Pretty amazing channel, and it's recently had a major uptick in quality. Gotta say the new format of playing out characters arguing, instead of the usual pontificating at the screen, is fascinating in so many ways.
Pretty amazing channel, and it's recently had a major uptick in quality. Gotta say the new format of playing out characters arguing, instead of the usual pontificating at the screen, is fascinating in so many ways.
In this video of a talk Natalie gave at an arts/technology festival, she talks about how she started using characters because it allows her to process online criticism and hatred. It’s less like they’re attacking Natalie, and more like they’re attacking the character she created. She also mentions how Plato used a similar rhetorical strategy!
she talks about how she started using characters because it allows her to process online criticism and hatred. It’s less like they’re attacking Natalie, and more like they’re attacking the character she created. She also mentions how Plato used a similar rhetorical strategy!
That's seriously brilliant. I think a lot of people do this without being clear on what they are up to. Alex Jones openly claimed that his persona is a character - and, astonishingly, I think there may be a fiber of truth in there.
Do you mean the suit where his lawyer claimes that, only fot Alex to prove him wrong? Unless he wanted to lose that suit...
Plato was onto something. Discussions are way more interesting to follow compared to monologues.
Sometimes true. However, isn't there some key difference between a single author creating two fictional characters that discuss a topic, using arguments determined by that single author, and an actual discussion?
I feel like that way of presentation is different both from a typical monologue of one person talking as one character, and two people talking as two characters.
Pretty sure much, if not most, of Plato's dialogues were actually composed by him in order to investigate the topic.
Aquinas does the same thing in the Summa.
Sort of. Aquinas presents arguments and then refutes them or sustains them.
There's no discussion between "different" persons. Aquinas takes the voice of "for" or "against" depending upon what part of his analysis he's at. It's disputational, but not framed as a discourse but as a series of arguments simply presented. Which is actually closer to how a modern academic philosophy paper would be structured.
Yeah, I'm not saying the comparison in style between Contrapoints and Plato is unwarranted, but that neither of them might be a case of a discussion as much as an argument presented through the style of a discussion.
Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying this is bad, just that it's a different thing from an actual conversation.
You are right, but this is what I meant. A discussion or pseudo-discussion if you will, is more interesting to follow than a traditional essay. It might not be as to the point as a single voice can be but it creates a more interesting dynamic. It's especially good when the fictional "other" exclaim a counter argument that the reader identified only for that counter argument to be proven false by the protagonist.
If I ever get to write down some philosophical writing myself, I would clearly choose a dialogue style over essay writing.
Completely fair :)
I agree and would take it a step further. An actual discussion with two people is a different thing entirely than monologues and Plato-style dialogues. But I agree with /u/DarkVenaGe insofar that Plato style dialogues are better in many regards than strict monologuing. It really lets you flesh out your viewpoints when you're forced to come up with the best counterarguments for the other side (as opposed to strawmen them). That's why Natalie doing so much research into the other side is so important. It's also why Parmenides was such an important Platonic work.
It is different, however discussions between fictional characters are still better at getting a point across than monologues
There is a right way and a wrong way to do it.
What you don't want is end up is making a strawman argument, and pontificating against it.
In the episode where she pits the feminist versus the transexual, she apologizes at the end for not finding better arguments from the feminist. But that she genuinely could not find any.
It shows the effort she makes to try to avoid that kind of trap.
Couple notes on terminology:
the feminist in that video was a specific kind of feminist called a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist), not a mainstream feminist. Most trans people are feminists and most feminists support trans people.
Please don't use "transsexual", it's considered dated at best. We are transgender or just trans, and it's an adjective, not a noun. See my usage above for examples.
Most people who aren't embedded in these discussions a lot wouldn't know this so I'm not mad at you or anything, just for future reference.
Please don't use "transsexual", it's considered dated at best. We are transgender or just trans, and it's an adjective, not a noun. See my usage above for examples.
A lot of trans people who are binary and medically transition (or wish to) identify as transsexual (myself included and I'm fairly sure I've heard Natalie use it to describe herself). It's bad as a catch all because it's nonbinary exclusionary and has baggage for older trans people, but I just wanted to point out that it's not universally shunned or considered dated.
You're right of course - I was saying that to the commenter above because they are presumably cis, and cis people should steer clear of using transsexual. It's certainly a valid, if uncommon, self-identifier.
Sorry to double reply, but "cis" is misgendering to women who don't identify as such.
Sorry to double reply, but "cis" is misgendering to women who don't identify as such.
No. It's not.
Why do you think that it is, and why did you specify 'women' ?
Edit: Never mind. 'GenderCritical' poster. Explains everything.
I’m transexual I hate the term transgender don’t speak for all
I'm not denying your right to use it for yourself, just saying the consensus in the community is that it isn't an appropriate collective word, especially as a noun (a transsexual / a transgender sounds dehumanizing compared to a transsexual person / a transgender person).
Transgender is an umbrella term I don’t hate the word but it applies to a whole bunch of people who tbh have nothing to do with me. Transexual is a very specific term which I like because it takes away confusion. The term transgender and who it applies to creates a lot of confusion since now it includes transexual people non binary people gender non comforming people people who claim a third gender crossdressers etc etc.
Transexuals are a very small minority less than .1 percent of the population and people who fall under the transgender definition exceeded one percent. We end up getting lost in the sea and I don’t like being considered the same as a crossdresser
'transgender' does not apply to crossdressers, and I'm not sure why you'd think it does.
Gender non-conformity isn't the same thing as being trans.
Actually it does transgender is a huge umbrella term aLot of crossdressers consider themselves part of this umbrella and a lot of lay folk do too
Actually it does
Except for the fact it literally doesn't.
You appear to simply want excuses to disregard any and every trans person that does not transition in exactly the way that you expect and/or pursue personally.
Crossdressers are typically cisgender; they are by definition not transgender.
^^Edit: ^^fixed ^^minor ^^typo.
I expect every trans person to want to look and be regarded by society as the sex they wish to be and try to the best of their ability to do so. Putting on eyeshadow and claiming your a woman inside- doesn’t work for me or any sane people.
Look. It up- crossdresser are put under the trans umbrella. Go to the board “transpassing” tons of crossdressers post there. I even asked why crossdressers post there and everybody started telling me crossdressers are trans to and I should stop being to exclusive.
Transgender comes from the term transgenderist which is what crossdressers called themselves back when transexual was still commonly used
the feminist in that video was a specific kind of feminist called a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist)
Is that something this person would call HERSELF, or is it a derogatory term used against her?
Please don't use "transsexual", it's considered dated at best. We are transgender
Fair enough. I see how Transgender is a more accurate term.
It's a bit of a fraught question. TERF was a term coined by that movement, and it's a straightforward description of their position. But these days they will claim that "TERF is a slur," mostly to shut down the ability of trans people and allies to talk about them. Currently they're more likely to call themselves "gender critical." To be clear, slur isn't an accurate word for it because slurs are directed at the oppressed by their oppressors, and this is precisely backwards from the terf-trans relationship. But it does do rhetorical work by helping paint terfs as oppressed women trying to be heard over oppressive "men", which is how they'd like you to think of trans women, which is how they accomplish their goals of stripping trans people's access to public spaces and services. You can make your own conclusions, but I hope you don't think terfs are debating in good faith. There's a reason why many trans people say the E should actually stand for "exterminatory."
slurs are directed at the oppressed by their oppressors,
When we call the cops pigs, that's a slur, and when we do so we are not oppressing the pigs, the pigs are oppressing us.
We seem to be using different definitions of the word slur. I consider the power dynamic the defining feature of a slur, and this seems to me the way the word is most commonly used in leftist circles. "Pig" is a (well-deserved) insult, but not a slur, because it challenges the existing power structure rather than enforcing it. As another example, the N word is the archetypal slur: it originated, and is still used by white people, to enforce the oppression of black people by dehumanizing them. Racist or clueless white people like to point to "cracker" as a "reverse- racism" equivalent because it's also a race-based insult, but "cracker" is not a slur because there is not and there has never been widespread systemic oppression of white people by black people.
According to the meaning you give, calling cops "pigs" is a speciest slur against pigs we torture in the food industry. And also, as we know, people with more melatonin use N word referring to each other in various functions.
These are examples of why I prefer Wittgensteinian pluralism of language games to any metalanguage and metanarrative seeking totalitarian dominance of the social sphere, and prefer family resemblance semantics to authoritarian strict definitions of concepts and words.
I didn't say we had to have the same definition, I was just clarifying my usage and pointing out that the way I use it seems to be common (at least within my own input bubble).
Intra-community use of slurs is referred to as reclaiming slurs, and it's well within the rights of the targeted community to do and can be very powerful. See the reclamation of "queer" as an identity: some people are still uncomfortable with it, and you shouldn't use it to refer to them. But for many people, it's an identity worn with pride, and that's thanks to the hard work of reclamation.
I'm not arguing for any group having "totalitarian dominance of the social sphere," only for listening to the communities affected by certain language because they are the experts on their own oppression, and we should follow their lead when trying to dismantle it. If a black person tells me I shouldn't use a word because of its racist history or undertones I may not have known about, my default response is to trust they know what they're talking about and I will adjust going forward. I don't think of that person as the language police, I thank them because they helped me to live more in line with the values I already hold.
Yeah, just listening to various language games with open heart and mind and not hurting others on purpose.
I like the style and clarity of ContraPoint's response to Peterson (which does not go deep in the Jungian stuff, which is another story), especially pointing out that identity politics is not post-modern skepticism of metanarratives but a version of modernism. On the other hand in his refusal to conform to coerced speech Peterson himself is a post-modern relativist in support of plurality of language games (aka "freedom of speech"). Not that PoMo Peterson is a new observation, IIRC Zero Books has made the same observation on number of occasions. I could say something about Peterson's own Shadow Projections in this context, but suffice to say that professional Jungian analysts criticize Peterson for not going through Jungian analysis himself. But maybe that is one of his strengths, if he was better integrated in his individuation process it would be harder for his main audience to identify with him and benefit from his work.
"TERF is a slur,"
Because it is an actual call to violence.
"Punch a TERF" is a slogan. There are never ending threats towards women who disagree
https://terfisaslur.com
There are groups that are based on violence towards radical feminists.
https://twitter.com/sfpubliclibrary/status/989219339306811392
stripping trans people's access to public spaces and services
No one is trying to do that. Just recognizing that there is a need for some spaces that should be reserved for biological women, not saying that trans women don't need their own spaces.
Separate but equal is never equal.
Huh, so there should be no more men's and women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.?
Lemme stop you right there.
Are women --as a demographic-- as wealthy, powerful, connected or respected in this world?
Would you say that women are not seen as the "default" human in this world?
Finally, if you agree with the first two points, then you cannot by any logic claim that women's treatment around the world is worse because they are defined as ~~lesser~~ separate but equal to men.
Everybody's treatment of trans people --as a demographic-- has not only not reached "separate but equal", it hasn't even gotten past Jim Crow.
So in the grand scheme of things, no I don't think there should be more sex segregated facilities. But before that happens we need to make sure people actually are equal, and not separate but equal.
Granted, TERFs gonna TERF.
Let me stop you.
You just said, separate is never equal. If that is not the point you want me to address, don't make it.
I believe women should be provided with spaces where they are safe from men.
no I don't think there should be more sex segregated facilities.
But you think women should be in prisons with men? That there should be no more domestic shelters for women? That women should have to disrobe in front of men? That women should not have their own sports but have to complete with men?
This sounds like MRA stuff to me.
TERFs gonna TERF.
You realize not only is this completely sloppy ad hominem, but that again, it is saying that you believe that women, especially lesbians, should be beaten and killed, right? TERF is hate speech towards women.
Misogynists are going to hate women.
You realize not only is this completely sloppy ad hominem, but that again, it is saying that you believe that women, especially lesbians, should be beaten and killed, right?
Can you explain how you reached this conclusion?
Dismissing anyone who has a criticism of trans philosophy as “Terf!”is attacking the person and not the idea,
The term Terf is a specific call to violence against women. I linked elsewhere: https://terfisaslur.com/
Sorry, but nothing you said in any way supported the claim that using the term TERF "is saying that you believe that women, especially lesbians, should be beaten and killed" (your words).
Sure, calling someone a TERF in lieu of criticising their argument could be an ad hominem attack. Sure, some people really do not like TERFs. But it does not follow from either or both of those things being true that using the term TERF is saying that you believe that women, especially lesbians, should be beaten and killed.
You didnt look through the link I take it? TERF is a signal saying that it is fine to express violence towards women. Lesbians are considered pinnacle TERFs.
You didnt look through the link I take it?
I did. But if that is your entire argument, you are confusing the proposition "some people who use the term TERF state (almost certainly hyperbolically) that TERFs should be beaten and killed" with the proposition "all people who use the term TERF really believe that women, especially lesbians, should be beaten and killed".
My view is that a culturally competent person distinguishes between death threats that are somewhat credible because such murders have happened, and ones that are not. As far as I am aware, zero TERFs have actually been murdered by transwomen. Whereas there is at least an argument, albeit an imperfect one, that TERFism contributes to a social milieu where transwomen do get murdered.
TERF is a signal saying that it is fine to express violence towards women.
You have not shown that this is the case.
Lesbians are considered pinnacle TERFs.
Or this.
so "neo" is now a slur because its in "kick out neo-nazis"
thats now what the word slur means..
the N word also wouldn't be less of a slur if used as "well I like those n.."
So, no, its no less a slur than ananas is a slur.
I myself believe very strongly in trans rights and trans inclusion so I am perhaps not the best person to speak to this, but here is my general understanding from conversations I have had with various feminist academics:
The question of whether ‘TERF’ is derogatory is tricky, because on the surface many people who get called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists actively identify as Radical Feminists, and will openly state their belief that trans women should be excluded from women’s spaces. At the same time, it has become something of a slur through its usage, as it is often used as grounds upon which to discredit someone’s ideas (eg. ‘We don’t talk about Germaine Greer’s work here because she is a TERF’). It’s also become something of a catch-all term for anti-trans rhetoric in general, which I imagine bothers a lot of Radical Feminists who don’t want trans women in their spaces because they generally believe that they are approaching the issue with the goal of protecting women’s rights, so even though the acronym might technically be an accurate description of their worldview, its wider acquired meaning makes it inaccurate or offensive.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
It's a derogatory term, ironically.
TERF is a call to violence against women, specifically lesbians. It is a hate term, please do not use it.
I have no data on how many trans people are feminists, I don't even know where you would get this info from. And being a radical feminist doesn't mean you don't "support" trans people, it just means that you don't believe you can change your biological sex.
Note thst this user posts at gender critical, a vehemently anti-trans subreddit.
Yes, this is my handle specifically for gender critical. I obviously know I am posting with this name, you didn't find some secret.
It is not "anti-trans," we have many trans posters on GC. I don't know what being "anti-trans" would even mean. It is just the belief that being a woman isn't a feeling, but merely a biology reality. Just like your cat is a boy or a girl. What you are saying is fear-mongering and propaganda.
I don't know what being "anti-trans" would even mean.
It is just the belief that being a woman isn't a feeling, but merely a biology reality.
Seems like a pretty good definition right there.
How is that being against trans people?
Well you are perpetuating a nonsense argument. Conflating a gender choice, which is what is really on the line, with biological sex, which no one (but you) are talking about.
The framing is contentious at best, and willfully aggressive at worst.
It is not "anti-trans,"
Liar.
It is just the belief that being a woman isn't a feeling, but merely a biology reality.
You mean like neurological structure is a "biological reality" ?
Just like your cat is a boy or a girl.
The cat is a cat. It doesn't fucking care what gendered markers you arbitrarily assign to it.
What you are saying is fear-mongering and propaganda.
I can't imagine you said this without recognising the irony.
Gendered markers don’t influence sex.
Gendered markers don’t influence sex.
You said "boy or a girl", not "male or female".
Both "boy" and "girl" are gendered terms, not strict sex-based labels.
Sorry i meant to say trans exclusionary
Exclusionary from what?
TERF is a call to violence against women, specifically lesbians.
[citation needed]
It is a hate term, please do not use it.
You know what other group doesn't like appropriate labels being applied to them?
The quote-unquote "alt-right"; bunch of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists, but they don't typically like being labeled such because it reflects their true nature and makes for bad PR.
Just like transphobic allegedly-feminist individuals don't like being called 'Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists'. It highlights that it's a movement formed around bigotry, and you can't have that when you're trying to make it okay to harass trans folk when they try to go for a piss, right?
being a radical feminist doesn't mean you don't "support" trans people
Oh? Do tell how you "support" trans people...
Please don’t use TERF. At best it’s a slur.
Please keep your transphobic propaganda off the internet.
TERF is not a slur, you're just mad that you can't be "Gender Critical" without being called out for transphobic nonsense.
what part?
trans exclusive? Neither trans nor exclusive are slurs or have been documented use in a derogatory way.
and radical feminist is only a slur if you're right wing or christian
fundamentalist,
but as these groups are those who weirdly often work with TERfs, that would make sense..
BugBs' working with the "pacific justice institute" a christian ex-gay group
(collaborating with them? Well that's not very feminist..)to spread an outright lie about a teenager leading to increased harassment so far said youth had to be put on suicide watch..
(https://thinkprogress.org/anti-lgbt-group-admits-it-invented-story-about-transgender-student-harassing-classmates-updated-d66f40c01517/)
Terf now literally crossing over to work with the Heritage foundation, "hands across the isles anti-abortion-stuff.... and attack those of them who dont just pretend to be feminsit when they rent really comfortable with working with...well literal rightwing antifeminists..
https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1088812751701581830
direct statement from that one radfem who as(understandably) perturbed:
http://archive.is/jD9au
https://twitter.com/JaneFae/status/1090244268684439553 and its not like this is news (2017) https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/08/radical-feminists-team-up-with-right-wing-evangelicals-to-oppose-trans-rights-protections/?utm_source=MOBT&utm_medium=Twittermob&Twittermob&utm_campaign=PNMOBT
Aint it interesting how these methods mirror the plan made by christian right wing orgs.. including btw
"hands across the isle" who atm is in contact to UKTerfs referenced in that archive &twitter-thread..
they were explicit. they paid for anti trans ads... color me not surprised..
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/christian-right-tips-fight-transgender-rights-separate-t-lgb
"Kilgannon explained, “Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer.” For many, “gender identity on its own is just a bridge too far. If we separate the T from the alphabet soup we’ll have more success.”
[...]
"Explain that gender identity rights only come at the expense of others: women, sexual assault survivors, female athletes forced to compete against men and boys, ethnic minorities who culturally value modesty, economically challenged children who face many barriers to educational success and don’t need another level of chaos in their lives, children with anxiety disorders and the list goes on and on and on."
TERF Dr. V. Allan poses ofc with righwing traditional conservative D.Davies...
nothing says woman's right than working with those who want to curtail them?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeiZxr_XcAUixfB.jpg
standing up for lesbian by supporting someone who voted against gay marriage lol..
also she seems to be against abortion?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeiZx4FWkAEdVnw.jpg
thats not really feminist?
HATI &Gender trend (terf) supporting each other & "privacy" a campaign that politicized a victim against her wishes to support transphobic toilet laws
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeiiPrTXkAEOrR3.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeiiihMXcAUEXQZ.jpg
(shows the close twitter connection from terf, transcritical scientists who are a small fringe
TERFs& right wingers together in hate against trans people:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeiirMXWkAAAcIt.jpg
oh and some interesting funding.. (and those guys gt rather cagey when asked who'd y for expenses...) https://twitter.com/CaseyExplosion/status/1048237057779404800
so well done terfs, you helping american right wing christian orgs & racist who try to splinter up feminism ala divide et impera.. great job, I hope you dont think they wont fuck you over the minute you lost your use? So.. those people say they're feminist... but work with people who are against anything else feminists support... (for someone pretending to be not a hateful bigot..thats pretty hateful, you dont think?) That appears rather hateful to me.. TERf is a rather nice word looking at TERF history..
The part where it’s used to silence, threaten, harrass and insult women who dare question trans ideology. https://reddit.com/r/terfisaslur
A trans person says “don’t say tranny. It’s insulting.” and everyone is expected to nod along and say “oh, OK.” But when radical feminists and women come along and say “Don’t say TERF. It’s insulting.” (with receipts provided) there’s always a dizzying word salad response. Like you’re gonna gotcha your way out of how that word is broadly used. I’m really not interested. I left some info for people to read if they’d like to. r/terfisaslur Keep saying TERF. It won’t change the fact that it’s a term used to dehumanize women you disagree with.
r/terfisaslur for anyone who is on the fence or new to the terminology.
TERF is a term used against women who question trans ideology. There is no term like this for men who have the same questions.
r/gendercriticalguys
No, TERF can be used to describe anyone, not just women.
lol just google graham linehan & come back to tell me nobody uses it..
also some radfems dont like men talking about feminism, so you'll have fewer anyways.. do you think feminist can only be women? otherwise that makes like, no sense
Of course it can. But it’s not.
This is like saying the term "radical feminist" can be applied to others who are not women, but it's never done. Of course, this simply isn't true.
The argument isn’t that it is never the case. It’s that it’s rarely the case. There are always exceptions to the rule.
It is pretty obvious that one is more common than the other–this is wholly uncontroversial. I disagree with framing this in terms of rules and exceptions. Ignoring the "exception" for the sake of a given narrative seems disingenuous and does not reflect the nuance and complexity of the reality at hand.
Alright then.
Ok. Just to sum up, all this is to say that we already have the terms needed to describe anyone who holds the views you espouse. We do not need to come up with new terms just for men–I think this just muddies the waters.
I’m not here to sum up anything but to give information for those that are interested to look at and they can make up their own minds about the word TERF.
Since this is the first time I've encountered your viewpoint, I actually found it very interesting and, despite all appearances, I was initially open to having a reasoned debate. Now that I know more about your position, I have to say I am only more confident that this view of the word TERF is a mistaken one, and I sincerely hope that you and others like you see this and other similar critiques so that you can one day break away from this way of thinking. I sincerely believe it is lacking in any form of substantive argument and that it will only serve to harm the feminist movement, which presumably we both consider us a part.
And one last thing... I fully recognize that "TERF" and terms like it, such as "cis," are often used in a derisive manner and that bothers a lot of people. That doesn't change what they fundamentally mean, strictly speaking, and it doesn't refute the fundamental argument/ideology behind the terms in any way–they exist separately from the tone and mediums which they are delivered in. I think we should be very careful not to conflate these kinds of legitimate critiques with "disguised misogyny".
I too hope you and those within your community will look at the ways you use language and how damaging it is to the communities you wield that language against.
I'm not saying what she's doing is straw manning or bad or anything; I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between two agents engaged in a conversation, and one agent creating a fictional conversation to explore a topic.
I think her approach (and Platos) is great in many ways, I just think it can be relevant to distinguish between an actual discussion and an idea presented through the style of a discussion.
[deleted]
I don't think it's a matter of semantics. In the case of a discussion, each agent is able to receive new information; in the case of a single agent presenting an argument through the style of a fictional discussion the agent can't gain new information.
It's not semantics. In the case of a simulated dialogue, there's obviously the issue of the one actual speaker potentially being biased, and creating a well-disguised strawman to sway viewers/readers.
I don't think Contrapoints does this, but it's an inherent vulnerability of the style, and it's worth pointing out.
[deleted]
[removed]
Could you link to the video because I really doubt that she couldn't find "good arguments from the feminist."
That reeks of misogyny.
Could you link to the video because I really doubt that she couldn't find "good arguments from the feminist."
It's because there just isn't a good argument for being an asshole towards trans people. I know, you really desperately want there to be one, but there isn't.
That reeks of misogyny.
You reek of misogyny and transphobia.
It's the video called TERFs, here:
https://youtu.be/AQPWI7cEJGs
I think it depends on the person creating the dialogue, for an effective use you'd need to be open to what creates the perspectives of each person and to why they'd make the points that they'd make. It needs to be a genuine attempt.
Completely. It is easy to set up easy targets to knock down.
Dialogues give the illusion of honest debate and often are entertaining. Galileos famous dialogues are a case in point. Few would argue he gave his critics equal footing with the comic figure of Simplicius. Pontification is more obvious and easily detectable in monologues, whereas in dialogues dry truth takes a back seat to lively performance.
Lots of Platos contemporaries wrote Socratic style dialogues including Aristotle, and he claimed Alexamenus of Teos was the first to write them, before his illustrious teacher. Plato exhibits strong influence from at least two major precursors groups, Sophists and poets. Sophists prepared their students for public debate, a formal style of dialogue, success at which heavily influenced ones standing in Athenian society, and heavily influenced the subject matter (e.g. the Laws) and style of Platos dialogues. Philosophical speculation, public performance and earnest seeming dialogue were the Sophists stock and trade (perhaps not coincidentally why one of Socrates stock analogies for knowledge were trade skills). The μιμίαμβοι, or mimes Sophron and Epicharmus, who Plato studied, were popular dialogue writers considered poets, that predated him, but whose subject matter was often more mundane, who might now be closer to comedian dramatists. No doubt a useful style to learn to skewer ones ideological opponents. If the essence of mime is imitating real action dramatically, then one can easily imagine Plato applying their mimetic principles to the Sophists and Sophistry, elevating the former to criticize the latter. Like Socrates Epicharmus was a figure of controversy, lauded and denounced for ridiculing the gods, literary impeity.
I think both have their merits nonetheless.
Yeah, not saying one is better than the other. But at least what she is doing now is pretty unique as these videos go, and she is pulling the most she can out of that format.
The Tiffany Tumbles episode is almost an award winning short film.
What's the merits of pontification over dialogue? Pontification doesn't even consider arguments, and if it does it usually amounts to a strawman.
Depends on the video, but most of her early stuff is about addressing how the alt-right and their cohorts attempt to shift the overton window by acting as benign chameleons. Have you watched her entire catalog? Cause if you have then I would find it hard to make the claim that she wasnt addressing arguments.
I think /u/Petrichordates is asking more broadly what the advantages of pontification are over dialogue, not about the ContraPoints channel in particular.
Well my comment was only in the context of contra's old videos vs the new ones
This was actually a feature of some old videos as well, it was what attracted me to the channel in the first place. Definitely check out the backlog.
I don't get it. Every video I watch is this over the top unattractive caricature of nothing. It's like so unappealing and every time I get 2 minutes in and just turn it off due to the obvious pseudo-intellectual nonsense spewed. What's worse is she tries to use this like... advanced vernacular to sound smarter but she sounds pretentious and uneducated at the same time by doing it.
Maybe watch more than 2 minutes.
I have. Still shit. It's the stuff that people love because it makes them feel smart.
Really. Have you seen the episode Tiffany Tumbles? Could you explain why it is "shit"?
I'm 8 minutes in and I'm in love with the video so far.
I don't want to spoil anything but the ending is the "best" part.
At 7:47 see says some bullshit. Talks about how our attraction is purely physical perception but that's... completely wrong. Science is still trying to figure out attraction but sight perception is not the end all be all of physical attraction.
It's an unfounded statement based on personal experience, not studies. She seems to do this quite a bit. She makes an assertion as fact, and then doesn't back it up. Although again, quite enjoyed the video.
In this case her character did that. But I see the point you are making, it's just very difficult to hold to that standard and stay entertaining.
I suppose I was assuming Adria was the personality that was most "her"
They just regurgitate the talking points that they imagine the right would say. Lowest common denominator right wing talking points or outright "right wing are bad people".
If that is the left wing version of philosophy then the left wing is all style and no thought.
Lowest common denominator talking points from the right is about as advanced as right wing talking points get. Apart from that it's all "whataboutisms", "how awesome is capitalism" and conspiracy theories.
All of which have long since been debunked many times over.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Meanwhile in reality, right wing philosophers these days seem to have nothing to offer beyond repackaged neo-Nazi tropes like "cultural Marxism" and profound life advice "you should actually clean your room and take showers regularly."
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Seeing a fair amount of comments disagreeing with OP, saying ContraPoints is too showy, or only mildly philosophical, so I wanted to add my two cents: I am generally not someone who is interested in politics and philosophy, so to me, her flamboyance makes the topics she talks about suddenly very interesting. In other words, she may not have the best political philosophy and she may seem gimmicky, but she gets people like me interested in topics I wouldn’t normally pay attention to, and that’s pretty dang cool in my books
Spot on!
I never took the field of philosophy very seriously at all until I started watching ContraPoints. Now I'm suddenly somewhat interested in reading philosophy books and discussing and learning about philosophy online. Surely that counts for something.
Interesting that YouTube shoves Shapiro, Peterson and Blair White down my throat but never this channel. The only reason I heard of her is because of Reddit.
They're called algorithms. YouTube correlates your viewership history with countless other viewers and suggests videos based on what viewers with similar histories like.
I get ads for PragerU and Shapiro/Peterson constantly and I’m about as left wing as they come. I watched the Joe Rogan interviews with Hamilton Morris and Paul Staments 8 months ago, but I guess I’ve been sorted into the pseudo-intellectual dweeb-web bucket despite not watching anything like it since then.
I get the same stuff. I get lots of variations on “watch Peterson destroy sjw”. Or Sam Harris something something. I did watch some of those videos, but I don’t think YouTube’s algorithm understands why I am fascinated by them and all the other stuff I really enjoy without horror. Maybe I should use incognito mode on youtube.
Still waiting to see any kind of destruction spell performed by those heralds of rationality.
Yes, me too! I get "Ben Shapiro FUCKING DEMOLISHES SJW TRANNY" because I looked up where to go get transition hormones. It's quite literally the opposite of what I'm looking for.
I use incognito mode frequently for YouTube as I've found even watching a few rounds of video game trailers is enough to load your recommendations with the "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS..." tripe.
Yeah it’s frustrating. I listen to Rogan when I want more lighthearted, somewhat centrist banter, or just to hear how a “regular joe” approaches things (which I think has it’s merits), but that doesn’t mean I want to listen to Arab hating propagandists. Like holy shit YouTube, you really need a more nuanced algorithm. Same thing for guys like Stephen Pinker, that doesn’t mean I want to hear Steven Crowder. Not all Stevens are equal!
On that point, youtube's cold calculus is perfectly telling, but it's somewhat odd why "leftists" like ContraPoints aren't included in the heap. Actually it isn't inexplicable. They're all just variations of liberalism, but those of the latter, "leftist" variety prefer to make (generally empty and nonsensical) style-differentiations between themselves and the Steven Crowders of this world, which they find distasteful when it comes the particulars of their application of rootless individualism. It's a question of cultural capital, which is what the algorithms primarily reflect.
I got contrapoints as a recommendation having never heard of it before so I'll somewhat defend YouTube on that one... That said, I get insane bullshit in my recommendations as well.
I got contrapoints solely because i subscribe to lindsay Ellis
Ah, the old Lindsay Ellis to Contrapoints to Hbomberguy to Shaun pipeline.
[deleted]
Nice, for me it was Ellis to Contrapoints to Hbomberguy to Shaun. Three Arrows is a pretty good one too.
Love three arrows. Can't wait to see him really blow up, and expand out his subjects a little.
Yea mine in reverse
I went Shaun, Contrapoints, Philosophy Tube, hbomberguy. Are there any Americans that do stuff like this?
Chapo Trap House is certainly American leftist, but I'd say they're probably even further than the above mentioned creators. They only do a podcast though, no video content afaik.
Who the heck is shaun lol.
I only knew about Lindsay Ellis since moviebob gave her shoutouts a couple times.
he's a talking skull who hates CinemaSins and he is great
He compares the 442nd division to the 33rd waffen grenadiers. The former were Japanese American Citizens who fought against the Germans in ww2. The 33rd were French defectors who fought against France for Germany in ww2. These aren't the same thing and he words it like they are. It isn't the primary point of his video but it doesn't need to be in the video and it isn't true.
What video is this?
Probably the best active youtube channel
I've been watching Lindsay since she was the nostalgia chick so I've always been a fan. I lean very hard left but I'm also a "can we all just stop being dicks to each other" kinda of guy, so I'm subscribed to some moderate right youtubers (that I find entertaining and make interesting points and aren't just douches) and left youtubers. so my algorithm is all over the place and it can get annoying. But contrapoints is arguably the best political youtuber out there (sorry 3 arrows), even if you don't agree with all her points, her arguments are so well composed, and appealing that you will always come out of them educated and more sympathetic to her points. Not to mention her production is amazing.
As a side note when it comes to YouTube political heads the thing that irritates me most is smugness that's (one of the reasons) why I hate Sargon of applebees and while I like hbomberguy ( his break down of media is amazing), sometimes his smugness grates on me.
Throw Cuck Philosophy in there after Shaun and switch hbomb and Lindsay and that was the order exactly.
Found bomberguy at random, can confirm I’m watching Shaun 2 days later and sobering up from floating around whatever the algorythm suggested.
I’ve only had something running on the side on a second monitor anyway, but it’s very interesting to hear both of them take apart what I’ve been watching before. Never really “fell” for anything that was going on mostly because I was ignoring stuff I knew no backgrounds of, but it’s still a weird sense of unknowingly having been in a complete echochamber before...
I used to listen to Shapiro's daily podcast unironically. I still do from time to time, but more to see what is being said than to sit and nod. If you haven't checked out Three Arrows, I'd suggest him. A bit newer, and maybe nicher subject matter, but still fantastic production and research.
I think that Hbomberguy and Shaun do a good job of deconstructing far right Youtubers' arguements, but those guys hold some pretty extreme views themselves. Hbomberguy identifies as a communist and occassionally goes on random rants about the horrors of the free market. Shaun isn't as bad, but I think he identifies as a socialist.
It'd be nice there were more quality videos being put out in this space that weren't being by extremists on either side of the political spectrum.
Edit: what's with the downvotes? I didn't realise a 'philosophy' sub would be so left leaning.
Well it is a philosophy sub post about a left leaning youtuber. And I think the reason most of the content is put out by "extremists" is because they're the ones who care enough to make the content.
Watching stuff put out there by extremes isn’t necessarily bad if you can balance it out and see through the bullshit, problem is it’s really easy to get stuck on one side.
I mean I didn’t know who to watch from the left since, obviously, everyone you’d ever see appear on Sargon or Shapiro seemed to be a lunatic (not to say that some of them weren’t genuinely).
I guess the closest I’ve come to getting there before was Tim Pool, although that might also be because I haven’t really seen any critical opinions on him whatsoever
Mine was Philosophy Tube to Contrapoints to Lindsay Ellis to Shaun and Hbomberguy.
Me too.
Same.
The BS you've got in your recommendations is a depiction of basic statistic analysis of collective viewership. That's the only way recommendation system works
[deleted]
How so? I grew up on right-wing talk radio and FOX news like Hannity and O’Reilly. I’ve heard Shapiro, Rubin, McInnes etc. They’re not saying anything new. They’re just saying it faster and or with beards. Again, I’ll listen to educated and respected centrists like Pinker, but I don’t have anymore time for repackaged tripe; I gave that world 15 years of my life, no more.
Shit your comment was not the one I meant to be responding too. And yea, Crowders a tool
Oh ok. No problem. Haha.
pseudo-intellectual dweeb-web
Arab hating propagandists
Pinker is an example of someone spending a great deal of time speaking out against the kind of fanatical Leftism you and the person you responded to) are spreading. Rohan as well.
Lol. What “fanatical Leftism” am I spreading? I like Pinker. I literally just finished Better Angels of Our Nature. People like Pinker are miles away from disingenuous hacks like Shapiro which is why one is respected, highly published, and peer reviewed, and the other is laughed at.
Edit: Also FTR, I didn’t say “pseudo-intellectual dweeb-web”. At least pay attention to who you’re responding to.
What “fanatical Leftism” am I spreading?
The kind where you insult and attack the character of anyone whose politics you disagree with. You invent and presume bigotry, you call people “disingenuous hacks”, etc.
I like Pinker
Bummer. Because it’s his opinion that people like you are a huge social problem, especially in academia. He’s spoken on this exact topic probably hundreds of times at this point.
Oh my god spare me. I call people hacks who use far worse language. People like Shapiro literally say things like “Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” Forgive me if I don’t have time for people who disparage entire races. But yeah, I’m “the problem” for dismissing one individual... ok.
But yeah, I’m “the problem” for dismissing one individual... ok.
Do you honestly think I was attributing this entire problem to this sole instance of you dismissing a political pundit? Or are you maybe trying to misrepresent what I’m saying to make it easier to dismiss me as well? Similar to, again, what you do with anyone whose politics you disagree with.
And if you can’t tell a joke tweet from a serious political discussion, then you should probably reread Pinker’s book. You’re latching onto anything you can interpret as racism, because it’s a short cut to feeling justified in your dogma.
Grow a spine. Seriously. Cheers.
Enlightened leftist DESTROYS a RACIST SHAPIRO WORSHIPPER
See, now you’re just projecting insecurity. An intellectual spine would fix that. I mean it.
Source: Former hardcore conservative.
See, now you’re just projecting insecurity
No, I am not. I’m not insecure in my beliefs at all. Read Mill’s On Liberty if you want a description of them.
You’re the one who is insecure in your beliefs, and unlike you I can explain why. This insecurity is the reason you refuse to grapple fairly with ideas spread by people like Shapiro. If you really believed that liberal ideals generally direct us towards the best world for the greatest amount of people, your arguments would have more than just made up bigotry and dodging. You don’t believe liberal ideology can win in the marketplace of ideas, so you think we ought to deplatform anyone who disagrees with us, and excuse our intellectual dishonesty because we’re “the good side”. It’s a tired, broken kind of thinking, more religious than political.
An intellectual spine would fix that
Ah, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you now has “no intellectual spine”, and the cure for that is, as expected, to make sure our opinions are more like yours. Brilliant.
Source: Former hardcore conservative.
Maybe instead of constantly being at the polarized tail ends of the spectrum, try something towards the more reasonable center.
the marketplace of ideas
You know you aren't allowed to sell poison as food in a marketplace, right?
I guess we should all be thankful we have people like you to protect us from these dangerous and poisonous ideas.
Question, though: if those ideas are so poor, and so detrimental, then why not just engage them fairly? Why screech and sound moral panic at the mention of Shapiro’s name, instead of just being charitable, understanding the point he’s making, and describing where you think he’s wrong? That’s the behavior of someone who has confidence in the real, tangible substance of their beliefs. List all the excuses you want, but if things are as you say (that an idea is stupid, or dangerous), then 1) you should feel no worry that people will agree with it, and 2) it ought to be easy to convincingly disprove.
What you’re describing doesn’t seem like the behavior of someone who actually believes those ideas are stupid, but seems more like the behavior of someone who thinks they’re true but is desperately trying to quarantine them and protect their own, pre-existing narrative. This is why critical thought is always a demagogue’s worst enemy, regardless of which corner of political extremity they inhabit: if your ideology is defined by the desire to enforce a narrative onto the world, then understanding the objective nature of the world is always going to clash with your ideology.
I don't care to waste my time on pseudointellectual wankery.
It would lend it an air of legitimacy that it does not warrant.
Enjoy your "marketplace of ideas".
Sharpiro is a hack. Wrote an article in his news site about the Liberal Media lying about Steve King. Until King literally said he supports White Nationalist and Supremacist ideals, then they corrected it to "might be reasonable to see his statements that way."
Ads are a different game, though they are still based on viewership to some extent. They probably flagged the Joe Rogan stuff and considered you to be part of the potential demographic. Peterson/Shapiro stuff is promoted just because it's really popular on the political side of youtube.
Another important consideration is that chronic youtube use is overwhelmingly male. So it's not surprising that popular youtube political content skews toward what is popular with male demographics.
It's frustrating as a person that separates what Peterson has to say on people like Jung from the politics that has latched on to him that I get shitty alt right or crybaby beta male videos dissing anything slightly progressive.
Yeah, I’m also a huge Jung fan but I’m not interested in lobster-bois take on his work.
Same thing happens to me. I wish there was a way to manually edit your recommendation algorithm.
I wish I knew PragerU was a right-wing site before watching their garbage video on modern art.
[deleted]
Makes sense. Outrage drives clicks. God, we’re fucked.
Your experience is not out of the ordinary. In fact, pretty much everyone I know gets these kinds of ads regardless of their political orientation (or indeed whether they watch political content at all).
This suggests that the ads and video suggestions are not, in fact, as individually tailored as the folk image of the "algorithm" would suggest. No reasonable algorithm would recommend everyone the same video. Rather, my theory is that there is a shortage of advertisers, and the ones who spend the most can essentially dominate the platform (because if the algorithm weights viewer preferences against some advertiser priority metric, then a high priority can outweigh preferences in the event that there are not many advertisers). Of course, this is just a theory, and we may never know. Indeed the nature of neural networks is that no one may ever know, if no one is deeply looking at these algorithms.
Oddly enough, I found contrapoints through YouTube recommendations. I also LOVE watching Shapiro videos, Rogan's podcast, on occasion, some Crowder stuff (I like the recent change my mind Videos, where he's not bashing the other person over the head with his opinions). I've grown out of Peterson as I believe he's gone the Bill Nye route, pretending to be an expert on everything.
Not exactly right wing, though my consumption choices would probably indicate otherwise. I likely got recommended contrapoints because I'm also subscribed to Lindsey Ellis, as I love her takes on literature. I also get recommended Hbomberguy (who I can not stand) pretty frequently.
what, you can stand Hbomb destroy anti-fems and reactionaries with FACTS and REASON and ACTUALLY READING THE SOURCES THEY CLAIM?
I just think he's insufferable in a way that isn't funny, but cringy. At least with the conservs, they are actually a fucking riot.
I don't care so much about the facts. I do independent research on a lot of political issues as a matter of course. So, before I watch any video on an issue, I usually already have an opinion. So it doesn't matter who is destroying who. Just be funny.
I don't care so much about the facts.
Yikes.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
“Only those who agree with me are intelligent and everyone else is stupid the people I repeat all the time told me so”.
Weird time to confess, but I’m glad you’ve come to terms with it. That’s the first step, man. Good for you.
The lack of self awareness with you is as staggering as it is sad.
Seems like this is one of those times where it takes one to know one, eh? Project less, work on yourself more. Peace, my dude.
It never ceases to amuse me how your kind always seem to project so hard you turn it around to anyone who calls out your nonsense and pretend that they’re the ones projecting. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.
your kind
Surprised you aren't using the good ol' triple-parentheses here.
They are trying to save you
I watch contrapoints and never get recommended her.
I also get hella pragerU ads
That doesn't explain why I'm literally NEVER recommended a Socialist video when my entire viewing history is music and Socialist theory.
But God forbid I accidentally click on one Jordan Peterson video, I'll be recommended right wing bullshit for weeks, even after I click "not interested" on every single one recommended to me.
One hypothesis is that the crazier end of the right wing youtube spectrum like Peterson tends to generate more controversy and click-throughs to other videos, from either fans or haters.
That might make youtube prioritize directing people to Peterson even if the data shows they're likely to hate him. They don't care if you're not interested, they care if you're likely to watch ads on his video.
And even if you're not personally likely to do that, hate-watching and controversy watching are fairly strong phenomena.
Crazier end of the right wing? Are you kidding me Peterson is not right wing at all he's what you'd call a classic liberal. He literally has thousands of hours lecturing against the extreme right as well as the extreme left.
[deleted]
I try to be fair when labeling someone as this or that. He doesn't defend hierarchies. He acknowledges their existence and looks for reasons why they exist in the first place. He analyzes people and the world today based on history, biology, etc. He doesn't advocate socially enforced monogamy to curb male violence but does believe western societies are moving away from monogamous relationships and there are consequences to that. He does have more conservative views on marriage and relationships but he's been careful not to say one is better than the other.
Overall he's someone who tries to get a deeper understanding of why things are the way they are and why things were the way they were in human history. One thing I like is that he brings discussion to the table no matter what topic which is what a free exchange of ideas should consist of. No taboo subjects, let's talk about everything involved with human behavior. He's not right on everything but he's open to dialogue which is great.
I saw some Q&A where he said he supported Canada's single payer health care system so I wouldn't call him a classical, laissez faire liberal. Rather, he is a social conservative because conservatism is really about supporting the status quo and objecting to change (progressivism), which really is what he is famous for.
That and he has a particular trait in that he uses incendiary language ("All atheists are murderers") with his own unique definitions in order to later deflect criticism ("I define atheism as being immoral").
(Quotes are paraphrases, but this is the point he has argued with atheists like Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris).
I can see why you'd call him a social conservative. He worked with the socialist party in Canada when he was younger and I think that shaped some of his views on the world. The people that try to label him far right though? Like c'mon he's far from it.
I really enjoyed watching those debates. He never said all athiests are murderers not even close. He does have an idea that bashing down religious beliefs may lead to chaos because western societies are founded on judeo christian values. I can see the theory behind that but I don't agree with it.
He has explicitly stated that atheists are murderers, arguing that a “genuine atheist” would be like Raskolnikov, the murderer in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, and that the atheists he has debated against aren't atheists because they haven't murdered (essentially equating morality with religiousity). The thing is that no one else defines atheists that way.
His statements, taken in the context of their accepted definitions, are absolutely far right and will rightly incense people. The thing is that he uses this merely as publicity stunt, as it grabs attention but as soon as he is called out for them he backtracks into revising the definition of commonly accepted words into something pointlessly tautological.
So while he is "just" a social conservative he is using intentionally obsfuscated language in order to masquerade himself as something else for clicks and profit (or as he has stated, "I've found a way to monetize the left").
I can see what you're saying that is a crazy idea to have about atheism if it is true. I don't believe he masquerades himself for clicks and profit though. The things he's said before bill c-16, all the fame that came about, are still the same things he teaches now. The things he says and the things he teaches are because he truly believes them whether or not they're correct. From everything I've seen in his lectures and debates, he's really genuine and I admire that about him.
Lol
I got literal fascists recommended to me for a month or two. Now I don't really get them anymore, but I did/do get Shaun and three arrows recommended to me occasionally. :/
Shaun is great, I love Mexie's content as well.
"literal fascists"
Blackpidgeonspeaks is a literal Nazi for one. Mysoginist, anti-Semitic, racial supremacist, etc. And he twists facts to support those views. I actually watched a few of his videos.
Oh yeah, he is. I mean, I'm right leaning, but fuck this guy.
Are there many others that are prominent though? I've never seen many, but that may be because I just tend to avoid politics in general.
Well, Sargon of Akkad is less (overtly) fascist, though nationalist and very likely closet racist, but also more prominent? There's certainly others that are more clearly fascist and probably proportionately less prominent, but I'm not really a fascist media connoisseur.
the algorithms are horrible, I watch some 40k stuff and suddenly I'm getting Arch Warhammer, who is one of these pseudo intellectual nasty far right types who tries to shove his reaction politics into a setting that is a parody of that sort of thing, YouTube, seriously, I just want to watch Duncan tell me to thin my paints and see The Emperor be a dick to everyone (random fact, the person who makes the latter series, Bruva Alfausa, is a huge fan of the likes on Contra, Shaun and Hbomb)
The fact that there are fascist 40k fans is one of the most ironic things in all of nerddom.
Is Arch Warhammer that dude who thinks the Imperium are the good guys?
The Imperium are the “good guys” insofar as they represent humanities continued survival and us, being human, have a vested interest in that, despite being the most oppressive regime possible and a corruption of The Emperor’s vision for humanity, so yes, he is that guy
He also despises the T’au and thinks they’re the “bad guys” for being.... Communist, despite The Greater Good having more in common with Plato’s Republic than The Communist Manifesto, also, the T’au are actually nice to the people under them, they’re still an autocratic regrown, just a benevolent (for now) one
Ah yes the communist Tau what with their class based caste system and very clearly defined state. I wonder where he buys his kool-aid?
The Greater Good is all about the needs of the many, self sacrifice in defence of ones comrades, which to morons like him screams “COMMUNISM!!111!!” now the Farsight Enclave, a breakaway Sept that rejects the rule of the Etherials and the Cast system, are becomingly slightly communist what with equality between the different branches of T’au society and openness and honesty with the general public
Pretty much. It's crazy how much people like him continue to spout McCarthy era talking points instead of just looking at the theory straight from the horses mouth.
Do you actually believe it's just a matter of algorithms helplessly pushing unwanted content, and that money is not also playing a role in pushing it?
I don't know why you would think Jordan Peterson videos are being pushed by dark money.
He’s being funded by the Koch brothers to a large extent, so that’s not a totally incorrect assumption.
Evidence?
Peterson is an outlier, and will most likely become a poison pill for the conservative right.
For a while all I got was literal fascist videos like blackpidgeonspeaks. I clicked on one of them at first out of curiosity, and was rather disgusted by the blatant Nazi ideology, but then that's all I got for a month or two.
And then it feeds you white nationalist content!
If you're interested in leftist YouTube I'd recommend checking out r/BreadTube, there's even two master lists of left youtuber posted a few months ago
Funny! For me it's both! I watched a leftist YouTuber called Three Arrows, and now I've been getting a lot of Contrapoints and Shaun
that makes sense cuz you watched a leftist YouTube, while I didn't watch anything political
She's got the only one like it as far as I can tell.
I would say Shaun is very good with that respect. He's openly politically biased but he still offers well thought out arguments and has the evidence to back them up.
Slightly? Ok maybe. But imho just cause you believe in liberalism doesn’t automatically make you biased. I remember him telling his life story and he said I believe for years he was slightly right of center. Biased to me means not listening to the other argument just cause your sure your right, he actually tells everyone to watch the videos he is disagreeing with before he criticisms them, then to make up your own mind. Something JP or lil Benny would never do unless it suited there narrative.
Who is Shaun?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ6o36XL0CpYb6U5dNBiXHQ
Shaun
I got her shoved into my recommended thankfully. I enjoy her videos.
Those recomendation stopped for me when I begain to watch lefty tube, but then I watched the donald trump adress and my recomendations are ultra right wing again.
I've been watching a video of hers yesterday, and guess what ad came up at the beginning? Donald fucking Trump blabbering on about his stupid wall and telling me to call congressmen.
you should install adblock
YouTube makes recommendations based on what you currently watch.
And recommends Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson content much more so than other content like Contrapoints, is the point being made. One perspective gets pushed more than the other, likely because particularly those two have huge followings online. Not necessarily just about what you're watching, but what others are watching.
I fell down the rabbit hole of political debates and long form video content and I don't think I've ever been recommended a video in weeks that was actually by Ben shapiro/Jordan Peterson but a whooooole lot of contrapoints and similar sided channels. Maybe I just watch too much YouTube though.
As someone who watches the Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson content I can tell you you are wrong for the way recommendations works for me is often I get recommendations for Mainstream news sites (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and more left-wing content (though it sides more Establishment than anti-Establishment). To be fair, I have anti-Establishment left wing content I'm subscribed to as well (ie: Secular Talk and Democracy Now) but I always have to actively look for that kind of content. The algorithm is just wonky it doesn't promote one side over the other besides the Establishment mainstream news type of content.
yes, but you can pay to be recommended even if the content has nothing to do with you (like that fucking hot knife video).
Often I watch gaming videos. Sometimes I don't even log in or use a different device and I always see JP, Shapiro or some video attacking feminism
The recommendation system probably learned a correlation between gaming and anti-feminism. There probably aren't many gamers who are watching Natalie's videos.
This is another abdication of responsibility by tech firms btw, when your sole motive is profit and profit = view time/ count, then you might end up exposing gamers with unformed political philosophies to the likes of Peterson and Shapiro without proper counterpoint.
That's mostly true, but you will still be recommended right wing channels even if you've never visited one. I think it's a mix of the way they game it and their general popularity on YouTube.
Shaun and hbomberguy are also really good. If you like gaming that is.
YouTube “shoves” contrapoints to those who watched Jordan Peterson. At least I saw her right after I watched him
YouTube shoves JP after i watch gaming videos
I remember the day that synagogue shooting happened I saw the headline on reddit, then went on YouTube and it immediately recommended me a video where all the comments were whining about Jews controlling everything
So would you like these videos to be hidden from those who don't like conspiracy theories? I don't get it. Do you want anti-vaxers to be protected by some algo that don't allow sane people in to?
Seriously, what's the problem there?
[deleted]
That would make sense.
It's a direct consequence of gamergate. The parallel between video game culture and contemporary right wing thinkers is too apparent to not be related IMHO.
The only channel getting "shoved" here is JP's.
Oh, come on. Youtube algorithm measures relevancy based on stats. It's a stupid classifier, it has as much agenda as google ads (none)
I didn't say there was an agenda, just that alt-right stuff gets heavily pushed by the algorithms. I assume it's more of a gaming of the algorithm than anything, Google has no incentive to radicalize the population.
YouTube shoves Shapiro, Peterson and Blair White down my throat but never this channel
That's why. Contra is far left. Shapiro, Peterson, And White are far right, moderate right, and centrist, respectively. You must watch a lot of right wing YouTubers.
How come that Contrapoints is far left? She's a counterculture provocative philosopher with a tight grasp on classic philosophy. I never heard her basing arguments on far left writers.
What particular argument of her's is a far left talking point?
She is anti-capitalism and supports marxism and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics
According to Wikipedia, that makes her far left.
The term has been used to describe ideologies such as: communism, anarchism, anarcho-communism, left-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.
She also implied that she is an anarcho-syndicalist through her character Tabby.
I never heard her arguments for anarcho-communism or communism. But maybe I've just missed them and thus I'm wrong
On what planet is Blair White a centrist? She literally identifies as a conservative. Her talking points are largely from the right (ie anti-"SJW", anti-feminism etc.).
That's litterally the whole point of people like her and Peterson and such. To move what is considered "centrist" further to the right.
actually I don't.
I even tried to browse YouTube in incognito mode without logging in and Shapiro and Peterson were there within 2 clicks, or some compilation attacking feminists.
to be honest I didn't get Blair white as much
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
I find her videos just so entertaining and interesting to watch. I do wish she made some with other people besides more versions of herself, but maybe one day...
I really enjoyed her video on Jorden Peterson. When I first heard him I thought he made a lot of sense, and she does a good job of giving him credit where it’s due but pointing out the flaws in his ideology.
That was the first video I watched of hers and subscribed from there. I used to, and still do in some areas, agree with a lot of what he talked about but during an AMA he did someone mentioned her video and whether he had a response to provide but he didn’t answer the question which peaked my curiosity. She does really great work, it’s always in depth and insightful plus she covers all three of my favorite topics; philosophy, linguistics, and politics. Love it.
Ironically, her recent video on linguistics was off the mark. She (correctly) was combatting Shapiro's poor use of language, but her solution was simply using the other side of the same coin (dictated definitions of language). What she instead needed to do was invoke Wittgenstein and the (neo-)pragmatists, and how meaning of language comes from its use in any given context, sociolinguistic "language-game," etc.
as i was reading your comment, i already knew you were going with wittgenstein lol! while i'm sure she didn't bring wittgenstein up, in the video about pronouns i think it was, one of her characters mentioned how one view of sexual / gender identity has to do with our pragmatic understanding of these concepts in society. For example the concept of "being a woman" has certain things associated with it (i.e. femininity)
Yes, she talks about how some drag queens, in contrast with trans folk, will even change pronouns based on their gender presentation, etc. In contrast to ContraPoints main position, that would be the more linguistically "correct" approach.
At the beginning of the video she says that you could make that kind of argument, but she didn't think it would be persuasive to people who clearly believe in dictated definitions of language, so goes on to make a prescriptive argument as well. She definitely isn't beyond invoking Wittgenstein, lol
Yeah I recall a Twitter thread (now deleted I think) where she said "I'm a Wittgenstein gal". She definitely knows her stuff.
When you say off the mark, do you mean incorrect? It seems that either her approach or your use of Wittgenstein would be a sufficient counter to Shapiro. Sure, applying Wittgenstein would be more in depth but I didn't think ContraPoints' counter argument flawed.
Yes, incorrect. Shapiro was incorrect, as well. ContraPoints argued the opposite position of Shapiro, but used the same means/method of achieving it. But not only was Shapiro's position incorrect, his means/method were incorrect, as well. Hence my remark that ContraPoints merely presented the opposite side of the same coin, but didn't in fact point out how the coin itself is flawed.
I think that was the point of the video, to use the same logic as Shapiro to make his argument collapse in on itself and maybe convert a few of his cultists into the light of giving people basic respect
Hence my remark that ContraPoints merely presented the opposite side of the same coin, but didn't in fact point out how the coin itself is flawed.
I don't know if this is necessarily true.
Was it not highlighting that the argument can be turned against itself and is thus inherently flawed?
I don't believe it was, no.
Hm, I'll have to revisit her video with that in mind. I know she didn't explicitly appeal to language games in that video, but much of her rhetoric surrounding transgender issues seems to allude to similar concepts.
Some meaning of language comes from it's use. We use language to relay concepts. No amount of language wrangling and context warping will change the meaning we are trying to relay in the first place, only obfuscate it and make the process harder.
*Piqued.
It's a loan-word from French, despite being a homophone to the English peaked, which acts as a false friend by having a somewhat similar meaning in this context.
For reference, piqued means that it stirred your interest, and generally means you had no interest before. Peaked would rather mean that your already existing interest was brought to maximum level.
Neat! I did mean piqued since I hadn’t heard of her before so there was no interest to be had. Thanks for teaching me that. :)
RationalityRules was the first critique of his that I saw.
That's The thing. His reaction to the teaching affair is totally justified. A lot of his views are extremely rational and liberal. His reductionist endgame logic is just nuts. If you sort of ignore the "because white christalian moralist values" aka "WESTERN moralist values" he has a lot of good to say. Just don't let it suck you in.
If you sort of ignore the "Because white christalian moralist values" aka "WESTERN moralist values..."
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to convey right there but if you cared to clarify I would appreciate that.
I think that's essentially what he is:
common knowledge, everyday self help from an academic
bad political takes that morph from them
His audience is mostly young misguided boys and he has to cater to them by shifting the endpoint of his logic to their needs and wants. Most self help authors don't get asked "the Jewish question" endlessly
yeah, I think he gets a lot of interested from young men by working from the academic equivalent of 200 level philosophy classes, which is pretty mind blowing to a young, relatively uneducated, confused youth. Some of his concepts I find fascinating; mainly the idea that the well defined limits to right wing extremism do not have a symmetric/diametric opposite in the left wing. Is there such a thing as harmful extreme liberalism? It doesn't present itself in historically problematic themes like white supremacy and racism, and as such can be very difficult to identify. I also agree with his total refusal to be dictated by the UofO acceptable prefixes to be used with students; it's a breach of human rights. (he has always said if a student approaches him in earnestness and asks to be addressed by a certain prefix, he will have that discussion with that student and reach an acceptable solution). But to be TOLD you must do this by the University body or lose your job? Not a fucking chance. I'd do the same.
Aaaaaaand that's about it. His books and his child raising information is questionable, and his idea that there is a bastion of "western values" that is being threatened and possibly lost is where the crazy comes out. Any time I head "western values" in that context I can't help but worry that its a byword for "white christian" morals, at which point the bullshit rears its ugly head and everything goes down hill.
EDIT; that was one hell of a ramble. I didn't proof read it, so none of that may make any sense. have a good night!
bad political takes that morph from them
Nothing bad about them. I'm sure you would be all up in arms if the government was forcing you to say something you didn't agree with. Imagine the state forced you to call black people the N word instead of their names or the state forced you to address "transgenders" with their birth-gender pronouns instead of what they want you to say.
You're only going along with this bullshit state compelled speech because it's suiting you right now.
Except that hasn’t been the result of C-16. The law was about harassment, and Peterson twisted it to suit his narrative.
Nothing bad about them.
We'll have to agree to disagree; Peterson is repugnant to listen to for any period of time and I'd rather not have to do it to hold a continued discussion, but his takes are often rebuked and refuted, which is something the person we're talking about has done countless times.
I'm sure you would be all up in arms if the government was forcing you to say something you didn't agree with.
What does that have to do with anything?
magine the state forced you to call black people the N word
Boy that's a silly notion
You're only going along with this bullshit state compelled speech because it's suiting you right now.
I have no clue what this has to do with Peterson, or Contra. I'm unsure what I am "going along with" or what "bullshit."
This comment makes very little sense.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Imagine the state forced you to call black people the N word instead of their names or the state forced you to address "transgenders" with their birth-gender pronouns instead of what they want you to say.
You mean like the exact opposite of basic ethical principles and good lawmaking?
Oh, and 'transgender' is an adjective, not a noun. I presume you know the difference.
[deleted]
She showed up in one of Lindsay Ellis' videos a while ago, can't recall which one though.
The one about Transformers and Marxism.
The guy narrating her incels video runs a channel called Philosophy tube and they've streamed a few times. He's gotten theatrical more lately but has a different style and an acting degree. I like them both quite a bit but Philosophy tube has a larger backlog, so I've been enjoying that a lot lately!
Been watching her since the lofi pre transition days and her content has always been thoughtful, clever, and engaging.
Best youtuber on the internet if you ask me. The kind of voice we need to counteract right wing pseudo intellectuals who use a thin veneer of philosophy to advance old and debunked ideas.
Have you watched philosophy tube? The naff name put me off but he's getting closer to her in quality I think.
Depends what you are looking for, engagement with actual philosophy he is better, but for understanding alt right tendencies and the far right contra is better.
Yeah true
I think the only one who might challenge the queen on alt-right matters is innuendo studios with his angry-jack / alt-right playbook series. but even that is less accessible and requires being pretty left-wing from the get-go to listen to.
Agreed his content is great but you are right you have to be in leftist circles to truly engage with him. Also innuendo isnt as visually catching. I think a contender for second place is Three Arrows, or Reich Wing Watch.
It is kind of interesting that all the major leftist youtubers take lots of time to make their videos, and the right wing pundits can pump out videos like ants building a nest.
because they actually read the sources they site
Just look at Hbomb's response to Prison Paul's Soy boy video and you can see the difference, Hbomb does tons of in depth research into studies on how Soy effects males, while Paul literally has soy in the products he promotes while railing against soy.
and then he put on a wig and screeched at a camera after Hbomb called him out for it, that freakout was hilarious, apparently they have mutual friends and PJW was really, really, REALLY pissed off at Hbomb for doing the video
I've also heard the argument that the low quality of the videos is a net benefit to their viewer count because it gives the feeling of a friend having a conversation with you for hours on end. You can see this mainly in Jordan Petersons videos where it's pretty much just him sitting in his living room with a webcam. With such a low bar for quality like that as long as you keep talking you can keep pumping out videos.
true, and it doesn't make you think, low brow spew is much easier to digest than the more complicated, fact based, videos of the likes of Contra, Shaun, Three Arrows and Hbomb
I agree the major leftists do put out better content but I think that’s because it takes a lot more for a leftist to be popular on YouTube because of all the right wing garbage.
To get popular on the right wing all you have to do is go after low hanging fruit on the left like trigglypuff and peddle anti sjw hysteria that makes it look like the most pressing issue in the world is college kids with 0 institutional power.
To be popular on the left you have to have not only great and witty content it has to be well produced and clean.
I think it also speaks to how the left has to justify so much of its views while the right is mostly provoking a response from an already established view. Even if you're a reactionary racist douchebag you're feeding on something still deep in our consciousness built into our culture past while lefties are tearing much of that down.
The right leans on pillars of stone buried in sand that were erected long ago while the left is like "so we need to build a new mud hut... bear with me... it'll be some work..."
Very beautifully said my friend. If you don’t mind i am going to use that one in the future.
To your point it takes a lot of nuance And suppression of your tribalistic lizard brain brain to be on the left and cultural liberalism is moderately rare and requires the right condition to thrive.
So much this. I honestly think the difference in time between the average right-wing video release schedule and the average leftist release schedule is a compelling data point in and of itself.
Look at some of the big right wing YouTubers. Black Pigeon Speaks releases about 7 videos a month. I just checked out Sargon of Akkad's channel, he has put out a wopping 17 videos since December 14 (exactly a month ago today), and some of them are well over 20 minutes in length (yes some of them are interviews and videos of public speeches, but there's still a lot of "traditional" video content in there, too).
These dudes clearly aren't doing research. There simply isn't enough time in a month to pump out that many videos if you're doing thorough research for each one. These aren't rehearsed, scripted videos, they're rants with the aesthetic veneer of rationality, to fool people who don't watch videos critically.
Now look at Leftist YouTube. Most of them release only one video a month. Shaun, ContraPoints and Hbomberguy sometimes even take well over a month to release a new video because they put so much work into each individual one. PhilosophyTube is one of the speedier ones among them, but even he only averages about 2 or 3 videos a month lately (excluding livestreams).
I honestly wonder what reason Right Wing YouTube fans would give to explain this disparity. Sure, each Leftist YouTube video tends to be longer than the average Right-Wing video (but not always), and ContraPoints, PhilosophyTube, and Hbomberguy tend to put a lot more work into the aesthetic parts of their videos too, using elaborate lighting and costumes and cutaway gags. But even Shaun, who usually just narrates over a still image of his profile picture (a style aesthically identical to many of Sargon's videos), spends an entire month crafting most of his videos. And ContraPoints has noted that filming and editing usually only takes her about a week or so. Most of the time she spends on videos is doing research and writing the script (including time spent immersing herself in the online communities of her ideological opponents, such as incels or TERFs or the Alt-Right, in order to "understand the soul" of her target audience that she's trying to convince).
If Leftists are really just a bunch of triggered and emotional intellectual-children like the Right says, who speak without thinking and can't keep themselves from emotional outbursts against anything they see as problematic, then why do they spend so much more time doing research for their videos than the Right?
Do you think anyone on the right has any valid criticisms for the left?
The only group harder on the left, than the right, is the left itself. Any valid point the right is making is something the left has already self-flagellated over endlessly. From language usage, to eggheadedness, to classism, to over-sensitivity, to lack of sensitivity, to humorlessness and so on, it’s been covered.
You’ll never find a group of people more willingly to not believe in their own beliefs. Definitely one of the reasons the left has a hard time getting things done. A point ContraPoints discusses in her Peterson video, and even “praises” the right for providing more structure and direction to their members than the left does.
The left are just not willing to compromise in anyway with anyone who differs even slightly with them. The right is - They have a goal and they want to get it done. The heat death of the universe will arrive before the left is ready to stand united.
I disagree I think they compromise to a fault, to the point that their goals are never fully realized and completely watered down even when “victories” are achieved. With the group itself, and with outside parties. Like the ACA ended up such a shell of its intended self, and was so easily dismantled and defanged in the end that it can barely be considered progress.
The let cant do that without being opressive. I think the let got poisoned by the extreme politics the right play. They are still the better party to bet on, but some let parties trying to archieve everything at once is just terrible. You got to do it step by step.
> You’ll never find a group of people more willingly [sic ;)] to not believe in their own beliefs .
Wow, that is the most concise series of words that I have yet to articulate, yet know to be completely true.
I can't think of any contemporary right wing stars who are making good faith or interesting criticisms of the left. Older conservative thinkers already did that and I'm not seeing anything new but rhetoric and outright lies. I'm a leftist but in the interest of bettering dialogue on the right I'd recommend Edmund Burke, Karl Popper, Hayek, and Jacques Barzun. The far libertarian case of Murray Rothbard I think is an interesting one but ultimately I think it fails badly as something moral people would want to pursue.
Yes of course there are valid criticisms of the left that come from the right.
There are not coherent criticisms of left-wing ideology from the right wing though, at least not recently. There are very few right wing intellectuals still around.
Well I don’t agree with that broad of a statement, there are segments of the left that use identity politics in lieu of all rational policy debate, and there is a certain segment of the left that does cling too much to victimhood.
The problem is one of degree, in actuality those former faults are not the majority of the party and are not at all the life threatening issues the anti sjw right makes them out to be. Furthermore, the right uses these flaws to undermine the entirety of the modern civil rights projects be it undermining gay marriage, feminist equality, trans rights or race relations in this country. Furthermore, the right, especially on YouTube tend to focus on the same isolated incidents of the left going too far and give the right a free pass for its anti liberal excess.
No side is perfect and the YouTube right is largely full of shit but there are genuine criticisms of the left that can come from the right. However they are rarely delivered in an honest and balanced matter.
Not really, everytime they got something valid they begin with their anti left bs again. Thats not valid critisism, that is propaganda against the left.
The problem I found with the right is not as much that they have no arguments, but that they do a very poor job of supporting them. The manosphere, for instance, could make some very good arguments for difficulties men face in society being addressed, but it is nearly always immediately blamed on feminism or women in general. There's rarely facts in context, and everything is reactionary to the feminist movement. Any criticism causes them to take the wounded victim stance. The left is far from perfect, but I've yet to see anything from the right other than blaming and emotional arguments.
I remember a specific philosopher (I want to say it was actually Serious Inquiries Only's episode about J Peterson) arguing that being intersectionalist actually allowed you to acknowledge and even absorb the problems of equality displacing men, whithout undermining your argument. I'll have to listen to it again some time, I just thought I would mention it since it seemed related.
I completely agree with this sentiment. The criticism of the left is valid but would the discussion have gotten so out of hand if a counter argument had been issued sooner. Often I wonder what the values of individuals on the right really are, because they seem to rely too much on mere reactionism.
The left in the states is synonymous with cultural/social/political liberalism. Some right leaning commentators, and a lot of continental style leftists, have pointed out just much this cultural liberalism is complicit with liberal capitalism; not to mention the racist présuppositions behind the white guilt of the middle classes and the bourgeois nature of the american left in general.
Cultured thug, eric striker, mike enoch, richard spencer
lol Richard Spencer... hahahaha
Counteract right wing thoughts? I feel the opposite since there is almost no representation of right wing thought in the media, like our movies and TV shows. It's all on the left as far as I can see, unless I'm missing a whole bunch
I agree with you if we are talking about the MSM but on youtube it is dominated by right wingers. Contra is a great counter to these large right wing outlets and is needed in the conversation.
Strange that they never actually engage the right wing. My opinion is that they can only knock over strawmen.
Contra's had debates with Blair White and Sargon of Akkad, and I think she's done more but I'm not sure.
Blare is not considered a thinker on the right. Sargon is terrible at debate and is an edgy old school liberal. He isn't right wing.
When they debated The Distributist about the Sexual Revolution they fell quite hard. They have also refused debate for a long time now. Ever since they became big they stopped engaging.
Old school liberalism is a right wing idealogy.
Thanks for all that credit.
I can't even figure out what you're trying to say.
These throwaway accounts are getting dumber and dumber.
The liberals have a great history of accomplishment. I'm saying thank you for calling that right wing.
Calling people dumb because you don't agree with them is becoming more and more common. Do you think that is a problem?
I think a bigger problem is you taking credit for an idea you never came up with because it aligns with a dualistic side you align with.
You have done nothing for liberalism. Who are you, an 18th century Frenchman? You've nothing to thank me for because I never commended you.
The problem is that people identify with right and left and are steadfast in that belief. Regardless of what idealogy might fall under those extremely broad labels.
The problem is your simplistic view of politics and human interaction.
Sargon is 500000000% a right winger..
Name the position that makes him right wing. He is a liberal. He isn't leftist but he is liberal.
He's a member of UKIP.
That isn't a position. That is a political party he has joined. He joined it because neither the Tories nor Labour will defend classical liberal values.
I don't agree with his philosophy or even his methods. I don't run around calling him things he is not though. It annoys me seeing people try so hard to lie about other people.
It's a right wing political party.
idk, being a ukip member maybe?
or do you think its normal that "centrist" or "liberals" become member in a right wing party supporting nationalist right wing policies?
bc I havent seen that, tbh.
He joined UKIP because he stated that he believes they are the only party who has a platform which supports free speech.
If that is all you have then my challenge is left unanswered. What actual position does he hold that is not liberal?
Uses a throwaway. Tough
Jordan Peterson? Ben Shapiro? Tucker Carlson? I can name dozens if not more...
Andy Warski, Styxenhammer666, Mr Metokur, Paul Joseph Watson, possibly Teal Dear(TLDR), Brittany Venti, Gavin McProudBoy...
Tucker is on Fox... The only mainstream right wing channel. Fox is also for old people. All other people you mentioned have no mainstream presence.
[deleted]
It's rather absurd how anyone could think a corporate news outlet could be leftist, they're obviously going to be center-left at the most. Goes to show the power of a shift of the overton window.
...what? How is "well they're for old people" even an argument? Also Ben Shapiro has 1.84m twitter followers, and Jordan Peterson 1.04m, how the fuck is that not mainstream? This is being compared to ContraPoints who has a mere 122,000, or 400k YouTube subs.
The original comment said movies, TV shows. Having a large YouTube or twitter presence doesn't make you mainstream, part of "the media", or having institutional power.
The left owns all institutions other than some government positions but those swing back and forth.
You don't seem to understand what left wing means.
The left owns all institutions other than some government positions but those swing back and forth.
We did it boys, revolutions over, the working class has been liberated and empowered, we have achieved communism!
How is this even believable.
Let's think this one through. Are universities right wing? Is silicone valley right wing? Is NBC, ABC, etc right wing? Are corporate HR departments right wing?
Let's not play games here. It isn't my side's fault that your utopia has not yet been achieved.
Let's think this one through. Are universities right wing?
Academia has historically been left wing but universities in the US are increasingly corporate and profit driven.
Silicone Valley
Yes, these are private technology firms with an interest in the status quo and inoffensive, centrist politics. Just because they wanna have racial quotas or not host far right content doesn't mean they are left wing it just means they dont wanna be sued or get bad press. They fight tooth and nail against unions, regulations and worker's rights, not left wing.
Is NBC, ABC, etc right wing
Centrist, reactionary, corporate media, funded by billionaires, ready to lie and launch propaganda against whatever threatens their relative stability, sponsors and profit margins, whether they be left or right. Not left wing.
Businesses can not be left wing because the left at the very least, wants to regulate them and force them to pay their workers more and at most wants to redistribute power over business to the workers (or state, comrade) from the owners.
Your position is hilarious. You don't even know when you are winning.
You have all major institutions in your pocket. You're upset because it appears they have refused to dissolve themselves. You should learn to accept your victory gracefully.
Image being on my side. I'm afraid to even state my beliefs. You can scream your beliefs from the roof tops and people in power will pat you on the back and say "we are working toward that". It must be nice.
Honestly think you are lacking a sense of perspective. Institutional politics is completely bought and all facets of American society are increasingly dominated by corporate and donor power.
Labor organisations like unions, the historical nucleus of leftist movements have been being castrated for generations.
The media provides Americans with mass conformist status quo propaganda and alternative ideas are not given attention or attacked by the corporate hive-mind.
No socialist or anarchist feels like their group won, in fact most of the ones I know would say that we are living in a degenerating, totalitarian, dystopia of capitalism or nearing it. Some are more optimistic but still don't see the status quo as anything but the enemy.
The far left and far right both recognize how fucked the system is, they just have different answers to the problem.
You can scream your beliefs from the roof tops and people in power will pat you on the back and say "we are working toward that". It must be nice.
Even in the cases this is true it means nothing, politicians aren't controlled from some mass left wing movement, they are controlled by moneyed interests, corporate lobbying and donors, their agendas are contrary to ours even if they sometimes pander.
Imagine being so far right that you think liberals are leftist. Oh wait thats the current state of American politics.
The conversation is about a woman who has barely half a million subscribers. If you're trying to talk about the "Hollywood libruhl agender", then you're moving the goal posts. Breadtube is growing but the right has a massive monopoly on YouTube, to the point that there's frequent ads by TPUSA and PragerU shown on videos.
Jordan Peterson isnt right wing. Hes center left.
You got two parts wrong in that statement, first of all he's a libertarian so he isn't "center", and he's neither economically left or socially left, so he definitely wouldn't be skewed towards the left side of a political compass whatsoever.
Those on the center-left don't deny climate change.
Also, they don't get offended by anti-discrimination legislation.
You're unambiguously incorrect on this issue.
He's a liar who knowingly claims to be of a political bent he is not to make his reactionary rhetoric sound more reasonable. His new career as a public pseudo-intellectual hinges entirely on generic self-help advice and intellectual dishonesty used to sucker people into believing reactionary crap.
His views are very strongly to the right both socially and economically. You don't see real liberals repeat far right conspiracy theories on a regular basis.
Yep. It's amazing how many people don't even know that. After all, actual stances don't matter for your political affiliation! Only your own word!
For example, I want to abolish all private property, reform every company into a worker cooperative, abolish the free market in favor of a labor union driven system that produces based on need as opposed to profit, decolonize the USA, institute a program to forcibly transition every single TERF into their opposite gender and guillotine all the shareholders.
But really, If anything I am far right. After all, I say that I'm far right, and my policies don't matter!
I've heard Jordan Peterson claim to be classic liberal which is the same I've heard Christopher Hitchens claim. Hes not liberal enough for reddit so he's a far right winger neo Nazi misogynist bigot.
Did you perhaps consider that a "classic liberal" is not actually a left or center left ideology? That it is much more akin to libertarianism which tends to be a right wing ideology?
Also while I don't necessarily think that Jordan Peterson is a Neo Nazi, you might want to ask why a not insignificant number of his followers are.
Classical liberalism, on a spectrum, is right of social liberalism (democrats) and left of libertarian and GOP. So, no I have not given thought to that since it is incorrect as classical liberalism is a branch of liberalism which is on the left of the spectrum...
Show me the evidence of a not so insignificant following of neo nazis and I will show you evidence to refute your claim. https://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/jns/forward-forced-to-backtrack-on-jordan-peterson-story/article_f68bdd00-6028-5886-b516-209b40ee1b75.html
Who the fuck cares about any of those people besides people who want to find others to hate on twitter? I'd venture maybe 15% of Americans who dont just know him as a meme know who ben shapiro is.
Well these people happen to influence an entire generation that gets their news from online.
You moved the goalposts on this comment, which is not referring to mainstream broadcast media, but online exclusive source like YouTube. But even if we consider the wider scope, the existence of FOX News and the growth of Breitbart still contradicts your claim.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[deleted]
I really like the whole group surrounding Natalie as well, Philosophy Tube is great, Hbomberguy, Shaun, that whole side of youtube is just putting out quality content all the time.
the door is always open in r/breadtube
don't forget Three Arrows, he's new to the scene but growing fast
"hello everyone"
[deleted]
Lindsey Ellis, horray.
Innuendo Studios is pretty great too.
Big shoutout to Cuck Philosophy, lesser known but great videos with tons of research (I recommend watching his Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism video as a starting point)
Never heard of them. Link me?
r/breadtube is a hub for leftist youtube content
Yep. My kind of sub.
Thanks!
I actually like her! And I was a bit on the transphobic side before I watched her. Now I embrace trans people.
That's really interesting! Can I ask how you were transphobic before and what exactly was it that changed your mind?
I just found them overly annoying. They were on Grindr and I was kinda like "why do they use grindr?".
Then the forced gender pronoun thing happened and I was kinda over it with trans people. Then I watched her video on history of pronouns and was rather hooked. She kinda "normalized" trans people for me.
Many trans people resort to Grindr cause we literally have nowhere else to go. I'd never use it personally but I understand why some would.
Yeah dating as a Transwoman who is into men is a complete nightmare. To be honest it’s kinda dangerous. Society does not accept cis men and transwomen dating yet and men are still heavily shamed for it. Any guy who has come to terms with their sexuality is a lot safer than those who haven’t.
Grindr tends to be a bit better for guys who are okay with themselves (though not always), but it’s not exactly great for much more than hookups.
Really lot of trans people just dating each other. Some of aren’t into that so we have to take more risks.
She is great. Even if I disagree with her politics (for the most part), I like the way she is presenting the arguments. A lot of times, she even made me change my views on certain subjects.
And her video on incels, in particular, is great.
I agree, I don't agree with everything she says either, but she's one of my favorite youtubers. I really appreciate her fair and level-headed approach to presenting multiple sides of the issue she's discussing. She has changed some of my views as well.
I don't agree with most of the stuff she says but she really is good at explaining things and not like literally any other political YouTuber who are just sooo condescending and annoying
I can’t believe I only found out about her a few weeks ago. Her channel is so entertaining & informative in most sincere and empathetic way.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I mean, there’s a lot of political philosophy on YT... and she counts as one of them.
This essentially just reads as a fan post on a news site. Especially when it gets to the part where the article just claims that she gives fair shake to the right by criticizing their “flimsy philosophy” and that the left just has “bad persuasion”.
[deleted]
I’ll agree she has better presentation than even big money YT professionals like Crowder, TYT, Daily Wire, ect, but I’ve never really seen her bring something on the philosophy side that’s ground breaking or different than where you’d get from the expected on the left of the spectrum, and this article doesn’t really bring that part to the forefront either (unless the minimal things the author constructs as “equally critiquing” is something I must surrender on). In fact it’s written in a way that sounds like she wouldn’t get this press story if her politics were different.
I’ll grant she’s not as rabid as say a Secular Talk (who I’ve seen repeatedly run with speculation editorials as if they are things that already happened repeatedly just to make the right look bad) or as dull and generic “SJW commentators” like SomeBlackGuy are, but she provides no more substance than the expected.
Maybe I’m just bored of YT videos reacting to other YT videos and the constant filibustering of people that can’t counter your points as they’re happening, but I don’t hear her substance as beyond the generic.
I really liked her video on racism. The part about redlining and unfavorable loans leading to neglected lead paint houses contributing to modern day socioeconomic poverty of african americans was something that i never thought about.
And the last time unfavorable loans were a massive problem was the housing crisis brought along because the government INSURED those bad loans. If she actually debated a right winger she’d have to answer something like that.
It’s stuff like this that’s why I’m growing numb to these types of channels, this maybe new knowledge to you, but I’ve seen Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman (who I both have moderate disagreements with) debate stuff like what’s in front of us back in the 70s and 80s.
The arguments that she made was that African Americans were denied conventional government backed loans in the 40s and 50s due to segregationist policies. Combined with local government instated redlining/blockbusting, African Americans (that were in a similar financial situation as their white contemporaries) were denied opportunities to move into more affluent neighborhoods and were forced to live in derelict neighborhoods with limited social services.
This extends into modern day where the poor socioeconomic conditions brought on by racist policies 2-4 generations ago are now making it increasingly difficult for people that grow up in these neighborhoods to leave.
You should watch her video because she explained it a lot better than I would have.
Just a heads up, you are argueing with a frequent the donald poster and JP fan.
Just look at his recent response to you.
I didn't see any of that. Plenty of libertarian idiocy however.
Once again, not new. Dixiecrats sucked, but local government malpractice and corruption like what was the cause of Flint’s water crisis prevented growth in the present more than what the 60s currently affect. Blaming the past for current problems instead of targeting the current problems only reaffirm that she is no deeper a thinker than the expected.
Once again- if only she actually debated instead of the dull confirmation bias.
In her video, she uses Freddie Gray as an example. She points out that Freddy Grey had an extensive criminal record, but was also a person that suffered from lead paint poisoning, which is a common infrastructure problem in poorer neighborhoods.
Her argument puts a lot of weight in historical segregation but backs it up by juxtaposing historic zoning codes for segregated neighborhoods and comparing them to modern day distribution of African Americans. Black people dont seem to be moving to white neighborhoods even after decades have passed.
And it’s just a coincidence after all these decades that that never improved? Yes, in the 60s treatment sucked, but none of that information popped up in the past year. Hell, lead poisoning fear has existed since before I remember.
Modern day leadership has done nothing to improve those situations, in fact they double down on the ideals of “trap housing” and government funding. Contrapoints bringing up who that leadership has been in that area is not of political convenience.
She doesn't seem to mention the part where Black families went from 80% having a father in the house, to ~20% today.
Also doesn't mention how for several years in the 70's, it was much more profitable for women to be divorced than married, especially in the ghettos.
What you are saying is right, but it's only a part of the picture, and she presents it as though it's the entirety of the situation. It's the same thing Stefan Molyneux does.
She doesn't seem to mention the part where Black families went from 80% having a father in the house, to ~20% today.
Spoiler alert: poverty and racism are responsible for that too.
(See: inequalities in the legal system.)
Then why was it higher during slavery? And during Jim Crow?
what was higher?
She introduced to me an idea in “Is the left trying to kill free speech” videos that speech can limit other speech. I had never considered that before, but maybe that’s just me.
[deleted]
That's not the point he was making. Kyle was arguing that if you exclude the wealthy from a medicare for all program, then the medicare for all program isn't an entitlement program, it's a welfare program. And welfare programs are way easier to cut back than entitlement programs, which is bad. This isn't a blockheaded criticism, it's a nuanced criticism that takes into consideration precedent and long-term consequences.
I also don't see how excluding the wealthy from universal health care is a moderate position when no other democracy in the world (which, on average, should be pretty moderate) has taken this option.
Frankly, it's baffling that this is still seeing debate. The question was answered long ago in every other democracy, and extensive evidence shows they made the right choice.
Thats not how it works usually. You get "free" or cheap basic healthcare you need. But if you want to feel super entitled and want to be the best healthcare injurence with some boni you can do that too.And you get treated faster. Also you get more back or some chronical illnesses, who are still expensive, even with affortable healthcare.
If you want that, you can go to a good private, but still involved in the system and regulated company, where you pay extra, but get this and some other boni. Thats where the system gets some money from. And those extra healthcare firms need to show service or they would be obsolete quickly. But the rich people tend to have them.
[deleted]
The algorithm isn't biased. It's just reacting to the prurient taste of the average user. People are attracted to sensationalized rhetoric in the same way people are attracted to fast food over steamed vegetables. It's intellectual hedonism.
It's a bit too big of a coincidence that the youtuber they chose as flagbearer of rationality happens to be the only notable one to have clear left leaning views.
[deleted]
Yes, there are a lot of political philosophy creators on YouTube, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggested she is one of the best because of her use of the medium and the quality of her input.
You’re hitting my problems with her in a roundabout way- I’ll agree she’s the best at attaching bells and whistles to her content, but the actual core she has is nothing that isn’t expected. And ultimately I only think the core matters.
And ultimately I only think the core matters.
So the medium isn't the message? This is a dangerous idea in my accounting of the political scene. It's often used to defend the president - his "style" is not problematic because it doesn't reflect his harder core qualities.
Firstly, I was really only responding to your minimizing suggestion that she is simply "one of them," as if he content isn't significantly better than most.
Second I also said "quality of her input," not "bells and whistles." If you want to write off her production value as not being a value, that sits firmly in the "use of her medium."
I listen to a lot of these guys, and she does a much better job in detailing the issue she is discussing, even given multiple perspectives, than most on the left, likely why so many other people use her as a guest or cut to her clips to explain things, while the right generally relies on the same outdated, tired data that has been demonstrated as less than valuable and a lot of yelling. And there are far more right leaning "athiest"/"anti"/"free speech" types on YouTube than progressive.
In short, that puts a large basement group of lower quality creators, and she's at minimum above that, putting her in the minority if only by sheer volume of creators, and I'm conceding that as a valid enough statement because I have very little interest in arguing quality with you if you've misrepresented the one sentence I said so promptly.
Put in a one sentence statement, and then get mad when I don’t realize you meant three additional paragraphs? My bad, I guess.
And my point still stands- I’ve never seen an argument she’s made that there isn’t already a (as you call it “outdated) counter for. She introduces points that already exist and as you apparently know have already been debated, but all she does that’s new to the debate is her presentation which I don’t find intellectual value in, which ultimately is what I HOPE is the end goal.
Like I said, if she debated someone on the opposing end it would interest me, but asides from that she hasn’t introduced a point I haven’t seen before.
I'm not mad. I think you either intentionally misrepresented what was said or didn't spend time reading.
That's fine. Your opinion is yours. Have a nice one.
She has debated, mind you.
I read what was presented, you then added more layers after I responded as if that was clear and are now acting like I missed those points.
I’m not much of a mind reader in real life, much less over the internet.
Don't worry, just practice your reading comprehension.
I want to be certain, my initial points were available from the first post, correct
She counters your argument in a video of hers I watched recently. Can't remember the title, but it was something about why the left is so unpopular nowadays and why Trump won.
I really enjoy Natalie's videos, I recommend /r/BreadTube if you're looking for similar content.
Wow a space for philosophy getting fucked up by pseudo intellectual marxists. Who would of thunk it.
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:
Read the post before you reply.
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Natalie Wynn's criticism of Jordan Peterson really sticks. I thought of him as a very effective self-help guy with bad politics. However, I did not appreciate how bad his politics were - and I didn't appreciate that they are classically bad, not bad in a new ground-breaking way. She does a fantastic job of taking down his claims about Post-modern Marxism.
When the guy claims to be a liberal, waits for host to refute it, then says "I'm a classical liberal", he's engaged in an incredible and perfectly transparent act of bad faith. So many of his fans will argue that he is simply a liberal in terms of our vernacular.
This is a Canadian who said he would have voted for Trump, says that feminism is bad, that the spectre of violence looms in every interaction between men, who claims that feminists believe that hierarchies do not exist - even in nature - without the patriarchy, who says that equality of outcome is bad even if the means of enforcing it are okay, who publicizes his clash with trans in universities, and who claims that a Marxist-postmodernist conspiracy has dominated the university system. Most tellingly, he advocated against a pro-trans measure changing the terms "mother" and "father" to "parent" in written law, not in the speech of anyone except those drafting legislation.
He may be a lot of good things, but he is simply not a liberal. I am out of patience with his political claims and those who enjoy them are degrading themselves by taking the word of an obvious liar.
Edit: added "and who claims that a Marxist-postmodernist conspiracy has dominated the university system"
Peterson isn't even anything new in self help, it's pretty bog standard stuff with conservation-Christian (and sometimes downright crazy) overtones, it's based on a school of psychology that is respected as a theory, but not at all in practice, though for the life of me I cannot remember what it was called....
You’re thinking of Jungian psychology, right?
that's the one!
Most likely, which, as I understand, isn't respected in pretty much any sense nowadays.
But it does have the coolest sounding terms. Dragons and shadows! It's like D&D of the brain.
Most likely, which, as I understand, isn't respected in pretty much any sense nowadays.
Neither are YouTube philosophers who talk to themselves.
Yea his self help books are pretty average af...
I dont care that much if he's new, respectfully. I think his packaging is effective.
Still, his politics make him a no-go for me. The way he tries to decieve us about his politics is a major insult to our intelligence.
eh, I see the bits about "banishing Chaos" and know THAT HE MUST BE SACRIFICED TO THE DARK GODS FOR THIS HERESY!!!
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! Milk for the Khorne Flakes!
DO YOU HEAR THE VOICES TOO!?!?!
Its weird shit. But I have a hard time understanding whether that weird shit is useful to people.
Some people will get better for anything. An acquaintance of mine has really turned his life around after getting deep into Professor CleanYourRoom.
Despite his terrible toxic and contradicting word salad. Look at his cult.
I guess you can see anything in everything and sometimes there comes good out of it-
True, his political beliefs are terribly regressive, but the self help stuff is pretty unobjectionable. The guy in question was already pretty conservative; I've known him for a few years through friends, and while he tends to be fairly quiet every now and then he'll say something that reminds us just how far to the right he is.
I'm honestly just glad he didn't go incel or alt-right. Peterson isn't great by any stretch, but I'd bet he's stopped a non-trivial number of men from heading in even worse directions.
He may be a lot of good things
haha! I do think he's an effective self-help author because the anecdotes from people I know IRL are impressive. He just needs to shut the fuck up about politics.
The fact that his self-help stands alone actually makes me think less of him. He could have had a fine self-help empire without deciding to become a strawmanning troll of a right-winger.
who says that equality of outcome is bad even if the means of enforcing it are okay
That’s literally the opposite of what he said.
Here’s Some liberal beliefs he says he has in his book:
1) he believes that income tends to accumulate unevenly and that this is a perpetual problem.
2) he believes government can be a force of good.
3) he believes that Canada’s single payer healthcare system is better than America’s.
He qualifies the shit out of each of those statements, of course. But those are the basic places that he starts from.
Edit: also worth mentioning he’s in favor of gay marriage.
That’s literally the opposite of what he said.
Here’s Some liberal beliefs he says he has in his book:
The reason I make this claim is that he described problems with the state of equality of outcome: "the reason anyone strives is to rise above mediocrity" and said people would be bored and listless if equality were the status quo.
I agree with him in part there - but thats the conservative side of my personality speaking.
he believes government can be a force of good.
If he didnt believe that, he'd have a completely radical and unreasonable stance because its simply obvious that government has benefitted people.
But I still think its obvious that my list of his conservative positions overwhelms your list of his liberal positions.
The reason I make this claim is that he described problems with the state of equality of outcome: "the reason anyone strives is to rise above mediocrity" and said people would be bored and listless if equality were the status quo.
This practically encapsulates the problem with Peterson. Only a vanishingly small percentage of the hard left believes in true, absolute equality of outcome. The vast majority supports a stronger safety net funded by progressive taxation. The reason Peterson is infuriating is that he himself advocates for that, but then claims everyone to the left of him wants a vague something else.
Saying "the reason anyone strives is to rise above mediocrity" is a far cry from saying "equality of outcome is bad". Equality of outcome is just fine if both people had equal abilities and made equal efforts.
I notice you didn't say anything about his support of Canadian health care.
I agree that he's obviously more conservative than liberal. But I'm tired of seeing people call him "Alt-right" and make him out be some kind of fascist misogynist.
I agree that he's obviously more conservative than liberal. But I'm tired of seeing people call him "Alt-right" and make him out be some kind of fascist misogynist.
Respectfully, I think my argument is about him being a crypto-conservative and lying about it. I dont think I painted him as alt-right or even necessarily wrong about his positions, so I dont really get why you're taking issue with what I wrote.
He is a liar about his politics. Thats the extent of my criticisms at this moment.
Calling someone a liar is something worth taking issue over. You can point out what you think are inconsistencies and contradictions in his position. You can be certain that his beliefs are incomprehensible. But who are you to decide what he thinks his politics are? What are you, a telepath?
Take a page from Natalie Wynn's own book and listen to people you disagree with in good faith, even if you're sure what they're saying is confused, contradictory or stupid. You shouldn't have to demonize someone just because you disagree with them.
Fuck, You're right. Demonization has no place here. I have replies, but I dont want to get in the way of an attempt to impose decency - even if Im suspicious of it.
Upvoted. Contrapoints is having a good effect on things already :)
You son of a bitch! Haha - making a rightful appeal to decency. How dare you!
None of those statements is inherently liberal
Tell that to the Republican Party.
You have a point, the GOP treats anything that isn't hard-line conservatism as Liberal but note the capital l. In Europe we have pretty wildly different understandings
In Europe he would probably be considered a conventional conservative. But people try to lump him in with the American Right and Alt-Right, and he just isn’t a match for those descriptions.
In Europe he would probably be considered a conventional conservative. But people try to lump him in with the American Right and Alt-Right, and he just isn’t a match for those descriptions.
Could you help me out with that? Because I'm so ignorant about the European ideological spectrum that I literally can't even start to formulate a response.
I should revise that to say a moderate conservative, because the far right is on the rise in Europe. Tbh I am no expert on it either, but I have relatives in Sweden and have visited there. Their “conservatives” are going to seem pretty lukewarm compared to the American right.
A closer and more accurate description would be to say that he is a Canadian conservative. Canadian conservatives do not question the universal healthcare system, for example. And although they are weary of immigration, they do not propose to stop it entirely. Altogether their stance is softer and less mean.
Look - that antagonistic dude who accused you of being radicalized deleted his account. I think we may have stumbled on someone who is part of an organized trolling effort.
Lol
You’ve been radicalized so heavily you have no idea where you stand in relation to the public. Socialist ideas are far left, full stop.
What makes your point of view definitive. In most of Europe everything Americans support us seen as extreme right wing
You’ve been radicalized so heavily you have no idea where you stand in relation to the public. Socialist ideas are far left, full stop.
Respectfully, I think your comment is a bad combination of strident tone and factual ignorance. About 70 percent of Americans support medicare for all according to a recent CNBC poil.
What do you think of people who use charged, insulting partisan language when they're factually wrong about something that googling resolves immediately?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html
Support for a position is immaterial in regards to where that position sit on the political spectrum and this spectrum does not change with political trends. Assuming that medicare for all is not a leftist position due to its support is argumentum ad populum.
Support for a position is immaterial in regards to where that position sit on the political spectrum and this spectrum does not change with political trends.
But you said:
You’ve been radicalized so heavily you have no idea where you stand in relation to the public. Socialist ideas are far left, full stop.
Since socialized medicine is the only idea on that list that counts as socialistic, I thought you were claiming that u/CareerQthrowaway27 is wrong about the unpopularity of single payer. That's the only reasonable basis I can see for disparaging his his understanding of where he stands in the context of public opinion. I don't know how else to interpret the text in bold if I presume that you know what counts as socialistic. I demonstrated that his statement simply doesn't imply that he's wrong about the popularity of single payer.
I also thought you were tacitly relying on the idea that public opinion influences the place of ideas on the political spectrum. To be honest, I hadn't thought to challenge that idea as my opinion on it is confused.
Assuming that medicare for all is not a leftist position due to its support is argumentum ad populum.
I don't think that's right. Argumentum ad populum is when you claim that a position is true or correct due to the fact that a lot of people believe it. But the people in question believe single payer is good, not that it is not a leftist position.
[deleted]
It's not. The point is that he claims that equality of outcome is somehow a Marxist goal, when both Marx and Engels explicitly rejected it. It's a strawman.
Edit:he being Peterson, not the guy you're commenting to.
As a major left leaning person the first time I have ever seen or heard the term equality of outcome was from Jordan Peterson.
Peterson seems to claim that any time people study outcomes in an attempt to find systemic inequalities they're attempting to create equality of outcome. Hard to say for sure because he never gives a goddamn straight answer.
I'm sorry if this comes of as flip/condescending, but this is a teachable moment. If you re-read what I wrote, I don't claim that Peterson is wrong when he says that - I don't know if equality of outcome would be good because it's such a wild notion that I can't really evaluate it. However, I'm sympathetic to his points. I was listing things that make him conservative, not things that make him wrong.
But, respectfully, it seems like you're strawmanning me. That's what I accused Peterson of in this discussion - he's responding to a weird leftist fringe and allowing his disdain to bleed into liberals in general. It may not be a coincidence that a Peterson fan missed the fact that a liberal redditor doesn't support equality of outcome - Peterson suggests that people like me hold such beliefs.
Edit: added "his disdain" and properly conjugated "to suggest" and took out "I dont disagree with him at all" because its misleading.
he's responding to a weird leftist fringe
Isn't that the whole issue? Peterson is against extremists on the left and the right...
And equality of outcome is not a Marxist ideal, it's a postmodern neo-marxist ideal. What do you think the Gender Pay Gap is about? It's not about equal pay for equal work. Its about all women earning the same average as all men, no matter what occupation, age, work hours, education, whatever.
"he's responding to a weird leftist fringe"
Isn't that the whole issue? Peterson is against extremists on the left and the right...
Im saying that he takes a group like leftists, feminists etc. attributes ideas to them that are actually only popular on the fringe of their movements.
And equality of outcome is not a Marxist ideal, it's a postmodern neo-marxist ideal. What do you think the Gender Pay Gap is about? It's not about equal pay for equal work. Its about all women earning the same average as all men, no matter what occupation, age, work hours, education, whatever.
I think few people on the left really think in terms of having total, broad equality of outcome because its a bizarre idea, as you describe. When he railed against equality of outcome, it sounded like he was talking about that bizarre idea because he described how demotivational it would be and how it would make life meaningless and boring. However, if men and women made the same amount of money, that wouldnt demotivate the individual. So he's talking about an idea that nobody supports as though there is an liberal opposition pushing for it.
When I said "Marxist-postmodernist" I was using his terminology. Im not claiming that any particular idea fulfills Marxism or postmodernism. In fact, I claim that very few, if any, ideas are "marxist-postmodernist" - I can't name any. Thats one reason that he fails to describe the hostile leftist movement in the academy.
Im saying that he takes a group like leftists, feminists etc. attributes ideas to them that are actually only popular on the fringe of their movements.
What ideas? He became popular because these groups changed the human rights legislation in Canada... And the Gender Pay Gap is also such an issue that is not at all on the fringe.
The whole equality of outcome issue was very much related to the Gender Pay Gap. I don't know where the term appeared first but the most visible one was probably the Channel 4 interview where he made exactly that argument against Cathy Newman's argument that men earn more than women.
When I said "Marxist-postmodernist" I was using his terminology. Im not claiming that any particular idea fulfills Marxism or postmodernism. In fact, I claim that very few, if any, ideas are "marxist-postmodernist" - I can't name any. Thats one reason that he fails to describe the hostile leftist movement in the academy.
Postmodern Neo-Marxism. There is no marxist-postmodernism I know of. Postmodern Neo-Marxism is exactly what Judith Butler is. If you look at her Biography that's how she is described.
What ideas? He became popular because these groups changed the human rights legislation in Canada... And the Gender Pay Gap is also such an issue that is not at all on the fringe.
My favorite example is when he said that the lobster analogy counters people who believe that hierarchies are not natural and are a result of the patriarchy. I'm sure a lot of people on the left need to be set straight about which varieties of oppression have which effects, but I can't find a single feminist who thinks that hierachies don't exist in nature, or hold the stance that animal hierarchies have zero relationship to human ones. It seems like he's strawmanning them.
The whole equality of outcome issue was very much related to the Gender Pay Gap. I don't know where the term appeared first but the most visible one was probably the Channel 4 interview where he made exactly that argument against Cathy Newman's argument that men earn more than women.
I'm having trouble imagining how he would put such an argument together. Do you have any quotes?
Postmodern Neo-Marxism. There is no marxist-postmodernism I know of. Postmodern Neo-Marxism is exactly what Judith Butler is. If you look at her Biography that's how she is described.
That's interesting about Judith Butler - but I'm saying that JBP claims that a postmodernist marxist faction represents the unsavory liberal takeover of academia. I find that as hard to imagine as you do. He certainly isn't talking about Butler's narrow faction.
I can't find a single feminist who thinks that hierachies don't exist in nature
I've seen multiple feminists referring to bonobos in order to argue that hierarchies are not natural. Here you go: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/xwqdnw/bonobos-use-the-power-of-female-friendship-to-overthrow-male-hierarchy
What's more is that the lobster issue is also about how your status affects your brain chemistry. If you are low status, low in serotonin you are less able to cope with negative emotions. Hence this is in chapter one telling people to stand up straight and engage with others courageously not defensively.
I'm having trouble imagining how he would put such an argument together. Do you have any quotes?
Here watch the interview, they talk about it for ten minutes at least: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&feature=youtu.be&t=315
I'm not sure how narrow Butler's faction is because really that is third wave feminism.
I've seen multiple feminists referring to bonobos in order to argue that hierarchies are not natural. Here you go: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/xwqdnw/bonobos-use-the-power-of-female-friendship-to-overthrow-male-hierarchy
This seems to describe arguments about our sexual and gender hierarchies. Bonobos are more egalitarian and female-centric than humans and chimps - and these societal structures seem to be contagious - so that shows our current, specific hierarchy may not be hardwired. You got a lotta balls to use that in response to:
I can't find a single feminist who thinks that hierachies don't exist in nature
on lobsters:
What's more is that the lobster issue is also about how your status affects your brain chemistry. If you are low status, low in serotonin you are less able to cope with negative emotions. Hence this is in chapter one telling people to stand up straight and engage with others courageously not defensively.
That would only be true if the same seratonergic features of our nervous systems were conserved in both lobsters and humans - but that seems to be bad taxonomy. Our relationship to seratonin is really different to that of lobsters:
https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
Edit: I had to spacing out two quotes in succession because they looked like the same quote in my original formatting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/04/13/a-feminist-biologist-discusses-gender-differences-in-the-animal-kingdom/#7c20644319b5
The term patriarchy, as used by contemporary feminists, often seems kind of meaningless. I think when we talk about patriarchy, what we’re really getting at is the re-emergence of social hierarchies that resulted from sedentary farming starting around ten thousand years ago. Individuals in sedentary communities were better able to control and monopolize resources, including women. This led to greater specialization, technological innovation, and social inequality [15].
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-metaphysics/
- Social Construction In claiming that one is not born a woman, Beauvoir was not suggesting that one is never born with female body parts; rather, her concern was that possession of female (or male) body parts, in and of itself, does not imply how one could or should be socially situated.[1] In spite of this, societies, for the most part, reserve for females certain social roles, norms, and activities that disadvantage them in relation to males, casting the differences as necessary because natural (Beauvoir [1949] 1989: Ch.1). If it is recognized, as Beauvoir urged, that what women and men are is at least partly a social matter, this opens up the possibility that gender roles could be and so should be made more equitable through social change. To simplify discussion, we will use the terms ‘male’/‘female’ to mark the currently familiar sex distinction drawn in terms of primary and secondary sex characteristics, and ‘man’/‘woman’ to mark the gender distinction, where gender is, according to the slogan, “the social meaning of sex”.
This theme—that social hierarchies are sustained through myths of their natural basis—has prompted a tremendous amount of work on the construction of gender in particular (Delphy 1984; Scott 1986; MacKinnon 1989; Butler 1990; Wittig 1992; Alcoff 2006; Warnke 2008; Witt 2011a,c; Haslanger 2012), but also on the construction of other “naturalized” social categories such as race (Appiah 1996; Zack 2002; Warnke 2008) and in a somewhat different way, sexuality (Butler 1990, 1993; Fausto-Sterling 2000). Research in history, anthropology, literature, and sociology has chronicled the various mechanisms by which gender (and other such categories) is enforced, and research in psychology and biology has further loosened the ties between body types and social roles. Having witnessed the power of naturalizing “myths”, feminists tend to be wary of any suggestion that a category is “natural” or that what’s “natural” should dictate how we organize ourselves socially. However, there are several different de-naturalizing projects that are often mistaken for each other that engage different sorts of metaphysical issues.
That would only be true if the same seratonergic features of our nervous systems were conserved in both lobsters and humans - but that seems to be bad taxonomy. Our relationship to seratonin is really different to that of lobsters:
It is true. Antidepressants work on lobsters. A defeated lobster that gets antidepressants starts to physically look like a winner lobster again. Obviously humans are more complicated creatures than lobsters, that's why humans don't become aggressive with higher serotonin levels, the opposite is the case. Serotonin determines your ability to regulate your emotions and that ability is one of the traits we admire in leaders.
No one that thought for a moment about it thinks that enforced equality of outcome is a good thing. Peterson just created a strawman of the left there.
I think the main issue with the equality debate is that, on practical instances, people can't agree on what equal opportunity means. Marx mentioned this issue in his work.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Well, Ive warmed to peterson supporters on this thread because one of you humiliated me with decency.
But, yeah, I think if you're arguing with someone who doesn't think Trump is racist, you have to try to present something that addresses the point even if that person should have figured it out before.
Let's keep up this discussion - I think we're getting somewhere
[deleted]
I find Cuck Philosophy pretty good, its got the sort of slow disembodied feel of Shaun (not a dazzling as ContraPoints), but is philosophical. He also spends far less time talking about practical politics.
[removed]
Just a Guy on YouTube. I don't know a huge amount about him ill be honest, just watched a fair few of his Videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSkzHxIcfoEr69MWBdo0ppg
He seems to like taking a philosophical framework and analysing issues or things from that framework.
His video on 'Hegelian Recognition and Incels' was the first video I watched of his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1flcGrb81M&t=406s
His recent Postmodernism FAQs have been excellent if you haven't watched them.
Implying shaun is philosophy and not just a leftist political commentator.
[deleted]
If you'd prefer more research and less production value check out Shaun (of Shaun and Jen). I don't know his background but he's definitely not afraid of reading.
It's cool to see her get more traction, shes from my hometown!
I really hope this isn't against any rules.
there's actually a subreddit dedicated to sharing channels with similar alignments. r/breadtube is great and has plenty of philosophy in it!
I like seeing her used in other people's videos, being cited as an academic by using her clips or guest appearing in content she made specifically for the video. Her backlog of jokes and characters has become so dense it's almost difficult to understand. It's a huge step above many of the people she counters, who are mostly screaming and repeating poorly supported talking points for extended periods in unedited livestreams where they slip up and say something they shouldn't but upload without thought.
Interesting to see how many people in this thread find her to be balanced. I find her perspective to be very static. When she plays the other side, she has a tendency to play a strawman or distort arguments to make them easier to counter. Which is nothing new, it's what every political commentator does.
When she plays the other side, she has a tendency to play a strawman or distort arguments to make them easier to counter
That's the exact opposite of what I've noticed. As someone who is "on the other side" of many of the issues she presents, I don't feel like she misrepresents me at all.
She does use the most exaggerated arguments but they are legit arguments from the 'other side.' They don't come across as strawmen or rhetorical. She often pulls direct quotes from online sources.
[deleted]
presented her radical feminist character in an obviously negative light
Would you say that she also presented the neo-Nazi character in an "obviously negative light" ?
I feel like maybe the negative light is a natural result of portraying a bigoted character.
Yup.
[deleted]
She is only playing a bigoted character because Natalie’s decided they’re bigoted
I think it's more because they are transphobic, and thus, y'know, bigoted towards trans people.
Good job dodging the actual question though.
[deleted]
Not all radical feminists are “TERFS”
Perhaps not, but it does seem to be the majority, and those who are not tend to disavow themselves of the rest.
it’s a term that’s all but meaningless given its frequently targeted at anyone (cis, trans etc) who don’t toe the party line(which frequently shifts)
Ah yes, the classical rhetoric of 'the term is meaningless because some misuse it, therefore it cannot apply to anyone, especially not me'. Sorry, not buying it.
Natalie’s been accused of being a non-binary exclusive TERF on twitter
You able to cite that by any chance?
that’s why it’s important to deal with substance, actual arguments and theory instead of Twitter bogeyman (or women, in this case).
And exactly which radical feminist theory do you suppose justifies mistreatment of trans people?
I might suggest that if your 'theory' allows for denying human rights to marginalised groups, it's a fairly shit framework and incompatible with basic ethics.
[deleted]
The majority? Cite this, please.
Do you understand what the word "seem" means?
You should pay more attention to the "those who are not tend to disavow themselves of the rest", frankly.
Especially given the inclusion of GNC people and trans men in discussions. Not exactly trans exclusionary.
Of course. The inclusion of trans men, and not trans women, is somehow not transphobic.
Was that an accidental confession or a brazen one? I can't tell.
That's not even getting into the support for anti-trans legislation and activism, or the spreading of misinformation and disinformation.
Nope, it’s not just that it’s misused by “some” — it’s that it’s become majorly tied to violence and violent imagery/rhetoric against many women.
Sounds like bullshit to me.
(How many is "many", just out of curiosity?)
If 'TERF' is "majorly tied to violence", you can prove that, right?
I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a slur,
I should bloody-well hope not.
but it’s definitely not the same as calling someone “transphobic” given the changing context of its use, both in online and rl spaces.
I mean, I might equate it to calling someone a 'neo-Nazi' rather than a 'fascist'; one is just a subset of the other, sometimes (mis)used as a shorthand for said other.
Which 'changing context' are you referring to though?
Clearly shows her being called a TERF
Thanks!
I don't know if random tweets are representative though; I feel like you could pull an example of just about any term being misused from Twitter, to be entirely fair.
Let’s be clear: I don’t want to mistreat trans people.
Then don't?
Your tone makes it seem like I have a vested interest in that, and it’s untrue.
Well, no, your tone and your decision to engage with those opposing TERFs and not TERFs themselves is more what gives that impression.
And anyway this is a ridiculous point: it doesn’t matter if radical feminist texts justify mistreatment of trans people
I think it does matter.
(I’d argue that most, if not all, don’t justify it)
Would you? Could you?
— it’s still important to engage with actual arguments and academic theory given that she runs a philosophy channel. If you want a rant about harassers on Twitter go ahead — but this isn’t what I’m talking about.
The "actual arguments and academic theory" of TERFs?
Would that not rely upon TERFs having actual arguments or academic theories, and not simply co-opting a semblance of feminism and feminist theory in order to push reactionary transphobic rhetoric?
TERF "arguments" inevitably boil down to transphobic nonsense, often provably based upon ignorance or intentional misrepresentation of the evidence.
Actually, let's clarify something since you seem to be confused:
'TERF' is generally considered a subset of 'Radical Feminist'.
Do not try to make excuses for TERFs based upon Radical Feminists in general, because that is both an insult to Radical Feminists who are not transphobic shitheads and a distraction and diversion from those problematic elements.
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[deleted]
I compared one hateful ideology to another, using specific examples from the content creator in question, and asked whether the perception of a "negative light" was not rooted in those ideologies being hateful.
What's your problem with that?
[deleted]
Radical feminism is not on any level a hateful ideology comparable to neo-nazism.
Transphobia masquerading as feminism is still a hateful ideology.
There was no attempt to quantify the exact hatefulness of each, as you seem to be repeatedly suggesting despite the complete lack of evidence.
I have a problem with misrepresenting radical feminist tenets and engaging with straw man arguments.
And exactly which tenets were "misrepresented" in your mind?
Exactly which arguments do you believe were 'Straw Feminists' ?
Based on the rhetoric that I've seen and heard myself, they weren't.
And even if I agreed that the negative light was warranted or the analysis well constructed — the point I’m making is that she does not engage with Incels in the same way she did supposed “TERF”S and that’s the irony.
I'm not sure I see the irony, but I suppose you're entitled to view it as such.
Incels are definitely more hateful than radical feminists (yknow given the mass murderers)
I would suggest that this depends upon the individual more than either ideology in itself.
Men are rather more prone to risk-taking and aggressive behaviour, including violent behaviour, due largely to the influence of testosterone. If one assumes that the majority of transphobic radical feminists are cisgender women whereas the majority of 'incels' are cisgender men, then one might reasonably predict disparities in direct violent action.
This disparity in violent action does not necessarily equate to being 'more hateful', only more physical in the expression of that hatred and bigotry.
Natalie spends a significant portion of the video almost parentally guiding these poor lost men to the light
And you would rather.. what, exactly?
That she not attempt to 'convert' people away from a dangerous belief-system that you yourself admit produces lethal violence?
this kind of attempt at empathy is never extended to radical feminists and that’s the only major thing I wanted to point out.
And you believe that your compatriots would listen, do you?
Could you give an example of the form that you think such an approach would take?
What could a trans woman say in order to make a radical feminist stop being a transphobic shithead towards her and anyone like her?
[deleted]
Radical Feminism is not transphobia masquerading as feminism
Okay. So where's the screed against the transphobic radical feminists that were posting, and why are you yourself reiterating the same misinformation that transphobic assholes do?
Did you just say that men are more violent because of testosterone?
The effects of testosterone in promoting risk-taking and aggressive behaviour are well-supported. If you have a point to be made here, I don't see it.
Call the TERF police, you’re presenting some of the most vilified (by trans activists) talking points of the radical feminist movement to essentially excuse male violence.
Explanations do not excuse, and acknowledging medical science does not in fact invalidate trans people, nor does it justify mistreatment of the same.
Anyway, following your very own logic — that testosterone makes men more prone to violence — do you not find it in yourself any empathy or even understanding of radical feminist concerns [...]
I can understand it, sure. I just happen to think it's rooted in bigoted ignorance, considering that it's typically surrounded by hateful bigotry; kind of a giveaway that transphobia is not about "women's liberation" y'know.
[...] about a regime of self-identification. A regime under which hormone replacement therapy for trans women isn’t a requirement for entering into female category — and thus, safe spaces? e.g. prisons, rape shelters etc.
A "regime", huh? Careful, your rhetoric's giving you away.
I think there are valid concerns, but I don't believe that the concerns are actually understood by those peddling misinformation and hatefulness, and I don't believe that such individuals have appropriate solutions to them.
UK stats show that trans women maintain male-pattern offending rates
Those claims are not supported by the evidence.
"Any assessment of a transgender offender's risk of reoffending should be based on valid, evidenced factors that relate to that individual, as for any other offender. We have seen no evidence that being transgender is in itself linked to risk. Risk assessments must be free from assumptions or stereotyping."
"for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality."
Going to correct yourself on that, or are you going to repeat a transphobic myth and prove my point about transphobic rhetoric being part-and-parcel of modern radical feminist rhetoric?
You think that shouldn’t be a concern for feminists?
Not when based on proven deceptions, no.
Physical violence definitely means a movement is more hateful — how the fuck you’d think otherwise, I genuinely don’t understand.
Because 'hatred' is an emotion.
It is possible to loathe someone's existence and consider them scum, and yet never engage in any direct violence towards them for any of a number of reasons.
Meanwhile it is possible to love someone and yet engage in direct violence despite that, such as physically and forcefully preventing them doing something stupid.
incels aren’t just hateful because of the mass violence associated with the movement — it’s because the tenets (the manifestos, the leaders) are explicitly based on misogynistic lies about women and their “true” nature.
So TERFs are hateful because the tenets and rhetoric are explicitly based upon transphobic lies about trans people and their 'true' nature.
Radical feminism has never been about hating trans people — it’s about women’s liberation.
And Naziism has never been about genocidal intent - it was about the unification of the German people against subversive and oppressive forces.
Ooh, or how about "The Catholic church has never been about abusing children", despite the evidence that the Catholic church nonetheless conceals instances, engages in denial, and avoids exposing perpetrators to punishment?
You can spin anything with the rhetoric that you used here, and it does not somehow negate the lack of backlash within the community or organisation against the abusive elements within itself.
That’s why it’s fucking ridiculous that people can find sympathy for incels but not radical feminists.
Is it though?
If it's easier to break down one than the other, if it's easier to break someone out of that way of thinking, how exactly is it ridiculous to pursue what works rather than what doesn't?
Again: what exact arguments do you think would convince a TERF to stop being a TERF?
I keep fucking saying this: it’s not about her TERF video or her incel video in isolation — it’s the difference in the way she handles these two movements, and how it proves that Natalie (for all her intelligence) isn’t perfect.
*gasp!*
Not perfect you say? Well colour me shocked; a human is imperfect.
I'll repeat myself once more: if there are valid reasons to handle each movement differently, due to one being more open to dissuasion, why do you consider that a problem?
You’re obviously not looking to engage if you call radical feminists (who are diverse and also include only a minority who engage with trans issues at all, whether it’s in a negative or positive sense) “transphobic shitheads”.
You might want to pay more attention. Let's use an exact quote:
"What could a trans woman say in order to make a radical feminist stop being a transphobic shithead towards her and anyone like her?"
You know, like the scenario in the video?
The thing we were discussing?
Is that clear enough yet?
I called TERFs 'transphobic shitheads' because TERFs are transphobic shitheads.
If you're getting defensive over that, I'm pretty sure the problem lies with you.
^^Edit: ^^added ^^missing ^^section ^^below.
And radical feminist philosophers /have/ engaged in good-faith dialogue with trans activists.
Were they TERFs?
Do they oppose TERFs for corrupting radical feminism?
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
She definitely doesn't deny the virulent misogyny of incels. While she does display sympathy when she talks about dating, and it's easy to impute sympathy to her breakdown of the typical path guys take on their way to becoming incles she bookends those portions with a reminder of just how much incels come to hate women.
[deleted]
There's a difference between validating and understanding. She definitely seems like she wants to "mom the shit out of these kids," but she also calls it a death cult. That's not exactly validating.
Contrapoints is one of the best things going
ok this is the most perfect thing I have ever seen thank you
Love all the natalie love in this sub. A lot reddit outside of the lefty side of it can get pretty transphobic at times.
Contrapoints needs more exposure.
Her mic and quality of older videos threw me at first. I think the production quality was lower than what I was used to. The content has always been strong (and hilarious) but her recent upgrade in production quality made a huge difference to me. She's near the top of my list for favorites.
I fucking love her! She’s awesome.
Contrapoint: the real reactionaries are those who, half a century after the civil rights movement, and the sexual liberation, and after having an unchallengeable monopoly on academia, which gave them their own pet departments to go wild in, are still holding onto their illusions of being counter-culture and rebellious. They are adamantly blocking any evolution of consensus in the domains they consider to belong to them, and their lament of reactionary attitudes in their opponents is little more than projection.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
These videos are awesome. I absolutely agree with the messages she is putting out there but the more I hear them (from multiple sources) the more I feel like humans are doomed because we are too stubborn as a species and there are too many of us to convince with limited time to do so. I constantly bounce back and forth between charged optimism and apathetic acceptance the reality of situation. Can we really stop it before it’s too late? Am I wasting my time fulfilling my societal role or should I be living every moment fulfilling my personal desires because there’s only so much time left. I have very little faith in humanity. :(
Philosophy Tube is also awesome
It’s good to see her get some mainstream attention
I love ContraPoints! She is awesome. And I always wait for her new videos with eagerness. Hope she keeps it up for a long time and keep getting better at her game. I know it must be hard given how the internet is and her role as a public trans woman, but we can never forget that there are people out there that don't mind this at all and are fond of quality work. All the love to her! (Just saying this cause I wish she would maybe see and think fuck the haters, if any. I noticed in some of her videos how fucked up it can be)
I love her! Great to see her getting recognition - I think she could be revolutionary given enough exposure.
[deleted]
[removed]
Let's look at the video: The Aesthetic.
This "debate" is supposedly about what defines "woman" but it does not bring up any of the actual debate points, and in fact dismisses anyone who disagrees with them violently.
The current debate about what is the definition of "woman" primarily has to do with biology versus identity. Is "woman" a designation of sex or of gender? Is woman = adult human female or is it a feeling?
However this video assumes the latter is true. It throws around terms like boy dick and girl dick, cis woman, gender identity, and so on when those items are definitely not agreed on as foundational truths.
They go on to dismiss those that believe otherwise as "Terfs" and advocate violence against them.
The assumption is there is no question is if a trans woman is a woman, which is still hotly and rationally contested.
Other examples of "assumed truths" from that one video is that society exists either in an age of reason or an age of spectacle, and that "pointless speculative fiction" is a bad part of philosophy, when it is often the basis of determining ethics.
I am going to go in and edit this because I just noticed a few red flags in the Atlantic article and I am curious who this author is.
Edit: I am a little confused about the downvotes. I was asked to provide specific examples and I did. This doesn’t bode well for a philosophy sub.
... and in fact dismisses anyone who disagrees with them violently.
... and advocate violence against them.
I just watched the video and that is a comically absurd misinterpretation. You're literally talking about a 1 second gag where an exaggerated character brandishes a baseball bat against another character. Neither character is portrayed as reflecting Contra's own view points.
It throws around terms like boy dick and girl dick
A term used once and again, solely for comedic effect.
The current debate about what is the definition of "woman" primarily has to do with biology versus identity.
That's not what the video is even about, only the 20-ish second intro bit. One character feels that as a trans-woman she shouldn't have to conform to traditionally feminine gender roles and aesthetics, and Contra's response is that aesthetics is an integral part of being accepted into the role of a woman by society. You might say she takes a more practical, functional outlook while her foil takes a more purely ideological stance.
However this video assumes the latter is true.
Because that is a given for most thoughtful people, and because the conversation is between two trans characters who are not even having a "biology versus identity" debate to begin with. Gender is a sociological phenomenon tied to a society's conception of what constitutes masculine and what constitutes feminine. There is a biological element to this discussion, but the concept of gender clearly transcends biology.
"pointless speculative fiction" is a bad part of philosophy, when it is often the basis of determining ethics.
This is a very vague complaint out of context. The speculation she's referring to here is questions like "what if a cisgendered man only slept with other men his whole life. Does that make him gay.?" And again her take is a practical one, he is effectively gay because society would perceive him that way.
. and in fact dismisses anyone who disagrees with them violently. ... and advocate violence against them.
This is also referencing the word "terf" which is used sincerely a couple times in the video (terf is paired with violence towards women.) The bat is a reference to the Degenderettes, a group that carry bats to "kill terfs" and had recently had all their weapons on display. https://twitter.com/sfpubliclibrary/status/989219339306811392 The message was later followed up on that it was just a means for defense.
A term used once and again, solely for comedic effect.
Right, but that doesn't undo the point. It is used comedically but also with the understanding that both of those exist.
That's not what the video is even about,
Exactly, it was a debate about what a woman was, but never even included what the actually philosophical question was.
There is a biological element to this discussion, but the concept of gender clearly transcends biology.
I didn't see a biological element, but my point is that it presumes "woman" is a label for a concept of gender, not a biological label.
And again her take is a practical one, he is effectively gay.
And her other main point was "this would never happen." When in philosophy you try to be reductionist to get to the essential truth, and then you can consider the application from there. When the debate is about "what makes a woman" and any argument that gets to the essential truth is dismissed as unrealistic, it is just a diversionary tactic.
The intro clearly shows two ideological extremes of which Natalie subscribes to neither. She explicitly lays out her disagreements with the violent character for most of the video.
Exactly, it was a debate about what a woman was, but never even included what the actually philosophical question was.
What you call ‘the actual philosophical question’ many would call well trodden territory. The concept of a third gender is ancient and is found in many different cultures. I know of no good argument for reducing gender identity entirely to sex, it is clearly a sociological phenomenon as well.
When the debate is about "what makes a woman" and any argument that gets to the essential truth is dismissed as unrealistic, it is just a diversionary tactic.
Except she didn’t dismiss the question at all? She answers it: if your behaviors conform to what society thinks of as gay, you will be perceived as gay. You are effectively gay, regardless of whether that corresponds to your inner sense of identity or not.
Which ties in to the main point of the video: politics is aesthetics.
The article frames the cat woman as more Contra than the "supercilious women's studies professor." But she doesn't object to the actual violence, just that it is not a good look.
The concept of a third gender is ancient and is found in many different cultures
No mention here of a third gender. Man and woman are only two genders. It is about the definition of woman, not of a third gender.
You are effectively gay,
Again, I don't think that was "Contra's" point as it was said by the "professor" but I do believe it is a factor she says needs to be considered. But again, you said yourself the argument is perception versus identity, which disregards the actual current political argument that neither define womanhood.
But she doesn't object to the actual violence, just that it is not a good look
So now it’s gone from "she’s endorsing violence" to "she’s not explicitly not condoning violence."
It is about the definition of woman, not of a third gender.
The third gender is usually a woman whose biology is that of a man’s, or the reverse. The point is in many cultures it is a given that sex and gender don’t always correspond.
which disregards the actual current political argument that neither define womanhood.
Because, again, for many people it is a given that any useful definition of womenhood can not be reduced entirely to biology. Gender is a sociological construct tied to what we perceive as masculine or feminine.
You are simply complaining that the video isn’t about what you want it to be about.
Uh what? The cat woman (Contra) endorses violence. The professor says bats look bad. The cat woman follows up that it is fine.
The third gender is usually a woman whose biology is that of a man’s, or the reverse.
Yes, but they are not literally believed to be the other sex. That is the huge difference.
for many people it is a given that any useful definition of womenhood can not be reduced entirely to biology.
And for many people a woman is a term for adult human female. Gender is a social construct, sex is not.
You are simply complaining that the video isn’t about what you want it to be about.
No, I am not. I am saying that it is like watching Fox News. Anyone not versed in the subject will believe they are hearing the the full story.
You know what, I’ll just link this video, because it’s a good response to all of your misconceptions, and it addresses the things you keep wishing this other video was about.
I am sorry...you think a Contra video on pronouns is going to reveal some new information to me?
I have studied academic feminism for years. Pop propaganda isn't too insightful.
I would be curious to know what you think my "misconceptions" are.
Again, I don't wish the other video was about anything, because Contra fake debating feminists points would be equally lacking. You are having a very hard time understanding my objection, which I think the "Fox News" analogy is the most apt. In the same way I don't want Fox News to discuss any topic because the topic will not be discussed honestly, but only with extreme bias. Same with Contra.
Now if Contra debated an actual radical feminist, that would be something I would be interested in. (I believe it happened once and Contra refuse to answer any question directly, but I would have to search for it.)
In what ways is she against radical feminists? Other than those who explicitly align themselves politically against trans women.
From the top, using the term Terf and referencing bats.
And you know her views are definitely not in alignment with radical feminism, right? Radical feminists believe in eliminating gender, not aligning strongly with it. Radical feminists don't believe their are "girl brains" and the concept of "living as a woman" is being subjected to oppressive structures.
Rad fems believe there are many people with gender dysphoria and that people should not be locked in to gender roles aligned with their sex.
They also don't believe being a woman is a feeling or a perception, but a biological reality that we are oppressed by.
[deleted]
Contra is DEFINITELY the "professor" trying to speak to certain portions of the trans community, the "smash em with a bat" trans advocates.
After watching the follow up video it sounds like that is the side she is most on. I was going on the article which said:
Viewers might see Wynn as a supercilious women’s studies professor insulting Wynn as a transgender cat-girl.
And then that the idea was identity was absolute, which she does agree with.
intersex person born with strange features
Intersex is intersex...The vast majority of intersex are male or female, but whatever they want. There is a difference between me insisting as a white person to be called black versus a biracial person defining their own "race." Never mind the intersex community repeatedly asks to not be brought up as the same as trans, the two issues have nothing to do with one another.
Never mind the intersex community repeatedly asks to not be brought up as the same as trans, the two issues have nothing to do with one another.
"nothing to do with one another" is more than a bit of a stretch.
How is that?
Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm pretty sure she has made herself the butt of jokes regarding the question of whether she is a woman and at least one of her characters does not think so.
But was this character a “wrong thinker”?
Why are you using that phrase?
Like if she says that while is playing a role of someone that is "in the wrong" then it doesn't represent what she actually believes.
Just because a character says something it doesn't mean that is what the "author" believes. Characters are often used to disprove points, and that is her technique precisely. You would need to find the example to tell.
That’s not the technique she is using here (although she does use it in other videos). In fact, the Contra and Tabby characters ultimately decide it’s not worth arguing over the issue anymore—it’s left open-ended.
'That is her technique' 'You would need to find the example'
Why am I providing evidence to prove your point?
Because the "evidence" is a vague memory YOU brought up as the basis to your entire argument?
Maybe I'm misremembering but I'm pretty sure she has made herself the butt of jokes regarding the question of whether she is a woman and at least one of her characters does not think so.
I responded to it as well as I could but you continued to question me on my response to something you vaguely described and said you may be wrong about. And when I said, well, I can only say so much about your vague memory and I would need to hear the video to give and accurate response, you say this is ridiculous?
I mean, this is laughable. It is like you told me what someone may have said in a foreign language and after giving a few of my best guesses I say, "But I can't know for sure unless I actually heard it" And then you say: WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU EVIDENCE.
I don't know. Maybe we are looking for accuracy and truth here? If you are so scared that you may be wrong, you don't have the right motivations.
Evidence always gets in the way of accuracy lol. Face it, you have no interest in philosophy or truth seeking. You’re a political partisan who promotes ideology rather than an exchange of ideas.
Uh, what? I have a huge interest in philosophy. If you remember my original complaint isn’t with her conclusion it is with shoddy technique. If you notice it is everyone here attacking me as a person instead of my arguments.
'That is her technique.'
One of us said that, and I'll give you a clue: it wasn't me.
What does this have to do with the comment of yours that this entire thread was about?
Nothing.
Yes, she's trying to make the argument that biology is not a workable definition of gender, and the jokes are made from that perspective. Yes, the character she's arguing against is presented as wrong. I don't think that's very unusual or a bad thing. I'm not sure how you missed all of the real argumentation in favor of her definition.
Where is she trying to make that argument? The whole video starts with the basis that it is not about gender.
The debate is about whether being a woman is 1. an internal state or 2. the perception of others.
I don't know where you heard anything about biology.
Oh sorry I didn't realize you were talking about that particular video. The Aesthetic is a conversation between two trans characters, so it's natural that neither are going to make biologically essentialist arguments. She has talked about that standpoint in other videos on her channel.
Also, the debate she shows is a very real one in left circles.
Sure, but even if we stick to the same video there are many other comments made that are just "assumed truths" (such as the age of reason, etc. I mentioned above.)
Of course everything we say can't be debated and referenced, but if it is something your argument depends on, it must be.
The age of reason thing is a rhetorical device, it would be a bit silly if she had to pull out statistics about how many people have reasoned arguments and how that compares to other times just to make the simple point that a lot of the time rational argumentation isn't what is valued by society.
I myself labelled her as being primarily rhetorical.
But she was stating, I believe, that society favors one or the other at different stages. This also impacts further arguments.
I don't think she's claiming that there are wild shifts between separate binary categories, just that the degree that we value reason changes over time and the extremes could be labeled, which sure I guess is arguable but seems 1) pretty self evident and 2) pretty inconsequential to the overall argument, which makes rigorous proof feel odd and out of place
It was just one of the presumptions she made that I listed. It is not something I am crucifying her for.
My original comment said that she has the guise of rational argument but a lot of it is built on assumptions and shoddy reasoning. And a lot of academic jargon.
Contra has style, and there is also substance, but it is all built on an agenda and she will blur the edges to get there.
I just feel like that's an argument that could apply to basically everyone; making an argument in a 20 minute YouTube video necessitates leaving some stuff unproven. That doesn't mean a proof isn't possible or that the argument is necessarily wrong
I mean, something perhaps being correct is far from what I would call "Political Philosophy" which is what I was objecting to.
Making a rational argument in 20 minutes from the ground up is not exceedingly difficult. But again, that isn't the issue, it is as I said in another comment, similar to Fox news. A discussion may be had, but it is not sincerely exploring the issue, it is within a narrow ideology.
Could I get an example of a rational political argument made in 20 minutes with no presuppositions or academic jargon?
Needless suffering is bad.
Taking a life unwillingly for pleasure is bad.
Therefore if one can survive healthfully without killing and eating animals, then one should do so.
I'm not sure that's even without presuppositions. You lack a definition for both "needless suffering" and "suffering" in general, which I think would necessarily require a distinction between that which is able to suffer and that which is not, which is really the crux of basically every debate over veganism.
Also, that argument is waaay more axiomatic than one about gender and the way we should use language, so even if you managed to do it in 20 minutes I don't think it applies more generally.
Uh, if we are going to play "no words have any meaning" then this is pointless.
"Suffering" is one of the basis tenets of Ethics. It is used as the ground starting point for a huge amount of philosophical arguments. If you don't have a background in ethics or logic, then, well, I guess I should find out now.
And needless means without a need.
And no, there is no debate that most animals can't feel pain/suffer.
I mean, what is your point here? If I can make a pretty solid argument in THREE SENTENCES but someone can't in 20 minutes? I really think you need to expand your resources..
https://www.feministcurrent.com
or academic jargon
I see. There are certainly people who study animal subjectivity, I think the idea that there's literally no debate to be had is ridiculous.
There are certainly people who study animal subjectivity,
And they are debating if any animals feel pain?
According to the U.S. National Research Council Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals, pain is experienced by many animal species, including mammals and possibly all vertebrates.[4]
Animals are used in intro neuro regarding pain...
But you have really lost the thread, here.
possibly all vertebrates
No debate here!
You don't read well do you. When did I say all animals? I specifically qualified it to not say "all" animals.
And considering the context was veganism which involves not using pigs, cows, goats, sheep, and so on, mammals are especially relevant.
If you can't keep an academic and honest level of debate, you shouldn't be in a philosophy sub.
If you really want to go deeper into studying animal pain, I can do that to you, but acquiring actual knowledge doesn't seem to be your goal here.
Where in your original argument did you make a distinction between types of animals?
Types? Where are you getting this from? I said I made sure I distinguished not ALL animals. Jury is out on sea sponges. When having 101 level arguments it is pretty easy to predict where people will try to have juvenile "gotcha" moments and avoid them.
It was only in the last comment I mentioned we were talking about eating animals, mammals were especially relevant.
I mean, it is all there. Like in literal black and white. I don't know why most of this conversation is explaining what was said. You can just...read it.
Needless suffering is bad.
Taking a life unwillingly for pleasure is bad.
Therefore if one can survive healthfully without killing and eating animals, then one should do so.
where's the distinguishing?
And no, there is no debate that most animals can't feel pain/suffer.
debating if any animals feel pain?
And type would be implied in:
without killing and eating animals
As again, we primarily eat higher animals.
But, again, I am not going to to basic veganism with you in the middle of a gender thread. I am sorry but it doesn't seem like you have any sort of background in debate, philosophy, feminism, or science. It's late. If there is something you actually want to learn ask me.
I don't really want to debate veganism, I'm just trying to demonstrate that I think your standard for justification is a bit silly. Your "please prove that there are literally ages of reason" feels about as pedantic and unproductive as me saying "you said all animals"
If I recall correctly, Contra specifically told Tabby not to use the baseball bat. Not sure where you got that she was advocating for violence.
Also, I think a big point of this video was to show that there isn’t consensus on the whole aesthetic thing within the trans community. The issue wasn’t meant to be a debate about whether trans women were “real” women.
Cause they downvote what they don’t want to hear
Or they noticed how severely off the user's analysis was
Downvote and report posts and comments that break the subreddit rules. Do not downvote just because you disagree.
Yes. They downvote what they don't want to hear.
I'm seeing that...
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Good God, she's decent enough, but don't act like she's the second coming of Socrates. She's by no means a serious philosopher or political scientist.
Lol you know she was literally a philosophy graduate student and instructor at Northwestern right?
Just watch her video about why she left academia. She literally used an excuse that is 5000 years ago, namely that everything under the sun has been discussed, aside from extremely boring stuff ofc.
Okay, aside from that, tell me one single original thought of hers? Most of the things she says is common knowledge if you are even slightly interested in intersectionality and the economy and are not a 14 yo screaming cuck online. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with targeting that crowd. Actually, it might even be necessary, but that's about her appeal.
I can even go on to discuss her presentation and how she even perpetuates some harmful clichés about trans people, but this is enough.
Literally no one is acting like she's the second coming of Socrates.
[removed]
I like the comments. some lobsters actually take seriously some of JBP's advice like telling the truth. Which is why I think will distance from him eventually or have already done it.
Contra points banned me for commenting in a sub they said was white supremacists.
active in these communities
r/conservative
yeah they weren't wrong
So what I'm not a conservative. Conservative doesn't even allow me to comment
Strictly speaking they still weren't wrong though - if you post in r/conservative you post in a white supremacist sub, regardless of intentions. If you aren't conservative then maybe you can go and appeal your ban or something (if you actually care).
I don't think conservative is a white supremacists sub. I did appeal my ban and they did kift it, the point is that I got preemptively banned in case I might be a white supremacists. That's the biggest issue in politics, everyone demonizes the other side. I can't talk to liberals without being called a racist or conservatives without being called a libtard or commie.
And anyway the post was calling contra points political philosophy, that's a terrible philosophy to throw blanket labels over groups of people without even looking to see if it's valid.
I thought you were banned by the subreddit, not Natalie Wynn herself?
Who is Natalie Wynn?
ContraPoints lol
Oh the sub banned me. I didn't ask for the mods name
Then your banning has nothing to do with ContraPoints' political philosophy
Didn't know it was a person. R/contrapoints banned me.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
The best the left has to offer online, but not beyond.
Watch their debate with The Distributist about the Sexual Revolution. They don't do well when they confront the genuine article and don't have esthetics to hide behind.
Her content is pretentious garbage, though. Maybe not as bad as someone like HBomb, but still up there with other obnoxious political internet personalities.
*Edit: Getting downvoted, so I want to expand my why I dislike her content so much. Feel free to disagree.
I find her content is an inch deep, but a mile wide. Most of her videos are on topics that really aren't as complicated as she makes them out to be, but she'll find a way to make a mountain from a molehill and stretch them out far longer than they actually need to be. Her skits and characters are cringe-inducing and unnecessary, her community is toxic, and frankly, she's just a shitty person to anyone who's right of her.
She's actually one of the few leftists on YouTube who isn't pretentious. She actually makes fun of pretentious leftists in many of her videos. She has a character named Tabby who represents the very essence of pretentious political leftist, and she criticizes her constantly.
Just because she makes fun of something doesn't mean she can't exhibit the same behavior. Albeit she is probably the least pretentious and most accessible of the left-leaning YouTubers around right now—which isn't really saying much, but credit where credit is due.
If you're coming from a leftist perspective, you probably won't pick up on how she simply dismisses right-leaning figures and talking points while writing off anyone who disagrees with her as ignorant.
The right-wing is so used to centrists (liberals) arguing against them while taking so much of their assumptions for granted, they actually believe that to criticize them you must accept their presuppositions and argue backward just to reach the center. 😂
The Petersons and Shapiros of the world assume so much before they even get out of the gate that arguing with them is nearly fruitless, unless you get like an hour to sort through all the bullshit first (which they will never allow you if you're debating them in person).
They set up new hurdles in front of the actual point before you can finish clearing the ones already laid out, so that the actual point of contention never gets the amount of attention it deserves. As an example, the way Peterson constantly stops anyone critical of a point with "that's not what I mean". Or the way Shapiro uses his catchphrase "facts don't care about your feelings" before anybody can reasonably debunk his statements with actual data.
The only way you are going to accomplish a dialogue, or tread any new ground, is to put the burden of proof for many of their assumptions on them before tackling their arguments. Otherwise, you're just treading water.
If someone is misrepresenting what Peterson is saying, whether it's due to a misunderstanding or done intentionally, I don't really see how him attempting to correct them is in anyway a deflect. And as cringy as Shapiro's "facts don't care about your feelings" line is, it isn't wrong to suggest so when someone is making an argument based on feelings rather than evidence.
I personally think both the left and right need to not approach dialogue so maliciously towards one another. There's too much bad blood for any real discussion to be had, or for anyone's minds to be changed. I mean really, I can guarantee you that the majority of people who have downvoted me did so after assuming I'm some right-wing, Trump supporting douchebag because I dared to (albeit hashly) criticise a major leftist YouTuber. You're the only one who's actually approached me with a real argument.
Again, my main grievance with Contra's content is that she turns simple issues into complex ones in an attempt to make herself and others believe she's smarter than she actually is. Not saying she's dumb by any means, but she tries so hard to be deep and thought-provoking that it just comes across as pretentious and forced. Her dismissal of right-wing figures is more of just an annoyance to me, that's all.
That's the thing. They don't shift the discussion away on a tangent in good faith, they use it as a filibuster to avoid actually debating the core of the argument.
You can't get to a mutual understanding with either, because if they think they are fundamentally opposed to you, they will equivocate on words until the discussion devolves into attempts to define a common understanding of what should be basic concepts (a la Peterson), or interrupt and antagonize by claiming you don't have hard data on hand, even if you do and have not managed to finish explaining why the reasoning of their assumptions are preposterous, just to intimidate (a la Shapiro).
And to their fans, who have no real understanding of philosophy, debate, and so forth, this avoidance tactic is seen as a win in the marketplace of ideas, and they believe that their debate skills are unmatched.
As for discussion with the right-wing, at least the extremists (and there really are few moderates these days), the fundamental disagreement is how much human suffering can be dismissed in order to maintain traditional hierarchies, and institutional power structures.
There is far more nuance to just about every issue, but it really comes down to defense of the status quo (capitalism, mainly) and how much human suffering can be excused by design so long as it means not confronting those who have power (be that individuals, like capitalists, groups of people, such as majority racial or gender/sex groups, religious and cultural groups, etc).
To a leftist (and even a liberal is right-wing, in the traditional sense), any defense of that status quo, generally, is saying that it is okay for those affected most negatively by the system to continue to suffer, which is a non-starter. I mean that in a very broad sense, but let me use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
When Nazis show up in the streets of Charlottesville, and chant "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and Soil", they are there to essentially announce to all minority groups, and their political enemies, that they will purge them in order to get their white ethnostate (or whatever kind of specific supremacy they are into). The establishment of their ultimate goal inherently means that they will kill or displace you, and they don't care for what we take for granted as basic human rights. It is announcing their willingness to use violence against their enemies.
In that sense, how do you deal with a threat like that? Through debate? No, generally you dismiss it on principle. A leftist responding to a capitalist is essentially the same, it's just the suffering the capitalist is defending is not quite so direct, and more impersonal, such as starving or going homeless.
Now, I personally don't think Contra is a hard-line leftist. She's maybe moderately left-ish, and not quite a liberal. Kind of a Democratic Socialist, at her most radical. But she's far enough to the left that the groups she is addressing in her videos are of that same dynamic, relative to her.
I think she attempts to approach it in good faith, but from that perspective it is extremely hard to accept all presuppositions uncritically. It might seem condescending to the party that's sympathetic to the right-wing ideas she is criticizing, but it isn't intellectually lazy, it's just that the difference of opinion is fundamentally different enough that many of the things those people take for granted when they formulate arguments is not just accepted without debate. So many of the arguments that stem from those basic assumptions are not entertained, because they're unsupported.
The complexity she introduces often comes from trying to still find a common understanding despite that gulf of commonly held beliefs. And the rest is just theater, which honestly, is all to taste. You don't have to like the presentation to understand the points she is making, most of the time.
“Their fans have no understanding of philosophy or debate...”
Yeah, real debate is about being snarky and beating down straw men and the real philosophers are still engaging with Foucault because it’s so rewarding and not an ahistorical, Marxist account for why the west is bad.
It's especially ironic when people complain about setting up strawmen in the exact same sentence they're constructing their own.
From what I can tell on a brief view, this appears to be Straw Man: The Video Series.
When someone is simply talking to themselves from a standpoint you agree with, it's pretty easy to claim that person is 'rational' and 'persuasive'. But I don't find her to be either. She's just repeating talking points (badly on one side) with very little in the way of persuasive argument for her side.
Say what you will about the Petersons and Shapiros of the world, but they're responding to actual political opponents speaking in their own words.
You mean the guys that 'totally destroy' 18 year old college students? And act like the most hysterical of them represent not just the left, but liberalism as well?
They regularly make appearances on television and other media where they debate peers from the other side.
Those are not real debates, just an opportunity for gish-gallop and talking over each other.
Also they Shapiro and Peterson pretty much repeat the same talking points. I didn't think Peterson would actually ever stray into climate change denial ism, but I guess he knows his demographic and what's gonna bring in the cash. Ben is also about minimizing it. Same points being made, likely for the same reasons. These guys have way more funding than youtube channels like Contrapoints.
So you get to decide who is genuine and who isn't?
They lie and are merchants of doubt about something the entire scientific community agrees on. I don't need to "decide" anything. About that issue, they are blatantly dishonest. Personally, I don't trust them about anything after that.
It's also blatantly clear that they use the technique known as gish-gallop. Look it up, that one in particular is incredibly obvious. They also use facts out of context and attack strawmen.
They're sophists.
The entire scientific community is in agreement.
Sure, buddy.
About climate change? Do you live under a rock?
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Be Respectful
Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
Those are not real debates, just an opportunity for gish-gallop and talking over each other.
I don't know about Peterson in terms of debates. I know he has definitely held his own against hostile journalists quite often. Shapiro literally debates any expert who is presented to him. Indeed, if you claim that Shapiro's debates aren't "real" debates, then your definition of public policy debate excludes effectively all such debate.
Regardless, Shapiro and Peterson are debating with independent voices who oppose their beliefs. The lady in 'ContraPoints' is debating with straw men.
No, they're not real debates because they're not formal debates, in which the format doesn't allow fallacious techniques like gish-gallop and strawmen to be used. Ben doesn't do these kinds of debates, only the entertainment kind where you can get away with these underhanded bad faith tactics. Ben is an entertainer, not a journalist or philosopher.
Someone talking to themself is a real debate.
Someone talking to themself is a real debate.
This fucking comment chain lolololol
They regularly make appearances on television and other media where they debate peers from the other side.
-26
Either this thread is being brigaded or this subreddit is lost.
Peterson and Shapiro are all about finding the most ridiculous real person you can and putting them on a pedestal as an example of leftism.
I don't think so. Peterson and Shapiro aren't making the "[Peterson/Shapiro] ANNIHILATES THE SOUL OF STUPID LEFTIST" videos. Those videos are made by fans who rip the content from Q&A sessions and then upload separately. The only thing I have noticed is that Shapiro can be quick to generalize the views of an article in some obscure academic publication to the Left.
Why are you being downvoted?
Why are you being downvoted?
Because this subreddit, like a lot of Reddit, gets brigaded by top minds and chapotraphouse.
Groupthink.
This is a completely incorrect assessment.
I appreciate your levity but I disagree. Most leftists I've met have been more well-rounded than the image painted by these youtube philosophers.
Well the real leftists I've met were at a sit-in in a building in UC Davis where I spent the night. That's a pretty extreme example I guess. What I really meant though is that they often take on extremely smart people.
I hope i had the same experience... Every leftist I have encountered either talked like they were a saint for being leftist or said x thing is fascist and anyone who does it deserves to be hit etc. I really i could have a respectful conversation with one for a change.
I haven't met anyone that advocated for violence, but I've definitely met people that through around the word "fascism" in a way that disturbed me.
A bit like this thread ?
A Philosopher who is to afraid to debate anyone. What an intellectual heavyweight.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
I watched a few videos. They're great but not my cup of tea; by their nature they're reactionary, a reaction to the gutter-level discourse that happens on most parts of the internet. I appreciate what she's trying to do but a part of my brain tells me that the people/children she's trying to reach are unlikely to really listen.
She’s intentionally reactionary. In one of the older videos she explained the main purpose for the channel was to debunk internet reactionaries by meeting them eye to eye with philosophy. In a way, even if she’s not directly reaching the original reactionaries, she’s providing people with arguments who can then reach them.
Seems like a waste of time
You’d think so, but a surprising amount of people in her comments and twitter replies talk about how drastically she changed their minds.
Ironically, it would be less of a waste of my time than yours because you would actually benefit from some perspective on these issues.
Let her do what she wants to do.
Yeah I wasn't too impressed with it myself...
Edit: lol it's amazing how much post control is going on these days... if you post somewhere and have an opinion not boosting the article you get a negative votecount....
Didn't used to be this way... looks like spam bot are ruining reddit jist like twitter...
Shes the college dropout sjw "intellectual". She wrongly thought facism = something only whites can do if they form an identitarian movements. She never once mentions a major component of facism is censorship (or that race isnt a component). The irony was lost on her as she bookended her piece advocating for the censorship of free speech.
[removed]
Maybe this video? In it, she states that the three core beliefs of fascism are that (1) people with European heritage ought to constitute a unity known as the "white race", (2) Jews are masterminding the destruction of the white race, and (3) the only way to save the white race is to establish a "white homeland" from which non-whites must be purged.
[removed]
Sure it might describe some beliefs of a specific strain of fascism, but for her to say they are THE core beliefs of fascism as a whole, "contemporary" or otherwise, is disingenuous. Why focus it entirely on specifically the white race? Why even make race a core component? Why make it seem like it's impossible to be fascist if you don't hate Jews? Why is there no mention of things like commonalities between authoritarianism or general social or economic stances? While nationalism could be described as a component of neo-fascism, why must she say it has to be white? She's obviously taken an extremely Western-centric view and focuses on neo-nazis and white nationalists. While they are better represented by her core beliefs, they certainly don't represent all modern fascism.
A quick google shows plenty of political parties that that don't fit those core beliefs. CasaPound is an example of Italian neo-fascism, and their core beliefs certainly don't include hating Jews (e.g. vice president Di Stefano, speaking against antisemitic views: "We believe in the national community and the Jews in Italy are part of that."). Or the neo-fascist Taiwanese National Socialism Association, who are all for greater Taiwanese nationalism (read: not white). Or how about taking a look at what's happening in Brazil right now, with many describing a movement towards fascism with the election of Jair Bolsonaro as president.
Can you give me an example contemporary fascists who don't believe those things?
North Korea.
[removed]
The censorship and suppression of opposition. Thats a huge component of facism, I would say its the foundation of facism. Thats why its so egregious contrapoints omitted it in her definition, and instead injected a bunch of bigotry into the definition by making race a component.
Holy fucking western world view, batman! These are not three quality in describing fascists, contemporary or not. A few groups within the US and Western Europe do not constitute the whole of fascism. I'm not familiar with this person, but what she is saying here is bullshit.
[removed]
I'm not going to give you click-bait bullshit about "The three sure fire ways to tell if your friends are fascists!", because that doesn't exists. I don't have to do that to show she is full of shit though. He clams in this video are total bullshit, even if we are just talking about "contemporary fascism". Look at what is going on in Brazil at the moment. Trying to outline the entirety of what is and isn't contemporary fascism in a 20 minute youtube video is a foolish task as is, let alone a goddamn reddit comment. Even given the right platform, I am not the person to do that, there are no doubt many better suited that task, but I can say that what she is talking about, is not what contemporary fascism is. Again, by her definition it's all about race and Jews, which means that the current situation Brazil is moving towards can't be fascism because the president has support of many jews and non-white people.
None of the points she outline have anything to do with authoritarianism, total government control, or dictatorship.
Is downvotes evidence?
I think it's a bit unfair to call a PHD dropout a college dropout...
This woman makes no original points and gives political commentary based on an undergraduate understanding of existentialism and post-stucturalism. Ironically, she makes these arguments as though these schools of thought as though they had some primacy in the search for truth. She’s a left wing Ben Shapiro in that she is a partisan trying to position herself in an intellectual space,rather than a political one and, has only been successful due to the idiocy of her fanbase.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
I'm tired of the Marxist streak in LeftTube. Why is it that half the political commentators that (rightfully) shit on Prager and co. buy into that somewhat less objectionable form of bullshit?
I'm genuinely curious, is she actually a Marxist? I've seen several of her videos, but I can't quite remember.
Not at all. The most i'd say is democratic socialist. Like the politics of AOC or Norway.
Norway is more social democrat than democratic socialist. Capitalism is alive and well there and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, it's just sensibly regulated and restrained to keep it from getting up to any pathological behavior.
The bit that led me to conclude she was was the skit wherein she went on about making Marx more marketable via vaporwave or w/e. Not only did that lead me to conclude she was a Marxist, but also that I might even be lied to in her videos in an attempt to make Marx more marketable. There's also the company she keeps, such as the full-blown communist that is hbomberguy.
I argue, constantly, about Communism due to people such as Limbaugh who've bastardized the definition of Liberalism so much that they believe it's synonymous with Communism. Anyone with even a basic understanding of political history should understand why that's ludicrous. Doing so, however, means that I'm labeled a Marxist and/or Communist when the person making the claim literally has no idea about my politics. I'm a Capitalist who went looking for something better, but just couldn't find something better than a Capitalist society with a large social safety net.
Anyway, the point of this post was to point out that one can make affirmative arguments without actually advocating for said thing. I was always taught that if you cannot argue a position that you're against then you lack a comprehensive enough understanding of a subject. Also, I have Marxist friends while I'm a Capitalist. "Guilt by association" is a poor method for determining what someone's positions are. Sorry for the downvotes and have a good night!
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
I sort of feel like the pagentry defeats the point. Religions use the scriptures of historical figures and costumes to persuade as well. What the article describes sounds more like a ancient philosopher mysticism cult in the making than an actual call to rationality. I haven't watched the channel yet, though. Not sure I can. I find wigs and excessive makeup off putting. I suppose its similar to how many women are turned off by pornography. It offends my sense of taste.
Also current "political philosophy" is mostly a distracting smokescreen. The topics are outdated MvF and TvA tropes. Or trying to win arguments by fiddling with the dictionary... Meanwhile no one is discussing what kind of genders AI will identify as. Climate change/ecological collapse is a done deal. We did it! We can't put the dinosaur back in the hole and we can't stabilize a global weather system by separating trash or eating vegan. Political discussion has become more of an appeasement, like a Colosseum battle or team sport where the prize is a red or blue checkmark with no actual value or purpose other than the right to say you "pwnd those Schmittys good!"
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Read the Post Before You Reply
Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
I find her confusing because she often makes good arguments which indicates strong critical thinking skills and a rational mind, yet she allies herself with tribalists on the far left who blindly follow in-group doctrine.
For example she'll criticize someone like Jordon Peterson but someone like Anita Sarkeesian she admires to the point where she jokes about worshipping her.
She has talked about the negatives of leftist tribalism a lot. She did a TED-style talk where she talked about how leftist Twitter turned on her for doing talks and interviews with prominent right-wing thinkers. I disagree with you when you say that she "aligns herself with tribalists on the far left who blindly follow in-group doctrine". It seems that you don't even watch her videos..
I watch her videos. Do you follow her on Twitter? Take 2 minutes on her feed and you see names like Laurie Penny, Dave Futrelle and Lindsay Ellis, leftwing versions of the people she criticizes.
You're doing exactly what she criticized in her talk: disavowing someone based on the people they associate with. You're engaging in tribalism.
It's not about who she associates with. It's the logic of why.
If you're smart enough not to randomly throw salt in your eyes, and you're critical of people who throws salt in their eyes, it's to me a logical conundrum as to why someone would still hang out with people who throw salt in their eyes.
Only seen one video of there’s but it was pretty weak overall. Not bad, but they did a low hanging fruit rebuttal of Shapiro on gender.
[removed]
The Shapiro video is Pronouns. Worth watching for entertainment at the very least. I can't tell how convincing it is, as I was already on her "side."
I watched it a few months ago so I’m not comfortable attempting a breakdown of the video. I imagine that the video rebutting Shapiro on gender is specific enough for you to find it.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
That's great and all, but do we have any evidence that it is working? I.e. are right-wingers converted?
Hi
Also hi from 986+ other people https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/1083468636847783937
Politics should not be a religion.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
Argue your Position
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[deleted]
The fact that you use "he" kind of outs yourself as a right winger (possibly even a transphobe if that was intentional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Is that why you don't like them? I mean, maybe you genuinely believe these things about her, but honestly it sounds like you just have a vendetta over someone not agreeing with you. Contrapoints, I would argue, offers an intersectional view of many philosophical-political topics that are often overshadowed. Additionally, they are framed in such a way that makes it entertaining for a general youtube audience. So while you might not agree with her claims, the headline of our post is pretty relevant. Her content is quite well suited to the platform.
[deleted]
She is a woman, to not refer to her as such regardless of your opinion of her is distasteful. That's simply why I was wondering if you were biased against them due to their being trans. I know what a vendetta is (I'm using it in a more hyperbolic sense, as is increasingly common in many online communities), and for transphobic individuals, it is not uncommon to try to smear someone for other transgressions simply because they are a member of a community that they hate.
[removed]
I've been watching her videos for a few months now. I don't agree with everything she says, but I really respect how well thought out, balanced, and dispassionately presented her arguments are while also being extremely accessible. That's a rare combination to find.
I thoroughly enjoy her sense of humor, and her willingness to use herself as an example or the butt of a joke to help get something across.
Just to hear the other side of the aisle, what do you disagree with?
Hmmm. Probably most notably, I found her Fat Acceptance video to be pretty myopic. Like, obviously I agree with her point that it's bad to go around mocking or laughing at or shaming fat people. No question about it.
But I was irritated that the only point of view and only problem she acknowledged was the people who are big into fat-shaming. There's a whole other side to this, which is the "health at any size" movement and the fat acceptance movement in general, the former which actively encourages people not to listen to their doctors about weight loss, for example. A lot of them push a narrative that being 200 lbs overweight is perfectly healthy and any doctor or scientist who says being obese is terrible for your health is just "fat shaming".
Frankly, that's nuts. The obesity epidemic in the US is a serious issue, which costs us hundreds of billions in healthcare costs annually. Obesity related illnesses are now the #1 killer of Americans. I've seen relatives drop dead at 50 due to being obese - me hoping they change their lifestyle and get help isnt because I secretly just want to bully them, it's because I dont want them to die young, and be miserable for most of their life until they die.
It's a little like alcoholism. We can acknowledge it's a disease, and it's not an easy one to get over. Most alcoholics who try to quit end up relapsing at some point, and it's really fucking difficult to stay sober for a lot of them. We can say that it's completely wrong and awful to make fun of alcoholics and junkies, and I would agree! But if you then go on to say alcoholism is perfectly fine and healthy and in fact, it's the sober people who are out of whack and should be shamed, and that any doctor who tells you alcohol is bad for you is "drunk-shaming", you lose me.
Now Natalie doesn't make that argument, but I felt that by not addressing the incredibly toxic and delusional aspects of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movements in a video literally called "Fat Acceptance" she only showed one side of the picture. Which was disappointing.
I also have some criticisms of her videos on capitalism, but I feel like she's more balanced there.
My question is how big of a movement even is it? I've literally only ever encountered it in the context of comments like yours
It's pretty big. I know several friends and one family member who were big into it.
It's a lot more common among obese white women than any other group, though - to the point where it seems to be almost exclusively an obese white woman thing. Men and POC don't seem to buy into it nearly as much, for whatever reason.
It's not that I don't believe you, it's just you have only a few anecdotes to back it up. We don't know, maybe that people you know are significant portion of this movement, and you just think it's big because you know so many of them.
It's definitely a 'mainstream' political/socio-cultural talking point; for example, that obese modal who got the cover of cosmo or whatever was discussed by quite a few mainstream media outlets; the issue of plus sized models in advertising, the representation of women's body in the media: they may not be as prominant as other issues like immigration and race, but they're definitely present in the public discussion.
I don't think she meant that people shouldn't care about the health issue, just that actual shaming and bullying is wrong and counter-productive. She could've clarified, since that's a common argument, but...
To be clear, I don't she meant that either. I just wish that she had addressed that common argument. I felt not doing so was a poor decision.
Gotcha. Yeah, I agree with you there.
I hear people talk about these insane "pro-fat" people the whole time, and I think I may have read one (?) of those people's views.
I don't think she needs to rebut them, because they are ridiculous, small in number and they don't represent even a plurality of real-world views.
Some people have found being shamed by the right person (Doctor, teacher) to be the exact thing that made them change their lifestyle.
Advice or giving someone an imperative is not shaming. Shaming is when you make someone feel like they're inherently bad or worth less as a person because of something about themselves. There are some people who are motivated by those kinds of feelings, but study after study suggests that that's not typical. Shame tends to make people give up because they feel like they can't do better. When it comes to fat shaming, specifically, people tend to eat their feelings.
I think we need to stop shaming shaming
I’m an obese white woman. There is literally no one in my life telling me that I’m healthy at any size or that I shouldn’t listen to my doctors.
I used to be extremely thin. So, I’m able to compare. I can tell you that what DOES happen in real life is that the general population treats fat people worse than thin people. Depending on the person, the treatment ranges all the way from people simply not being friendly with a fat person to outright mocking. Cruel family members have no qualms about telling a fat family member to stop “stuffing your face with food”
Then, there are the “concern trolls” who act as though they are simply worried about the fat person’s health and point out to them that being fat is unhealthy. The thing that bothers me about those people is that they behave as though they are the first person who ever thought about telling a fat person that they are unhealthy. I can assure you, fat people are constantly being told that they are unhealthy. I don’t need more randos reminding me about my health problems. Besides, I don’t see these same people lecturing thin diabetics about their diet.
Even if someone is trying to be helpful, they help in the wrong way. I’m sorry, but simply telling someone that they need to lose weight simply isn’t effective. For my part, I’m fully aware that it isn’t healthy. The thought of dying young is on my mind every day. I keep making efforts to lose weight, but keep failing. When I’m constantly reminded by others about my failings, it makes me feel worse about myself.
While I agree that obesity is a serious problem, I disagree that the “fat acceptance” represents a very large segment of society. They don’t deserve equal time in a debate because they don’t represent what most fat people deal with in real life.
This is exactly what is happening when Joe Rogan sees a plus size model on the cover of a magazine. All of the sudden he's super worried about her health, but pumping your body full of steroids for 20 years while eating 10,000 calories a day to be a bodybuilder is totally normal...
THIS. Like any other "politically correct" issue, the problem is massively overblown. The only time I hear something about "fat acceptance" is when some edgy "anti-pc" IDW is giving someone unsolicited advice about losing weight because "facts don't care about your emotions."
I honestly don't even know what fat acceptance is. I treat overweight people like anyone else. Everyone has vices and things that aren't perfect. I used to smoke and every time someone "taught" me about cancer I wanted to kill them. Solidarity with all my upper BMI range comrades
I thought the point of the fat acceptance movement was to just not mock people that are far leading to them doing terrible things like people just not eating for days on end or people picking up eating disorders like bulimia to get rid of weight and instead help them get to a healthy weight through encouragement and participation with them. Also weight gain is pretty common in a lot of fields like people wanting to become doctors because they get so stressed out which fucks up their metabolism and they then also probably eat more, so mocking them might push them to the brink to do something bad for something that’s very hard to alter or control. And then obviously it’s common if people grew up with fat parents who didn’t really educate them and taught them to eat everything on the plate.
Obviously there’s the radicals like in any movement that would say “weight doesn’t matter at all” but I thought that was for the most part a small vocal amount that’s kind of just been pushed to the top because of anti-SJW etc.
Then again I haven’t done a ton of research on the movement so I could be wrong
Interesting. Yeah, I don't think she did anything malicious. Nuance is important, however. There is a line and that line needs to be acknowledged.
I don't either. I mention it because it's a noticeable exception from her otherwise great videos.
One of the positives is she genuinely helped me change my mind towards trans women, or at least understand their perspective better. I've never done the douchebro shit of misgendering/disrespecting trans women, but as a fairly straightedge conservative dude I've always felt mildly uncomfortable around them. Her complete willingness to be open a about her transition - and in the process answer a lot of questions I didn't know how to ask - completely transformed my understanding. Her willingness to be vulnerable and talk frankly about her own experiences is so incredible, and I respect that so much.
As a trans person myself, she also helped me reconnect with the community in some way. She is trans, but she is real about it. I gel with that. I don't often think of myself as trans. I'm just a different kind of person. She says things that I've been thinking that are hard to come to grips with. Even if I don't necessarily have the answers, I feel less alone.
Being trans is big. It's insane if you stop to think about it. It's intangibility makes it hard to grasp. You just fly by the seat of your emotions and hope you're making the right decision. A lot of times, it's not that i don't want to be this new person. I just don't want to be different. I just want to be a normal chick. Not a guy. Not in the middle. Just a chick. And the fact that I live in this space in between was difficult when I was a younger post-transition girl. You're kinda stuck with this feeling of "I wont go backwards to hell, but going forward into the aether is terrifying simply because it's different." However, I've destroyed myself with analysis paralysis more times than not. Lol.
Thank you so much for sharing
The difference between alcoholism and obesity is that we need food to survive and live. We don't need alcohol, or cigs, or gambling, etc. to live. There are a very small vocal minority of feederism types that are embracing unhealthy life styles. However these are such a small segment of the population do I really want to devote much time to fighting them? Not really. It is also very self contained harm, much like the 'cutting' groups that were prevalent on tumblr and twitter for a while. I'm anti-cutting but I'm also going to acknowledge the facts around it.
Btw even in your example, I'm 6'3 white cis male. I'm healthy at 200+ pounds. The reason is I do a shitton of cardio and lifting due to my job. That combined with a good diet and regular checkups keeps me healthy. I agree a 4'11 woman isn't very healthy at 200 pounds if it isn't muscle related weight. But if it is? She's probably in the best shape of her life. Context is very important when discussing weight.
the poster above means 200 lbs over their healthy weight range. not 200 lbs flat. there are people 350-400 lbs that say its totally fine to be that way and theres no adverse health affects.
im going to have to totally disagree with you that its self contained harm as people pass on these poor behaviors/eating habits to their children.
we do need food to survive however not in such excessive amounts, and such unhealthy types such as sugar. its an addiction like any other.
the reason we need to devote time and effort to acknowledging the issues with the FA movement is due to americas current obesity crisis like the poster above mentioned. its something like 74% of adults are overweight now
You beat me to the lunch! Yeah, I meant 200+ lbs over, not 200+ lbs. :)
I think the argument you are missing is the meta argument about regardless of whether being obese is/isn't healthy, that the stigma of obesity is the main product of that fact being focused on. And that stigma does not actually successfully help obese people deal with their weight problem but it does add new social problems. That can actually cause more weight gain through poorer interpersonal support and mental health.
I consider fat acceptance to be one of those counter-factual life hacks that produce better results despite requiring some denial of reality, like obstinate optimism and believing in free will.
but the thing is, the stigma does not really exist within most rational people; in my life ive never heard an adult make fun of another adults weight. if you go on /r/fatpeoplestories and look at the higher comments everyone is in favor of educating these people to make better choices. the thing that people have a problem with is the toxic behavior, denial-ism and blame shifting. this is part of human nature but people can never really help themselves until they are prepared to admit to themselves that they have a problem.
It isn't anyone else's job to get fat people to change. Thinking that it is and that anyone else (except maybe their doctor or their very immediate loved ones) has business telling or judging or what amounts to in any way controlling fat people IS the stigma.
i dont have a problem with people smoking cigarettes, that cool its your body do what you like. i do have a problem when people smoke with babies in their car, they reek around me in public, and let there teenagers smoke themselves.
its the same thing with obesity, they are passing on awful habits to their children, who will probably be orphaned around ~20, while taking doctors and nurses away from people who arent the cause of their health issues. we dont want this to happen, we want everyone to live happy healthy long lives but pretending this stuff doesnt have an impact on society is naive.
And around and around we go...
A) Attempts by friends/acquaintances/co-workers to encourage (control) them them does not work, so saying that you feel justified to try because you have strong reasons for wanting them to stop them is moot. It won't.
B) Attempts to control them actually backfire, making the problem you say you want to stop worse. So with that knowledge, stop trying.
C) You do not have grounds to even try to control them. You are not the health police.
You are talking to an adult child of addicts, who lost a parent at 19, so trust me - I have lived this shit. Stop trying to control them. It doesn't work. Unless your goal is simply to feel superior to someone. Which is honestly what this smells like 99% of the time (mark this as likely contributing cause for point B).
And here is the final point that should change the discussion, if we are claiming to be highly rational. A lot of the most recent research on obesity suggests that, because of metabolic feedback loops, it is largely irreversible. People who lose the weight have to fight off intense hunger pretty much indefinitely, and this is more than just a sensation - this is enduring your body actually having insufficient fuel to allow you to think straight, feel energetic, etc. I know if I had the choice between being obese and able to think or being "normal" weight and miserable, I would fucking choose obesity. So if you want to fight obesity, work on prevention. And no, that isn't license to badger obese people with kids - because badgering still doesn't fucking work.
its not control its education. i dont ever try lecture to overweight people, i never mention anyones weight ever. i just simply refuse to pretend like its a good thing to be overweight and give my honest opinion on diet & exercise in conversation.
i think it actually does work to be honest. ive seen multiple people improve their lives because their friends are there to support them with healthy habits. and thats an awful line of logic to live you life by, dont ever try to change the world for the better because it wont work so dont try.
I am glad that you have seen people change, but it is because those people found the will and capacity change - don't give the credit to others. It is easy to know what habits to change, which is why constantly being given "advice" is so condescending. Actually changing the habits is the hard part and all credit needs to go to the person making the change. Which also should have nothing to do with appeasing other people, including you.
Nothing I said above said don't try to change the world or help people, but I think you know that. I am making an argument that your approach, even as you describe it as "being honest", is more about your comfort than helping anyone. Because as I said before - badgering people doesn't work.
but i dont understand why you think im badgering people. ive told you multiple times that im not. if people mention to me "im trying to eat healthy" or "im trying to get more exercise" i have a normal conversation about it and tell them my experiences with what works and what ive read.
im not some vegan/crossfitter running around at each opportunity slapping cupcakes out of peoples hands and talking down to the larger people in my office.
"It is easy to know what habits to change". apparently not, isnt this whole discussion about Body Acceptance Movement who whole hardheartedly think its physically & mentally healthy to be morbidly obese?
I feel like you are moving the goal post on me here in terms of describing what your approach is, which is fine - only offering your perspective when asked is fine. Offering it unasked to 'save' or otherwise prosylitize is not.
We can change "it is easy to know what habits to change" to "it is easy to know what habits people generally think fat people are supposed to change," and the fat acceptance movement is basically a rejection of that demand from others. For fair enough reasons, that don't actually boil down to stubborn determination to be fat as much as it is a rational reaction to demands that can't actually reasonably be met.
This article appeared in my newsfeed today that reiterates the current medical understanding of obesity, which is actually worse than what I indicated yesterday. Healthy lifestyle can't even significantly dent obesity in the long run because of metabolic feedback. Gastric surgery has the best evidence right now of having a positive impact, but even it can sometimes only reduce how obese and not get someone into the "normal weight" range. This means that when you see someone who is overweight, you do not know if you are looking at someone who has already made Herculean efforts to achieve the weight you see them at. That person does not need to hear anyone's well-meaning thoughts on cutting sugar or eating more leafy greens.
Food addiction is unique in that we have to eat food to survive. That's why it has become so prevalent in other societies. It isn't the same as other addictions because other addictions can be eliminated without any serious negative effects. Going without food means death, which means people have to eat food, and even more specifically people want to eat 'tasty' food.
what other societies are you talking about?
many addictions cannot be eliminated without serious health effects. Almost every drug has serious withdrawal symptoms from alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and heroin, which actually can be lethal in some extreme cases.
im not going to disagree with you that human subconsciously tend to overeat as our psyche is still expecting food shortages, from when we lived in an era we were still hunter/gatherers. Its in our nature to enjoy unhealthy food, but its not required for our survival. its not really different to any other addiction when most people are overweight due to high sugar drinks, fried food and empty carbs (often which have little to no nutritional value)
Food is required for survival. Heroin isn't. I think at this point either you acknowledge the difference or if not, I don't think I have the rhetorical skills to further explain this concept. It truly is a different addiction and thus should be treated a bit differently than other addictions.
I'm a little late to the thread but I would be interested in hearing your criticisms of her videos on capitalism.
I haven't seen her video on fat shaming and I don't disagree with you that obesity increases individuals risk for multiple conditions but I do feel that it's important to keep the risk in perspective. If you have a BMI >35 your hazard ratio is like 1.3, so definitely not insignificant but it's no were near the risk associated with smoking for example. If you are overweight/mild obesity BMI between 25-35 you have either a neutral or positive hazard ratio. I think it's important to be honest with people about health risk and not inflate the risk. I have no evidence for this but it seems reasonable that avoiding shaming people and hopefully accepting people allows people to make healthy choices.
I'd recommend this recent Atlantic article written by a morbidly obese man who describes how difficult his life is at his weight https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/01/weight-loss-essay-tomlinson/579832/
But he discusses the health costs as well. $147 billion spent yearly on medical care for obesity-related illnesses in the US alone. Increased risk of heart attack and organ failure due to the pressure from fat, blowing arteries due to extremely high blood pressure. Heck his sister died young due an infection from sores on her leg swelling.
Beyond the increased morbidity, though, there's the cost of treating all the illnesses caused by obesity, and the harsh limitations it places on your lifestyle and what you can do.
I'm not disagreeing with you that obesity presents health risk and that it's a not an easy solution. This probably has more to do with my pet peeve of people misrepresenting various medical condition as much more deadly then they really are in an attempt to scare people straight. Obesity clearly increases your risk of a number of conditions and a hazard ratio of 1.3 is nothing to sneeze at, its just not a guaranteed death sentence anymore the life in general is. Edit Providing a source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23280227
Yeah, I guess I'm coming from the opposite end - where there are a lot of people with HAES who try to pretend that there are no health risks at all associated with being morbidly obese and accuse doctors and scientists (not just schmucks off the street yelling at fat people I mean) of being fatphobic or "fat shaming" for informing patients of those risks and suggesting they try to lose weight. It causes a lot of problems for people who listen to them and then stop listening to their doctors or stop going to their doctor. (I had a relative who was into all that right up until she had a stroke :/)
But I see your point too, and I appreciate you bringing it up. :)
That really rough. I've been lucky enough to not be personally affected by obesity and therefore am a little more detached. I hope that someone is able to break through there denial about the risks. I judge it similarly to smoking. It decreases your life expectancy on average but it doesn't mean that you have a moral failing.
I feel the same way. While there are definitely things I don’t agree on her with, it is hard not to recognize how well made the videos are.
If you like her work, try PhilosophyTube.
Been trying to get into his stuff recently, but finding it hard. He comes across as smug and irritating, and to be honest too blatantly politically biased (I say that as someone with basically the same politics as him!).
I kind of get the feeling he's putting more effort into seeming smart than he is in advancing good arguments/teaching his subscribers.
A good example is his 'Why the Left Will Win' video (or something like that) - that video just came across as really immature and I'll thought out.
Am I missing something? In all seriousness, I'd like to hear an opposing point of view.
A lot of the videos are contextual, “Why the left will win” was released when the Anti-SJW had given up on pretending to be centrist and was just pumping out anti left content with disingenuous arguments (no surprises) and smugly being wrong.
Being anti-SJW has nothing to do with political alignment. The fact that some hold a position doesn't mean everyone does.
That's a little naive considering how often modern politics is defined by your opposition more than your actual support. Take voting: Do you really vote for the person you actually like, or do you vote for the candidate with the strongest chance to beat the one guy/lady you REALLY don't want to see win?
Like it or not, taking a stance against something is itself a stance, and where a position can be found there are other adjacent ones that co-opt it, drawing it into a political alignment even unintentionally.
I'm not saying it wholly defines you, but it's still happening. Modern political tribalism encourages this kind of thing, where groups congeal into the major parties because it's the only form of meaningful support that one can use to make a position into policy.
Few of my votes matter, as I typically vote for candidates who can't win. So as that relates to your question, I vote for the person I want to win and not against the person I don't want.
So communism is left adjacent, and fascism is right adjacent, does that mean being anti-communism make you a right-winger and being anti-facist makes you left? I don't feel like it does.
SJWs are just a left-adjacent extremist group. Like any other extremist group, those on the opposite side of the aisle are going to have more issue with what they do and represent than those on the same side, but everyone should ultimately dislike them to some degree.
I'm not denying that there's a significant amount of tribalism going on in the modern political climate, but to claim that all holders of a certain position are doing nothing more than pretending to be unbiased as they push a slant is absurd, and quite frankly a bit rude.
You're not wrong, I'm just describing what happens. It's not like we can understand all of a person's political nuances at a glance, so argument often portrays an imperfect picture of a person's particular stance, and people extrapolate from there.
It's true, there are liberals that hate communism and SJWs, and there are conservatives that hate fascism and racists, but the people who DO align with these adjacent groups have the effect of creating an association with their respective adjacent parties.
SJWs themselves I think are actually born from this phenomenon. The hallmark of one is the perception that ALL conservatives, and by further extension all disagreement to their position means the person is either associated with or is a direct member of an enemy extremists group. It's why they'll decry a guy who makes ONE off-color jokes as always being a horrid racist even though the guy may well have never gone out of his way to harm a minority in his life. The thing is, the real racists aren't really out to say otherwise, and this creates a cycle of normalization where the extreme groups swell because both sides create the impression of increasing radicalization on both sides, prompting them to turn to and be more welcoming of more extreme people and ideals; It's an arms race of who can be the most extreme. SJWs were an answer to racists, Alt-right was an answer to the SJWs, Antifa was an answer to the Alt-right and so on.
That might be the case in some of her videos, but most of the time, she does a pretty decent job at being both amusing and informative. Her newest video "The Apocalypse" isn't as much philosophy based, but it's a good example of her being at her best.
Besides, considering how popular faux philosophers like that pseudo-intellectual Stefan Molyneux have become on YouTube, I'm willing to let it slide for the time being.
Also, ever since I clicked on her videos, I'm no longer being spammed with stupid shit titled "Libtard communist DESTROYED epic-style by logic and facts!!!!!" on YouTube. So all hail ContraPoints.
Edit: Wrote my comment too fast and didn't read the context/the person he was replying to. He was obviously talking about PhilTube and not Natalie.
I think the person you’re responding to is commenting on PhilosophyTune, not ContraPoints.
My reply was about Philosophy Tube, not Natalie (surely the pronouns gave it away?)
Ah, that makes sense. I started writing my comment way too fast there. My apologies. Gonna edit my comment.
That's ok - I was probs a little too frosty with you in my reply - apologies!
[removed]
That alone is a reason to click.
hail the dark mother!
cruel mother
Totally agree. It makes me feel uncomfortable to see such a reductionist presentation.
I don't really get this impression at all, at least from his newer videos. He seems pretty humble to me. But I guess that's subjective.
I think this comes from a bit of confusion about what his channel is supposed to be currently. He started out with the intention of it just being an educational channel, basically "giving away a Philosophy 101 course for free". Now that he has covered all the basic Philosophy topics, I think he's decided to shift away from the channel's original purpose, and is now just using it to make videos about Leftist politics through the lens of philosophy. Personally I think that's fine, though I can see how it can be a bit misleading if you're under the impression that it's still supposed to just be a general philosophy education channel (it is called "PhilosophyTube" after all.)
I know he has stated that he got a lot of negative feedback from his fans on that video, and that he has taken the criticism to heart and he now looks back on that video as not very good and as somewhat naive.
True. I have no idea how old/new the videos I've watched are - I've just watched random ones, so maybe I'd be less inclined to find him smug in new videos. I think I find myself annoyed particularly when he is unnecessarily bringing up some obscure philosophical argument to back up a point, where a far simpler and indeed effective one could be made.
Having studied philosophy at university I feel like I've seen this a million times, and I do not at all like it: personally (and I can only really talk about my own perspective here, so take it with a grain of salt, I guess), I see it as an attempt primarily to make oneself look smart, rather than to actually formulate the best arguments available. Particularly when the more obscure arguments he employs are actually tangential at best to the actual argument he's making. I'm left thinking 'did he really need to invoke that? Or did it make him look smarter to a certain part of his audience?'.
Regarding your second paragraph: yeah, I get that, but don't feel I can get behind it for a couple reasons: - Firstly, although his 'Why the Left Will Win' video is the most egregious of his videos, I feel like (at least in the videos I've seen so far) the sentiments expressed there are at least implicit throughout his other political videos. I just think he's preaching largely to the choir (or, to put it less generously, 'playing to his audience'), and coming from a pure 'left = right and good; right = wrong and bad" point of view (or arguing as if he is). I don't see the value in making your arguments in that way, and struggle to see how he could successfully persuade or inform people. - Secondly, I think it just looks awful to have a channel set up to give away Philosophy 101 courses for free, and then to move into being very very blatantly left wing political activist channel (and again, I think my politics almost always agrees with his). It to some degree vicariously reflects back on me, and the political discussions I have: lefties like him, I feel, make lefties like me look worse. I now have to contend with someone like him as a voice of left-leaning politics, and now my discussions are suddenly a lot harder from the beginning.
Fair points. I'll admit that I too, have only watched a few of his videos randomly (though I generally know how old each one was), so I don't have a full picture of his channel. Maybe we watched different videos. I mean to binge through his backlog at some point because I quite like most of the ones I've seen.
I'll admit that I'm not well versed enough in philosophy yet to realize if he's doing the thing where he invokes a more obscure argument just to look smart, so I'll take your word on that.
In regards to your last paragraph. I understand why his shift in channel focus from general Philosophy education to Leftist propaganda might seem shady. And in a way, it can be pretty bad optics. People in the comments definitely chew him out for his political bias at times and call him "IdeologyTube" to poke fun at him. In some sense, I agree with you, and partly think he should've been more transparent about the shift (or even just made a second channel for it).
But on the flipside, I can see some advantages to it. YouTube was basically totally dominated by the Right-wing when it comes to politics, and even in the general public, Leftist politics needs all the help it can get. As such, I think when it comes to traditionally shady tactics like using a non-poltical subject as a Trojan Horse for Leftist politics, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hbomberguy does it with video games, Lindsay Ellis and Big Joel and Folding Ideas do it with film criticism, and PhilosophyTube does it with philosophy. It's using the Right's tactics against itself (Jordan Peterson uses self-help and Psychology as a trojan horse for reactionary politics, and a countless number of Right-wing YouTubers dragged people in with GamerGate and/or atheism). Sometimes you gotta use dirty tactics to fight back against other people using dirty tactics.
I also disagree that all his videos are just preaching to the choir and/or unpersuasive to non-Leftists (though some certainly may be). I'll admit I don't have any actual data to back this up (unlike ContraPoints who receives thousands of comments from people saying she changed their view on something). However, I feel like his videos like "Elon Musk" and "Transphobia: An Analysis" could be pretty persuasive to some people. I know "Elon Musk" helped me develop my Leftist views somewhat, though I was already headed in that direction anyway when I watched it. But I thought it was great supplementary material to the other Leftist YouTube videos and reading material that helped convince me. Furthermore, not all Leftist content needs to be persuasive to people who against Leftism. There's also a need for content that helps people already sympathetic to Leftism develop their views further.
Oh, and going back to his personality as smug vs. humble, I've watched some of his livestream content and he always comes off as a really kind and down to earth guy in those (i.e. when he's not reading off a script). The first video I watched of him was actually the live stream he did with ContraPoints, and in general it made me like him a lot and think he was a nice guy. However I will admit that it did REALLY annoy me in that video that he just barely acknowledged ContraPoints as an actress when the topic came up. I think he's a bit blinded by his own traditional acting career, because Natalie is (in my opinion) an amazing actress and the way she plays so many characters in her videos is nothing short of incredibly impressive. The fact that he didn't immediately recognize her as a fellow actor was very irksome.
My bad
[deleted]
Dispassionately presented? Are we watching the same videos?
Same here – I don't agree with her approach to economics (I find it too utopian in the long-term and too vague in the short term, and I tend to disagree with the idea of socialism in general), but otherwise I love her videos
Are there other YT channels like hers that you would recommend?
Unfortunately, I don't really look at enough YouTube videos to recommend anything else. :/
I love how her videos make you think about certain topics. Didn't really agree with all of her points on cultural apropriation, but it made me think about why exactly I don't agree with these particular points and I believe it broadened my horizons and showed me other points of view I never considered before
This is just blatant advertising it's absolutely pathetic.
She's the Sargon of the left at this point.
[removed]
Please bear in mind our commenting rules:
This action was triggered by a human moderator. Please do not reply to this message, as this account is a bot. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]