Can you trust Kurzgesagt videos Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the right opinion the home of a twat with too much free time and although I don't really Take requests I still measured the amount that I receive and do put it into account when deciding which topic to cover after all. What is interesting to me needs to be interesting to you as well as they we have a topic that I received a Disproportionately high amount of requests to cover while it was all transpiring but little to these people's knowledge I was already following the situation quite closely Detective TRO is always one step ahead Anticipating each and every move like a bloodhound though. Let me clarify. I'm not a furry. I promise guys This is the sort of drama that blows hot and cold very quickly and I warn people who asked me to cover it that this Would be a while, but I still think in spite of the very momentary drama There were a lot of messages that can be taken away from it regardless of how trending it is So without further ado I suggest I provide a quick rundown of the Situation as when I posted about this in my community tab many people were not aware. This is curse cats They are an educational youtube channel ran by philip Detmer educational youtube channels are pretty much as they sound basically content That's used to educate or inform. The viewers curse cos act is definitely a significant player in this community with over 8 million subscribers they've been making videos since 2013 and their videos typically present themselves to deliver information with a unique animation finesse According to them they want to make science the beautiful because it is very respectful intentions indeed arguably However, the channels like his own have some of the greatest responsibilities on the platform to deliver accurate Representation of the topics they cover because they are not merely opinionated but they are supposedly factual many people who may be slightly uninformed go into a video with the Expectation that the information presented will be truthful and honest a high majority of people do not pause Documentaries every five seconds to fact-check them because a high majority of people are not me however On the other side of the spectrum you will face bear him and in spectrum from ruthless Academics and upcoming youtubers are like and if you fail to deliver your content concisely and honestly you risk having your reputation completely Decimated and that's important when you're a channel like Kursk is apt and that leads us to the crux of the discussion today in October 2015 they released a video that was titled everything We think we know about Addiction is wrong a pretty strong title and one that they did change in the end to addiction in the video they rebut the notion that chemicals are the main root cause of an individual becoming addicted and actually the Circumstances that many of these individuals find themselves in are much more influential and we should begin to answer questions about society This was conducted in collaboration with the works of a psychologist known as Johann Hari this video grew to be one of their most successful Accumulating over 15 million views pretty incredible however It has also been heavily criticized as being overly One-sided in the favour of the circumstantial narrative and arguing about it from an excessively Objective point of view when there is a significant amount of dissenting evidence that challenges this This is where we introduce another player into this tale a youtuber by the name of coffee break or Steven He's a video essayist who makes content covering various topics related to media He's been going for a little over two years and has racked up some pretty impressive video performances in that time on fairly unique Interesting topics nothing to be discredited whatsoever However, he was one of the people who wasn't entirely happy with her stats video covering addiction So he planned to make a video in which part of it incorporated his problems with that video and be further questions around the credibility and responsibilities of those channels while doing this he reached out to Phillip Detmer and Johann Hari in around February of this year to try and ascertain their opinions from the glorious position of pine sites after an exchange With Detmer Stephan noticed that curse casat had dropped a video which directly responded to some of the criticisms that he raised in his initial Emails this video was titled. Can you trust curse curse at in which they admit their shortcomings of their videos on refugees? And of course addiction before stating that they will be removing these videos from their catalog so in response to this coffee break uploaded their video alleging that debt basically hoodwinked him taking the criticisms that Stephen had presented and making a video to get ahead of him while keeping him from this knowledge thus Stalling his video I'll be breaking down the details of all that in a bit this video very quickly caught fire on reddit and led to a huge influx of views and subsequently rather passionate users Sharply criticizing Detmer for his conduct curse cos at then decide to take on criticism by responding Directly by hosting their own reddit Q&A in the moment to try and quell the outrage that was growing against them this led to them Consenting the release of the initial emails which coffee-break subsequently dipped however what these revealed was that Stephens presentation in his initial video wasn't completely accurate and left out context that could alter the interpretation of the exchange is then there Stephen - receiving a heavy amount of criticism alongside the Counter-arguments that it would have been very difficult for curse cos at produce a whole video in the space of a month Just to deflect some criticism from an incoming video Philip DeFranco then uploaded a video where he spent the first 10 minutes dedicated to this one story predominately responding to coffee breaks video and claiming that it was a bitter hit piece which Misrepresented the email exchange as well as curse Cassatt's response video in addition to this Stephen posted a thread on his Twitter page in which he placed out all his Arguments and the criticisms and then declared that he'll be taking a break a coffee break from social media Likely due to the spiraling situation, but maybe also to focus on his upcoming video That's just a summary of the situation and looking at it I can understand why people have asked me to cover it because there are a lot of details and nuances however It's important to note this Nasus with the fact that coffee break has since released a video Apologizing and it seemed like a genuine video I definitely recommend checking it out because a lot of people haven't seen it since the controversy I'd also take this knowledge into the forthcoming video I'm still doing this because I think there are some good messages to take away and I started working on it over a month ago And didn't have the knowledge at the time He was going to apologize and some of the lads put a lot of work into it But then unfortunately one of my editors got his stuff confiscated for spending a hundred quid of his parents money on wine Which is so ridiculous that has to be true, but we're here now with that all in mind This will be one of the more inconsequential As I make but I still hope we can have a good old discussion of roots Why first decided that I was going to cover this video My immediate decision was to actually watch curse curse aunts original video and although it might not seem like the most relevant thing to do I think it's important to see of Detmer or coffee breaks perspectives seem more rational or justifiable because Detmer was at least under the Perception at some point that this content was justified in its educational tone. Stephen clearly felt differently I went into this video with the expectation that this video was gonna say something like chemical elements Don't play a part. And in fact, it's all completely circumstantial. That was the impression I not just receive from coffee breaks video or from Curtis aunts own video is that addiction is purely psychological and based on the life Circumstances of the individual but when I watched the video, I did not receive that impression at all. Don't get me wrong I understand why people may have interpreted it that way and maybe it's just my mental process that takes all information in moderation But I just felt that the greater message was that actually we tend to pin addiction too much to the chemical causes and not enough to the actual circumstances Understanding that there are many other environmental factors that increase people's susceptibility to drug addiction. I mean, there's the intro What causes say heroin addiction? This is a really stupid question, right? It's obvious We all know it heroin causes heroin addiction Here's how it works if you use heroin for 20 days by day 21 Your body would physically crave the drug ferociously because there are chemical hooks in the drug. That's what addiction means But there's a catch Almost everything. We think we know about addiction is wrong But that's as close as it gets to actual denial of causation And even then it sounds like they're challenging the assumption that a person is not Susceptible to addiction until they try the drug. Is it a biased piece for sure. Could they have included more caveats? Yes without a doubt But when I heard the discussion surrounding it I was expecting something much more one-sided when I receive was an opinion backed up with evidence When we are happy and healthy, we will bond with the people around us But when we can't because we're traumatized isolated or beaten down by life We will bond with something that gives a some sense of relief. Maybe that's what makes the video so harmful in its narratives I'm not particularly well-versed in the science of addiction. And the fact is that although the video does present its information in a fairly systematic objective way it is also claimed to omit many criticisms and counter narratives against not just the content but the studies and thus push an Unchallenged point of view when actually the truth isn't as clear which I can understand would be a problem maybe the video has just done a good job at Deceiving me and I'm sure that if you were to challenge the research in Johan Haris book You probably find the issues that Stephan appears to find as well and that I can understand could cause problem I also think very few people are going to challenge the idea that societal conditions Don't play a role in someone's increase in Vulnerability to addiction and I can understand how a video like this may help people and therefore it does make sense The Detmer may be protective of it in spite of the possible flaws that coffee-break was investigating as a perspective It is certainly contributory just not as universal as it implies So I guess with that in mind we can move on to the email exchange and ask with Context how fair were the questions that Stephan put forward? This is important to understand because the opening two emails dictate a very clear tone that might imply who's being unreasonable Which can then justify later statements. We can't prove any attentions. We can definitely assemble some sort of case So here we have copy breaks first email which is in my opinion Fairly reasonable and straightforward in the case that it is making it outlines made the arguments that have been made against Harry's book Which does throw the original video into a contentious light? Especially given its framing and given the fact that you may have misrepresented content to approximately 18 million people I mean, that's a pretty big deal so at this point I don't believe there's any malicious intent at the end the email he emphasizes that he doesn't want to make a gotcha piece given the influence of the video I doubt many people would say it shouldn't be challenged whether they've moved on from that stage or not And although these happenings shouldn't be mirrored on the character of a person years later They're now - should be reflected on to make sure that other channels don't make the same mistake however It Philip wasn't really buying it and stated the light that I saw when I watch the video that as a quote take And stay to exist as a helpful one and yes as a take it works as a philosophical point of view a high majority of the video definitely works as that, however If the actual research or the conclusions were based on was inherently faulty Then that is a problem and it should be discussed at the end the day Phillip does come across as someone in a bit of denial or particularly when he Responds and alleges that it does seem like a gotcha piece Therefore I can understand why Stephen responds fairly in-depth to explaining his intentions and the evidence It does seem like a pretty honest email and goes into persuasive death explaining that he does not have malice now It's possible the Detmer didn't look at his channel and assume that he could have been a journalist looking for a spicy headline I mean he does use the word Journalist, or he could have been well aware of coffee breaks videos and had a negative perception of them Maybe he knows a school of life and he saw his video where coffee break criticizes them pretty harshly Educational channels may already have a negative perception of Stephens work So I think at this point you have a bit of a stalemate Maybe Depp as being a bit harsh given the very plausible criticisms of his content But on the other hand when you've made mistake You don't want it being exploited to have conclusions drawn about your character that aren't necessarily true to this day There has been a lot of conversation about intentions Both sides have alleged that they were acting in ill Intent at some points and I don't get the impression that either of them are displaying any sort of malice Stevens going into great depth to explain a heavily researched idea that clearly matters to him and there's no necessity for malice if coffee-break obtains what he envisions Detmer probably suggest an interview because it will offer him the most Unfiltered way to convey his present sentiments to ironically avoid journalistic paraphrasing It seems at this point that with the subsequent emails an interview is on the cards. So what went wrong? well When you interact with someone new you're typically dealing with a very fragile Formation of trust you're sharing information with a stranger, which makes you vulnerable to exploitation and no one really wants that although I believe the Conversation has been conducted fairly reasonably at this point with justify its views on each side It's also quite easy to note that the exchange is still rather tense. These guys are both very skeptical as a smaller youtuber You're always concerned that you could be taken advantage of with a lesser platform to retaliate And you probably have the perception that many large craters aren't just corporate machines who sold their soul to get there on the other hand Large craters aren't very aware of the scope on them and a childlike curse cos acts reputation rests on viewer trust So having their content discredited is a real concern these people don't know each other Therefore you receive the impression that all it takes is one failed communication to screw this all up and in the end It happens Steven writes another rather in-depth email explaining his series and content as well as Explaining his journey of research with Johann Hari and provides the time frame of the video plan Philip then sends an email saying that the earliest they conduct the interview is the end of next week And that's he'll need the questions in advance this was the last email before curse the SAP released his video and Kyrgyz apps video addressed a few of the narratives that Steven wrote in his initial video as documented in the coffee-break uploads Unfortunately, we did not reach out to scientists or do extra research on the papers that were the basis for the videos thesis we simplified an idea so much that it made a great story but became Distorting we often look at creators on the internet for reliable information We rely on the fact that they're careful and rigorous The world is too complex for simple answers and we don't want to be the ones giving them now this led to an implied narrative that curse Kazan who basically used the criticisms the coffee breaker brought up and made a response to them while also Removing the video in question a surprising backpedal from his earlier email out well And these two videos don't make us proud. So today we deleted them in his emails with me He seemed happy with the addiction video and didn't want to take it down However with that said looking at the emails, it's not as cut and dry as it first appears I think it's important to get the first detail out the way that coffee break. Never sent debt met any questions Does that mean that coffee break wasn't actually interested in the interview? No, not at all In fact, I can understand the given debt was rather slow responses He was under the impression that he didn't have to rush sending out the questions but equally it did affect coffee breaks video because in his clips Stephan presented it as if the conversation had closed on this Agreement and a commitment that one side had not honored I share with him my idea and some of the questions and criticisms I had and he replied to me that he Would be interested in doing an interview provided I wait he was busy travelling and told me to wait till early March before we could do the interview and March 3rd was the day. I found out what Philip had been really busy doing too busy to answer my questions when in reality Stephen had left it very open-ended and by not providing further correspondence He did not give that Murr an impetus to respond further now Does that mean on principle that he can't be angry of the video if his instinct was correct? No, but what would have been more advisable is an email to perhaps confront Detmer on the release of this video? I assume they both still had contact and then at least he would have had the chance to explain themselves he would have been able to ascertain debtless position on the interview as Detmer claimed in a statement to DeFranco that he still would have done it We are actually of note here Philips sent me a statement saying I did install him with malice in mind But I also didn't motivate him to work faster. Of course. I wanted to have the first word on my own failings I've been working on and off on the video since early 2017 which made it extra frustrate So I decided to finish the video and release it felt like the right thing to do I never would have thought that he'd go this far and purposely misrepresented our email conversation. It is sad this whole thing happened I really would have done the interview with her and adding I said anything else that is relevant in the AMA in ourselves This was a my TL for Stephen has now Detmer hast the reasonable high ground of saying that he would have done the interview But he won't because of this conflicts The problem is in this instance what Stephen did changes the perception it makes it look like Stephen did not seek resolution More so instigation and we don't tend to side with the instigator Do I believe he just wanted a spicy hit piece? No, in fact in my opinion He probably felt like he spent so much time sharing copious amounts of information with this person about what he was investigating divulge So much of it to Philip and been so transparent he likely then thought the DeMars behavior was in bad faith when curse curse at released that video but I still feel that even if You're doubtful about a person you're confronting You should confront them one more time because the worst result of a confrontation is that they provide Alternative information that prevents you from making a video and if you made a video they would have presented the information Afterwards and made you look like an idiot another huge problem people had with the coffee-break video was the paraphrasing I've always found the concept of paraphrasing in these instances to be rather weird If you're explaining what someone was saying, wouldn't it just be easier to just show what they're saying? I mean I digress I get the respect for privacy But I find it strangely pedantic and impractical and leading to situations like this for me confidentiality is Something relating to specific topics and if you can't explain it without leaving out details Then it makes me question whether you should be explaining it at all He basically says hey the addiction video wasn't perfect. But I feel it was good enough on one hand I don't find this clip a huge deal The wording would have worked if he'd phrased it as Detmer saying it was good enough to remain up on YouTube Which he does actually show at a later time on the video but also say something is good enough on the quality barometer and good enough to remain up on YouTube due to its Positive cultural impact are two very different perspectives. It wouldn't have hurt Stephen to include those extra details on the other hand I feel that although copy break wasn't entitled to acknowledge Dharma definitely could have saved a lot of hassle by informing Stephen that he had a video in the works that did respond to these questions and Detmer did seem to imply the distorts coffee-break It seemed like a real issue of Transparency and neither party had the assumption of trust and when Stephen interp to Detmer as breaking that trust he took every single worst Reservation he had of the sort of Charles like curse curse and projected it. It's clearly emails He had done a lot of research and I can understand why that would have annoyed him It does derail the basis for an interview and if Detmer stalled him and didn't disclose the information he was pushing a video through I can understand why he'd feel a Bit pissed off but Stevens not innocent here either and he could have least taught more understanding before releasing this video But what can be understood? Well, let's talk about practical details So this will blow up on Reddit in the true fashion with a rallying battle cry of attention brought to it and in the classic David versus Goliath scenario you went at kurz for what they had been presented by one site But in this scenario accursed Gazette was actually there to host their own Q&A and this changed the tide rather quickly and brought up some legitimate points for one unless he reused assets for which there was no real evidence of it would have been very difficult to create a video in the space of a month and it must have been the work for some length of time some say It was almost 2 years therefore making the whole idea that he'd just hijack the narrative kind of unlikely, but ok It was still kind of ambiguous at the time because coffee breaks points relating to the video doesn't necessarily cover the entirety Of course because that's video length and at this point both sides kind of thought it played into their hands What we know is that from the reddit follow-up QA that coffee break at least Provided some push for the video to come out and the debt would have to have go to some contents then there was this discussion about the second video included in the video as proof that coffee breaks research couldn't of influenced its dress to of his bad videos instead of just the one But this would make sense whether he stole my video idea or already had a video in the works if you know to Past videos are wrong and you decide that based on someone asking too many questions You're gonna delete one of them and spin the story. It only makes sense to delete the other So this is just evidence that Curt's cuz that is smart and honestly Here is why we see a problem forming with a lot of Stephens arguments is they don't prove anything beyond reasonable doubts I Interpret this argument as implying the Detmer was smart enough to avoid the argument that he plagiarized a single video by including this extra video In his self analysis and no doubt that Moe's a smart man I mean you have to be to an extent with his work But the problem is that it's equally explainable from a perspective that this was part of a greater video That he had been working on before we know that coffee breaks criticism. Isn't that unique and although Detmer may be clever Maybe very clever you don't have the evidence to prove that this was his train of thought and that's important when you make a dark video with over dramatic music preaching about transparency This video wasn't inspired by self-reflection on responsible research It was inspired to cover their ass and what's disgusting is how well this has worked out for them? Look at how celebrated they are for coming out so transparently and I think what I find the most distasteful is not them trying to get ahead of a story but the way they act so Self-righteous and like there's such good ethical researchers you need to have a tone that justifies the Information and the level of conviction you have and one of the biggest problems with the coffee break video. Is that it? Oversteps in its tone without having the conviction in its knowledge that mccann be criticized for sure I don't like the fact these stool Stephen didn't inform him about the video but the criticism that coffee-break raised wasn't the first time that someone had brought it up and therefore the claim of actually Plagiarizing the supposed interview seems a bit far-fetched Criticisms aren't exclusive when the dart term was real not to be fully justified with the information that was emitted shown any publication of the emails people felt deceived and many of these people were people who participated in a rather harsh mobbing of curse Kazan on reddit when the initial situation Transpired so they were embarrassed too and a lot of people turn this back onto coffee break in his tweets Stephen sums up the main points of criticism against him, but that's the problem Although these are the roots of the misinformation What they lead to is much more harmful when you combine it with the rhetoric in the video if I gave some wrongful Information about a group of people and then went on a five minute rant about how this implies the group of people are just terrible And cannot be trusted ever again It would be much worse than if I just gave the misinformation because the former situation Requires a level of confidence that in this situation has not been Well-founded this led to a lot of people implying that coffee breaks video was created Opportunistically out of the Speight. He just wanted to catch Detmer out to expose him I don't know if it's that I Said he wore his heart on his sleeve in a lot of the emails and I think given his other content He didn't really have too much of a motivation to stamp like that in cash in on an easy expose He's relatively successful for his size and his videos or typically outperform his subscribe account his circumstances didn't really proceed such an action being driven out of li motivation for clouds as Detmer said himself It doesn't seem like malice more just a moment of someone who's lost their temper with someone they feel has screw them over For what were the motivations at what conclusions can really be drawn from this very weird and wild situation I Think as a smaller youtuber you tend to be cynical towards the large groups of craters And that can be seen in coffee breaks later tweets about that theory. Is it possible? They have a little gang going on sure I have my group chats in which I share Intel and opinions with people and discuss the content that we're making and the people who've Made content about us these guys do tend to engage in some agreements But at the end of it all if you have enough solid evidence Then you will be able to topple these people and Stephen just didn't if there's reasonable doubt these guys are gonna stick up for each other because they think They know that person's character better than you and they want to support their friends coffee break Had the chance to gain some more elaborative information and did it in my opinion because he didn't trust deadness words Because he felt he'd been screwed over Detmer on the other hand Wasn't perfect in his conduct either and I think he find it acknowledges that the problem was that he was clearly worried about being Cancelled if his videos were shown to be poorly research He feels his 2015 videos don't represent him now and they probably don't I watch some of his more recent Content and it's well written and well reference but at the same time just because we shouldn't cancel Someone doesn't mean we shouldn't have a discussion about the influence They had at the time those videos still received millions of views and they may not have considered the consequences at the time But they did have consequences nonetheless You may be able to count the criticism of your current mentality but you can't escape what was conducted but with that in mind with the fact that The discussion should be about the consequences of the video. I want to ask you people one Final question does cursed gazettes video reflecting on his mistakes change much of coffee breaks video I mean it screws up the interview which I can understand may annoy Stephen a little but at the end the day Stephen wanted to know the information from cursed gazettes and now he has it If you're making a video on the actual implications of misinformation on the Internet, then this doesn't affect the narrative They still made the video it still had major consequences and I can't read the mind of Stephen But I assume that's what he was making the video And a washed coffee breaks uploaded video about it called pop science and it covers these ideas in a lot more depth It's a great video He doesn't actually reference curse cos asks video for obvious reasons But it was still a really compelling video that covers the topic of simplification in pop science Well, I mean cursed Gazette's video covered the criticism surface level at best compare these two clips the addiction video was based on only one source that has amassed a lot of criticism over the years and Unfortunately, we did not reach out to scientists or do extra research on the papers that were the basis for the videos thesis in Kurt's Cassatt's adaptation, which they called addiction I found several problems with this piece Some of the studies are disputed and some of the videos claims are so oversimplified. It's downright misleading It sounds like coffee breaks video has a lot more to reveal and a lot more to discuss the main points of Kirk Cousins video Is relating to how they feel about the video in hindsight and although they reflect on some of Stephens criticisms They don't really nullify them nor would I say they have stolen them from the specific context that they were going to be used from in the Upcoming coffee break video if everything coffee break had said in his initial email is true Then he shouldn't have worried about his research being undone I get that he feels a bit Monk tauf but if his intention was to question the influence of craters and Consequences to that effects, then. He should have been fine and he was fine It looks like curse curse at has moved on from his old mistakes and although we should always Question these things as standards for all channels. I wouldn't hold it against him And that kind of leads me back to where I started. This is not a big deal Could Philip have been more honest sure, but we don't know the extent of this and we certainly can't draw any Conclusions on his character and although I don't think coffee break made the video for Klout It did seem rather personal on the basis that he felt like he'd been misled and although I can Empathize with the annoyance after he was so open and in depth I think it's moments like that that if you don't care you carry on and just finish the video that you started on and if You do care you confront them and see what they have to say for themselves It will give you more of an outlook and probably more to actually respond to and now because of that Stephen has taken a fat But in all fairness he owned it and he had the humility to admit it I'd also like to point out that this is the second incident that has been blown up by Reddit on the passionate women individuals without further Investigation, obviously the previous one being DMAP Watson scenario the difference being with that one that there was no person to really provide a counter narrative because YouTube never tells us anything this one we had Detmer responding and changing the perspective of a lot of people he knows exactly how to respond to these sorts of comments and knows exactly how to Blunt a lot of the criticism that was coming at him He knows how to set points against him and then it will lead people to build off that and then turn that Onto coffee break. He was very very good in his reddit Q&A And if you want a lesson in how to respond, I know I talked about buy responses a lot, but curse curse outs reddit QA was a masterstroke in-house response let me make this clear the reddit Q&A didn't change the validity of the arguments per se but what you saw was a load of people more being curse curse out without Before picture when curse curse app was there to offer his perspective at that point. Maybe it's time to take a moment of self-reflection before jumping on something We don't entirely Understand and because the whole situation was so polarized the pendulum completely swung one way or the other one point attacking this Person and then that person and maybe everyone was just a bit bored So they needed some drama to spice their life up. But I'd really be careful with the power of the mop It will backfire in worse ways than this Can we really trust curse cos apps? I mean not entirely but that's the case for all these channels I had a friend who helped me out with some of the research for this video who was an expert in biology and they watched one of their videos Relating to the subject and they took issue with some of the stuff that was said I'll leave that Twitter link in the pinned comment however I don't think this situation is wholly relevant to that question because this situation is much more related to a personal dispute That wasn't most given the outlet in that extra curse because that video which will probably not be Repeated if you feel that some content is an accurate Then you have every right to express it and call them out for it and question the influence of that content problem is that both Phillip and Stephen themselves as people not as channels Cledus trust each other and when that semblance of Transparency wasn't displayed one made the worst assumption about the other it went off the rails and you've ended up with this very messy situation On the other hand, this is an easy lesson in exposed videos If you're going to try and prove someone isn't trustworthy and put it over in a strong tone, then you better have the receipts baby, or you're gonna get charged especially when the other party is more than prepared to respond, but that's the tea or the coffee in this instance I'd also like to add that this video is sponsored by Express VP and given the recent laws that might be restricting Internet users in The future especially the glorious in-kind porn ban in the UK such a progressive country I thought I'd give them a complimentary plug and say their service has been doing me really well And if anyone's considering it, you can get three months out of 12 months 3 So basically 25% off by clicking the link in the description below. So Yes, there is the video I hope you guys enjoyed it This one was a bit easier a bit more easygoing which was nice wasn't as emotionally draining but it was a bit more contentious in many ways because it's very easy to Condemn someone who's already haters. I want to give a big shout-out to my editors who have done a fantastic job Love you guys very much. You are legends. Please under leave their links in the pinned comment Go check them out. Go send them some love appreciate them. Also big shout out to my patreon slist up on screen right now, and I have to give an individual thanks to my $50 patreon which are some hullabaloo, and $100 patrons evening Steele and Brandon a quite sensational Gents, I'm very very impressed There impressed indeed if you want to reach me on Twitter at the right pinyin Facebook have links there and discord to I try and link that I should probably make sure the link hasn't expired this time I get some complaints in that behalf But yes join them if you need to there'll be in the pinned comment Otherwise, I don't have too much else to say love you guys law Thank you for the support recent and hopefully by the time this is out will have reached 300 back Thank you, but how great day guys?
The right opinion always does come to a reasonable conclusion and, unlike his other episodes, it feels like in this video both sides are good honest people who failed to communicate effectively