Sorry but this reeks of "not all era members"
This would be like arguing against the racism and oppression black people suffer from by pointing at what the likes of Kanye West & Candace Owens say.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Buck Angel Sides with Blaire White and JK Rowling, Proving Yet Again Why Contrapoints Defending Him Was Unseemly
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
Sorry but this reeks of "not all era members"
This would be like arguing against the racism and oppression black people suffer from by pointing at what the likes of Kanye West & Candace Owens say.
I agree, and we've gone ahead and updated it accordingly. I apologize for the issues regarding the title prior to this.
Hi, cis guy here. I've been talking to my girlfriend about Contrapoints, letting her know how problematic she is.
I've already unsubscribed and will not be watching her content for the reasons listed in this thread. However, my girlfriend is still a fan, is frustrated and has some concerns. She wonders if it's right that the shitty parts of Contrapoints should outweigh the positive she has done through her videos and social media presence. She argued that the videos have brought attention many marginalized groups. She's concerned that if you silence everyone on the left with problematic views, there's a chance there's going to be no one left to speak up.
Do you feel there is a place where my girlfriend can still support Contrapoints while being critical of some of her views? From reading this thread alone, it's clear you all put up with a lot of shit, over and over again. No problem if you do not want to respond.
I've already unsubscribed and will not be watching her content for the reasons listed in this thread. However, my girlfriend is still a fan, is frustrated and has some concerns. She wonders if it's right that the shitty parts of Contrapoints should outweigh the positive she has done through her videos and social media presence. She argued that the videos have brought attention many marginalized groups. She's concerned that if you silence everyone on the left with problematic views, there's a chance there's going to be no one left to speak up.
Do you feel there is a place where my girlfriend can still support Contrapoints while being critical of some of her views? From reading this thread alone, it's clear you all put up with a lot of shit, over and over again. No problem if you do not want to respond.
All the people complaining about Contra being tied to Buck are ignoring that she tied the knot with him. She vigorously defended him and her association with him, and has never walked back from these things.
Just as we should talk about all of the people who tried to normalize Richard Spencer, we should talk about Contra unapologetically normalizing Buck Angel.
I mean, your GF can do whatever she wants, TBH. However, I will say that despite Contra's good aspects, helping someone and harming someone are not equal. For instance, stealing $100 from someone is a more bad thing than it is good to give $100 to someone.
Just as we should talk about all of the people who tried to normalize Richard Spencer, we should talk about Contra unapologetically normalizing Buck Angel.
I mean, your GF can do whatever she wants, TBH. However, I will say that despite Contra's good aspects, helping someone and harming someone are not equal. For instance, stealing $100 from someone is a more bad thing than it is good to give $100 to someone.
Last edited:
As a fellow cis guy, I would say the problem with Contra is less that she's "problematic", and more that she has a very marked refusal to LEARN from her problematic moments. Further, her shitty parts are big enough that they will ABSOLUTELY be dealbreakers for some people, enough that she's effectively burned bridges with a big chunk with online leftists that used to be part of her audience. If your girlfriend is still inclined to support ContraPoints in spite of her shittier parts, that is completely her decision. However, she should know that not everyone will see eye to eye with her there, and some people WILL judge her for that continued support no matter how much she tries to rationalize it. There's not much she can do to change that.
Nobody can make that judgment but her. We're not a hive mind or council that can bless or endorse someone to free cis people of guilt.
Contrapoints meant a lot to me. I discovered her just when I was coming to terms with my identity in 2018. She was a big help in coping with my questioning phase and decision to come out and live my truth. I will always appreciate that. Still, I haven't watched her latest videos and I unsubscribed to her. That's my personal choice. Would I judge someone for still supporting her? Yes, a little. I wouldn't say your girlfriend is absolutely a horrible, irredeemable person I'd never ever associate with, but I think that's the wrong call. There's nuance to everything. Again, only she can decide what she's comfortable with.
User Banned (1 Month): Ignoring staff post; hostile and dismissive commentary in a sensitive thread. Previously banned for the same.
It really is seeing the forest for the trees and feels like people just want to attack her out of a personal win. If every time Buck says something shitty the topic of conversation is Contrapoints, his platform will keep getting elevated and there can't be a serious conversation about why what he says is problematic.
I more or less feel the same way as your girlfriend, for what it's worth.
The talk of agency is funny, because she also has the agency to not support him and to denounce him after she so vigorously supported him.
She's an adult, she can face consequences for supporting bigoted people.
Or she is someone who gives a horrible bigot a platform and vigorously defends him, and shouldn't be able to dissociate from him unless she owns up to how shitty her behavior is.
It's also not the only reason people dislike her.
Let me be clearer, then: You can attack her for defending Buck, and having him on her show. You cannot blame her for EVERY. FUCKING. THING. he's said since then or will say in the future.
She's not being blamed for what he said. OP was just reminding people that this is the person that, at this exact second, Contrapoint respects.
User Banned (1 Month): Repeatedly refusing to engage with arguments. Previous bans related to trolling.
Then why is this thread mainly about contrapoints, and why did the op state that they wanted to continue tie contra to buck angel, and not really about what he said?
OP
OP
Because people complained about the fact that OP pointed out that Contrapoints continues to support a horrible bigot.
EDIT: Or, maybe this will help:
Why is every post you've made in this thread about Contrapoints?
Some folks came in whining, "it's not contra's fault he says these things so why blame her!?" Without realizing why. They derailed the thread to focus on contra. Ask them for their reasoning for caring that much why folks want to keep it knowledge that contra made him a era household name.
Her name was the first one in the title of the thead when it started. How is it a fucking derail to talk about contra when she's the first person named in the original title?
Because you've literally only been talking about her. You're being surprised that people are only talking about Contra while you are only talking about Contra.
Contra did an awful thing and is doing an awful thing for as long as she continues to implicitly support this ballbag.
OP
OP
I'm sorry I was following the op's wishes and posting about contra...
You've had your questions answered in multiple threads
I feel as if you aren't reading and absorbing the responses in this thread. It is just blind stubbornness or whatever at this point.
I'd say it moves past just "problematic" views when someone uses their platform to actively harm others, something Contrapoints has done on multiple occasions.
I guess the question for Natalie at this point is whether or not she will continue to go to bat for Buck? Has she commented since these most recent developments? Or is she expected to continue to be on Buck's side?
This shit reminds me of the first time we saw Kanye put on a MAGA hat. It's just sad to see people with a lot of spotlight and appeal go this way.
This shit reminds me of the first time we saw Kanye put on a MAGA hat. It's just sad to see people with a lot of spotlight and appeal go this way.
Going to say this once and then I am not wasting my breath, considering with two threads directly related to the transphobia here and complaining and all I seem to be doing is spending three time the amount of my posting defending trans viewpoints-which is really fucked up and backwards if you think about it and just proves the issue is real.
The reason this thread is mostly about Natalie, and no one is saying she condones or made him say anything is that before her video Buck was pretty much a non-entity in the mainstream and cis world. Hell I know who Buck is and I had not thought about him in years.
Thanks to Natalie he now not only has a platform but it extends to mainstream and cis viewers of Contrapoints. As seen many times here (also saw a ton of it in the comments of Jim Sterlings latest video) a lot of cis people have Natalie as their only trans voice of guidance, and they already act as if she is some authority that speaks for all trans people. She is constantly used both here and other places by cis people to bully, talk down to and speak with "authority" over actual trans people, who if you haven't noticed yet as a community are divided at best about her, and even a lot that still like her don't think how cis people act about it is okay.
She brought him to the attention of a new audience, refuses to condemn the things he say (not even him, just his harmful rhetoric and she can't even do that,) used it to moan about cancel culture and question the validity of trans folk, and since is now starting to identify herself by terms he uses (old school trans for instance) giving the mainstream cis audience who already use her as a bludgeon against actual trans people that the view that Buck is okay, which could very well lead to them thinking he is an authority and parrot him against the trans community.
This makes Natalie enabling at best if not downright complicit (along with other things she has said and done makes you wonder what she REALLY thinks about her own community) none of which would be an issue if the majority of cis "allies" didn't act and believe that she is some expert definitive voice that speaks for all of us when she's not, she sure don't speak for me and honestly never has, but I consistently see myself and others talked down to because "Contrapoints said" and she has pretty much given Buck visibility and a platform. So she is explicitly entwined in this and no amount of wish I g otherwise will change that, which has already been explained ad nauseam by multiple people by multiple times that anyone who is still arguing otherwise or trying to seperate her is acting in bad faith.
No ones taking your binkie away, no ones cancelling her, if you don't like it do what I do and ignore the thread, but stop trying to tell the large amount of trans folks, especially those of you who are cis and not trans how to feel or deal with a problem within our community.
The reason this thread is mostly about Natalie, and no one is saying she condones or made him say anything is that before her video Buck was pretty much a non-entity in the mainstream and cis world. Hell I know who Buck is and I had not thought about him in years.
Thanks to Natalie he now not only has a platform but it extends to mainstream and cis viewers of Contrapoints. As seen many times here (also saw a ton of it in the comments of Jim Sterlings latest video) a lot of cis people have Natalie as their only trans voice of guidance, and they already act as if she is some authority that speaks for all trans people. She is constantly used both here and other places by cis people to bully, talk down to and speak with "authority" over actual trans people, who if you haven't noticed yet as a community are divided at best about her, and even a lot that still like her don't think how cis people act about it is okay.
She brought him to the attention of a new audience, refuses to condemn the things he say (not even him, just his harmful rhetoric and she can't even do that,) used it to moan about cancel culture and question the validity of trans folk, and since is now starting to identify herself by terms he uses (old school trans for instance) giving the mainstream cis audience who already use her as a bludgeon against actual trans people that the view that Buck is okay, which could very well lead to them thinking he is an authority and parrot him against the trans community.
This makes Natalie enabling at best if not downright complicit (along with other things she has said and done makes you wonder what she REALLY thinks about her own community) none of which would be an issue if the majority of cis "allies" didn't act and believe that she is some expert definitive voice that speaks for all of us when she's not, she sure don't speak for me and honestly never has, but I consistently see myself and others talked down to because "Contrapoints said" and she has pretty much given Buck visibility and a platform. So she is explicitly entwined in this and no amount of wish I g otherwise will change that, which has already been explained ad nauseam by multiple people by multiple times that anyone who is still arguing otherwise or trying to seperate her is acting in bad faith.
No ones taking your binkie away, no ones cancelling her, if you don't like it do what I do and ignore the thread, but stop trying to tell the large amount of trans folks, especially those of you who are cis and not trans how to feel or deal with a problem within our community.
You are not being slick here you know? At this point you are no better than a troll.
I've kind of debated posting this since this thread popped up, so I'm note sure if this is the place or time for it. If this post is full of shit, I'll acknowledge that and try to learn. I'm trying to be a good ally to everyone but I can't say I understand all the criticism I've read about Contrapoints. Disclaimer: I have not followed Nat after the initial Buck Angel shit went down because that did leave me conflicted enough that I haven't been comfortable watching her content anymore, so I'm not sure about all the more recent stuff that she might've said on her platforms (other than a couple of tweets of hers on my seldomly used Twitter account that people I follow have liked and as such have happened to pop up on my feed during my ~once a month Twitter excursion), but some questions that still linger in my mind are:
-why do people say she is anti-non-binary? Like, I've seen her say multiple times (in her videos that I've seen & on twitter) that she thinks non-binary people exist & are 100% valid. No ifs or buts. If she has ever said something that could maybe be construed as anti-NB, from how I've seen it, she's generally just talked about stuff from her own trans woman POV and it hasn't been any kind of "nothing else outside of this exists" statement, and if anything she has said has seemed that way, she has generally corrected that in the next video. Like, she's talked about non-binary people, gender fluid people etc.in a manner that at least to me has seemed pretty respectful and validating, in a matter of fact manner that hasn't denied those demographics or anything
-why do people claim she acts as if she's the ultimate authority on anything & everything? Like, to me it's clear that she's always talking about these things from her own, white, binary trans POV, not as if nothing outside of her type of trans people exist. And she's often specifically acknowledged non-binary/other trans demographics, though generally still avoided speaking too much on their behalf because she isn't non-binary/gender fluid/anything other than a trans woman. And whenever she talks about stuff like aesthetics, I don't think she has said that nothing else is valid, more about just what she & many other trans women are pursuing and how society unfortunately still views transgender people (& women especially). It's never that she even thinks things should be that way or that every trans woman should be that way, just how things kind of currently are and how she herself is trying to navigate that. She hasn't said other approaches to express their non-cis gender aren't valid.
-while she was too soft on Buck Angel & massively screwed up with his participation in her video in the first place, why so much vitrol for not giving up on trying to talk some sense to Buck or, perhaps more importantly, people like him (at least before this most recent thing)? Like, her whole platform has always been about trying to reach usually pretty shitty people on the other side of the political/ideological argument. Trying to explain & understand where Buck is coming from is not much different from how she has tried to explain & understand where all the alt-right shitheels are coming from that she is trying to push towards trans acceptance.
-why do people say she is anti-non-binary? Like, I've seen her say multiple times (in her videos that I've seen & on twitter) that she thinks non-binary people exist & are 100% valid. No ifs or buts. If she has ever said something that could maybe be construed as anti-NB, from how I've seen it, she's generally just talked about stuff from her own trans woman POV and it hasn't been any kind of "nothing else outside of this exists" statement, and if anything she has said has seemed that way, she has generally corrected that in the next video. Like, she's talked about non-binary people, gender fluid people etc.in a manner that at least to me has seemed pretty respectful and validating, in a matter of fact manner that hasn't denied those demographics or anything
-why do people claim she acts as if she's the ultimate authority on anything & everything? Like, to me it's clear that she's always talking about these things from her own, white, binary trans POV, not as if nothing outside of her type of trans people exist. And she's often specifically acknowledged non-binary/other trans demographics, though generally still avoided speaking too much on their behalf because she isn't non-binary/gender fluid/anything other than a trans woman. And whenever she talks about stuff like aesthetics, I don't think she has said that nothing else is valid, more about just what she & many other trans women are pursuing and how society unfortunately still views transgender people (& women especially). It's never that she even thinks things should be that way or that every trans woman should be that way, just how things kind of currently are and how she herself is trying to navigate that. She hasn't said other approaches to express their non-cis gender aren't valid.
-while she was too soft on Buck Angel & massively screwed up with his participation in her video in the first place, why so much vitrol for not giving up on trying to talk some sense to Buck or, perhaps more importantly, people like him (at least before this most recent thing)? Like, her whole platform has always been about trying to reach usually pretty shitty people on the other side of the political/ideological argument. Trying to explain & understand where Buck is coming from is not much different from how she has tried to explain & understand where all the alt-right shitheels are coming from that she is trying to push towards trans acceptance.
Yeap they've been doing this through multiple threads, not showing a shred of good-faith discussion, constantly falling back to the same exact question asked 20 times after ignoring 50 responses to it, and ending off with snarky hand-waving nonsense that continues to ignore all the responses they've specifically prompted for on repeat.
I don't understand how this is allowed. Specifically asking the same question, never engaging with the answers, and falling back to empty hostile remarks. Repeatedly, through multiple threads. We've even pointed out this behaviour multiple times, still no change, no acknowledgement.
It's because the videos your looking for that explains her behavior criticising non binary folks were patreon exclusive so the context for this thread is reliant on the folks whatched the videos (there were more than one)and all the outrage. It caused her fanbase to start attacking other members of the community by claiming that the response has lead her becoming an alcoholic again. She accused anyone who had actual criticism of her when she came out with the buck angel support of being take trans people with an agenda and being no better than kiwifarms in their stalker behavior. Obviously this was very a lie and she also ended up throwing real trans people under the bus who were not involved wiith her at all a thing Jk Rowling recently did I hope this helps!
Last edited:
I can say that even I, as a cis guy, get tired when I read posts like yours, no offence. All this points have been discussed ad-nauseum in multiple thread here at this point, I'd recommend you to read them, and all the wonderful posts made by the trans posters here in Era. I understand where you come from, but this is not an excuse to call the reaction "vitriol" or use arguments like "she thinks non-binary people exist & are 100% valid" as if that would excuse defending a known transphobe.
But I guess that's expected, you ask "why do people claim she acts as if she's the ultimate authority on anything & everything", while defending her from any criticism with uneducated assumptions as if she was the said ultimate authority...
Last edited:
So nothing has changed when it comes to trans people having the gall to just discuss their concerns around Contrapoints and the yass queen defense force suddenly coming in, shouting down people and derailing.
Seeing the same faces do it as the last times, that referred to us as "these people" before. Ya. Feels great. Thanks for the logo change tho.
Seeing the same faces do it as the last times, that referred to us as "these people" before. Ya. Feels great. Thanks for the logo change tho.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Never should have happened in the first place. And regardless, that still happened. So I stand by what was said.
What's wrong with all these fuckers and why can't they just leave people alone and mind their own business😔
Every one of these threads just takes the wind right out of my sails. I have to work so hard to be who I'm meant to be in this society, and having to also work hard to make it digestible for cis people is breaking my back. I know I don't do a very good job of being part of the trans family here on Era, but I'm here for any one of us. I'm so tired.
I'm sorry I was following the op's wishes and posting about contra...
But you ONLY post about Contra. Nothing you've said in this thread provides any reason for any poster to reply to you about anything but Contra, so you've literally contributed nothing towards the discussion of Buck Angel, despite how important you think it is to do so.
If people weren't complaining about Contrapoints being associated with a person she respects while he commits terrible acts of bigotry, the problem would have been solved long ago. You're essentially complaining that people replied to the things you posted.
Considering the environment sometimes anyone still staying within the trans family residence here is doing well honestly. Don't beat yourself up, you're golden 💜
You do as much as you can when you can and that's all anyone can ask, it's all good and while you don't post much when you do it's usually pretty timely, but it's not a contest we are supposed to be in this together.
Last edited:
It's asking a hell of a lot, and it's shitty. The burden to make things right absolutely shouldn't rest solely on the shoulders of the marginalized. It's time to listen.
Saw this and then in the replies, a cis terf who doesn't realize Buck is one of them starts calling him names.
How do the boomer bootlickers in any oppressed minority compartmentalize the fact that the people who they are aligning themselves with still don't see them as human, no matter what stance they take?
OP
OP
OP
OP
No fucking surprise. Won't be shocked if Rowling starts pulling some "All Lives Matter" bs in the midsts of her own plummet.
OP
OP
Y'know I try not to be cynical but that's exactly what I would guess her next round of bullshit would be. If we were playing bigot bingo or something.
So many people in here trying to defend Contra but is anything even stopping her from just...not being shitty to other transfolk? It's absolutely reasonable to hold her accountable to that very low bar of acceptable behavior.
Let them fight I guess? Yikes.
My love for HP is already a husk thanks to Rowling's cruelty. Shit's inexcusable.
Somewhere there is a porn set that needs to wrangle their Buck and get his bigoted against his own people ass off of Twitter.
Even with his shitiness of all things even he should have a vocal stance against Berrys interview, but nope, in for a penny in for a pound.
Even with his shitiness of all things even he should have a vocal stance against Berrys interview, but nope, in for a penny in for a pound.
Oh, that reminds me: Lindsay Ellis had the gall to put out a video telling people that they should probably ditch the harry potter franchise, because of all the damage Rowling is doing by using her fame and fortune to promote the TERF agenda. Which on it's own, is a position I have no issue with. I'm completely done with Harry Potter myself. But I don't care to be lectured about this by Lindsay Ellis, given that she refuses to hold her friend accountable to this very day. In fact, she promoted contrapoints RIGHT UNDER her fucking JK Rowling video:
Does Lindsay not realize how tone deaf and hypocritical this is? It's no wonder contrapoints don't take all the people who have rightfully criticized her seriously. All her closest friends are still backing her up.
Last edited:
I don't understand what transgender even means to this dude if he wants a ciswoman playing a transgender man that she describes in female pronouns and terms.
Lol I feel the exact same way about the matter. I agreed with the opinions she said in the video but it is extremely hypocritical of her and almost laughable. I'm so glad I dropped her from my subscriptions.Oh, that reminds me: Lindsay Ellis had the gall to put out a video telling people that they should probably ditch the harry potter franchise, because of all the damage Rowling is doing by using her fame and fortune to promote the TERF agenda. Which on it's own, is a position I have no issue with. I'm completely done with Harry Potter myself. But I don't care to be lectured about this by Lindsay Ellis, given that she refuses to hold her friend accountable to this very day. In fact, she promoted contrapoints RIGHT UNDER her fucking JK Rowling video:
Does Lindsay not realize how tone deaf and hypocritical this is? It's no wonder contrapoints don't take all the people who have rightfully criticized her seriously. All her closest friends are still backing her up.