They're saying that the "you have to watch it all before you dismiss it" response is one employed by people if you dismiss a Peterson video, not comparing the two people. Which I'm guessing you knew, since it's apparent.
They're saying that the "you have to watch it all before you dismiss it" response is one employed by people if you dismiss a Peterson video, not comparing the two people. Which I'm guessing you knew, since it's apparent.
I'm just noticing that the defense of "You need to watch the whole video to understand" sounds very similar to Jordan Peterson fans.
I feel its just cause leftist spaces are usually generally moderated in a way that helps prevent this. On places where the leftist community doesn't have reliable tools to moderate themselves like Twitter they do this but say here for example its not so easy to achieveI don't know, I don't think anyone has a good answer to that. I'm actually surprised the right isn't doing more of this to disrupt leftist spaces. But again, Russia did this in 2016 and it seemed to work, so it's a question that should be on everyone's mind this year.
i think it's pretty telling that she's using totally fair and reasonable criticism of people criticizing James Charles as an example of ~cancel culture gone wild~ and then goes on to defend Buck AngelI didn't remeber the exact thing she said so, fair. But I guess I took it as someone saying something that could be construed as bigoted when they're thinking it's a stupid wordplay joke that they got rightfully called out on doesn't mean the intent is inherently racist. It is on it's own, not a sign that someone is 'a racist.' even if though it's in poor taste no matter what and it's very easy to see a racist angle in it.
i think it's pretty telling that she's using totally fair and reasonable criticism of people criticizing James Charles as an example of ~cancel culture gone wild~ and then goes on to defend Buck Angel
I think her point there was more that the way news spreads these days basically blurred the details of what we knew from the original claims, which may have been valid, but weren't equivalent to what the story evolves intoi think it's pretty telling that she's using totally fair and reasonable criticism of people criticizing James Charles as an example of ~cancel culture gone wild~ and then goes on to defend Buck Angel
i think it's pretty telling that she's using totally fair and reasonable criticism of people criticizing James Charles as an example of ~cancel culture gone wild~ and then goes on to defend Buck Angel
this just made me connect the fact that a trend amongst Contra stans is calling her Mom with the daddy lobster memes of peterson.Of course not.
Comparing the devotion of their fans on the other hand....
But I guess I took it as someone saying something that could be construed as bigoted when they're thinking it's a stupid wordplay joke that they got rightfully called out on doesn't mean the intent is inherently racist.
also: she pretty much directly says Buck Angel has never invalidated nb identities and that if he had, she would have seen it
The joke was mistaking Ebola for E. Coli, which is why Chipotle was part of it. But you're kinda making the point for this specific joke, it was clearly not very well thought out and came from a particular mindset that wasn't able to see the issues of it. I wouldn't fault anyone for seeing some sort of bigotry in it.I mean a bad pun that pushes on racist lines is basically touching the comedy equivalent of pissing on an electrified rail, but if we're still talking about the ebola joke (as I'm not sure if you're speaking more generally) I'm not even sure what the wordplay was in that case. Either way, intent doesn't stop current from running through that fence.
this makes the joke teller not a racist doesn't mean the joke itself can't be called racist.The joke was mistaking Ebola for E. Coli, which is why Chipotle was part of it. But you're kinda making the point for this specific joke, it was clearly not very well thought out and came from a particular mindset that wasn't able to see the issues of it. I wouldn't fault anyone for seeing some sort of bigotry in it.
she doesn't apologise for the Buck situation, though she does apologise for two older controversies so if any apology is enough then you should watch it, if not don't force yourselfAnything but an apology from her at this point is not worth watching. Especially not 100 minutes. Would be a shame but her last few videos have been rather lame anyway.
glad you agree that it's racistYes, it's reasonable to yell "racist!!!" at a 17 year old making a "catch Ebola in Africa" joke
so what. that has nothing to do with the point i was making.
her point was also that it's not racistI think her point there was more that the way news spreads these days basically blurred the details of what we knew from the original claims, which may have been valid, but weren't equivalent to what the story evolves into
i think it's very fair to call that a racist remark and the fact that she seems confused how equating Africa with ebola is racistDo you think that is enough for him to keep the "Racist" descriptif attributed to him, despite no other instances?
she also kind of defends him there too. as soon as she starts to go through how horrible what she did was, she immediately derails it with this thing about ~how dare you investigate Buck, investigating trans people is what fascists do~Y'know, I was about to post that because Buck Angel outed Lana Wachowski that he was being a toxic shitbag
Except that fans of virtually any creative work will be annoyed at seeing it criticized and dismissed by people who haven't even watched/read/consumed said work.I'm just noticing that the defense of "You need to watch the whole video to understand" sounds very similar to Jordan Peterson fans.
Edit: lol Kyuuji already on it
the funniest part about this is how quickly one can get the details on the Lana outing thing. Like she pretends its some super in depth investigation when it takes a simple google searchshe directly says that any criticism of Buck over the Lana thing is "none of your fucking business, so shut up and go back to K*wiF*rms where you belong" and then equates her/Buck's critics to fascists. 10/10, would youtube again
I've seen this before in my own community. It's pretty much going to take hard push back from the actual community before people outside of it even begin to try and listen. Until then, folks outside of it will be defending the "voice" tooth and nail.Contra's the de-facto "token trans voice" for a lot of people, and therefore can speak on behalf of those people and can Do No Wrong.
I mean, that's kind of the point? He made a dumb joke, he apologized, but it still got dug up despite that and not having any notable history.this makes the joke teller not a racist doesn't mean the joke itself can't be called racist.
If my last painting and prior works before that were perceived as being dismissive of non-binary people I wouldn't be particularly bewildered by their discussion or dismissal of my next piece or me. Certainly wouldn't be enthralled by fans of my work brow-beating non binary people for it.Except that fans of virtually any creative work will be annoyed at seeing it criticized and dismissed by people who haven't even watched/read/consumed said work.
i think it's very fair to call that a racist remark and the fact that she seems confused how equating Africa with ebola is racist
There was a section that did go into detail with the criticisms and were she did apologis but since it's a long video, it gets abit lost in there, yet a think the bit were she actually goes into the apology is long and detailed. Maybe this video should have been in more parts? I don't know, she's going into a topic which is incredibly hard and difficult and were there don't appear to be right answers for.I feel like she only intended to address that to people actively harassing her in the video
However it feels like in her attempts to address that and harassment that she also doesn't really address the people who were speaking reasonably about this. I could be wrong about this; it was a long video.
this is why I mentioned before that I'm growing skeptical of long form videos like this in general with weighty matters. I feel like I need someone in the video with her to bounce ideas direct or I'm getting drawn into just one piece of things (however well defined)
zero sidestepping. why do Contra's male fans love attacking nb people who have the mildest of criticisms about herAgain sidestepping to avoid ansering the question but wahtever.
this is completely irrelevant to the point i'm makingThis is the lack of nuance we should all work to curtail on the left. Sure a comment can be racist, but if you are going to stick the eternal "racist" label on someone based on one terrible joke they already apologized for and nothing else YEARS after the fact, you weren't in good faith to begin with
She still should have tried it following producing a video featuring someone who's dismissive of identities those in the credits of that video are a part of, instead of paywalling a "poor me/poor buck" video.the bit around an hour and twenty three minutes where she talks about how after people have decided you're the enemy there's nothing you can do is pretty accurate, based on how people around here acted when this first broke: Apologies will be seen as insincere, trying to articulate or contextualize your viewpoint is seen as weaseling out, going silent is seen as being a cowardly weasel, and if you delete the content and your social media accounts, you'll be blamed for letting right wing shitheads use you as an example of political correctness gone wrong
I mean it follows that he shouldn't be hounded as a racist sure, her classification of the joke itself is part of her logic so it being off is her logic being off. I think its important in these discussions we understand that we should be able to classify an action as bigoted even if the person doing it isn't which saying the joke doesn't demonstrate racism doesn't do.I mean, that's kind of the point? He made a dumb joke, he apologized, but it still got dug up despite that and not having any notable history.
Natalie's classification of it may be off but in this particular case the logic at least follows what she's saying.
if she doesn't want to be seen as insincere, she shouldn't have been so disingenous when discussing the criticisim of herself and you know not apologising for most of it.the bit around an hour and twenty three minutes where she talks about how after people have decided you're the enemy there's nothing you can do is pretty accurate, based on how people around here acted when this first broke: Apologies will be seen as insincere, trying to articulate or contextualize your viewpoint is seen as weaseling out, going silent is seen as being a cowardly weasel, and if you delete the content and your social media accounts, you'll be blamed for letting right wing shitheads use you as an example of political correctness gone wrong
I guess I would follow up with "is ignorance the same as racism," given the timeframe which that joke was made. I'm kind of ashamed to say that I didn't really consider the joke racist either until I thought about it long enough because the Chipotle scandal was actually the first thing I thought of when I read it.I mean it follows that he shouldn't be hounded as a racist sure, her classification of the joke itself is part of her logic so it being off is her logic being off. I think its important in these discussions we understand that we should be able to classify an action as bigoted even if the person doing it isn't which saying the joke doesn't demonstrate racism doesn't do.
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.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.
I meany you forgot the part where she never apologized, defended a bigot and pimped her Patron so people could find out what she really thinks but sure, close enough.the bit around an hour and twenty three minutes where she talks about how after people have decided you're the enemy there's nothing you can do is pretty accurate, based on how people around here acted when this first broke: Apologies will be seen as insincere, trying to articulate or contextualize your viewpoint is seen as weaseling out, going silent is seen as being a cowardly weasel, and if you delete the content and your social media accounts, you'll be blamed for letting right wing shitheads use you as an example of political correctness gone wrong
So far into the video the underlying point seems to be to not paint people in the worst possible light just because it's easy to do so.
Cancelling doesn't have to be literally mean they no longer have their job or their influence. But you can simply write off anything they say or do with zero effort by throwing some powerful labels that may not be an accurate or fair characterization of the person.
the answer is yes. Racism doesn't have to be purposefully malicious. I'm genuinely suprised to even see this questioned in a Contra vid thread. Like don't all of us who watch her vids know this?I guess I would follow up with "is ignorance the same as racism," given the timeframe which that joke was made. I'm kind of ashamed to say that I didn't really consider the joke racist either until I thought about it long enough because the Chipotle scandal was actually the first thing I thought of when I read it.
i'm 50 minutes into it and honestly the more she talks the less convinced I am. it's basically just defending James Charles, defending Buck Angel (she directly states he has never invalidated nb identities), defending herself by talking about how just because you're hurt by me doesn't mean i did anything wrong and basically just depicting her critics as hysterical and irrational and not actually addressing their arguments but putting up straw men against them. blah. but i think i'm gonna peace out of this thread, i hate getting spammed with notifications from her defense forceI'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.
I meany you forgot the part where she never apologized, defended a bigot and pimped her Patron so people could find out what she really thinks but sure, close enough.
That ground has been there, active in each instance but is still dismissed and mocked regardless. The majority of people didn't jump to calling her a TERF.That's the overall impression I got as well. Like if you just slap the term Terf on someone, then the damage is done, regardless of whether or not they are. I think we can all agree some speech leads to harm and shouldn't be platformed, but it's finding that ground in between.
That's...what I'm talking about too. You know the whole "put a bigot in my video and then defend him" fiasco that happened?the things i'm talking about predate this video and are in reference to the previous threads about her
I mean this video is the first time shes properly apologised for anything before though? so how does the whole apologies be seen as insincere thing? edit: except maybe the pronouns circles response? Like she didn't use the words sorry or apologise but I supppose I could see itthe things i'm talking about predate this video and are in reference to the previous threads about her
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.
the things i'm talking about predate this video and are in reference to the previous threads about her
She still should have tried it following producing a video featuring someone who's dismissive of identities those in the credits of that video are a part of, instead of paywalling a "poor me/poor buck" video.
That ground has been there, active in each instance but is still dismissed and mocked regardless. The majority of people didn't jump to calling her a TERF.
I mean, I guess. I'd consider the joke ignorant and perhaps bigoted, but not necessarily racist unless I connect a few extra dots in my head by considering the various social, economic and historical factors that have led to the current economic state of the Congo.the answer is yes. Racism doesn't have to be purposefully malicious. I'm genuinely suprised to even see this questioned in a Contra vid thread. Like don't all of us who watch her vids know this?
zero sidestepping. why do Contra's male fans love attacking nb people who have the mildest of criticisms about her
I mean, I guess. I'd consider the joke ignorant and perhaps bigoted, but not necessarily racist unless I connect a few extra dots in my head by considering the various social, economic and historical factors that have led to the current economic state of the Congo.
I'm probably just splitting hairs now and don't really want to derail the thread on this one point any further since there's a lot more questionable stuff in it that probably deserves more discussion.
lol are you seriously trying to act like there was no other way to determine tulpa is NB apart from mind reading? Like are you purposefully being this ignorant or have you actually not noticed such a simple part of this website?Now I am a mind reader that figured out you were NB over the internet and decided to "attack" you by asking a single question about James Charles being qualified as a Racist forever online because of that tweet?
It sucks that you feel that her "male defenders" are attacking NB people, but please don't drag me into that because I asked you a hard question.
Ignorant comments can absolutely be racist, and should be adressed and recognised.
Insisting that someone should keep the label of "racist" despite no apparent other incidents since is where I think we should be asking ourselves questions.