This may be a bit of a long read, but I have a lot to say, both personally and academically. The latter half of this post details what I plan to do in the future, and my thoughts on participation in the Royale. So, if you wanna jump to that, you can do so.

As a sort of prefatory meta-analysis, let me remark that this is being written about six hours after the whole ‘debacle’ went down [edit: I obviously started it six hours after, but I finished it 24 hours after]. I don’t plan on going into detail on each thing that happened, nor the events that led to QTCinderella (henceforth QT) crying and deciding to leave the stream. I assume that the readers are familiar with what occurred, and, if they are not, they can find it on Youtube somewhere I am certain.

I aim to do multiple things in this post:

Describe what was going through my head during the discussion/argument, as well as how I now feel with regards to it. Give a clear explanation of the argument I was presenting to QT. Critique the way other people behaved on the podcast when this discussion was occurring (specifically Rajj and Destiny). Talk broadly about my approach to dealing with individuals I deem morally problematic (an aggressive versus passive approach). Discuss what I plan to do moving forward, both in regards to my behavior on content such as the Rajj Royale, as well as the future of my internet content.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is not an isolated incident. QT and I have discussed the topic of ableist slurs on multiple occasions in the past, and we both knew each other’s positions on the matter going into tonight.

Previously I have criticized her for: i) defending the right for people to use ableist slurs in any context; ii) using ableist language themselves; iii) outright saying that it is okay to be ableist towards disabled individuals (found during the incident).

I knew her positions, and I knew she was certainly not going to be budged on the position because of me. I do not approach QT in any different way, nor do I behave towards her differently. You could see clearly that I reacted towards LCTRfan in the exact same manner (I think I was actually harsher towards him than her). She has previously claimed that I am ‘sexist’ and that I ‘mansplain’ things to her, which I think is a bit ridiculous given the fact I’m unsure how to explain anything to someone who doesn’t understand that making ableist remarks towards a disabled person anything in a way that won’t sound like I’m talking down to them. Because that’s what you are doing essentially: you are telling someone that what they are doing is bad, and you are telling them that they should change their behavior.

There is an alternative approach, but I find it less desirable. You treat this person as someone of equal footing and you express your displeasure in the form of an ‘opinion’ rather than as a brute fact. Using this method, I should have told QT that I am uncomfortable with her comments because I am of the opinion that her remarks are offensive. I don’t think this is a good strategy. Why? Because it tells the viewers that their opinion is just as valid as mine: which it isn’t.

(As a side remark, I think it’s very important to emphasize that I do not use this approach in any other situations than on programs like the Rajj Royale. In all other circumstances I would either use the alternative approach outlined, or simply not engage with them at all (because it isn’t worth my time). The reason I act so aggressively/toxic on the Rajj Royale is because I am not aiming to change the minds of people on the program. I am aiming to influence and change the minds of the viewers. And to do this in an adequate way, I cannot sit there and give blatantly bigoted views an equal footing to my positions. I don’t want to risk giving any one of the 20000 people watching the show the idea that they can go have these opinions out and about in the real world because they shouldn’t. Thus, I emphasize extreme intolerance towards these individuals on the shows and hope that other people will express equal intolerance in similar situations. Then, perhaps, this will cause these people to seriously reflect on their bigoted positions, or to just shut up and not spout them and cause harm to minorities.)

Racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, etc.-opinions are not as valid as others. They do not deserve to be put on equal footing, and those who tout them should not be tolerated by society and certainly shouldn’t be approached with any resemblance of charity.

If one is of the opinion that it is okay to be ableist towards a disabled person, my sole purpose in the discussion (such as tonight) is to ridicule and make clear what their status is and ought to be without a functioning, free society. Giving these opinions any validity gives them the credibility that is needed to obtain a larger following, causing larger harm.

To even say something like “I understand how you are feeling, but I just disagree” is to give too much: it normalizes and rationalizes irrational, abhorrent beliefs; and, on a platform where there are climate skeptics, genocide deniers, anti-vaxxers, basically nazis, etc., communities should push hard to call out and tell these creators that their bigotry will simply not be tolerated. I do not think that the rational approach can work, and especially not on the internet.

So, this hopefully explains my general methodological approach to dealing with someone like QT on the Royale. I see them as an embodiment of many bigoted beliefs that she willingly holds despite having had their irrationality and offensive nature explained to them many times. So, yes, I do call her “dumb” and “stupid” and “a piece of shit” and “a garbage human being.” I believe these are all actually true. I fail to see how else someone can sit on a platform and advocate for the right of people to call disabled people ableist slurs and not be all of these things at once.

Now let’s discuss the ‘incident.’ A brief recap: QT attacked me for being poor at reading social cues, despite the fact I’ve expressed many times publicly I suffer from autism. I said that what she said was disgusting and offensive. Notice that at this time she could have made a very good choice and simply apologized for the comment. Instead, she said I had no spine, that I was overly sensitive, and that I was a snowflake.

Her defense was that it isn’t ableist to ‘point something out that is a fact.’ Let me give a brief analogy to show how this is absolutely incorrect.

You are walking down the street and a man bumps into you, so you say “dude what the hell is wrong with you can’t you fucking see?” The man then turns to you and says, “What is wrong with you, I’m legitimately blind. Can’t you be understanding of this fact?” Do you truly believe it is okay to then tell the blind man that they need to stop being so overly sensitive and grow a spine? Is the blind man really to blame for something completely out of his control? Of course not. [I recognize this is a bit of a disanalogy given the plausibility of the situation—a blind man has a cane and takes efforts to avoid this sort of situation; nonetheless, I believe it gets the point across].

So, what QT did in this situation was clearly abhorrent. Not only did she make a vivid ableist comment towards someone with a mental disability, but, even after being given the benefit of the doubt and telling her directly that I am mentally disabled, she told me to stop being so sensitive and to grow a spine.

After this fact, I think there should be very little criticism for the things that follow. If another disabled individual was in my position and said the things I said, I would have zero issue with it: they are actively being dehumanized and discriminated against by someone who is now willingly engaging in such behavior. To critique their reaction to this would be, I think, ‘tone policing.’ The emotional outburst that I had (because it was certainly emotional), I think, is largely explainable given the circumstances.

Now, of course, the crux of the issues comes down to how she responded to me calling out her blatant ableism. Rather than apologizing, she attempted to reflect and say that I was being hypocritical because I myself was using ableist slurs against her. What slurs were these? ‘Having half a brain cell’ and ‘stupid’.

Regarding the former, it is clearly not ableist. It literally means I am attacking them because they are unable to have any sort of rational thought whatsoever: because they literally do not have a brain. You can’t be human and have half a brain cell: you literally are not a functioning organism at this point. So, clearly, this is not an ableist slur, and it’s ridiculous (I think) to accuse me of being ableist for using it.

The latter term, however, is a more tricky issue. I have done research on the impact of the word ‘stupid’, ‘crazy’, ‘moron’, etc. before. And, had this been fifty years ago, I think I’d be inclined to agree. Yet, there is something important to recognize about language: it develops and meanings shift, and we should not attempt to stick our hand in the blender completely to stop the blades. We can do our best to regulate truly harmful slurs that cause extreme impact on individuals; however, extreme regulation of all words that etymologically were associated with a minority group is simply infeasible and unrealistic. So, we really have to be strategic.

‘Retard’ has not lost its connotations to the disabled community. It is implicitly associated with ‘mental retardation’ which is now recognized as an ‘intellectual disability’ or something similar. As such, when an individual uses this term in front of a disabled person (or even one who is neurotypical) they will often see this as a direct insult against an intrinsic part of themselves that they cannot change. This is why it is harmful in the first place.

So why isn’t this the case with ‘stupid’ or ‘dumb’? Because time has passed—great time in fact. Very little effort was put into the awareness that these types of words associated with mentally disabled people (probably because they were being sent to asylums!). If we lived fifty years ago, I would almost certainly argue that we shouldn’t use these words, given that, back then, they were directly associated with these types of people. But, that’s just not the case anymore. Is it true that someone mentally disabled people may hear these words and feel dehumanized? Of course: and we should recognize this and the history behind the words. But, the connotation is simply not the same! In the same way ‘fuck’ and ‘bugger’ are not deemed extremely offensive, these words have lost the power that they once held because they were not called out in the way ought to call out words like ‘retard’. The hope is that now we can get on the ship before it sails away and inform people about the harm that certain words have against disabled people. But to argue that among these words ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ coexist is to be uncharitable and naive. It is essentially the difference between ‘n*****’ and ‘douchebag’. One of these is clearly worse than the other, and one of these clearly deserves public shaming for its usage while the other might deserve an occasional awareness to be more sensitive in the future. And I think we should be more sensitive: going forward, I’ll try to be aware that these archaic usages did exist, and that they still may affect some people (albeit very few).

(As an aside, I want to remark that I am personally going to be attempting to regulate my usage of the word ‘stupid’, only because some people I know that I am friends with are uncomfortable with it. However, I don’t see the need to demand this from others.)

So what does this mean for QT? Well, it means that her argument largely holds no weight. The ‘whataboutism’ she attempts to draw is fallacious: the two cases are simply not analogous. One is far worse than the other, and it’s ridiculous to try to argue otherwise. One is a direct attack on someone for a key feature of their disability (lack of ability to recognize social cues), along with calling them a ‘snowflake’ for being upset about it; the other is the usage of a very common term that used to (many years ago) be associated with individuals with mental disabilities in an archaic fashion. Even further, my usage of ‘stupid’ in this case is clearly not meant to intend that she actually suffers from any sort of mental deficiency. It is obviously meant to say that her values are incorrect and that to be a rational (consistent) individual within society, she must alter her values. This is a far cry from directly attacking someone for something outside their control.

Also, I will address Destiny’s point that was brought up (unfairly mind you) in defense of QT: how do I know that she doesn’t have a mental disability and that by calling her stupid I am attacking her for this disability. Well, for one thing, we already have covered the fact that ‘stupid’ is not largely associated with people with mental disabilities anymore. Rather, it’s an emotional cry that says someone is doing something they shouldn’t or they haven’t put in the effort needed to something where they could have. One could say it has to do with lack of intelligence, but in this context I think it is clear it was not intended that way; rather, it was meant to express frustration at a level of ignorance that can clearly be avoided. Further, ‘lack of intelligence’ is such a broad thing I’m not even sure how to address it. I’m not sure how we would begin measuring intelligence in any meaningful way, but we can often tell how capable one is at learning things based on their previous behavior. By all accounts, QT can learn that saying ableist slurs is bad; however, I cannot control my inability to read social cues (try as I might).

Finally, when prompted whether she had a mental disability, she simply said she has dyslexia. Considering dyslexia has nothing to do with recognizing whether or not to call someone a retard, I don’t see how this is relevant. Your (very real) struggle to read doesn’t explain your ableism. And, once more, I don’t think that the general public associates stupidity with dyslexia (though some kind individuals have mentioned they know family members who lived in a older time when this was offensive!)

So, now that I feel I have sufficiently explained my actions on the Royale (and why I feel largely justified in them), I want to remark on the behavior of Rajj and Destiny.

I cannot quite understand why Destiny thought it was okay to seriously question and ‘grill’ me on the factors that relate to my autism, especially right after QT had launched a vicious ableist attack on myself and I was clearly upset by it. Rather than behaving in a respectful manner, he instead used the situation to his own advantage because he simply didn’t care and found it all funny. I’m not sure what’s funny about making fun of someone’s disability.

Rajj’s behavior upset me most at the end of the podcast (up to that, it had, as usual, been good). His clear discomfort in the conversation showed only when QT suddenly started to become emotional. Yet, when I expressed clear emotional discomfort with regards to QT directly attacking my mental disability, he didn’t feel the need to butt in directly and try to halt the conversation or to talk QT down. And, I don’t think that this was bad of him to do: I think it was better to continue to let us talk. But to then have the gall to get visibly upset when I am forced to defend myself for attacking someone who just acted blatantly ableist towards me: I’m not sure what to say about this. Obviously QT was upset about everything that happened, and I’m sorry she felt that way, but I again feel my behavior is more than justified. I showed the world just how ableist she really is (and always has been) and she got clearly uncomfortable when she realized she had no legitimate way of defending herself. I am in no way saying she ‘fake cried’, but it is clear that I shouldn’t need to defend calling a blatant ableist a piece of shit and stupid (for the reasons described). This is blatant ‘tone policing’. To be upset that my calling someone out caused someone to reach the point of tears, but to not feel the same way when they blatantly discriminate against me twenty minutes earlier? It makes me very uneasy and disheartened.

Yet, I’m unsure what I expected in all honesty.

The Rajj Royale is a shit-show (quite literally). It is a carnival of drama, yelling, and buffoonery. It is the equivalent of a reality TV show, except probably worse in that it often platforms people with blatantly bigoted beliefs giving them the ability to spread their hateful rhetoric. Now, I actually think in this regard it has greatly improved, and credit should go where credit is due. Nonetheless, it’s silly to pretend that anyone goes on the Rajj Royale for serious, careful conversation. They usually simply go on for clout, and I am not different.

Why do I go on the Rajj Royale? Because I want people to come to my stream and learn how to better understand the world and how to be a better person. Further, I want to communicate to all the viewers that we shouldn’t be tolerating these hateful views, and I wanted to combat the ever-present lukewarm approach towards the issues that often existed before I came on. Rajj would introduce a topic and treat both positions on equal ground in the guise of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’. In this sense, it reminds me of how some political pundits will give equal time to scientists and climate change deniers in the guise of ‘fairness’. Clearly this is ridiculous.

Everything I do, especially how it relates to the content I produce or participate in online, is constantly checked against my moral compass. I aim to do good, and to not do harm. Up until this point, I believed I have been doing serious good. The amount of people who have reached out to me asking for guidance in philosophy or wanting to see a reading list to get into the topic is staggering. Truly, the Rajj Royale has been absolutely fantastic in regards to this. And I truly truly truly believe that this is good. It is not only good, but it is better than people merely adopting my beliefs and not doing any research on their own. True goodness come through thoughtful reflection and engaging in philosophy: that is how we be truly moral. So, when I go on the Rajj Royale and act extremely toxic, I think this harm (because there is certainly an amount of harm being produced) is far outweighed by the amount of good that is produced in turn. Strangely, I see a correlation between my level toxicity and the amount of people who come to me asking for suggestions on how to get into philosophy (odd, but true).

So this is why I’ve never had a huge issue with going on the Royale: because of the good effects that it produced. But it has its clear drawbacks, and that was exemplified more than ever last night.

I did take someone to an emotional point that caused them to cry. I cannot speculate about the actual cause of this: whether it was my words, or whether it was the situation I took them into. Yet, it cannot be denied that she was hurting by the end of it. And this is a harm.

It can be easily argued that the harming of a bigot is going to be outweighed by the goodness I’ve described. And, actually, I think this is true. But, I think there are better options that can make it so I don’t harm anyone in this way (regardless of political affiliation). I know some may criticize me for this and say I am being too weak or not sticking up for myself, but this is not just a moral decision on my part. It is also a personal one that I think I ought to make for my own mental health.

After last night’s discussion, I received a ton of PMs calling me horrid things, questioning the legitimacy of condition, and some calling for my death. It’s stupid to pretend and say that I can just ignore them. I mean I certainly do have thick skin. No single comment is going to make me upset or make me lose sleep. What causes me the most stress is misrepresentation of my thoughts, which happened over and over last night by both people who supported me, and by those who were against me. I had people from all sides telling me how I should or shouldn’t behave after the fact: whether I should or shouldn’t apologize. And I realized that a lot of these people are clearly in the moral wrong merely by their intentions.

I don’t think the responses of many of my supporters showed good intentions for the most part. In fact, it seemed to me that many of them were using this situation to be blatantly sexist and bigoted towards a woman. People used sexist language and ridiculed QT for things that she didn’t do. This is not okay, and I think the production of these types of responses is a further harm that needs to be seriously considered. And, even further, it gives me a lot of stress. It stresses me out when my intentions do not produce the consequences I aim to. This isn’t to say that I am not producing good consequences—it is only to say that in conjunction with these consequences there are also unexpected harmful consequences (even if they pale in comparison to the good ones).

I have not yet decided whether I will continue to do content like the Rajj Royale, though given Rajj’s poor behavior towards me after being dehumanized, I’m doubtful that he internally wants me on again even if I do make good ‘content’. I’m not ruling it out, but it suffices to say that I want to focus primarily on the type of content that exemplifies the type of person I really am, divorced from an exaggerated persona that can result in emotional outbursts (justified or not) that I play on shows like the Royale.

I want to continue to make lectures, do podcasts with cool people, and have serious discussions with people I care about and think contribute to Twitch in a positive way.

This might seem like a straightforward thing to do: why haven’t I just done this from the beginning?

Well, again, think about it from my position where I weigh it against my moral compass. From my perspective, I’ve had to do a balancing act where I behave in a manner that attracts attention as a means to get people to come watch my educational content. So, if I cut out these shows where I attract people to study philosophy and to come see my content, I might overall be reducing the amount of good that I can do. The other alternative people might point out to me is to go on the Royale and be ‘civil’; but, for the reasons I explained above, I don’t think this is a good thing to do. It gives legitimacy to bigots.

So what will I do? Honestly, I’m not sure yet. But, I can say with certainty that I will be focusing much more on my own educational content, and focusing less on ‘drama’ and dumb internet events that truly do not interest me in the slightest. I’m tired of pretending to care about people I don’t care about, and I’m tired of having to give a take on even the slightest thing that happens in other communities. But I can also say I plan on never putting myself or others in the position that I was in last night. If someone attacks me in the way they did last night, I will leave the call. I won’t be dehumanized, and I won’t be forced to sit there and have to explain my dehumanization. No good can come of this on such a large platform where people want to see yelling and drama. The Royale thrives off of active dehumanization and bigotry. I don’t want to be implicit in that.

So that’s the end of this post. I’ve written it over the course of 24 hours and I am sure there is lots of grammatical and phrasing issues, but I’ll just post it anyways. Maybe there is also stuff I left out: I can respond to it in the comments.

I hope you guys are willing to stick around and enjoy my educational twitch content, because I love doing it, and I love inspiring people to get interested in philosophy.

Thanks for reading.