As someone who works in fan cultures and culture studies, I too was interested in the RE5 Youtube video. And while, yes, I can see the problematic representations at work in this game’s imagery, my own academic interests usually tend to focus on people’s discussions, enjoyment, and use of cultural texts. So I’m fascinated by the Youtube comments and actually find Ehren’s analysis of them more disturbing than the actual trailer (sorry buddy . . . that may be overstatement, but it made for a great line!). There seems to be this rush to condemn and call ignorance on these people with a more-than-implied suggestion that we the academics are oh-so-more enlightened and peering into the “true” problems on display. What’s missing from the conversation is a number of things. For one, the rhetorical situation that is posting to a comment board on a site like Youtube itself. I feel pretty comfortable saying that anyone going to a Youtube comments section looking for extended rational argument is not going to get it. Keep in mind, I’m not saying this is a flaw of the comments section; rather, it’s a mistake of expectations and indicative of a very modern preference for a certain brand of reasoned and rational presentation. In other words, people make arguments in a lot of nonrational (but not irrational) ways that are far too easily dismissed if we come at them from the very small and limited form of argumentation that rhetoricians are sometimes far too reliant on.

“The level of misunderstanding and ignorance here is staggering, though I can't say that I've ever read a thoughtful You Tube reply in my life.” (from Ehren’s post). I just can’t relate to this sentiment in any way. I actually think the comments Ehren posted (along with more that I went and read) are fascinating insights into situated perspectives and online discourse that do obviously have thought behind them. The kind of thought and expressions we might engage with in the cozy oh-so-privileged confines of a class like this one? Perhaps not. But thank god for that! And to call this kind of discourse “ignorant” or based in “misunderstanding” seems dangerous to me for its tendency to perpetuate pedagogies of “enlightenment” at the peril of ignoring the affective and embodied desires that lie behind these comments in the first place.