Anti-Dex Broom vs Mop @onesheeptwosheepandachicken - Tumblr Blog

215 Positive RWBY Youtuber Channels for people to Enjoy RWBY

Ever since Roosterteeth took RWBY off of their channel, misinformation about RWBY skyrocketed. I’m sure that when you type in RWBY onto youtube, all you see is negativity.

Self-righteousness is one heck of a drug that rwby bashers are on.

Point is...it’s HARD to find RWBY Youtube channels that are actually positive and are about enjoying the show!

So I’ve built this list of 215 Youtube channels to help the fandom

This is my final list....I won’t be expanding it any further...I WILL however try to build a list of fanfic writers on AO3 next.

I do hope this helps everyone, as it will be the biggest list I’ve ever built for the fandom and community.

1. Ember’s Hot Takes

- What Made Me Love RWBY -By Ember Productions , a MODERATE reviewer, who focuses on CONSTRUCTIVE reviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quHl3RLlMJA

2. Cherished Forever: RWBY -By Diamondbolt, who appreciates each show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjGpFO6dcWI

3. The thing that made me care about RWBY again -By AllisonAreYou who gave a pro-rwby video in v6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC6zxABh_1A

4. RWBY is good, you guys are just mean. -By Garrick Shultz

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyJeDXv1W1_v3l-fXzR2Yjg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCulnnoOsdQ

5. Let’s Talk RWBY *POSITIVE RANT* By Jo Alva

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6eqP0NIGu3U96FE7Atx7Bw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-zRI-WSBCA

#rwby #rwby fandom #rwby mmd #rwby crack #rwby amv #rwby youtube #rwby community #Rooster Teeth #rwby fan animation #rwby comic dub #rwby edits #rwby abridged #rwby fanfiction #rwbytubers #rwby discussion #rwby analysis #rwby react #rwby fndm

lesbianeo

🍎 Snow White & The Knight 🍎 YukiOWN 🍎 (Colored)

radicalafterdark

Reddit - Please wait for verification

GeekMaster102’s reply doesn’t just miss the mark—it actively undermines its own arguments through overconfidence, misrepresentation, and a pretty glaring lack of nuance. What’s being presented as a “correction” is mostly bluster wrapped around selective reading and false equivalencies.

First, the Yang point collapses under its own defensiveness. The criticism was never that Yang is a chronic alcoholic—that’s a strawman GeekMaster invented so he could knock it down. The actual issue raised is tonal and thematic consistency: whether making Yang an underage drinker meaningfully aligns with her established character and contributes to her arc. Instead of engaging that, he pivots to “teenagers drink, it’s normal,” which is both reductive and irrelevant. Fiction isn’t obligated to mirror “normal teenage irresponsibility” unless it serves a narrative purpose. That’s the entire point being argued—and one he never actually addresses.

Worse, he claims the behavior “fits” because it shows Yang distancing herself from her team, but that’s retroactive justification, not organic characterization. If a trait appears briefly, is framed for shock value, and then disappears without consequence, it doesn’t read as a carefully integrated flaw—it reads as a writing shortcut. Pointing to a single explanatory conversation doesn’t fix that; it just highlights how thin the setup is. He accuses the other person of missing something “spelled out,” but what’s actually happening is that he’s overvaluing exposition as a substitute for consistent character writing.

The Mercury argument is even more brittle because it relies on outright exaggeration. Claiming that Mercury “has never been shown to care about Emerald at any point” is a sweeping absolute that ignores the character’s subtler dynamics. Mercury isn’t affectionate, but he does engage with Emerald in a way that suggests familiarity and a degree of mutual reliance. His “harsh reality check” moment works precisely because it’s grounded in that dynamic—it’s not kindness, but it’s not apathy either. GeekMaster flattens that into “he couldn’t give less of a shit,” which is less an interpretation and more a refusal to engage with subtext.

The alignment chart comparison (“neutral evil vs chaotic evil”) doesn’t strengthen his point either—it trivializes it. Slapping D&D labels onto characters isn’t analysis; it’s categorization. It reduces complex interpersonal behavior into a meme-level shorthand and then treats that shorthand as evidence. And bringing up Volume 8 as proof just highlights the inconsistency: character behavior evolving over time doesn’t retroactively erase earlier nuance. If anything, it reinforces the idea that Mercury isn’t a static, one-note sociopath.

Hazel is where GeekMaster’s argument really unravels, because he tries to replace emotional logic with literal logic—and fundamentally misunderstands how characters work in the process. The claim that Hazel has “no reason” to hate Ozpin because Ozpin didn’t directly kill his sister is painfully narrow. Grief doesn’t operate on courtroom causality. Hazel’s anger is rooted in blame, ideology, and misdirected pain—Ozpin represents the system that put his sister in harm’s way. That’s not “throwing common sense out the window,” that is common human behavior under trauma.

His hit-and-run metaphor is especially telling, because it oversimplifies the situation to force a conclusion. Ozpin isn’t a random crosswalk sign; he’s the headmaster, the authority figure, the one who recruits and trains Huntsmen. In Hazel’s perspective, he’s complicit. You can disagree with that logic, but pretending it’s incomprehensible is disingenuous. Ironically, in trying to make the rewrite seem more “logical,” GeekMaster strips away the emotional core that made Hazel compelling in the first place. Turning his motivation into a more direct, mechanical grievance might make it cleaner, but it also makes it shallower.

And then there’s the Vernal section, which leans heavily on condescension to mask a weak rebuttal. “You must not have been paying attention” isn’t an argument—it’s a deflection. The defense hinges on the idea that making Vernal Raven’s daughter adds thematic tension for Yang, which is fine in theory, but that doesn’t automatically make it effective in execution. The original critique is about the change feeling unearned and artificially significant, and GeekMaster never actually disproves that. He just explains the intended purpose and assumes that intention equals success.

His justification of Vernal’s behavior—“she’s a kid, of course she’s a brat”—also misses the point. The issue isn’t that she has flaws; it’s that those flaws don’t translate into a compelling or engaging character. There’s a difference between intentional characterization and irritating presence, and dismissing that distinction as “you’re complaining that a character has flaws” is either willfully obtuse or intellectually lazy.

Across all four points, the same pattern repeats: misrepresent the criticism, respond to a weaker version of it, and then pad the response with condescension and overstatements. There’s very little actual engagement with the core arguments—just a lot of “you’re wrong because you didn’t understand,” without demonstrating a stronger understanding in return.

In the end, GeekMaster102 isn’t really defending the rewrite so much as shielding it. And there’s a difference: a defense invites scrutiny and holds up under pressure; this response tries to shut that scrutiny down before it even starts.

radicalafterdark

Reddit - Please wait for verification

Yeah…I’m not rocking with this comment.

First, it treats a character’s narrative function as if it should be replaced by the protagonists being more competent. That’s not necessarily good storytelling. Characters exist to contribute to the plot, reveal information, build relationships, and make the world feel interconnected. Saying “RWBY should have figured it out themselves” is effectively arguing for less involvement from supporting characters, not more.

Second, it misunderstands why Terra’s role matters. The point isn’t that Team RWBY is incapable of finding the tower. The point is that Terra has specialized knowledge because she works within Argus’s communications infrastructure. In many stories, protagonists rely on locals, experts, and allies. That’s not incompetence; it’s realism. Nobody knows everything.

Third, Terra’s involvement adds personal stakes. By helping the heroes, she takes a risk. The audience sees that ordinary civilians are willing to contribute to stopping Salem’s forces. Removing her participation doesn’t just remove a piece of information—it removes a character choice and the consequences attached to it.

Fourth, the argument accidentally proves the opposite point. If Terra can be removed from the story without replacement, then yes, critics are justified in saying her role became less important. Whether that’s a flaw depends on what FRWBY was trying to accomplish, but it is objectively a reduction in her agency and narrative relevance compared to canon.

Finally, there’s a broader issue with the “if the heroes had any skills” remark. Competent protagonists still rely on assistance. In fact, highly competent teams often know when to consult experts rather than attempting to do everything themselves. Blake learning how to disable the tower from Terra isn’t evidence of incompetence; it’s evidence of using available resources.

radicalafterdark

Reddit - Please wait for verification

The claim that RWBY can never be good again because it was “a product of its time” is less a critical analysis of the series and more an expression of personal nostalgia. While the post attempts to explain why the franchise has lost its appeal, its argument ultimately relies on emotional reasoning, hero worship, and an idealized view of the past rather than evidence. By conflating personal disappointment with objective reality, the author fails to demonstrate that RWBY is incapable of succeeding in the future. Instead, the post reveals more about the author’s feelings regarding the passage of time than it does about the quality of the series itself.

One of the most significant flaws in the argument is its assumption that the author’s experience is universal. The post repeatedly asks readers if they remember the excitement of watching Ruby Rose fight Roman Torchwick for the first time, listening to the show’s music, or theorizing about future story developments. These memories are familiar to many longtime fans. However, the author then makes the sweeping assertion that “those feelings are never coming back.” This conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. The fact that one individual no longer experiences the same excitement they felt years ago does not mean that others cannot. New audiences continue to discover older works and become passionate about them. Moreover, even longtime fans can find renewed enjoyment in stories through rewatching, reinterpretation, or future installments. What the author presents as an objective truth is merely a reflection of their personal inability to recreate the emotions associated with their first viewing experience.

The post also engages in excessive mythologizing of Monty Oum, the creator of RWBY. Describing the series as “the love child of a passionate creative powerhouse fit into the vessel of a human called Monty Oum” elevates him to an almost supernatural status. While Oum was undoubtedly a talented animator and visionary creator, RWBY was never the work of a single individual. The series depended on writers, animators, voice actors, composers, artists, editors, and numerous other contributors. By reducing the show’s success entirely to Oum’s influence, the author ignores the collaborative nature of animation production. This perspective creates the misleading impression that RWBY effectively died with its creator, despite the fact that many talented individuals continued working on the project after his passing. Such a view oversimplifies both the history of the series and the realities of creative collaboration.

Another major weakness is the author’s claim that RWBY emerged from a fundamentally better world than the one that exists today. The post argues that both RWBY and Rooster Teeth were products of “a time of certainty, charm, fun, and entertainment,” while modern society is characterized by selfishness and decline. However, this assertion is unsupported by evidence. The early 2010s were hardly free of political polarization, economic uncertainty, social conflict, or cultural controversy. Every era has its own challenges and shortcomings. What the author is actually describing is not a better world but a period in their life when they personally felt more optimistic and entertained. This distinction is crucial. Nostalgia often encourages people to remember positive experiences while overlooking negative realities. As a result, the past appears more appealing than it truly was. The author’s argument depends heavily on this nostalgic distortion.

The post further weakens its credibility by treating creativity as though it were a resource that has permanently disappeared. According to the author, a show with charm, memorable music, exciting action, and unique style “cannot exist like it did back then.” Yet there is no evidence supporting such a claim. New creative works continue to emerge every year, attracting devoted audiences and generating cultural impact. Talented artists, writers, musicians, and animators have not ceased to exist simply because the entertainment landscape has changed. The author’s reasoning effectively boils down to the idea that because they no longer enjoy modern media in the same way, modern media is incapable of being enjoyable. This conclusion is neither logical nor persuasive.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the post is its overwhelming sense of fatalism. Throughout the piece, the author insists that RWBY can never recover, improve, or regain its former appeal. Statements such as “it’s not possible for this show to ever be good again” and “it will dry up wither decay and die” are presented as facts rather than arguments. No evidence is offered to support these predictions. History demonstrates that creative works can recover from poor periods, franchises can reinvent themselves, and audiences can respond positively to new directions. Whether RWBY will successfully do so is a matter of debate. However, declaring its failure inevitable is not analysis; it is speculation fueled by pessimism.

The essay’s concluding remarks further illustrate this problem. The final statement about living in a “fallen world” filled with “monsters in the sky” abandons any attempt at reasoned criticism in favor of apocalyptic rhetoric. Rather than strengthening the argument, it reinforces the impression that the author’s perspective is driven primarily by despair and disillusionment. The result is a conclusion that feels disconnected from the subject of RWBY and more reflective of a broader dissatisfaction with contemporary life.

Ultimately, the post fails as a critical assessment of RWBY because it substitutes nostalgia for evidence and pessimism for argumentation. Its portrayal of the past is romanticized, its treatment of Monty Oum is exaggerated, and its predictions about the future are unsupported. What emerges is not a convincing explanation for why RWBY can never succeed again, but a personal reflection on lost excitement and changing circumstances. While such feelings are understandable, they do not constitute a compelling critique of the series itself. Rather than proving that RWBY is doomed, the post demonstrates how easily nostalgia can be mistaken for objective analysis.

clacy2812

Katara's space is Aang's space too

Support on Kofi or Patreon

desttph

bumbleby but colored now :D

transwiththeplans

After finding out like one guy runs the entirety of the r/rwbycritics subreddit, as the sole moderator, it makes sense why some of these low effort posts made it through

The last one is the most aggregious to me

“Yeah, Ironwood’s decent into villainy, Adam’s character assassination, Bumblebee, and many others are all terrible, but nothing has made me angrier than Blake dancing.”

The main subreddit is cowering to a guy who will gladly let things like this slide. I don’t even care if the guy who runs the subreddit sees this post since I know he lurks and “um actually” posts about this stuff.

I hope he becomes the “grand corruptor” of a grocery store or something because learning this piece of information invalidates every argument made

transwiththeplans

yeah i do not trust these people to have critical mindsets

onesheeptwosheepandachicken

I'm sorry...WHAT?!

transwiththeplans

Unfortunately someone on my fanfic server pointed me to the existence of r/cardinposting, the most hetero/incel RWBY subreddit there is.

And yes, one guy is responsible for most of the most upvoted posts on this subreddit. That’s so sad.

unhingedpolls

Does RWBY really like women?

Yes

Sorta

Voting ended onMar 15

transwiththeplans

After finding out like one guy runs the entirety of the r/rwbycritics subreddit, as the sole moderator, it makes sense why some of these low effort posts made it through

The last one is the most aggregious to me

“Yeah, Ironwood’s decent into villainy, Adam’s character assassination, Bumblebee, and many others are all terrible, but nothing has made me angrier than Blake dancing.”

I hope he becomes the “grand corruptor” of a grocery store or something because learning this piece of information invalidates every argument made

transwiththeplans

Unfortunately someone on my fanfic server pointed me to the existence of r/cardinposting, the most hetero/incel RWBY subreddit there is.

And yes, one guy is responsible for most of the most upvoted posts on this subreddit. That’s so sad.

weissbelladonnahan

More of a vent post, But I while I don't hate Jaune, I get so annoyed that when I search the f/f rwby fics or even just the rwby tag on tumblr I will always see a Jaune haremslop fic or posts, like he deserves better than to be the blank self insert male character. But like why do they have to tag them as f/f every time leave that out of the femslash tag.

matt0044

The RWDE doesn't want RWBY to "improve."

If RWBY improved and did what they wanted of it, what would any of them be left with to whinge about?

That's why they can't pack it in.

asm5129

I was trying to give Fixing RWBY an honest shot just so I could best have my own arguments concerning it, and while I still plan to make my way through it i was using nitter to scroll through his posts on twitter and found out that he has repeatedly targeted @tumblingxelian personally. And not in the sense of discussion or concern like my work on hbomerguy’s video—no, this is mean. Spiteful. You can tell by the posts and the thumbnails alone that this is not about anything but being angry someone makes an effort to regularly praise the parts of RWBY they love.

Any good faith i was attempting to go in with (on principle, and to have the most objective criticisms of the material rather than merely taking common FNDM criticisms as my own) has been lost by this discovery.

To me this is far more damning of his character than a shitty fanfic.

https://nitter.net/Raymond_McNeil/search?f=tweets&q=Xel

anotherevilenby

It's always quite funny when someone tries to respond to the valid points about how a lot of hate that RWBY gets is rooted in misogyny, by arguing that the show itself is misogynistic, and then in the process they reveal their own misogynistic biases by purposefully misrepresenting female characters to make their arguments sound better.

desinteresse

Men who talk shit about gold diggers underestimate the grit it takes to put up with an insufferable man, even when money is involved. We should be thanking them for their service like they are veterans.

little-trash-ghost

Can't leave this in the tags..

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Anti-Dex Broom vs Mop