ContraPoints | Canceling

Spirit of Jazz · Jan 2, 2020

KarneeKarnay said:
1. Complaints about length without even watching the video is pretty poor criticism.

It's not though. What people want is a decent apology. That doesn't take 2 hours. The fact it's titled around cancel culture is also a pretty huge red flag. Why should anybody who's felt targeted by her give her two hours when that's the title she goes with?

The first big plus about the length is that people who have been critical of her aren't going to be interested in watching something that length because she's repeatedly made the same play. However, her loyal fans are going to watch it instantly and lap it up because they're fans.

The other thing's in regards to the video's content. People trying to claim it's a complex topic that requires nuance are simply wrong. Her bigoted statements/actions were simple. The added "complexity" and "nuance" is simply her flailing attempt to justify her actions rather than just apologise and learn from the mistake. It's clear that's never going to happen and it's clear the same people defending her bigotry in the past are going to continue to do so.

Deleted member 24149 · Jan 2, 2020

Border said:
Her own experience with being cancelled was so nasty that she doesn't think the person she'd name should have to experience the same thing. EDIT: At least that's how I took it, I'm not sure if she explicitly said that.

Maybe we should Fix The Broken Stairs

Deleted member 24149 · Jan 2, 2020

Spirit of Jazz said:
It's not though. What people want is a decent apology. That doesn't take 2 hours. The fact it's titled around cancel culture is also a pretty huge red flag. Why should anybody who's felt targeted by her give her two hours when that's the title she goes with?

The first big plus about the length is that people who have been critical of her aren't going to be interested in watching something that length because she's repeatedly made the same play. However, her loyal fans are going to watch it instantly and lap it up because they're fans.

The other thing's in regards to the video's content. People trying to claim it's a complex topic that requires nuance are simply wrong. Her bigoted statements/actions were simple. The added "complexity" and "nuance" is simply her flailing attempt to justify her actions rather than just apologise and learn from the mistake. It's clear that's never going to happen and it's clear the same people defending her bigotry in the past are going to continue to do so.

Another benefit of having a 100 fucking minute runtime is that both sides can cherry pick points supporting their own view points and muddle the fucking conservation and completely sidestep the last 4 months of conversations including the shakeup that forced this forum's administrators to do in regards to moderation.

Snack12367 · Jan 2, 2020

ScribbleD said:
You keep moaning about this, but to what end? Who are you even calling out? Who are all of these people having no discussion beyond "too long"

Because I'm reading a lot of people discussing the wider context in addition to explaining why demands that everyone watch a 2 hour video is not reasonable.

Name names. Who's doing this and how big of an impact have they had on this thread? Because so far one of the main people I've seen you arguing with is an NB person who has been a pillar of Era's LGBTQIA+ community. You've called them ignorant and uneducated on the subject, and they sure as hell had a lot more to say than "too long didn't watch"

2 things. Three pages in here are a list of posts that are just commenting on the length.

Melkr_ said:
1:40?

I am sorry mom, but no.

Distantmantra said:
Why the hell is this 1 hour 40 minutes long? This is why I can't get into podcasts/youtube regardless of the subject. Radio hosts/journalists do a wonderful job of being succinct and getting their point across in shorter periods of time.

NameUser said:
Yeah I'm fine with longer videos, but ones like this start to feel masturbatory. She could get her point across in 20 minutes.

mbpm said:
Yeah the length itself feels like a defense mechanism. It reminds me of gish galloping, although it's not the same thing. Will still try to give this a whirl later

Juna said:
It's pretty difficult to take an apology serious if it's embedded into a 100 minute long video about cancel culture. Even more if you need to watch all of it to understand the apology.

We can split hairs about some of these but I think I'm more than justified on commenting about it.

Secondly, if you want to know why I called this person uneducated, here is our conversation chain.

KarneeKarnay said:
People will spend literally hours arguing in a thread, but won't put on a long video. Smh

You don't have to do it. You don't have to do anything, but don't just put dismiss the video or shit on it in a thread, just because it's a little long. Lord help us if people feel like Macbeth is too long.

Kyuuji said:
I'm watching it tomorrow because it's 11:30pm and I'd rather not have that before hitting the hay. You can shake your head as much as you like but don't dismiss or assume on behalf of people here as to why they're critical of Wynn, the video or might be reluctant to watch it off the rip.

At this point, the only people I have dismissed is the people who have commented that it's too long and that's it. I dont know why this person is making this about themselves or saying that I'm dismissing people who are critical of Wynn or of the video content.

KarneeKarnay said:
Damn. It's like my comment is directed towards the multiple people only complaining about the length of the video and not on those with criticism of Whyn or the actual content.

Do you think people offer much to the conversation if they drive by just to say shit too long?

Again I am clear that this is only about the group complaining about length. Nothing else. See how I'm being consistent.

Kyuuji said:
Being frank I don't think people offer much to the conversation without a broader understanding of the past year of incidents around Natalie and the NB community.

What the fuck is this? Firstly it sounds like this person is agreeing with me that you probably should know a little about the context before commenting, but then they make this bullshit appeal to authority. Either thet are implying I dont know as much as them on these areas, therefore I shouldn't comment about the video or others, or that only people with knowledge of these areas should comment.

It's so dumb to gate keep on stuff like this, because I have no idea who this person is and they have no idea who I am or what I could know. So what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing should comment other than to try and invalidate someone else? It's almost like saying "I can see you are uneducated on the topic."

Deleted member 18360 · Jan 2, 2020

Tfritz said:
this was never really her brand, tbh

I'm not looking to start some kind of precise discussion about what is or isn't her brand when my point is that she (along with a lot of "left tube") are imo politically unambitious or that I was already breaking from her content for reasons unrelated to this whole thing.

Icemonk191 · Jan 2, 2020

KarneeKarnay said:
2 things. Three pages in here are a list of posts that are just commenting on the length.

We can split hairs about some of these but I think I'm more than justified on commenting about it.

Secondly, if you want to know why I called this person uneducated, here is our conversation chain.

At this point, the only people I have dismissed is the people who have commented that it's too long and that's it. I dont know why this person is making this about themselves or saying that I'm dismissing people who are critical of Wynn or of the video content.

Again I am clear that this is only about the group complaining about length. Nothing else. See how I'm being consistent.

What the fuck is this? Firstly it sounds like this person is agreeing with me that you probably should know a little about the context before commenting, but then they make this bullshit appeal to authority. Either thet are implying I dont know as much as them on these areas, therefore I shouldn't comment about the video or others, or that only people with knowledge of these areas should comment.

It's so dumb to gate keep on stuff like this, because I have no idea who this person is and they have no idea who I am or what I could know. So what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing should comment other than to try and invalidate someone else? It's almost like saying "I can see you are uneducated on the topic."

spam musubi · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
Same!

But that incident did lead to me to discover Angie Speaks, Kat Blaque and Peter Coffin, all great voices that do not fit neatly in the leftube mold.

Bringing up Peter Coffin in this context is kind of ironic, considering his big rise to fame was allegedly making up a Japanese girlfriend for years (using photos of a Korean model) and telling extremely racist (and sexist) jokes about asians and harassing actual asian models through "her" account, and he has somehow rebranded himself as a leftist darling. I guess this all predates cancel culture but I'm wondering if it will come back up at some point.

https://jezebel.com/the-ultimate-fake-girlfriend-story-5785763

Snack12367 · Jan 2, 2020

People on this forum complain about people not bringing receipts all the time. I brought them

Veelk · Jan 2, 2020

ScribbleD said:
For those who have watched the video, watch's the context behind this

Border said:
Her own experience with being cancelled was so nasty that she doesn't think the person she'd name should have to experience the same thing. EDIT: At least that's how I took it, I'm not sure if she explicitly said that.

Partially, it is that - she says that this cancelling experience is far worse than anything alt-right trolls have put her through - but also she is talking about how when a person gets canceled, it's not just that person that suffers. Anyone around them suffers. Her quote before this (paraphrased) is that if a cishet person defends her, the are labeled a transphobe and if a binary person defends her, they are labeled an nb-phobe and if a nb person defends her, they are ostracized from their own community.

The reason she doesn't believe that the cancel culture leads to justice is because the cancel process isn't about Natalie's career, but about cutting her off from her community. People who like her cannot be seen with her because then they are guilty by association, and in turn anyone who is seen standing with them gets labeled as guilty by association as well. This happened to Mia Mulder, another trans woman, who liked a tweet by Philosophy Tube, who made a statement saying that he was being harassed because he didn't disavow Contrapoints. Mia hasn't even ever worked or talked to Contrapoints, but she has to disavow her as well.

That's why Contrapoints says she doesn't see this as justice. Canceling, in her experience, is a buzzsaw approach to cut the person off from any sense of community so they feel alone, which if a person has no other support structure can be extremely traumatizing, which doesn't just have a shockwave effect to people who her friends and people who have nothing to do with her, but also it isn't actually about the person learning or growing to be a better person. It's just a "do right by us, or else" type of threat that explodes not just her life, but everyone around her, and then everyone around them, often through misinformation.

Just to be clear, I'm merely summarizing the context what was conveyed in the video as requested.

Deleted member 2426 · Jan 2, 2020

I am sorry but 1h40m is super self indulgent.

Oddish1 · Jan 2, 2020

I thought it was a good video.

Deleted member 24149 · Jan 2, 2020

KarneeKarnay said:
What the fuck is this? Firstly it sounds like this person is agreeing with me that you probably should know a little about the context before commenting, but then they make this bullshit appeal to authority. Either thet are implying I dont know as much as them on these areas, therefore I shouldn't comment about the video or others, or that only people with knowledge of these areas should comment.

It's so dumb to gate keep on stuff like this, because I have no idea who this person is and they have no idea who I am or what I could know. So what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing should comment other than to try and invalidate someone else? It's almost like saying "I can see you are uneducated on the topic."

God have mercy on my soul.

Geist · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
Yeah sorry the Buck Angel section is actually worse than the people defending her summarized

She got inspired by these quotes

From him, which btw are basically you hate me because you're hurt and you hate yourself

And then she admits she knew he was hated going in to getting him on her show but trans Twitter hates everyone so who cares.

This isn't an apology it's an outright defense of the man.

Done with the video and I'm really hung up on this. I want to give her the benefit of doubt so bad but her apparent loyalty to Buck Angel is just such a bad look, especially the pedestal she seems to have put the above messages. She makes a lot of good points and the whole video feels like a authentic look at her opinions on the matter because of her experiences over the past few months give her unique perspective. Like, I really feel for her because it seems like she's suffered quite a bit. But at the same time it feels like she's learned the wrong lessons. :-\

Snack12367 · Jan 2, 2020

Fiye said:
God have mercy on my soul.

"

Deleted member 20630 · Jan 2, 2020

KarneeKarnay said:
What the fuck is this? Firstly it sounds like this person is agreeing with me that you probably should know a little about the context before commenting, but then they make this bullshit appeal to authority. Either thet are implying I dont know as much as them on these areas, therefore I shouldn't comment about the video or others, or that only people with knowledge of these areas should comment.

It's so dumb to gate keep on stuff like this, because I have no idea who this person is and they have no idea who I am or what I could know. So what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing should comment other than to try and invalidate someone else? It's almost like saying "I can see you are uneducated on the topic."

I'm not bothering with your list because the vast majority of those are criticism of the length rather than the "tl;dr" posts you framed this, which is disingenuous as hell.

As for the quoted bit...there's so much irony in it. How did you write those 2 paragraphs without stopping and going "wait a minute...am I actually in the wrong here?"

1) Kyuuji didn't "gatekeep" you by saying people should know wtf they're talking about before talking, or at the very least they should listen to people who DO know what they're talking about.

2) "what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing"
Contra's history, particularly her history of harming NB people with her actions, is not an "arbitrary thing" and framing things this way SUCKS.

3) You don't like people telling you you're uneducated about a topic when you factually are ignorant about the topic. So in response you tell somebody who knows very well what they are talking about that they themselves are ignorant. Instead of just saying "Maybe I'm ignorant and should listen to people who know better" you threw a tantrum and ended it by calling them ignorant, which is just you projecting.

4) The irony of complaining about people telling you that you need to avail yourself of the larger context this video and subject exists in as "gatekeeping" while you have a thread-wide meltdown over people not wanting to watch a feature-length film of a video...is something else.

Let me ask you a sincere question: The principal victims of Contra's months (years?) of shitty hurtful takes and platforming of truscum are trans and NB people. Are you trans? Are you NB?

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

spam musubi said:
Bringing up Peter Coffin in this context is kind of ironic, considering his big rise to fame was allegedly making up a Japanese girlfriend for years (using photos of a Korean model) and telling extremely racist (and sexist) jokes about asians and harassing actual asian models through "her" account, and he has somehow rebranded himself as a leftist darling. I guess this all predates cancel culture but I'm wondering if it will come back up at some point.

https://jezebel.com/the-ultimate-fake-girlfriend-story-5785763

" he has somehow rebranded himself as a leftist darling" That tends to happen when you make great leftist content?

He does adress the fake girlfriend thing from time to time, and made a 57 minute video about it last year in fact.

beelulzebub · Jan 2, 2020

Lmao. Imagine calling Kyuuji uneducated. Good Lord. I'm trying to stay out of this discussion until I watch the video but some of these posts I just fucking can't.

spam musubi · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
" he has somehow rebranded himself as a leftist darling" That tends to happen when you make great leftist content?

He does adress the fake girlfriend thing from time to time, and made a 57 minute video about it last year in fact.

But who am I to stop you from trying to cancel Peter Coffin in a contrapoints thread about cancelling people?

I am not trying to cancel him? I am just pointing out that one can come back from being cancelled?

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

spam musubi said:
I am not trying to cancel him? I am just pointing out that one can come back from being cancelled?

Yeah I edited that part out after rereading, sorry.

Deleted member 20630 · Jan 2, 2020

Veelk said:
Partially, it is that - she says that this cancelling experience is far worse than anything alt-right trolls have put her through - but also she is talking about how when a person gets canceled, it's not just that person that suffers. Anyone around them suffers. Her quote before this (paraphrased) is that if a cishet person defends her, the are labeled a transphobe and if a binary person defends her, they are labeled an nb-phobe and if a nb person defends her, they are ostracized from their own community.

The reason she doesn't believe that the cancel culture leads to justice is because the cancel process isn't about Natalie's career, but about cutting her off from her community. People who like her cannot be seen with her because then they are guilty by association, and in turn anyone who is seen standing with them gets labeled as guilty by association as well. This happened to Mia Mulder, another trans woman, who liked a tweet by Philosophy Tube, who made a statement saying that he was being harassed because he didn't disavow Contrapoints. Mia hasn't even ever worked or talked to Contrapoints, but she has to disavow her as well.

That's why Contrapoints says she doesn't see this as justice. Canceling, in her experience, is a buzzsaw approach to cut the person off from any sense of community so they feel alone, which if a person has no other support structure can be extremely traumatizing, which doesn't just have a shockwave effect to people who her friends and people who have nothing to do with her, but also it isn't actually about the person learning or growing to be a better person. It's just a "do right by us, or else" type of threat that explodes not just her life, but everyone around her, and then everyone around them, often through misinformation.

Just to be clear, I'm merely summarizing the context what was conveyed in the video as requested.

Thank you

Border · Jan 2, 2020

I thought she did a good job at discussing the ridiculous and circuitous "Guilt By Association" problem of Cancel Culture.

Mike said something bad and kinda racist. Cindy won't disavow Mike? Then Cindy is trash, and she is clearly just as bad as Mike. Frank refuses to disavow Cindy? Now Frank is trash who needs to be harangued and harassed too. Frank got upset about being harassed and Sarah offered him some moral support? Well fuck Sarah and her bigotry. On and on it goes until people who are several degrees removed from the actual offender are being targeted. It isn't enough to target the person who has transgressed; anyone who refuses to take a side or offers sympathy to the wrong person gets iced out as well.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

The Charles intro framework is pretty brilliant in obfuscation.

The Charles story is

New Scandal (the accusations of sexual misconduct) brings up old scandals (transphobia and racism) he apologized for but apology is erased

Contrapoints in her presents an identical framework to what happened to her: new scandal (Buck Angel) brings back old scandals (tweets that are bigoted towards non binary people) that she had previously apologized for her but apology is erased.

Here she argues the new scandal unfairly causes people to ignore apologies for old ones.

But a ha notice the key difference?

A sex scandal shouldn't really cause anyone to doubt the apologies for racism and transphobia

But what was the Buck Angel controversy?

Oh right it's a controversy about giving air time to a person bigoted against non binary people

And what was the old scandal she apologized for?

Oh right bigoted comments against non binary people

So you know if you follow up non binary bigotry with more non binary bigotry your previous apology becomes scrutinized

But you'd believe that from how Nat frames it they are unrelated like sexual impropriety and tacism/transphobia scandals.

Oops

Deleted member 21411 · Jan 2, 2020

Finished the video and here's my thoughts

listen to nb people. While I personally have problems with how she decided to frame the argument rather then write a 1 sentence support on here I'm going to sit, think, and observe how those effected feel about the video.

Tfritz · Jan 2, 2020

umop 3pisdn said:
I'm not looking to start some kind of precise discussion about what is or isn't her brand when my point is that she (along with a lot of "left tube") are imo politically unambitious or that I was already breaking from her content for reasons unrelated to this whole thing.

oh i just wanted to point that out because she's mentioned her frustration with the way that vice clip framed her as ~deradicalizing the alt right~ despite that not being a particularly good description of her content

but i certainly agree that most folks who create quote-unquote leftist content, whether they be left tube or chapo or whatever, aren't very politically ambitious or all that interested in real change, because this is the way they makes their money

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Border said:
I thought she did a good job at discussing the ridiculous and circuitous "Guilt By Association" problem of Cancel Culture.

Mike said something bad and kinda racist. Cindy won't disavow Mike? Then Cindy is trash, and she is clearly just as bad as Mike. Frank refuses to disavow Cindy? Now Frank is trash who needs to be harangued and harassed too. Frank got upset about being harassed and Sarah offered him some moral support? Well fuck Sarah and her bigotry. On and on it goes until people who are several degrees removed from the actual offender are being targeted. It isn't enough to target the person who has transgressed; anyone who refuses to take a side or offers sympathy to the wrong person gets iced out as well.

Except before that she dedicates 20 minutes exalting the virtues of Buck Angel and playing down his bigotry

Arguing unfair Guilt by association doesn't work when you outright defend the guilty associate

hachikoma · Jan 2, 2020

I finished it. This trans activist thought it was decent.

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

Tfritz said:
but i certainly agree that most folks who create quote-unquote leftist content, whether they be left tube or chapo or whatever, aren't very politically ambitious or all that interested in real change, because this is the way they makes their money

Generaly their goal is making leftist content and spreading more class consciousness.

If I understood this correctly, framing them as inherently useless leftists because they make their living off their content is a terrible take.

shadowsdarknes · Jan 2, 2020

Another good point made:

The extent to which this actually happens I can't say. But I'm sure it happens.
-Aside from those who actually firmly line up in the opposing ideology, many if not most people are probably willing to listen to reason to some extent if they don't feel they are being judged.

When Natalie says she was identifying as non-binary, she was able to get someone to acknowledge her identity who previously did not acknowledge NB thought.

While some people definitely do not deserve the time and the effort to break down why a comment or some words are problematic, maybe some others do. And while it should not necessarily be the job of the oppressed group to explain this stuff ad nauseum, (a bless you if you do have infinite patience to do this), perhaps more people are teachable than we think.

We all know plenty of people who do something wrong, know they are wrong, but the manner in which they were addressed causes them to double down and act irrational. That seems to often describe human behavior. And then when they act shitty when called out, they look extra worse. But that's not necessarily how it always needs to go down.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
Generaly their goal is making leftist content and spreading more class consciousness.

I really don't think Contrapoints is much of a class conscious lefty though.

Snack12367 · Jan 2, 2020

ScribbleD said:
I'm not bothering with your list because the vast majority of those are criticism of the length rather than the "tl;dr" posts you framed this, which is disingenuous as hell.

As for the quoted bit...there's so much irony in it. How did you write those 2 paragraphs without stopping and going "wait a minute...am I actually in the wrong here?"

1) Kyuuji didn't "gatekeep" you by saying people should know wtf they're talking about before talking, or at the very least they should listen to people who DO know what they're talking about.

2) "what's the point in saying only people who know arbitrary thing"
Contra's history, particularly her history of harming NB people with her actions, is not an "arbitrary thing" and framing things this way SUCKS.

3) You don't like people telling you you're uneducated about a topic when you factually are ignorant about the topic. So in response you tell somebody who knows very well what they are talking about that they themselves are ignorant. Instead of just saying "Maybe I'm ignorant and should listen to people who know better" you threw a tantrum and ended it by calling them ignorant, which is just you projecting.

4) The irony of complaining about people telling you that you need to avail yourself of the larger context this video and subject exists in as "gatekeeping" while you have a thread-wide meltdown over people not wanting to watch a feature-length film of a video...is something else.

Let me ask you a sincere question: The principal victims of Contra's months (years?) of shitty hurtful takes and platforming of truscum are trans and NB people. Are you trans? Are you NB?

I'm done. You win. I made what I considered a very neutral post about how you should probably contribute more to a thread than complain about length. I'd also like to point out that these examples I provided , imply that they never watched the video. There is a difference with I thought the video was long, to the video is too long to watch. One implies you actually tried to watch the video. The other implies the opposite.

I dont know what you deal with this person is, but if someone says to I dont think you can talk about a thing without x, if that doesn't sound like some sort of way to dismiss a person, I dont know what is. You think I shouldn't call someone out for being toxic.

Tfritz · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
Generaly their goal is making leftist content and spreading more class consciousness.

If I understood this correctly, framing them as inherently useless leftists because they make their living off their content is a terrible take.

i'd argue that ~spreading awareness~ isn't particularly useful unless you have an actual step 2

Deleted member 5127 · Jan 2, 2020

Spirit of Jazz said:
It's not though. What people want is a decent apology. That doesn't take 2 hours. The fact it's titled around cancel culture is also a pretty huge red flag. Why should anybody who's felt targeted by her give her two hours when that's the title she goes with?

She apologised for a few things later on in the video but it isn't an apology video, if you're looking for that you're going to be left disappointed.

Border · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
Except before that she dedicates 20 minutes exalting the virtues of Buck Angel and playing down his bigotry

Arguing unfair Guilt by association doesn't work when you outright defend the guilty associate

Still doesn't exactly excuse all the people further down the line that were targeted though. I don't think that section particularly exonerates Wynn, but just that it addresses the problem of how things escalate well beyond any reasonable scope.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Border said:
Still doesn't exactly excuse all the people further down the line that were targeted though. I don't think that section particularly exonerates Wynn, but just that it addresses the problem of how things escalate well beyond any reasonable scope.

She's doing her friends zero favours here though ironically

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

Tfritz said:
i'd argue that ~spreading awareness~ isn't particularly useful unless you have an actual step 2

In the current media and education landscape in North America, I sure think it is.

Leftists positions are always drowned out in favor of more centrist bullshit at every turn. She definitely isn't the paragon of leftism on youtube, but she certainly has her place and had helped more than hurt the leftist cause.

In a country where you don't even have socialised medecine, I think there is a severe lack of content like hers in peoples lives. Just baseline speaking out against how bullshit the neoliberal status quo and framing it with a marxist approach is radical in the US.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Contrapoints is important because she's educating and spreading awareness to people not in the know.

Great so now people will think Buck Angel is awesome and trans Twitter is full of trans cosplaying nazis. Useful awareness and education

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
Contrapoints is important because she's educating and spreading awareness to people not in the know.

Great so now people will think Buck Angel is awesome and trans Twitter is full of trans cosplaying nazis. Useful awareness and education

Yeah that is literally all her contribution to the discourse.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

I love that the intial discourse was don't judge her on the Buck Angel cameo she's promised to address it in her next video

Then the transcript of the Patreon chat leaked where she talked in reference of him but we were told that's ok she's really going to address it in her next video give her a chance, give her the benefit of the doubt.

Now it's ok the Buck Angel part sucked but she's making great points about cancel culture!

Brilliant

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
Yeah that is literally all her contribution to the discourse.

It is right now.

But you're right every one who has leveled up enough discourse XP should get a buff against criticism of labeling people who criticize Buck Angel as nazis in disguise.

She's done good so it's ok to let her do real bad.

Deleted member 20630 · Jan 2, 2020

KarneeKarnay said:
I'm done. You win. I made what I considered a very neutral post about how you should probably contribute more to a thread than complain about length. I'd also like to point out that these examples I provided , imply that they never watched the video. There is a difference with I thought the video was long, to the video is too long to watch. One implies you actually tried to watch the video. The other implies the opposite.

I dont know what you deal with this person is, but if someone says to I dont think you can talk about a thing without x, if that doesn't sound like some sort of way to dismiss a person, I dont know what is. You think I shouldn't call someone out for being toxic.

So Kyuuji is now both ignorant about this subject and toxic, or am I misreading? I'd actually rather be misreading it, but that's one takeaway I've gotten from this post.

Also, can you please answer that question I asked at the end of the post? The reason I ask is because you have displayed a pattern in this thread of trying to assert your voice over others - Particularly a number of trans and NB people, which is something that a lot of cis people tend to do in threads like these.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

I'd actually argue that all things considered she's made a bunch of YouTube videos that don't actually amount to much.

So that doesn't outweigh when she starts the Buck Angel pity party

Kurdel · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
It is right now.

But you're right every one who has leveled up enough discourse XP should get a buff against criticism of labeling people who criticize Buck Angel as nazis in disguise.

She's done good so it's ok to let her do real bad.

My general position is you should never go all in on anybody, because everyone can turn out to be shit.

She did some great work, and this whole Buck Angel thing has been terrible look for her that is for sure.

Acting like it's a zero sum game where we just throw away content that recognised as good or appreciated for it's worth because of one terrible take is dumb though. And reducing her entire youtube career to "the useless woman who stans buck angel" is disingenous, but there is nothing I can do to stop you.

Typhonsentra · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
Omg she used some of my best friends are non binary

Oh and she makes sure to emphasize that some of them are transsexuals

She also uses the fact that 2 years ago she was NB herself.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Kurdel said:
My general position is you should never go all in on anybody, because everyone can turn out to be shit.

She did some great work, and this whole Buck Angel thing has been terrible look for her that is for sure.

Acting like it's a zero sum game where we just throw away content that recognised as good or appreciated for it's worth because of one terrible take is dumb though. And reducing her entire youtube career to "the woman who stans buck angel" is disingenous, but there is nothing I can do to stop you.

I mean I think ultimately she's surface level political analysis with a beyond intolerably obnoxious framework... so when she fucks up I think that's a bigger deal than when she just says 101 shit with snark, neon colours, fancy attire, and booze.

And to be honest I was really over it when her incel video was mostly just an empathy parade with lip service to their dangers.

FullStop · Jan 2, 2020

This seems unnecessarily reductive.

Deleted member 5127 · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
I'd actually argue that all things considered she's made a bunch of YouTube videos that don't actually amount to much.

So that doesn't outweigh when she starts the Buck Angel pity party

Except she's known for deradicalising people, I wouldn't say that doesn't amount to much.

Border · Jan 2, 2020

excelsiorlef said:
She's doing her friends zero favours here though ironically

excelsiorlef said:
Now it's ok the Buck Angel part sucked but she's making great points about cancel culture!

I'm just interested in the broader discussion rather than re-litigating the Angel issue. I've never said that some grand and satisfying apology or mea culpa was coming. I've probably watched less than 10 of Wynn's videos, but given her attitude and demeanor and her speech at XOXO, it always seemed clear that she was never going to bend the knee for critics. She's spent most of her career trying to walk a tightrope for the more harsh and judgmental parts of her audience, but I always felt that if push came to shove she would probably buck the system (pun intended).

Speaking of not doing any favors though, it strikes me that all this hubub has ultimately just signal boosted Angel. It would have been a ten-second voiceover job that was almost immediately forgotten by the ContraPoints, but now a whole new audience has ultimately been exposed to his opinions and history. I still have no real idea why she picked him to work with though -- I don't think he sounds at all like John Waters, and even if he did I don't see what is to be gained by having a sound-alike voice read something he has written.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Thales Targaryen said:
Except she's known for deradicalising people, I wouldn't say that doesn't amount to much.

I've heard that before with Darryl Davis.

excelsiorlef · Jan 2, 2020

Border said:
Speaking of not doing any favors though, it strikes me that all this hubub has ultimately just signal boosted Angel. It would have been a ten-second voiceover job that was almost immediately forgotten by the ContraPoints, but now a whole new audience has ultimately been exposed to his opinions and history. I still have no real idea why she picked him to work with though -- I don't think he sounds at all like John Waters, and even if he did I don't see what is to be gained by having a sound-alike voice read something he has written.

She picked him because he was suggested to her and she likes him.

She knew he's hated but didn't care.

She says as much.

Everything to do with him is in her.

FullStop · Jan 2, 2020

What do you say to the black people grateful for one less racist in the world about Daryl Davis

ContraPoints | Canceling

Deleted member 24149

Deleted member 24149

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

Deleted member 24149

Prophet of Truth

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Bad Praxis

Account closed at user request

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

user requested account closure

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

user requested account closure

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis