and confuse them with things like sexuality and gender , things i don’t believe they should be exposed to so early.
for the sake of completion, it should be noted that shad regularly participates in a streaming group with Nerdrotic. The group, overall, is, apparently by their own description, "anti-woke". in the USA, right now, that qualifies as "Right Wing" to start. assertions such as calling the LGBTQ+ community, ad hoc, "groomers" is squarely in the camp of "Alt Right" here in the USA.
I feel I should also clarify that these designations are classified and recognized by US Law Enforcement and Domestic Intelligence Agencies.
As a counterpoint: I do not believe that Shad has the mental/emotional capacity for understanding his problematic views on anything in particular. I do not say this to merely deride him, I've gotten over my lividity over his politics, and his views on AI. Now I just feel sorry for him, and empathy for his brother Jazza, who must deal with some of the backlash brought on by Shad's child-like actions.
I have to agree with you I despise the word woke now. I've seen a little of Nerdrotic, mostly when he colaborated with the Critical Drinker. I have to admit that I find a stream that would involve Shad and Nerdrotic like a broken record.
I'm still skeptical that Shad tarred all of the LGBTQ+ group with the grooming brush. Of course its entirely possible that I missed that video because as I say I watch little to none of his content at the moment, but because I find him annoying more than abhorrant.
Anyway thanks for you comment I hope you have a good day.
@@thegrumpygeordie9007 Thank you! and I should Clarify that I haven't watched much of his political content, so I do not know if he's made any anti-LGBTQ+ assertions out of his own mouth (beyond regurgitating his Mormon anti-queer-marriage views). However, active participation in a group that HAS made such assertions amounts to a Tacit Endorsement of the groups views, imo.
NOTE: "Guilt by association" typically assumes the association in question is *Passive*. If you're a barber, and a gangster was your long time client, your association was passive and you're not accountable for his views and actions, even if you were friendly with him. BUT, if you're also actively in the gang he led, then you ARE accountable, which is the basis of RICO statutes in the USA. I believe that he's been an active participant in that group for some time.
Cheers! 👍
The LGTV+ can not reproduce, therefore they recruit. Also known as grooming.
Anti-woke doesn't automatically qualify as right wing. I'd be considered left wing in my beliefs, but still consider myself anti-woke because it feels like "woke" implies aggressive intolerance to force compliance rather than setting an example by the way you live.
@@Aquilenne Woke is an interesting one. I believe it was used to indicate that someone was 'aware of racism and equality' and such like, but was coined by their detractors into a slur.
I'm reading a book at the moment describing populism in politics using ill-defined third-party groups 'The Woke,' 'The Alt Right', 'The privileged'
We could also look how the word Right has been used to slur certain ill-defined groups and to tar people who
I tend to steer clear of the word as much as possible myself. I myself probably fall left of the line much as yourself but find much to criticize in modern culture, hence making a TH-cam Channel I suppose.
Anyway thanks for your comment.
As a member of the Queer community and a sword-lover, I appreciate your even-handed summary of what happened. Thank you.
That's very kind thank you
I see an element of Matt getting mainstream attention, and (predictably) the mob is calling him out to “appease” and denounce.
Not to suggest he’s a victim of these Maoists tactics. They have lots of fellow-travellers, and he could be sincere, even if placatory.
I suspect something similar. Not checking into inaccurate claims. Its easy done
Theres nothing I hate more than petty, ignorant & immature people who censor anyone who doesnt immediately & overtly agree with them. Specially when that person is neutral and is speaking respectfully and they themselves are rude as hell. Theyre absolute tyrants.
I'm specifically complaining about you being restricted in that HEMA community.
4:40 the mormon church no but there a lot of good mormon people.
Shad is absolutely not Alt Right.
He is Alt Left.
Shad holds what could BROADLY be considered 'right' points of view on some topics. Probably. To be honest I find Shad's ability to actually put forward an argument is tedious and I have better things to do than listen to him constantly talk over other people. Remember, "I didn't like it. It was rubbish" is not an argument, it is an opinion.
However Shad acts like an angry Leftie in defence of his arguments. Lefties - rightly or wrongly - believe they have all the answers. They - rightly or wrongly - believe they can make the world a better place and if you disagree then you are WRONG.
Conservatives have a much narrower scope. They want to be left alone to do what THEY believe is best for their family and loved ones. If they consider something not to be best for them they won't do it. You can do it, provided you don't threaten them or their family. So if you want to do something... "different" then you go off and do it, but do not come anywhere near my kids. That is how Conservatives think and how Conservatives get angry. It is not banning outright for the most part, it is just they don't want you near their kids.
Lefties by comparison find offense that someone disagrees at all. If someone wants to go "different" then they should have the right to be "different" anywhere they want and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Conservatives see it differently. Go and be different at your own home and stop trying to insist you can come and do so in front of my kids.
If a topic doesn't directly affect a Conservative directly they will just avoid it. They have better more enjoyable things to do and goes a long way to explain why Conservatives are considered happier in life than progressives... provided you stay the fk away from their loved ones.
So Shad holds a non Left mind set on some topics with a Leftist style absolute belief that he has the right to hold and spread those views.
Shad's problem is... well one of Shad's problems, he has many... Is that he mistakes the 'Freedom of Expression' concept with 'Freedom From Responsibility'. When this sort of topic comes up, and it comes up regularly with him, he plays the 'This is my Religion and I make no apologies for that' card. Now faith is a fine thing, but you - and your faith - are still responsible for anything they make a stand on. The fact it is or isn't your religion does not give you 100% freedom from repercussions. As SG mentioned in his post, the right of reaction exists.
Put it this way, if you went around telling everyone that your mate's wife was a fat ugly slag, and she found out and banned you from ever visiting their house again who is to blame? You were only expressing your freedom of speech rights after all?
(also I don't fully support freedom of speech. If you found my medical records I do not believe it is your freedom to publish them online. Another example is Doxing someone. There is a limit to how far freedom of speech should go and even before that limit you are still fully responsible for any affects of your statements.)
So, other thing to remember is that as I understand it SG runs a HEMA school. People pay him to get their HEMA on and, reading between lines, SG has a policy that at HEMA Club we do HEMA stuff and provided you are here to HEMA than all is cool. Do not use HEMA club to force any non HEMA topics onto fellow club members.
Shad - probably, I find his sword channel to be basically LOL Cow Clickbait and his Knights channel to be him screaming because shouting makes your opinion more valid - has on more than one occasion suggested that some people have sexual preferences that he disagrees with. Or something. So, again reading between the lines, if SG was to have some of those sorts of people as active members of his school you might see how those members might ask SC to reconsider publicly spending time with Shad. This is not the 'Woke Cancel Mob' that the Shad Simps seem to believe pressured SC, this seems to be his direct students.
And if it WAS the Woke Cancel Mob then it would have been all over twitter. The Cancel Mob don't ask. They demand.
OR... it might have been because Shad has a long standing history of basically pissing off the HEMA community because he refuses to accept that HEMA people don't take foam sword TH-cam bogans that seriously. Shad is not universally well regarded in all the 'Sword Community'. He is regarded as a 'sword owner' by many and that is when they are being polite. He can't or won't fight - there is some medical history apparently - but feels self important enough to tell people who do fight that they are doing it wrong.
This has carried over into the writing community where he took a bunch of lessons, name dropped Brandon Sanderson, and declared himself a successful novel writer with a great novel. After four years book 2 hasn't been published - normally not a great sign that you are a career novelist - and given Shad's massive subscriber base of a million plus he has gotten a rather poor amount of support from his subscriber base. His novel is also... a bit... odd... The motivation and ethics of his point of view character in regards to some topics are... slightly unusual and there has been some public comment on this.
So Shad took it all personally and went off to make a video where he quoted all the 5 star reviews from Goodreads.
Seriously Shad, just write and publish book 2, 3 and 4 and wave your sales figures at people. Seriously.
But yes. Shad is an expert novel writer.
And his AI Art.
That is cringe. He is not saying "Hey, been trying out this AI thing and I actually enjoy it", he is saying "I am an expert artist and I challenge others to do better".
So he was challenged. And he had a massive cry about it.
This is Shad to a letter. He feels he does no wrong. He feels he is beyond criticism. He feels if anyone does criticise him then HE is the victim and rushes out a new video describing how much a victim he really is.
Shad's reaction to the falling out with SG could have been him simply saying "We had planned to do a combined video while I was here in Britain with a number of other history based creators. However even though the event was filmed SG decided to withdraw his permission based on some differing points of view the two of us have on some non sword related topics. While I am deeply disappointed by this development I wish SG success both in personal life and on his channel". THAT is what he could have said.
Nope. He went and had a sook and claimed he did nothing wrong.
Shad would do himself a lot of favours if he just realised that the majority of Gen Z have already forgotten the conversation and dragging it back into the spot light only makes you look thin skinned and/or attention seeking. You are NEVER going to make everyone happy at once. People are going to disagree with you in life. Stop acting like a screaming Leftie who thinks they can fix the world and just move on. It is perfectly acceptable to just say that you and SG no longer make content together and move on.
SG moved on.
Can't see why Shad refuses to.
Pity really. Some of Shad's earlier stuff where he was just a harmless bogan with a bit of a castle fetish were very watchable. Then he started to believe that Subs made him an expert. Oh well.
(also - yes, I wrote a lot of words. It's called procrastination, autism, being a horrible person and all of the above. Also Shad is Victorian. It is un-Australian not to constantly remind Victorians that the rest of us thinks that their entire state is filled with wankers.)
Youre living in 1999 man lol.
There is a reason Shad is getting ostracized by multiple communities on youtube. Shad and others like him have been normalizing using the term groomer.
Judging from this peron's video and comments, i highly suspect this guy thinks that Chinese influence is at play.
You defend Shad since you deem Shad not to have malice and yet its clear that Shad was making harmful accusations to an entire group of people based on his personal views and ignorance.
You deride when people use the term alt right and how that term loses value when overused and then you play as an apologist for people that use the term groomer!
You would have garnered my respect had you been even handed but your bias is clear. Its not the person angrily yelling groomer and forming an exclusive and toxic online community that has a burden to be better but its the peraon who is trying to remove toxicity and improve inclusivity from their community. Unreal
Is this for real? Just seems a little childish? Silly? Stupid? Lol I'm not watching this
Sadly too many on the left don't care to be good faith with their political opponents. We need *both left and right* but the divide cannot be mended when one side defend their extremist (for example, no one should be defending MAPs but there are progressives doing just that) while the other actively try to weed out the extremist on their side. ( It's why there's a massive divide on the right since a new your liberal became the conservative representative)
I can understand why Matt wants to distant himself from anyone who's counter to his political narrative, but this won't help him in the long run. Especially when they turn on him.
The exact same thing is happening to Ethan Klein. Jordan Peterson warned him. Shad tried to warn Matt, but sometimes the lessons won't be learned without experience.
Shad is a Daily Wire supporter, that does make him far right. He does have horrible views inspired by fear and hate. Shad is soo lame lol
To believe the Daily Wire is far right makes you far left. Your statement about fear and hate is ironic, considering you believe the largest conservative network is "far right". The right wins on the issues, the left simply fear mongers.
The daily wire are on the right of the American republican party, they are constitutionalists and political liberals (meaning they support democracy and personal freedom), their views were largely mainstream a few decades ago. The far right wouldn't even want to associate with them given their connection to Ben Shapiro, the neo-cons and the Israel lobby, the far right are ultra paranoid about and detest all three, they are also anti-enlightenment so anti-liberal to the very core.
great video but I will don't think I can stand another one from you, as you slurp drink/eat in videos. Write some blogs maybe?
Support for Shad