Yeah, no I didn't. The topic creator is known for overreacting, it's his main characteristic (I mean his sig literally explains it). Trying to jump to the defense that I was greatly insulting the fanbase is just silly, honestly, because I wasn't. I don't care if someone finds something rude that wasn't intended to be rude unless I can genuinely understand and sympathize with the perspective. I can't in this scenario, ideally nobody should be offended over such a trivial comment, so I don't really care.
By the way, Gnoggin does the same thing on Twitter:
Nah, Gnoggin isn't insulting MatPat's fanbase, he's making a criticism that the content of his channel is unoriginal. As in his theories mostly come from reddit comments that he just does a bit more research and math for. Gnoggin goes out of his way to ask questions that no one has thought to ask yet to make what he hope to be an original game theory. I agree that a lot of them do come across as a stretch, and by asking stuff that no one else was asking, he does tend to focus on topics that few care that much about.
But I didn't insult a fanbase either. You just interpreted it that way, either because you were looking for an explanation as to why CaptainExplosion got flustered and forgot to add in the addendum of "this is what he feels" rather than "this is what is fact" part of the equation, or because you share a similar sensibility and got offended at something you really shouldn't have. I can't control the latter but if it's the former that's understandable, it doesn't make it a fact that I was "insulting" the fanbase though. Believe it or not, "who gives a fuck" is not an attack on a person who does in fact give a fuck. It's just a saying, and even if it was used as a genuine question (as in, who genuinely cares) it wouldn't automatically be an offense. I will repeat what I said last time, but hopefully in clearer words: 2nd hand offense at something isn't something to be concerned about unless you can both understand and sympathize with the offense the person has interpreted. In this scenario I can understand how someone came to the conclusion that it was offensive, they might be a very sensitive person or might have interpreted it wrong, but I don't sympathize with the sentiment because there was no wrong had.
I mean, to refer to your first reply: "I think he's mad because he wanted to have a fun discussion with people who found the video interesting, and you went a little beyond showing disinterest and said it in a way that felt like you were just taking a dump on everyone's fun."
His original post is ambiguous, sure you can infer that if someone makes a thread about something they have an interest in it, but that doesn't mean they have a burning passion for it, or that they would defend it, or even that they liked it at all. Your reasoning would make more sense if this was like a thread about it being his birthday, it's not, there's not really much of a clear sentimentality expressed in the OP, and even if someone is favorable to something I always assume that they make threads for discussion of any kind of view - as long as it pertains to the thread's topic, because that kind of seems to be the motto of VGC.
This has happened rarely in the past before in a couple of threads, and I'm really getting tired of it. People shouldn't expect every reply to be positive or happy go lucky. It's a game theory video(edit: I feel like I have to edit this in before I get a reply of "this isn't even a game theory video" - you know I mean as in the genre of videos as a whole, not the brand) , for crying out loud, your happiness about the topic should not be dependent on other people's happiness. We all have breaking points and I can understand disliking a party pooper (there are quite a few users infamous for being such for the purposes of trolling), but if anything you dragging this out is making the thread more depressing than if say we just stopped at Captain's comments.
Sorry didn't see your comment. But I mean if he responds to me and I have something to respond back, I'm gonna respond back.
It takes two to tango, but you were the one that kept it going.
By the way, if you're going to arbitrarily separate what is "criticism" and what is "shitting on x" by usage of wording, acting like Gnoggin's tweet is a "criticism" doesn't make sense. Let's be honest, it's just a pot shot at MattPatt. It just happens to be one that's right. It isn't any more of a criticism as my comment would be. Just because he phrased it more politely doesn't mean it's more valid.