September Update: 8 1/2 Minutes

I’m just getting around to watching this and I have to say I love the art style! It’s fantastic! Looking forward to seeing the whole thing once it’s done.

per #4: "Black people do more crime" is not a correct statement. Black people are *criminalized* more than white people, and the crimes Black people are in position to commit are more aggressively policed, but that does not mean they are more prone to criminality. like... there is more wage theft in the world than all other forms of theft combined, and it's overwhelmingly white people in position to underpay workers. the majority of cocaine consumed in the US is consumed by white people, but the cheap coke available in Black neighborhoods - crack - leads to far more arrests. etc.

Ian Danskin

After quite some arguing with racism I came to 3 conclusions: Frist: Racism and Etnocentrism are used interchangeably. Sometimes people do hide behind it Second: The difference between critique and racism is that Racism want to establish an Hierarchy, critique wants to better lives. Example: "Black do more crime" is an correct statement, but what your goal is with that statement makes the difference. Even tough they will not say out load that they want to establish whites above others, there arguments do. Third: An argument/action is racist, not the person. Just like you are clumsy if you preform a lot of clumsy things, you are racist because you think a lot of racist stuff. If you just to happen to have an racist argument, doesn't make you an full blown racist. I also made the 4 degrees of racism: 1. made up shit about an Race/Culture and other false assumptions 2. let the Minority speak for the Majority 3. Forcing people to fit to an stereotype, even when the stereotype is mostly correct (Example, Most woman do want an child sometime in their life. If the woman doesn't you may not insist that she should, because she is an woman) 4. Having an incorrect assumption about an Race/Culture, but being open minded to have your mind chanced.

As a former Philly resident, that Eagles fan metaphor is *chef's kiss*

Kathleen Laufenberg

Slightly late comment, but I'd love to see this quote added into your script from Terry Prachett; seems pretty relevant: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/340272-evil-begins-when-you-begin-to-treat-people-as-things

Musicombo

New graphics are cool and not off-putting! They pass the vibe check of being continuous with the series, and I like how dynamic they are.

Pixie Plays

As a PA'ian, I really appreciate the eagles joke. At 5:06 there is about 20 seconds of blank, and after 5 mins of something always on the screen, that was a little jarring. I don't know if this is 'macro', but having the author's name up while the quote is up during 5:40 would be nice. I basically immediately forgot his name. Having the graphs to back up the Vox headline would also be nice. Idk about my YouTube bubble, but I know if I showed this to a few people they would just blur that information out in their minds, since its only a headline. The more studious would look up the article, but I can't say that every one would.

So will just say out of the gate that this is the same kind of gut punch "oh god, how did I never see this" stuff that I have come to expect of you, so well done! I also really enjoy the animation, I think it's really good. There is one structure note that I'd want to add. It might be that this gets adresed later in the video, but from what was there, it wasn't really clear whether the liberal whom wants moral superiority is the one that also considers that kind of racism as the cost of doing business, because during that shot, it focuses on the provocateur, and the narrative is focused mostly on the right side. Now I know this is the alt-RIGHT playbook, so it does make sense, but from what I can see it isn't totally clear how that interacts with the moderate who just wants to win from those to the right of them. Again, you can disregard this if it comes up later in the video but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. Hope this was helpfull!

AHuggingSam

It's not a replacement, this is temporary. My back injury makes it so I can't sit at a tablet for hours at the moment. I hired Mike to do this video, and we'll see how my back is doing come the next one.

Ian Danskin

Other comments aren't loading, so I apologise if I'm retreading ground well discussed. From a macro level, I think the animations sliding in and out of view feels a (metaphorically and literally) a little directionless. Sometimes the animations moving in and out is really effective (e.g. 1:10 when the protest gets shoved to the background or at 4L55 when the POC is literally framed out of the conversation). But because this transition is used so often it's less impactful when it is used as a metaphor. I also feel like it means that the video gets mushed into one single long point. I think it'd be more effective for short segments to have codas and to hard cut to the next point to cue mental break points. I think a point where the animation really contradicts the argument is at 3:30, when you say 'moral victory over conservatives', but the animation says 'victory over POCs'. I like how the positioning pays off later, but it doesn't convey the message. You said some of the art is placeholder, but I feel it's important to say that I got some character confusion. Some characters feel less visually distinct. The collaborator (at 6:55), the moderate (at 7:05) and the blue tie liberal (at) 4:30) all feel visually close to each other compared with previous distinctions (e.g. MAGA-hat vs 4chan shirt). Last thing that sticks out for me is the text. Maybe this is micro, but the style of the text is less legible in my opinion. Otherwise, this is looking really good, I look forward to the final product! I'm excited for all the upcoming videos and I'm excited to see what is next for you after ARPB.

Josh Grey

I lost the thread a little bit when it came to talking about white moderates and anti-racists, especially because I suspect the point is that if we identify with either of those groups, we're supposed to acknowledge our own racism, but the indirectness of it makes it easier to mentally exclude ourselves from the critique. I do also think it's important to cover how anti-racists can also act in racist ways despite their defining commitment not to, which I guess is the point of the video but it might not be coming through clearly enough in this setup.

Matt Cramp

Cool animations!! They feel like a neat upgrade to me thus far! I agree that the watercolor text is challenging to read as some have said above. I’d also point out that the term “minorities” has fallen out of favor (for good reasons tbh) and use in many circles so a consideration for this and future videos around language. 🧡 similarly, the use of “illegal immigrant” even if it’s meant to be a “this is how the provocateur would frame it” seems unnecessary (esp since other groups don’t get an offensive word used for them here) and would benefit from saying “undocumented immigrants” or something since that’s the more self-determination-appropriate term in migrant justice work :)

As someone who listens to your words a lot more than I look at your animations, I feel that the new style is a faithful interpretation of the old. I like it. Now, as for the words, you lost me a little when you transitioned from talking about the provocateur to laying out your four kinds of white folks. It took a bit for me to find the thread of the argument again. All that said, I'm really digging where you are going with the essay, and I'm eager to hear the rest!

Peter Sturdee

I agree with this. Text appearing on screen in phrase-sized chunks underlines the points you (Ian) make, like visual punctuation. One character at a time feels less sticky.

Homebrew Futures

I definitely prefer the choppier, less sophisticated animations you do. Also, the provocateur's expression in the thumbnail needs to be more malicious.

Yup, I agree with most of what's said. I'll also add that I think the background is slightly too high-contrast and too dark a gray to make your text pop.

My notes: * Like many commenters, I think the ease-in/ease-out animations for elements on the screen is over done. Having it here and there when your script is building an argument -- so that the visual builds with the argument -- would be fine, but not on the addition/subtraction of every single element on the screen, it's too much and fatiguing. * I found the animation of text appearing character by character annoying and distracting. I don't mind the font itself, but entire phrases should appear as you speak instead of one character at a time. Particularly for the big concept points, where you use your voice and pacing to emphasize the point (for example, 6:24-6:30 of this WIP). * I miss the "surprise" build where a background picture sets context and then an overlay "punches" a point home. Compare 1:15-1:19 of the Alt-Right Playbook:Introduction vid (where Reagan is revealed to be NOT REACTIONARY ENOUGH) to 3:50-4:10 of this WIP video. That visual takes the oomph out of the punch being delivered by the script.

PC Escobar

to be honest, it feels strange seeing the new animation. It's well done, but i was really fond of your older, punchier style that used static visuals. That minimalism made it a lot easier to focus on the words, and i hope the new style doesn't replace it.

Anabelle!

Completely agree here. As a concrete example, the circling that appears at 7:34 to the voice line of "this group" isn't as punchy as statement in the way it was previously; previously where the animation felt as if you were sitting next to me and would circle the character rapidly to accentuate your passion and strengthen the point. At a larger scale, the animation feels floaty and soft, while your arguments feel crisp, passionate, and direct. I would love to see the two coming closer together.

I agree with this. I think that the reduction of the characters to a few signifiers to identify which group they were from helped my keep track of who was who. In terms of conveying the message in this video, it almost feels like there's too much detail and individuality in the characters such that I'm looking at the characters, admiring their design, and it's taking m mind off the spoken content - case in point, I also spent a large part of the video trying to work out if and who was being represented by the character of the campus speaker.

This looks amazing to me! The background grain, the animations of character and camera, the torn paper edges - I really like it. Also: not speaking for all dyslexics, but I did not experience any issues with the font or the smudges.

Erik

The main problem for me is unclear font and text appearance animation

Alex Mayzlakh

The guy who did that also did dox a trans kid at a campus. I'm not sure this quite works? Whatever he says, he does do it.

Crissa Kentavr

I miss the fungible little characters. One thing I have always LOVED about TAP is the consistency and clarity of who exactly you're talking about. As you explain in the first endnote, you are very careful about precisely who you're talking about, and you draw them differently, consistently and very purposely. They were very clearly coded as progressives, conservatives, alt-right etc. consistently across all the videos. It is a HUGE shame to lose this coding. It was so incredibly clear and one of the best things about the series for me. The precious thing about ARPB is how clear, precise and accurate it is. I'm having difficulty following who is who in this clip - like I'm having to figure it out myself instead of being shown - and I've never felt that before. The campus speaker is surely not Trump (presumably a Fuentes type given the sunglasses?) but 'suit and blond quiff' means Trump to me from the coding in your other videos. I'm not saying I am mistaking one figure for another, really, but the symbology is no longer consistent and that was distracting (rather than consciously confusing). It matters more for generic, fungible people like 'gamergaters' 'queer people' than specific (albeit thinly-veiled) people like Trump or Obama, e.g. at 2:30 in this video, the crowds of students. It really helps as a person not from US culture where I'm not necessarily gonna pick up subtle new signifiers. I liked the familiar, not-very-subtle-but-always-consistent signifiers. This is almost certainly not the feedback you're interested in at this stage, but it was the thing for me.

xanna

Transitions between scenes are mostly okay, but YOUR style of moving characters felt more appropriate in a number of ways than the new one. I do not know why but this smooth transitions across the screen attract more attention than imitating steps. I also have several other comments on excessive movement: 0:20 the first two elements rolling out of a screen a second sooner than the main one. it looks busy, could it be more of a simultaneous thing? 1:01 that particular transition under the angle confuses me 2:47 I’m gonna need a seismometer for that one 2:54 I do not know whether the difference in text animation is intentional, so I’m mentioning that as well: why the former is shown through and the letter is typed? all text elements have a consistent ink-ish style but it strange to see two different animations of it 4:38 same 6:27 the only instance of this problem that is not problem at all and looks right 3:18 it lacks movement 5:50 same

This is really great. Sometimes it's frustrating when the text doesn't appear as quickly as your voice, particularly when the text and what you say match. Also, occasionally (including on the title slide) the text appears to have water stains. I found it distracting, but could understand if this was a stylistic choice, as the background is much more textured now.

Emily M

The new animation style is definitely a step along the right direction, but the pacing is a bit too slow, and the watercolor effect distracting. Especially when it sticks around after being dissolved. Your arguments are snappy and crisp and so should your animation be too. Love the suave provocateur intro animation!

Vincent Aaskov

Love the topic and explanations – At 4 minutes with the image of the soccer player and images getting layered on top is a biiiiit too much all at once. I’d suggest maybe desaturating images as they are brought from the foreground into the background. Anything to keep my eyes where you want em

Trevor Davison

Hi Ian! While the animation is well-crafted, the animated transitions feel too slow for the delivery of the material, as they kinda distract from the points being made. I feel the transitions should go at least twice as fast, so the text and images can register better. Also another commenter pointed out that the vignette/watercolor effect makes the text kinda harder to read, at least at a quick glance. Happy to see some new stuff from you! :)

At 4:52, have you considered zooming not just on the provocateur, but also onto the white liberal? Perhaps even bringing them (symbolically) closer together as you bring in the shot and the minority drops out of focus? I think it might even better represent your points here and really VISUALLY help hammer home what your words are saying before it transitions to the title card view.

JinxedJoker

I agree with those who say the sweeping transitions detract rather than help the narrative. A good example of 'too much' is at 0:38. Big sweeping transitions should probably be replaced by straight up cuts, but the smaller inserts and swoop ins I think work.

Sean Riley

The new visual aesthetic is interesting; something to get used to, and at the moment I think I prefer the original aesthetic (the punchy pop in/out, stop-motion style works very, very well with your style of verbal delivery, I think), but it does look good! The content is great, I think. If there were two suggestions I'd make on the animation side, it'd be these: The slow transitions work against your delivery. I think if all the animations were just sped up like 50%, it would keep the visual energy going in a similar way to your other videos. You seem very intentional about your pace when you speak, so this non-matching visual motion is a little distracting. Secondly, the font and splotchiness of the text makes it significantly harder to read. It's a great visual effect, but your content moves a little too fast to take it all in. If the watercolor animations finished faster, and *all* of the splotchiness was removed by the end of the animation, I think it'd be significantly more readable for me. Thanks for seeking out feedback! I hope this was "macro" enough to be actionable!

h2g2guy

It seems backwards to me (not seeing the full script) that you go from defining your framework of groups to talking about the typical framework (rather than starting from what people are familiar with and working from there to a better framework). I'm sure there could be reasons to do it that way, but without seeing more now it stands out as a bit backwards on its own.

JinxedJoker

I kind of agree with this. These transitions can be metaphor for changing subjects/focus/angle, and thus should use that motion as a palette cleanser or to move the eyes while trying to move thinking, and I think that's not always how they're deployed here. I think this is a vehicle that can work, but if used just for the sake of a sense of 'polish' it may just be distracting, and might be better just to do cleaner cuts in those cases.

JinxedJoker

Faster transitions might help that? The more time spent 'in transition' the more one tends to take notice of the transition itself, and not the new information being presented by it.

JinxedJoker

At 3:00, immigrant is misspelt as "imigrant". At 3:44, the spoken word is "Tools" but the written word is "Tool". At 6:22, the resume bio mixes tenses with "Have been white his whole life", presumably should be "Has". The figure at 6:47 is missing bullet points next to his attributes. The text at 6:57 should read "Attention" rather than "atention". The text at 7:12 should read "Collaborator" rather than "Colaborator". 8:06: The wording of "Tries to get rid of it" could be clearer with the removal of "it". Figures revealed at 6:40, during their reveal, would reinforce better if they were tagged in the same way at the lineup. Overall for the aesthetic change, I think it's good, but the water-colour blotchy text is a bit distracting and doesn't seem to add anything. Also, occasionally the vignette blur was a little much.

Champion use of "Xanatos Gambit"

Ryan Aston

Hey Ian! I haven’t commented before but I’ve really liked this series and it’s great to see this topic addressed! I think it’s great so far and the new animation is an excellent evolution for the series! My minor nitpick would have to be that I think it takes a while for your point to get across around 1:00, you introduce a conflict and the potential protesters trying to deal with it and I feel like that section kinda gets a bit cluttered and could benefit from being more concise. Honestly not a big thing from me, I think it’s great and I hope that helps somewhat

Pillbughug

"Colaborator," missing an L as well. So a general spell check is in order.

Richard Seymour

I liked this. Who gets paid "atention" to is missing a T.

Richard Seymour

I like the transition between the "shots", how the camera slide and zoom. But the font + "water droplet stain" blur make the text uselessly harder to read. Also, my first reaction when seeing it was: "there's something wrong with my eyes", which is not a great feeling.

Hugi R

This animation is very well done and ambitious, but I think it takes attention away from the intellectual content of the video. I think the minimalist "slideshow" approach of previous videos (where even if characters move, its in more of a stop motion manner) takes up less RAM in the brain of the viewer, and allows one to think about what's being said instead of marveling at the talents of the animator. But who knows, maybe that just means people will have to watch it an extra couple of times to fully absorb the content and you'll have a higher view count on your hands ;)

Oooh, this is really good! I thought at first that it was gonna be about "becoming so dedicated to The Glorious Revolution that you basically ignore any and all collateral damage," and it's... kind of about that, but it's focused more on the bigotry angle, which I think is wise.

Lydia Scribe

I'm not a huge fan of the sweeping camera view from one vignette to the next. I felt like I was a bit too aware of all the motion, and I would have preferred some more static cuts.

xanna

Agreed. I find it harder to parse quickly so it's bringing me out of the video.

xanna

The “Prezi” type approach to animation is interesting (at least that’s what came to mind when I first saw it). It’s an aesthetic change, but the content so far is on brand. I can’t wait to see more of the finished product.

Shisa Sensation

I don't like the kind-of-cursive, kind-of-fade-in text thing. It's too cutesey & artsy & fartsy.

Sean Munson

looking forward to the video! it made me think of the work of George Yancy, so I figured I could share it here in case https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498506731/White-Self-Criticality-beyond-Anti-racism-How-Does-It-Feel-to-Be-a-White-Problem (I listened to Professor Yancy talk, but did not read this book myself yet, so it's also a personal reminder :)

Lorenzo A

This shreds! Love the new animation. Only thing that stuck out to me is that the shot at 0:56 feels kind of busy.

Lily Alexandre