Patricia Taxxon

> "So is *"Matrix 4"* actually good? Or is this just a "Last Jedi" situation, where we're performatively putting it on a pedestal because it's popular and nerd dude youtubers hate it?"
>
>

> - Patricia Taxxon
>
>

**Patricia Taxxon**, sometimes shorted to simply **Taxxon**, is a YouTuber who primarily makes music, but also makes occasional movie and TV reviews and political commentary. She first crossed paths with EFAP when they took a look at her response to one of Wolf's videos, and then returned as the co-villain of EFAP Season 2 alongside Jack Saint. After the fact, she has remained on friendly terms with Jay.

## History

### EFAP 15

Taxxon made a response to Wolf's video, "The Problem With Forced Diversity." In EFAP 15, MauLer, Rags, and Wolf took a look at this response. At the time (as well as later on in EFAPs 22 and 23), Patricia was going by the name Eric, and so the title and content of that stream reflect that.

#### On Hiding (Dis)likes

> "I think it's kind of funny, because the people on the other side, they like to frame it like I'm uh, 'censoring dissent'... but I can still see it."
>
>

MauLer, Rags, and a freshly-returned Wolf began this EFAP by first taking a look at Taxxon's response to people asking "in both nice and mean ways" why she hides likes (and dislikes), claiming that no dissent is actually truly being hidden, since the video author gets to see them no matter what, and that the audience (the people it is actually being hidden from) don't need to see them anyway. She also argued that hiding ratings forces people who dislike it to leave a comment instead, and preventing people from coming into the video biased. Of course, likes are still visible on her music content, the content not making arguments against other people. She also argued that large amounts of dislikes on a video are a result of people raiding it, and said to take her word for it that plenty of her videos perform well.

#### Versus The Nuanced Little Centrist Boy

> "WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?!"
>
>

> - Taxxon, shouting, for some reason
>
>

With the subject of Likes and Dislikes out of the way, the boys moved on to the main topic of the night. Taxxon ended up only playing about 2 minutes of Wolf's 18-minute video, calling it a "nothing video" and "waffle-y bullshit" and claiming he didn't make any arguments anyway, leaving viewers of the video to just take her word for what Wolf said. Taxxon tried to imply that Wolf is trying to hide being right-wing, accusing him of claiming to be a centrist when he never claimed such. She found it telling that Wolf uses Ripley as a positive example of a female character, because Ripley was not a gender-specific character until Sigourney Weaver was cast, an odd thing to consider a negative from someone so against the gender binary. She countered Wolf's main argument by saying it contradicted a definition of forced diversity given by two completely different YouTube channels, then said it was good that they all have different definitions, since that's what art's all about, but then said that none of those people are being honest, even going so far as to claim that they are trying to fool people. Her main argument was that Wolf and the other YouTubers shown are just accusing movies of having forced diversity because they doesn't like them, incorrectly pinning the blame on diversity when the issue lies elsewhere, since the solution to the end product being bad is not to remove the diversity but to improve the writing, when Wolf's entire point was not that diversity makes stories bad inherently but that valuing diversity *over* other qualities would make those other qualities more likely to be worse. On the topic of historical fiction, Taxxon argued that a black character appearing in a certain historical event can't ever be inaccurate because "black people aren't like, a new thing." *Coco* was also referred to as "diverse" when every character in that movie is the same race. She called *The Empire Strikes Back* and rest of the trilogy boring offhand, despite Wolf never mentioning those films, seemingly to bolster the sequels by comparison. When Wolf said that a woman in Hollywood who wants more women in Hollywood to achieve success should achieve that success herself, Taxxon claimed this was him saying that would end all sexism. She wants more gay people in movies because she's gay (she previously identified as a gay male), but even in bad media too, because she doesn't want the gayness of the characters to be seen as the cause of the poor quality, and claimed that differentiating between choosing based on competence and choosing based on diversity means you think only white people can be competent.

The video was also plagued by bizarre editing choices, with noticeable background noise, nature sounds, unbalanced audio, crowded and overlayed images, bizarre visual filters, and ear-rape. It was filled with strange, often oddly sexual nicknames for Wolf like "musky husky," "nuanced little centrist boy/puppy," "Prince Fuzzy-butt," "red rocketeer," and "fluff boy." She acted like it was a gotcha to predict there would be a five-hour "takedown" stream to that... takedown video, but her two videos combined only actually managed to warrant four hours of rebuttal. shoe0nhead found Taxxon's video to be good (probably because barely any of Wolf's argument was actually shown), asked if Taxxon wanted to take a look at her take on the same subject, then Taxxon told shoe that her video said nothing just like Wolf's. After the fact, Taxxon said she would only consider Wolf to be worth having a conversation with because Rags and MauLer were too toxic, despite Wolf being the one most willing to go to harsh personal insults, leading MauLer to hypothesize that she has a crush on Wolf.

### The Two-Party Two-Parter of Season Two

> "I delayed watching any Star Wars media consciously, because I wanted to make it clear that it doesn't matter if Wolf is correct about the things he's criticizing, because he's wrong no matter what."
>
>

Taxxon returned as a guest in Jack Saint's "Long Critique Is Not Deep Critique," a critique of MauLer's method of reviewing. MauLer, Rags, Wolf, Jay, and later DasBoSchitt, Smudboy, and ChaseFace took a look at this video in EFAPs 22 and 23, with Rags and Wolf dipping out towards the end of 22. Generally, the cast considered Taxxon's segments to be much nicer than Saint's, despite the gratuitous nudity.

She considered their video airtight since no one was able to give them good enough arguments, even supposedly wolf and co didn’t make any argument in the video.

Supposedly, people answered to her video and called her out and she just dismissed the criticism as she maintained that the video was bulletproof due to people using the same arguments as wolf "but slower and less cohesive."

Ranks *The Last Jedi* as her top favourite of the, then eight, Star Wars movies. Her only problem in the first two prequel films was the passing of the story

Claims to have watched the whole *The Last jedi* critique as way to give MauLer “a fair shake”. Thinking that nobody has watched his whole series trough, something that’s a basic requirement for critiquing his video.

Thinks that the first four hours of the critique, up to halfway of part 3, are just a summary, that you wouldn’t miss anything if you just skipped to the halfway of 3rd video, calls it “a excruciatingly slow play by play”

Compulsive liar and disingenuous.

Equates that “objective critique” means “factual qualitative statements, endless strings of observations of things that people can clearly see.”

Says that MauLer doesn’t know how to edit videos.

52 minutes into MauLer's TLJ 3rd part is good critique and contains “spicy takes” and it#s good in his opinion.

Accused MauLer of using a long summary as a way of “weeding out the casuals.”

Bafflingly, assumes that MauLer thinks themes "go against logical consistence of story."

Made a point to say that MauLer considers visuals to not matter and then says that MauLer sees visuals as “neutral.”

Thinks one could value logical consistency “too much.” God forbid movies actually being cohesive and making sense.

Liked Star Wars for imagery and how it felt nice, which is why she liked TLJ, as it invoked emotion and had nice visuals.

Sees MauLer as being narrow minded when it comes to art, in her view, MauLer thinks that the only way to judge art is by the scrip and if you don’t see it so, you are wrong and don’t have standards.

Doesn’t like rags.

Suddenly goes shirtless, showing they have “freakishly smooth chest” and bright pink skin.

Objective statement would be “the knife is missing”, it's only bad if you can tell why it's worse because of it

If you disagree with qualitative statements, you deny the facts that lead to his conclusion.

Thinks MauLer's subjective opinions are not separate from objective ones, “they are just more opinions.”

Overall, nicer person than Jack, civil and nice enough to say “have a good day” and offers movies to watch and ask movies they can watch.

## Trivia

* Patricia records in a jungle, communing with the nature like any good scout.
* Travels through the 5th Dimension with epileptic seizure lights
* Possibly a botched clone of YourMovieSucks, or the child of YMS with either Styxenhammer, Freddy Mercury, or a bridge hobo. Alternatively a lovechild of Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan - real name theorized to be Fisty Splinters.
	+ Their hair also suggests a relation to Cousin It of the Addams Family.
* Rags thinks them as "titanically ugly".
* Patricia loves to play the classic game “trace the racist”.
* She was Taxxon, but she is Taxx-off with she has no shirt. Alternatively, Faxxwrong.
* Owns a metronome and cat named Georgie, Georgie is the truest Navy Seal, True MVP, has better arguments and even tries to run away from being in the bad video.
* Patricia actually identifies herself as a dog

## Quotes

* “You dummies”
* “Keep the answer in your brain-pockets”
* “He's already painted himself into a corner” on Wolf
* “It's like watching the movie again but slower and with a guy yammering in your ear about how much he hates it” - on Mauler
* “he speaks so much and says so little” - on Mauler
* “the tragic thing is that he does have points in amongst all the observations, he does have actual grievances with the film, its just so padded out that it becomes meaningless” - on Mauler
* “his real opinions are equally bullshit” on MauLer
* “supporting your assessments of quality with examples from the work itself doesn’t actually make it a 'objective,' it just makes it well founded”
* “So no, MauLer doesn’t think his opinion’s are objective, he just thinks his opinions are objective