I don't agree with everything The Amazing Atheist says at all times, but in many ways, we're on the same side: the side of "nuance". He covers this in the first part of the video, noting his increase in conservative, religious subscribers. There are people on both sides who are interested in really exploring the issues, really digging into the truth of things, and there is an opposite side--mostly Social Justice Warriors and third-wave feminists--who simply is not, and wants to not disprove any opposing ideas but straight up silence them by virtue of the strength of accusations.
Feel free to watch the entire video here, which begins with an impassioned argument for the importance of nuance in any discussion:
But if you'd prefer text (as I do, and some of my friends; this was written up for their benefit, and I hope The Amazing Atheist doesn't mind!), the real meat of it begins below. I attempted to transcribed it verbatim, omitting only filler words (um, uh, et cetera). Added emphasis is mine.
Transcript begins at 13:51
...I can finally bring this video back to the subject of SJWs, this time in the form of third-wave feminists.
One of my most popular quotations on the subject of feminism is "Feminism attempts to make both sexes equal by focusing on the issues of only one of them." Now I might have butchered my own quote there, but this statement was originally a tweet, and a very popular one at that.
Now is it nuanced? Well, it was a tweet, so no, it wasn't. Not all feminists are the same. Not all feminists believe in equality. Some believe in female supremacy. It's just a fact. Not all, some. Not all feminists focus only on women's issues. Some do care about men's issues.
There isn't room to explain all of that in one little pithy statement on Twitter!
That doesn't make the statement invalid. That just means that it's incumbent on the audience to understand that statement in the context of the current debates between various incarnations of feminism and various incarnations of anti-feminism.
But here's a problem: there is one thing that almost all feminists share in common. That all SJWs in general share in common, and it's this: they put forth ideas but they do not care whether or not there ideas are understood. That's very strange. There's a reason though that Anita Sarkeesian disables comments on all of her videos.
And I speculate that is has nothing to do with harassment or bullying, as she claims, and upon further reflection, I think, perhaps, that it's not even to do with silencing dissent as I and others have claimed. I think that she disables comments because she doesn't want to answer critics. She knows that dissent against her opinions exists, and that it's actually quite popular. She knows that criticisms about her work and ideas abounds, and that she can never, ever stop it.
But she doesn't want to confront it. I think the reason is not even so much that she can't, but that she doesn't want to. The scariest thing about SJWs is that they don't lack nuance because they're too stupid to see nuance, but rather because they actively oppose it as a concept. Their worldview is such that nuance frightens them, because if they say there's a racist patriarchy that oppresses women and minorities, they don't just want you to not challenge that, they don't even want to permit the smallest caveat to that.
Lemme provide some evidence: just look at how they approach rape. The mantra is that men need to listen and believe. If Kesha accuses a man of raping her, it's automatically viewed as true by the SJWs, as evidenced by the recent #FreeKesha hashtag. If a girl says she was raped, that's good enough for Rolling Stone to print an article about it and to vilify an entire frat house and make it seem as if rape is part of their initiation rituals. Even when that story was demonstrated to be false, the SJW narrative was unfazed. Their primary concern was that such a prominent story about false rape would make people less likely to automatically accept rape claims.
In other words, they were scared of people becoming more skeptical. They were afraid of nuance.
For more on this subject, you can check out my videos: "Feminism & Rape: Belief without Evidence", and "Feminist Assumptions and the Great UVA Rape Hoax".
More evidence of the pathological aversion that SJWs have towards nuance is their abiding hatred of the phrase "not all men", which I explored in my video "'NOT ALL MEN!' - Three Words Feminists Hate (And Why They Should Be Said)".
The only reason they hate the phrase "not all men" is because it attempts to inject unwanted nuance into their worldview. For some reason, they think that if some men harass them on the street, then ALL men should be implicated in that. If some men rape, then we need to teach men not to rape.
They hate the phrase "not all men" because it subverts the narrative that all of the problems of sexism are systemic. The last piece of evidence that I will offer that most SJWs actively revile nuance (though certainly nowhere near the last piece of evidence I could offer to this effect), is this:
I've made extremely popular videos against SJWs of all types: feminists, race baiters, language police, et cetera, and it's clear that they hate my stinking, rotten, fucking guts. Any chance they get to attack my character they take it. They've called me a micro-dick, a misogynist, a shitlord, an edgelord, a dudebro, a mansplainer, a neckbeard, a fedora-wearer. They hate that hat for some reason!
A pedophile, a rapist, a rape-apologist, a rape-supporter. They took my comedic series of "Banned From" videos seriously, and some of them to this day think that I was literally banned from numerous restaurants. They're quick to cast on me any aspersions that they can muster, so you know they know about me. You know they hate me.
But you know what they never do, with only a very small handful of exceptions? They never address my arguments. Why?
Well, their spin is that my arguments are so self-evidently wrong and without merit that they don't even warrant a response. I don't agree with that narrative. It's my opinion that they abstain from actual responses to my criticism because by even replying to it, they're forced to confront nuance, and they truly have no argument against nuance.
How could they? Looking at the world without caring about details or context is completely indefensible as a position unless the argument is simply "ignorance is bliss". Maybe they should say... "ignorance is feminism". "Ignorance is politically-correct language-policing bullshit".
So, the reason I have conservatives following me, the reason liberals are getting their good-guy badges revoked from other liberals for being too offensive, the reason a flamboyant gay-man named Milo Yiannopoulos is a hero of the conservative new media, the reason why all of the battle-lines are in the process of being redrawn is because there are those who want nuance in the debate, and there are those who don't.
And due to the aforementioned human predilection for favoring easily-digestible, immediately-comprehensible information, the side that eschews nuance is winning. Make no mistake about it, there's a reason every mainstream media story about Anita Sarkeesian is positive. There's a reason why college campuses are overrun by political correctness and cry-bullying. There's a reason why almost all of social media (with the exception of YouTube) is overrun by SJW-types, and why Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn get to speak to the United Nations and get to help police Twitter.
And there's a reason why practically no mainstream voices rise up to challenge them: it's because eschewing nuance works. It's rewarded. So, to my audience, I say this: whether you are a believer or a non-believer, whether you are liberal or conservative or reject both of those terms, whatever your race, whatever your gender, whatever your sensibilities, let us all be united by this one thing: let us all be united by our willingness to explore ideas and to both give and receive legitimate critics. Let us be united in our ability to be persuaded by evidence and by argumentation, let us be united be our appreciation for nuance and our refusal to blindly accept dogma and to explore the issues and decide for ourselves.
I am The Amazing Atheist. Peace the fuck out.