Amphiist 42: YouTube bloodsports with Warski and Gariépy vs. amphiism

· Philosophy, Politics, Popular culture

There are many sides fighting to influence our world view

We need to listen to all of them (free speech)

Including what the mainstream media refuses to cover

The rest of us are entitled to our perspectives:

Shia Muslims, men’s rights, socialists, etc.

Amphiist is a Greek word meaning looking at both sides

Amphiist (42)

Editor: Jaclyn Holland-Strauss                 Worldview @

Facebook: Jaclyn Holland-Strauss                    Twitter: @JaclynHStrauss

February 13, 2018                              Today in the…

Natural Aristocrat, Emotionally Intelligent, Woke, Self-Actualized

YouTube Bloodsports

On YouTube, there is something new called bloodsports. Twitter personality and YouTuber Andy Warski is at the forefront of this movement, along with his co-host, Jean-Francois Gariépy. The idea of bloodsports is to get people to go on one of Warski and Gariépy’s video streams on YouTube (or, increasingly Baked Alaska’s), and yell insults at each other because it is entertaining. It is like the YouTube version of a wrestling match. The idea is that people should be able to express themselves fully so that we get to the heart of the important and controversial matters we face today in the realm of politics and culture.


(Turn page over for another perspective)

The Other Side

It would be a disservice to refer to what Warski and Gariépy are doing as the YouTube version of Jerry Springer. The content of the show is not superficial. Although some argue with the tactics, important philosophical subjects are delved into on a regular basis. In an earlier blog, years ago, I wrote Where are the Voltaires? They are here on YouTube, and they talk a lot more casually than the 18th-century philosopher, but the ideas being expressed are important.

The critics of bloodsports say that it just divides movements even further than they are, and that no one’s mind is ever going to be changed due to bloodsports and people yelling at each other on YouTube.

The opposite of bloodsports is amphiism. Amphiism is fairly looking at both sides of issues, which you could also say is true of bloodsports on YouTube. But amphiism looks in a hopefully emotionally intelligent way at both sides in a way that focuses on similarities between people, rather than differences. It looks at someone like Warski and says, Ok, he sometimes says racist things, which is unacceptable, but he also says things that are worth defending. White people should not have to apologize for who they are. It’s ok to be white. Isn’t this approach better than yelling “Nazi!” at him over and over again?

If you would like to see this newspaper in print, so that the average person is exposed to these alternative perspectives, then please consider donating to my Paypal account at


Comments RSS
  1. Arcticstormer

    So saying racist things is unacceptable? Why? That’s not very amphiist of you.

    • Jaclyn Holland-Strauss

      I think that saying racist things does no harm in and of itself. However, especially given the type of people who tend to interact online, if someone follows Tommy Robinson, for example, Tommy might not do anything violent himself. But his followers who might struggle with mental health issues might take his racist words as encouragement to do something violent. The moral responsibility lies with the violent actor, but the origins of the violent action were racist words.

Leave a Comment