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.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
ContraPoints | Canceling
- Thread starter Infinity Times Two
- Start date
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
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 achieve
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
Of course not.
Comparing the devotion of their fans on the other hand....
Guy, I clearly said that ContraPoints FANS were using the excuse that Peterson FANS so dropped this obtuse indignation. You knew exactly what I meant.
Jeeze, for someone claiming we should "rushing to conclusions" you sure as sin doing a good job of that yourself.
Last edited:
Yes, it's reasonable to yell "racist!!!" at a 17 year old making a "catch Ebola in Africa" joke in the year that an Ebola outbreak in Congo was widely reported, two years after the fact. A joke he immediately and rather maturely apologized for. Christ.
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 into
Easy way of sidestepping the actual point she made and Berordn rearticulated in their post.
Do you think that is enough for him to keep the "Racist" descriptif attributed to him, despite no other instances? (apparently, don't follow this guy to know).
this just made me connect the fact that a trend amongst Contra stans is calling her Mom with the daddy lobster memes of peterson.
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.
Y'know, I was about to post that because Buck Angel outed Lana Wachowski that he was being a toxic shitbag even in his heyday, I'm being too generous by implying his issues manifested after he did his work for the trans community with my oblique reference to Tales from the City.
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.
this makes the joke teller not a racist doesn't mean the joke itself can't be called racist.
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 yourself
It's interesting really because with James Charles she's actually showing how to properly apologize
Funny she didn't learn from it.
Funny she didn't learn from it.
glad you agree that it's racist
so what. that has nothing to do with the point i was making.
her point was also that it's not racist
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
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~
she 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
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.
[QUOTE="tulpa"]she 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
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that part feels like head in the sand stuff to me
a weird way to draw a line between personal and public
[/QUOTE]
Yeah that part feels like head in the sand stuff to me
a weird way to draw a line between personal and public
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 search
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.
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 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.
Again sidestepping to avoid ansering the question but wahtever.
This 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.
Contrapoints discourse is exhausting because it's normally an argument between people who theoretically love each other (not saying that she shouldn't be strongly criticized of course).
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
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.
How the internet forms criticism is a disaster, it leads to people getting harassed but (and the but is very important) that doesn't mean that people making criticisms aren't being fair and valid. There are a lot of trans and non-binary people that made excellant points about what was wrong about Natalie Wynn's tweets. You are then going to get people that were hurt by it and will respond emotionally because it's an emotive topic, it's hard to keep calm about something you are hurt by, and often being loud and emotive is the only way minorities have to get listened to.
And then you have the real problem which makes the conversation messy and escalates it, were you have alt-right shitheads coming in pretending to be part of the community because they sense an opportunity to target a promenient minority and salvatiate at the prospect of bringing them down. They will rile people up, they will personally attack, dox, go after family and friends, normalise and encourage members of the actual minority communirty that they should do this too as well as get them emotionally riled up. This then in turn gets the prominient member who's being targeted for criticism on the defensive and probably lashing out cus it's really hard to take that kind of abuse and remain calm. It can also be incredibly hard to tell the difference between disingenoius attackers and those with legit criticisms because when you are being attacked like that, even if it's only a small proportion doing that, it can still be hundreds and thopusands of people , so it's too easy to lump them in one group.
And then you have another group of people, the defenders, the people who wade into defend and shut down any criticism of the said prominient member, without even probably listening to what the original issue was, that use language which is dimissive and hurtful to the group making the criticism in the first place. They can ever be fans of the promenient member and are overly protective, or are bigoted assholes that want to shutdown minorites concerns and trivalise it. You will get these people inferring that the original criticisers are crasy or snowflaky . This of course is going to get the criticisers more emotional and have to respond more strongly, as they are now not just having to explain their criticism but now have to defend themselves against what is essentially dehumanising language which can often be even more discriminatory/phobic and hurtful than what the original complaint was abour. You then get a community that feels hurt and like they aren't being listened to, not just from what the promenient member did, but the abuse they receive from their followers. The promenient member may not have initiated what their followers did, but it still happened.
You then end up with what started as a valid criticism thatthe promenient member needed to take on board, escalating to an all out war cus both sides have received an escalating amount of abuse. The problem with Natalie Wynn's video is while I agree that she's right that she should not have received the harassment and abuse that seh details in the video, and also that promenient minority figures do get dragged much more harshly and don't get the benefit of the doubt that cis staright white males do, the people who made the criticisms still need to make those criticisms and have a way to be heard, and I don't think it's their fault the pile on happened. It's the way the internet works that the pile on happened. She should have probaly gone into more depth on the people who escalate and make theses situations worse in the video, and probably had the apology in a separate video. It is complicated and I'm not sure what is the right way to do criticism on the internet because the problem is that it's not just you and the person you are addressing, it's you and a bunch of other randomer people , and who know's what their motives are.
zero sidestepping. why do Contra's male fans love attacking nb people who have the mildest of criticisms about her
this is completely irrelevant to the point i'm making
It's pretty clear she chose James Charles because he's an actual genuine example of things gone wrong and wants everyone to think she's shown the same level of contrition that he did for his racist joke and his unintentional transphobic comment. Except Charles apologized and never repeated Nat sort of apologizes and then frequently repeats it
There's a reason she immediately jumps to herself right after.
Also the snark is no longer cute when addressing her own issues.
Also she accidentally implies gay men aren't a marginalized community heh when she says what if you aren't James Charles, what if you aren't rich, what if you're part of a marginalized community and rely on that community for support.
There's a reason she immediately jumps to herself right after.
Also the snark is no longer cute when addressing her own issues.
Also she accidentally implies gay men aren't a marginalized community heh when she says what if you aren't James Charles, what if you aren't rich, what if you're part of a marginalized community and rely on that community for support.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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'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.
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'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 force
the things i'm talking about predate this video and are in reference to the previous threads about her
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.
Right off the bat the Buck Angel portion is terrible. The whole snark dismissive tone in talking about it makes any subsequent apology insincere because it's evident that she doesn't think he's bad
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?
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 it
Damn. It's like my comment is directed towards the multiple people onmy 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?
What is the ground? When is someone a terf and not? I'll be clear when I wrote that I was talking about my than whyn, but if you want to use examples from her that's fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?