ContraPoints Talks Internet Fascism and Cancel Culture | Offline Podcast 

Glad to know I wasn't the only one noticing that 😆

Not having a quirky segway every other sentence is refreshing.

Once a cat girl, always a cat girl

life finds a way!

Can't unsee it!!!

I just wanted to say this was very well worded. Academic ventures tend to kill the artistic side. Retired academics that then become RU-vidrs or podcasters make a lot of sense if they have that high creative drive. I just love that you worded it above and see a lot of the same. In order to have accessibility to knowledge we have to do peer education sometimes it’s so expensive and a lot may never have the access.

A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female. Why should MALES be allowed access to SINGLE-SEX spaces reserved for FEMALES based on their "gender identity"? If sex and gender are separate, then a male announcing his "gender identity" is "trans woman" does nothing to change their sex, they are still MALE - so why should they be afforded rights reserved for the opposite SEX? The movement is regressively sexist, and misogynistic. Why do you believe females do not deserve any spaces free of males? What is hateful about upholding female sex-based rights that were fought long and hard for? Believing sexist stereotypes define men and women, instead of their biological sex, is unquestionably sexist to the core, because you are saying men and women are not actually free to behave however they want but need to conform to these sexist stereotypes in order to be men or women - if you say no they don't have to act any sort of way as a man or woman, and being a man or woman has nothing to do with biology - then what are you describing by calling someone a man or woman? If you think it doesn't describe biology, and doesn't describe anything about their looks or behaviour, then what on earth are you basing defining anyone as a man or woman on??? Why would a man need to become a "trans woman" in order to be their "authentic selves", why can't they just be a very feminine man and dress/act however they want? If trans ideology isn't sexist, then why would a man ever need to "transition" if either sex is completely free to act however they want? How can you claim to be opposing sexism when the whole basis for anyone feeling the need to transition, literally is sexism? How is gender identity" any different from what sexist stereotypes a person feels drawn to? Or simply their PERSONALITY? And, if sex and gender are separate, then why should "transitioning gender" allow MALES into FEMALE-ONLY spaces, they never changed, nor can they change, their sex. How is removing the rights of females to single-sex spaces progressive? How is centering male feelings over female rights "feminist"?

@@ambientjohnny Totally agree. Nice summary of the current situation.

@@ambientjohnny The issue with this viewpoint is that it thinks trans people are almost not aware of sex and sexism, that they are 'appropriating' a different sex, when, no, this is not how reality plays out. Why should trans women be allowed to use womens bathrooms? because sending them into the male rooms is dangerous, period. Gender is born from sex and the differences that creates, and it is perfectly valid for somebody to want to change those sex based characteristics if given the choice. you speak on 'womens spaces', but are advocating for big beefy trans men to occupy the same space strictly because of their sex, as if those traits arent more masculine than the person with the dick that literally cant get hard. Your view is regressive as its trying to ignore literally any social facet of birth sex and how it manifests. you're basically saying 'cope', as if that fixes any problem. there will still by hyper effeminate men who decide that their life would be improved by going on HRT and living as a woman does. this dosent change their biosex, but that dosent mean shit when 99% of the time they are living an average womans life. i understand how you can see gender as being based off 'regressively sexist', but the fact is that the world still functions off of the consequences of sex based characteristics, and people should be able to adjust to them how they see fit. If you want to live in a sexless world, join a monastery.

​@@goblin672 If male "trans women" may face problems entering the sex-appropriate bathroom for them, the male bathroom, then that is a direct consequence of their actions, of their desire to "present female" ("actions have consequences" goes both ways, something that seems lost on the majority of people) - as well as a problem with male attitudes - neither of those two things are women's problems to sort out. Your assertion that females need to "fix" the issue with male on male violence, male sexism etc., is pure misogyny. "We have to do away with female-only spaces because some males are mean to other males if we don't" - Where in that is there ANY accountability or responsibility for males and their attitudes and behaviours??? Spaces are segregated by sex, not this neo-religious claim of "gender identity" - and it's about far more than bathrooms - you lot always just harp on and on about the least consequential one. It's sports, hospital wards, hospital/security/police same-sex examination rights, changing rooms, abuse shelters, prisons, spas, saunas, rape crisis shelters, homeless facilities, education/schools, leisure centres and public pools, lesbian services, menstruation services, dating spaces/apps, and to a lesser extent in some circumstances; celebrations, culture events, religious spaces/events - so this attempt to make it seem like it's just about people overreacting due to a bathroom issue is an egregious lie. Mental problems are NOT to be treated with physical alterations to the body - it is LAUGHABLE that all you "activists" and "allies" act as if such a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes proper psychological help would be some sort of standard of care - you don't actually know anything, or understand anything, but merely parrot what you've heard which resonates with you at an emotional level. No one can be "born in the wrong body", our brains ARE our body just as much as any other part of it. We are the sex we are, regardless of what our personal relationship is with the sexist stereotypes in society. "Trans" ideology, is regressive and sexist, as there is no "correct way" of being a boy or girl, man or woman, all those terms do is indicate sex and stage of maturity - decoupling sex and gender and trying to make gender into this ludicrous concoction of personality and sexist stereotypes is beyond regressive - it actively harms people who buy into it - the idea that there is something wrong with a kid's body that needs to be chemically altered because they believe living up to sexist stereotypes is some real measure of whether they are a boy or a girl (and man or woman for adults obviously), is insanity!!! I have asked hundreds of "activists" and "allies" to explain what they are measuring themselves against to determine that they have a need to transition - NOT ONE person has been able to articulate what that is - not one person is able to distance themselves sufficiently to realise that THEY are the ones with a regressively sexist idea of what it means to be a boy/girl or man/woman and that that is the issue causing all the problems - their own misunderstanding and severely limited perspective/sexist misunderstanding of what sexist stereotypes/"gender norms" actually entail - they are not rules, they are not real boundaries, they are regressive ideas and generalisations - no one needs to live up to any such utter nonsense or feel comfortable with those stereotypes to be a boy/girl/man/woman - all those terms represent, and all they should represent, is sex and stage of maturity - by creating this whole "gender identity" nonsense, THAT IS WHAT CAUSES ALL THE DISTRESS, THIS FABRICATION OF A FRAMEWORK WHICH DISTORTS REALITY. No one - NO ONE - in the movement has been able to explain or articulate what this supposed "womanly essence" or "manly essence" is that they feel/know/need to transition to, to represent etc. actually is - yet you all actively believe in it and push for it to be accepted. That is ludicrous. Fine piece of projection at the end there - unable to see how it is precisely people claiming to be "trans" who are the ones that de facto fail to deal with the reality of sex - humans cannot change sex, that is a 100% medical fact, and you lot live in this narcissistic fantasy land thinking you get to dictate reality instead of be governed by it, but you can't dictate reality, only how you react to it, and this raging against other people who remind you of this simple fact of life is not working, it is just projection, a sub-conscious distress call that if heeded could lead out of misery but you all just lean harder and harder into it. Lastly, males thinking they get to invade female privacy and attempting to change laws so that no female would ever be allowed to say "no" to any male when it comes to privacy in public spaces - total misogyny.

I was a conservative at one point too. Voted for McCain/Palin after graduating high school in 2007. Firmly place myself in the progressive camp now.

Yeah, no. Somehow just can't believe either of you. Can't quite put my finger on it, it's just a feeling I have. Unconsciously rooted in anxiety and identity... .WTF I can't effing do it LOL

@@rauminen4167 ? I don't understand the problem - people absolutely do NOT approach their political ideology logically, at least not without enormous effort. Generally you adopt the political identity that you grow up immersed in, people are tribalist, that isnt a controversial statement. As for politics rooted in anxiety, just look at the conservatives terror over immigrants, minority populations, and transfolk lmao >its just a feeling I have r u avin a laff?

​@@heman3141 Oh please. ONE side of the political isle doesn't approach their politics logically. US is systematically racist - let's encourage immigration Be a sanctuary state - as long as illegals stay out and in red states Save children from k1llings - try to pass federal law for ab0rtion up to 6 hours AFTER birth. Fight for equality - try to abolish civil rights law so you can hire by skin colour. Do it anyway. Save black lives - ignore 99% of the murders + support planned parenthood Distrust the police - let's make sure that they're the only ones with guns Distrust the government - bury people in regulation Want to make the people safe - release violent criminals over and over without bail, de-criminalise theft, throw the book at anyone trying to defend themselves. I can go on. "r u avin a laff?" Indeed. That was quite intentional. Frankly I'm very positively surprised that you picked up on it.

@@heman3141 Hmmmm - apart from it being projection as I hinted towards in my previous post - what you're describing sounds awfully like religion to me. Just, food for thought.

There were lefts who were following them??? Pardon this old leftist, but how did I miss that?

Good. Those people were not truly right wing or simply were cuckservstives, who are better left without their heads.

Lol nope

Straight up. I used to tune in to Crowder, Shapiro and Sargon of Akkad, it was Contra who first changed my mind on trans people.

so true

Agreed. I’m progressive not because either the ideology or the politicians and talking heads promoting it are perfect solutions to all our problems, but because they’re the most-good and least-bad I’ve encountered so far, for most issues. Or because progressive democratic solutions are the best we can achieve if we don’t already have consensus (because some of the socially utopian worlds that seem even better on paper can’t really be created until everyone (or at least an overwhelming majority) agrees that they want such a world). I think a lot of lefties shy away from criticism of leftie ideas and of other lefties because “questioning the status quo” starts out as a fairly fragmented group. And they (we) know that conservatism starts out more united ideologically (because “supporting the status quo” is definitionally a narrower set of beliefs), and is more inclined to ideological conformity (because a greater belief in hierarchies and authority is a part of conservative worldview). And conservatives tend to see problems as having one right, or at least one best, answer, disagreement as implicitly saying that the ideas are “wrong”-that if progressive solutions were good people would naturally accept them, and if you have to persuade someone of something, that indicates that it’s an unnatural or weak claim. And on a purely political level, anyone who isn’t already aligned to a political ideology (let alone a party) may find it easier to glom onto the seemingly-singular one-true-way-ism of conservative ideology than the fractious and sometimes internally-opposed progressive ideology, I think that leads to a lot of lefties trying to downplay very real and sometimes very significant ideological disagreements within leftism.

Yeah I didn't fully understand her old video "The Left" until I'd experienced online left behavior for a little longer. I was like: Oh yeah, she was pretty much dead on with how deeply annoying and inflammatory they can be despite their good intentions.

This

It's so great how she promotes a balance liberal view that does completely toss out Capitalism!

Yes!! To tangent a bit, I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy within “The Left” too, which is understandable as progressiveness is an ongoing discussion and the lines will inevitably keep shifting. It’s definitely not linear most times and I can see how the ‘holes’ in arguments are easy targets for conservatives, especially bc conservatives generally think more linearly.

Yes!!!

Same here. Every vid!

funny i often listen to her videos to calm me to falling asleep

My first watch is always attentive but subsequent rewatchings receive a range of attention levels.

yes.

Agreed, and I do miss her, so this was great.

Yeah fine she's good, but ultimately she's anti-White with a lot of legitimate fluff

@@shokojimhollingsworth3940 This Topic is under-explained, so let me say: Fas-ism was covered on RU-vid and Nebula by 'Second Thought'.

i'm hungry right now. how'd she do dat?

@@shokojimhollingsworth3940 she has a live channel that she plays video games on if youre interested

I understand where you're coming from, but then again it's Contrapoints, author of RU-vid's best-crafted video essays. I think we shouldn't expect anything but outstanding thoughtfulness and intelligence from her.

@@Ildskalli That's true, but there are plenty of people who are really well spoken with a script but sound like they have no idea what they're talking about without one.

Hahaha yeah I watched that, I was like bro even the most recent contra video essays are still getting millions of views. FD Signifiers video on the manosphere has like 800k views, Steven is mad he got casted aside by popular leftist content creators, now he's trying to get to Nick Fuentes fanbase and Sneako fanbase, so far I haven't seen any type of change in neither sneako or Nick's views. Seems like he felt alienated from the left, hence the friendliness to these reactionary types

I don't think Destiny considers Contrapoints part of Breadtube. I don't think Contra self-identifies as part of Breadtube. In fact, if you look on at post dedicated to this video on the Breadtube reddit, the highest voted comments are ones complaining that this video has no leftist/progressive value and it's just more proof that Contra's a garden variety "lib".

If he was a band it would be Destiny's manchild

Back then I used to see all these alt right/alt-lite channels and I would be dismayed at how most mainstream criticism is just "they're bad because they're racist/sexist" - which I often agreed with but it left me unsatisfied - but contrapoints actually distills those arguments and explains why they're wrong. That persuades more people.

I love to watch how you're eating up your own. It really is a circular firing squad. I guess Destiny didn't want to transition to keep the audience.

Omg yes yes yes yes yes

#counterpoint 😘✌💫

Do it!!!

She has one.

Yes please!!!

@@Ryan-nm2si and whats bad about being a man?

@@user-ed8pr2ud7d it’s just not everyone’s cup of tea, and that’s really ok.

Thank you Jackie!

Thats the new mission..build a bigger louder more inclusive media ecosystem that speaks to the left

@@podsaveamerica Can you make a Pinned Comment directing to THE Fascism-Expert on YT? Recommending 'Second Thought' will certainly help your Viewers.

@@slevinchannel7589 Does he talk about Jodolf Bilter's recent speech? How they're creating a lucrative merger of big corporations, media and the state?

@@rauminen4167 Sorry, no. But if you describe me what exactly you seach-for, i can help as i know that Channel's Content well.

This.

One thing that concerns me is that it’s alleged that PhilosophyTube sexually assaulted Contra, thus ending their friendship. My heart breaks for Natalie.

@@user-pk3hl7me5i Where did you hear that? I could not find anything about why their friendship ended online

@@yuhthisthat same. I’ve been fans of both for many years, and have never heard of this allegation (& would doubt its credibility given its obscure origin).

​@@rosefigueroa4041 basically there is some weak circumstantial evidence as following: - Contra was asked directly about Thorn's transition on a stream a while back and she said (paraphrasing) "That person is no longer in my life" describing her as "that person" and "i don't particularly want to speak about it" - She says in a video “There’s a fairly prominent figure in leftist politics who I could absolutely #MeToo.” - We know they dated and now they don't communicate at all - PT describes her completely blanking them at vidcon - Despite them not being in each other's lives, abi references natalie in like every livestream they do. - This is quite a prominent rumor. I do find it odd that natalie has only alluded to it further rather than stamp it out, even if they are ex-friends.

I think I can work my way to hating Contrapoints. Gaslighting, theatre, self-indulgence and lingerie replaces logic, facts, discipline and hard data. This person tried to cancel J K Rowling and for that alone Contrapoints should be cancelled.

This reply is so late, but I really do hope things are looking up for you! Everyone deserves happiness, and I'm glad you found and enjoyed Contrapoints' videos. All the love

She’s brilliant.

Aaaah to be watching Natalie for the first time 💚 bon appetit

Bigotry?

@@JenSell1626 It's just so farcical to call her a bigot - seriously, this nonsense must stop

@@yingyang1008 if she talks like a bigot and walks like a bigot… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Necessary is the first word that comes to my mind for Natalie. Actually it was Blaire White who led me to Contra, so I don't know who converted me to what. The first time I saw Contra was as a smarty SS boy vs. Blaire prior to Contra's HRT treatment. Natalie herself has pointed to that video as being a turning point. I think Blaire was a catylist to her chrysalis into this polymath entertainer. She came back at Blaire with Tiffany Tumbles while ruffing up the furries with Tabby, sounding like a lecture on the Presocratics. Then I saw her in a discussion forum with Noam Chomsky. Then I saw her play the piano. Then I watched half a dozen of her videos with the production quality of Dorian Electra. Shes a trans Ben Franklin, a Renaissance, possibly a Reformation. If only all of these corrosive cancel-culture types would just get out of her way, we might have a nation and a western civilization again...

Funny name

If you haven't already, check out Caelan Conrad.

@@Alan_Duval Thanks for the suggestion! I'm now a fan and subscribed 😺🥳

@@MOLLYLUNCHCO Awesome!

don't know how we forgot those!

Chappell made millions, JP is still making tons of money and saying whatever he wants, and we can’t even stop Tucker Carlson from preaching great replacement every night to millions, Matt Walsh is making documentaries while schools are banning gay kids from existing in school. There is no real cancel culture on the left, if having a terminally online group of people drag someone online for a bad take is canceling what is the GOP doing? It always blows my mind how sensitive people are when it comes to protecting stand up comics and right wing fascists right to speak but they have a complete blind spot for the reactionary right dog piling and threatening LGBTQ people, women, minorities.

I'm gonna take this one on, probably much to people's unhappiness about my opinion. First, I completely agree with you about diverse opinions. We need it. If we don't have diverse opinions, we don't progress, we don't innovate, we become stagnant. Also, people, when their views or beliefs are not challenged for long periods of time, start to believe their opinion is absolutely correct and often, when challenged, will become easily and quickly adversarial because they firmly believe in their views but when they are just transferred down from elders or society, a person will face a crisis of their beliefs because they haven't had to have them challenged before so may not know why they they are actually their beliefs. If the beliefs are challenged, there is understanding toward why that belief exists (other than it's what the person knows), they understand that another opinion, when done in good faith for discussion or for asking to understand, is not done maliciously. So yes, I believe that debate is good for everyone, so long as it is done in good faith & with kindness & respect. When a challenge comes forth without any of those, even to someone who has just deplorable beliefs, the result is that the person is instantly on defense. My belief is that no one is wholly good or wholly bad/evil. I think we all have wrong things we believe, we all have biases, we all have things that we will learn as we go. Kind of like that I don't think that judging people is wrong, I think it's natural, we do it because it's a more nuanced version of our fight, flight, freeze instinct. We need to put people, things, etc into categories so we can understand them, so I don't think than it's a bad thing. Where I think it goes wrong is when that, say, initial judgement is made and a person is unwilling to listen to or accept conflicting information/evidence/experience when it is presented to them. That's when judgement becomes an issue. And an issue I see a lot of is that, when cancel culture is in play, a person may give an opinion that they could, and often do, receive alternate opinions, but usually those are lost in the people who are just irate with the opinion expressed and want to be/are enraged by the opinion, but don't want to go about putting in the effort to try to explain WHY. They want to shame the person for an opinion that they expressed, who may not have been exposed or experience the same things in which formed another's opinion, and instead of explaining the reasons why the opinion is wrong, people sometimes dogpile on about just HOW wrong it is. Especially on Twitter where anyone who writes more than a couple tweet thread is condemned for being too wordy and that no one reads it. Nuanced discussion is difficult there. Plus, the internet was really created to offer anonymity, and where some people look at that as a way to be open and not have to worry about their innermost ideas and questions becoming a laughing stock for people around them, some have decided that, because they are anonymous, they don't have to be a decent person. I think you learn a great deal about a person by connecting them to something they think they are completely anonymous on - and when they are drunk/under the influence when their inhibitions are gone and they are willing to be truthful, be the person they actually are when they don't have the filter on, aren't worried about what everyone is going to think about what they say or do, etc. I think those are the two times you can really see who a person REALLY is, what they really think (you know, if they actually hold the beliefs of the misogynistic jokes that they always tell and laugh about saying "I'm just joking" and stuff, for example). Anyway, I honestly think that a lot of what is referred to as cancel culture is BS. I think that in a place where you are willing to put your voice out there, if you receive a huge reaction to something, it's usually because you've gathered a bunch of online followers or you are giving your opinion on someone's feed who has lots of followers. And honestly, usually people who don't have a lot of followers, even on someone else's feed, won't get that much clapback. But I think the whole thing with cancel culture is not about what the thing a person said that was determined to be offensive....THATS not what gets people "cancelled" so much as how they react to the pushback for what they say. If someone says something completely ignorant and offensive about a marginalized group, and people respond with utter distain about it, are just outraged, and the person comes back and is -actually- interested in why people say it's wrong, what is wrong, and want to learn from their mistake, apologize for it, etc....generally the result is usually pretty good. Now, because we are usually talking about people with large followings of people who usually have comments and replies praising them, they normally get a bit of an ego, and often times will double down on it, will criticize, make fun of the "snowflakes" or tell people to get a life, will react in a way that is immediately defensive, wanting to defend themselves against attack (often because a lot of them are vicious) and will have their sense of being attacked lit up and be hyped up to respond in an equally angered way instead of taking into account that their opinion may be incorrect and very offensive and that they could learn, perhaps they are wrong about something, perhaps they are misinformed, perhaps they just don't know and didn't realize. Which should, imo, always be the end goal, to allow people to grow and realize that none of us were born with the opinions we have now, and through our experiences we have shaped ourselves and our beliefs, & that none of us are done cooking, we've all got more time to learn and change, and we can only hope that the opinions we have now aren't the same ones we have in 20years. Now, I say all this from my perspective, and I do not condone at all the cancel culture of the right which I guess is now turning to really threatening people's lives and all that. Maybe the left is doing it too, idk, but I don't think that someone who doesn't agree with something should be canceled because you just don't like it (eg, cancelling, attacking, threatening fbi, judges, DoJ, etc because Trump had his residence searched - that's not cancel culture to me, but you could call it that). The thing I usually see about cancel culture though is this, it usually is of people who have large followings. It's usually from people who let their ego get in the way of understanding they did something that people found offensive & should instead consider listening than fighting back, and it's usually something in which people, when they are compassionate and want to learn in order to be better, or if from the past, admit that they didn't understand it then but do now and completely see the harm of their past action...they usually don't get cancelled. I'm not talking about bullies that just hate when a woman gives a good defeat of a common misogynistic view and she gets dogpiled with "you need to be raped so you understand your place" or bullshit like that. That's bullying shit, thats "how dare you oppose my opinion, I will make you pay" - which, isn't really cancel culture imo. Then there's also the people who attempt to be provocative in ways that are just outright offensive simply to get the shock value, to rile people up so they can either just be trolls or be trolls making a lot of money from the provocation they elicit or can use it to pretend their victims on a comeback, to also make $$. Idk, maybe I just don't know that many people on the left, which I do, but apparently not ones who demand absolute purity or be kicked out of the club. When it comes to politicians,there are certain behaviors that are acceptable, certain ones that aren't. Some acceptable are worse than the ones not. But I think that our politicians should be held to a higher standard than normal people. I don't think the idea a candidate has to be perfect is anywhere in the requirements, but being able to own up to ones mistakes, to be willing to drop ego and make the job more about what you're trying to do for the people than about you (and when bad behavior gets in the way, then it's a personal decision on whether it will detract from the work attempting to get done or not, also I suppose if it's within the values that are pushed in the campaign. I mean, if someone has said they are against sexual harassment and want to tackle it as a problem, then it's found out they're sending unsolicited dick pics to random staffers....thats kind of a bad thing. But that's in the craft of the image as well. Idk, if you have a response to my points, if I didn't cover some of yours and you'd like me to respond to them, let me know. But I'm interested if you respond.

@@kittinallen4738 Response to diverse opinions: Yep, but... Response to cancel culture: I don't like the term "cancelling" because its meaning has been obliterated by the way people talk about it. With that said, long rant incoming. I feel like something you overlook in your response (which I hope is because you spend more time in real life, and thus aren't super attuned to online bullshit, and I envy you if that's the case) is the "online" part of this discussion. When you talk about "people with large followings", you don't really address the experience of the lady who is in the interview in the video we're commenting on, which was "she shared an undercooked take and talked to someone who had a problematic history, and was subsequently mobbed by people who were ostensibly on her side". A small hypersensitive percentage of a massive following can *still* send you enough death threats to wreck your sanity, legitimately awful people can piggyback off of that initial wave of "well-meaning" anger, and if you've ended up in this position, literally the only way to get everyone off your back is to go radio silent until they lose interest and you've had time to recover. Because when the internet decides to police things, anything you say can and will be used against you. This has repeated itself multiple times. If you have a smaller following, it can be even worse, because no one will even notice if you get bullied into silence by a thousand strangers. You cannot wear your heart on your sleeve if you want to keep it, but if you close yourself off, what can you still achieve? The social internet as it's structured now, by default *and by design*, is hostile to nuanced conversation. The more time you spend online squabbling, the more time you pay to the corporations running the websites you frequent. There are many, many people who have not tuned into this aspect of the modern internet, and fall into its trap, eating each other at the bottom. And we are collectively spending more and more time online. The current generation of kids will have never known a time before the internet. I pray that they'll do better than us, but I'm too tired to be optimistic. Response to politicians: I don't even know anymore. I think they're also trapped in a system that makes being helpful and kind a liability. The internet has made all of it worse. I hope things get better.

Agree. Coming from a more right-wing perspective I really enjoyed this conversation, but I'm still bothered by this impression I had all along: why can't different opinions and perspective just... you know, coexist, in a sort of balance in society? Why do people necessarily need to be persuaded? I appreciate her kind of empathetic approach to politics, but it still seems at the end of the day that "some opinions are inherently bad" and "some are inherently good". I'm not very much of a relativist though, but I do believe that it's natural and even sane that, to some extent, a part of society leans on a progressive side, and another on a conservative side. It's a dynamic. It even works this way in the very way an individual personality is wired. I don't understand why I should be upset that leftists exist, and I don't understand either why they are so bothered at the simple existence of the right. It is that way of doing politics that I actually find toxic and depressing most of the time. And it plays a huge role in actually sustaining this rigid polarization. I'd like to be able to "pick a side" according to my beliefs without having to 1) either hide it from the world and not having that space to be honest 2) or instantly putting myself at war with "the other side". Maybe I'm naive and it's just designed to be a war anyway.

He

@@____uncompetative I guess your username refers to a spelling contest. You should've tried harder instead of becoming complacent, fooling yourself you might not be "competative" [sic]

@@____uncompetative You make hours long videos where you turn on a camera and shows you bumbling around referring to yourself in 3rd person, spelled incorrectly every time... And you think being transphobic towards a person who's far more put together, far more public, and far more accomplished than you could ever dream of is a good look? I mean, you're just showing us the Most Accomplished Transphobic Male on the internet, and I'm pretty sure that's gonna get at least a few guys to cringe so hard they'll try really hard not to work on themselves.

A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female. Why should MALES be allowed access to SINGLE-SEX spaces reserved for FEMALES based on their "gender identity"? If sex and gender are separate, then a male announcing his "gender identity" is "trans woman" does nothing to change their sex, they are still MALE - so why should they be afforded rights reserved for the opposite SEX? The movement is regressively sexist, and misogynistic. Why do you believe females do not deserve any spaces free of males? What is hateful about upholding female sex-based rights that were fought long and hard for? Believing sexist stereotypes define men and women, instead of their biological sex, is unquestionably sexist to the core, because you are saying men and women are not actually free to behave however they want but need to conform to these sexist stereotypes in order to be men or women - if you say no they don't have to act any sort of way as a man or woman, and being a man or woman has nothing to do with biology - then what are you describing by calling someone a man or woman? If you think it doesn't describe biology, and doesn't describe anything about their looks or behaviour, then what on earth are you basing defining anyone as a man or woman on??? Why would a man need to become a "trans woman" in order to be their "authentic selves", why can't they just be a very feminine man and dress/act however they want? If trans ideology isn't sexist, then why would a man ever need to "transition" if either sex is completely free to act however they want? How can you claim to be opposing sexism when the whole basis for anyone feeling the need to transition, literally is sexism? How is gender identity" any different from what sexist stereotypes a person feels drawn to? Or simply their PERSONALITY? And, if sex and gender are separate, then why should "transitioning gender" allow MALES into FEMALE-ONLY spaces, they never changed, nor can they change, their sex. How is removing the rights of females to single-sex spaces progressive? How is centering male feelings over female rights "feminist"?

@@ambientjohnny "Why do you believe females do not deserve any spaces free of males?" By your own definition, the simple fact that there are both male and female toilets is sexist. As in - why are they seperate in the first place? I think a look into how this came to be a thing in the first place would give some great insight on how things used to be. Today, sure, they're separated because if they were unisex there'd be extra cleaning to be paid for, extra facilities in every single cabin (to accommodate all needs) and so on - aside from the socio-cultural aspect -> we've gotten used to it the way it's been for decades. But at one point in history, they were separated becasue the society was trying to protect women from being unnecessarily abused, yes. Today there's still a lot of objectification going on, sure, (I'm thinking of women in sports, for example, and the disgusting camera angles at times) but we've made great advancements in that direction. So today, this has become an argument people use wrongly (as it's not a genuine concern) "let women have privacy in the bathroom" - just by this you're accusing all, if not most, males of being abusers. I've never heard this argument posed like this, though: "what about the trans people who were once women and now they're using men's toilets". Shouldn't that have been on your mind as well? I wonder why people like you never say it though. Isn't it because f->m trans people kept using men's restrooms because they felt safe and rightfully so? Are most men still abusers? Do you still want to sell this idea to whoever you're preaching to? Maybe look into it.

You might find you have to stop what you are doing to think about what she says. There are few writers who can cram so much meaning into their talks and still entertain.

You will not be disappointed!

I collected her works into a playlist I listen/watch all the time.

i grab a snack and sit down for her essays like they're a movie - theyre that good

@@pattheplanter you can't just listen to Contra's YT vids. you have to watch them! she has a large cast of characters in many of her storylines and watching them is as much part of her genius as the arguments/performances themselves. her patreon evening conversations are more like you see here, sitting and musing.

He's not rough around the edges and he's a lot further left, but would love to see Beau the Fifth Column on here to talk to them about his work.

@@kittinallen4738 This Topic is under-explained, so let me say: Fas-ism was covered on RU-vid and Nebula by 'Second Thought'.

Um, emotion > reason = brainwashing. Obviously.

@@rauminen4167 You cannot say it as an unqualified. Reason is a tool. Emotion is a judgement. We need them both to navigate the world. IIRC they inform each other. If they do not, then brainwashing and pathology show up.

@@GhostOnTheHalfShell It's about making a judgement without having a reason for it. As opposed to using reason as a tool to reach said decision. Because if you use reason you can protect and justify it. If you use emotion you can only screech about it, try to shame or otherwise silence others. That is the difference between today's political right and left these days. It's all emotions on the left, AND apperently it's intentional - as this video demonstrates.

@@rauminen4167 Unfortunately, I can count you amongst the army of screeching irrational people I have long desired to shove into pit without food or water to let y'all sort it out, then be covered over with dirt. Online extrema are simply boring and tedious unmen.

@@rauminen4167 funny for you to say that lmao

I agree although I think there are things you can't say "yes except" to, but you can still understand where they're coming from emotionally. Sometimes it's hard to not sound like you're claiming to know them better than their therapist tho.

Look for Zoe Bee Jessie Gender, Chill Goblin, and thought slime too, and the leftist cooks

@@terrystevens3998 thanks!

@@jaelo2314 HBomberguy too lol can’t forget him

Or Shaun!

I assume you consider yourself a progressive. Ask yourself why it is you never heard of contrapoints? She has been in lefty/progressive Indy media for years

Get ready to lose like a whole week to her videos lol. Sooooo good!

@@petuniapop7819 Yes! It’s important to stock up on food/supplies before clicking on Natalie’s channel!!! 😂

If you don’t know about this stuff then congratulations you are not terminally online.

She had a rich upbringing.Go figure.

@@StratsRUs Strange, most children of the rich can hardly remember a 4 digit pin number let alone understand complex concepts.

@@pattheplanter Not true.

College-educated?

@@justinwatson1510 lol

Please do, she's so informative and hilarious!

I am so jealous of you. You get to binge all her video essays for the first time.

Enjoy!

If you think so from just this interview, I strongly recommend the ContraPoints video on Incels. It's astounding.

You think crooked media is left wing? After the working class have the worst outcomes in the first world after so much Dem power?

Amen to that.

A woman, is an adult human female, it is not an "identity" or a feeling, dress, attitude etc., that whole line of thinking is regressive in the extreme. Claiming there is some "essence" to "womanhood" that also males can access, but the reality is that women do not have to look or act any certain way, or act out some ludicrously sexist idea of the “social role of a woman”, all females who reach adulthood are women regardless of how they feel or look, and the one thing they ALL have in common, the one experience they ALL share, is that they are FEMALE, they do not have to "identify" as anything, they physically ARE women because they are female. Why should MALES be allowed access to SINGLE-SEX spaces reserved for FEMALES based on their "gender identity"? If sex and gender are separate, then a male announcing his "gender identity" is "trans woman" does nothing to change their sex, they are still MALE - so why should they be afforded rights reserved for the opposite SEX? The movement is regressively sexist, and misogynistic. Why do you believe females do not deserve any spaces free of males? What is hateful about upholding female sex-based rights that were fought long and hard for? Believing sexist stereotypes define men and women, instead of their biological sex, is unquestionably sexist to the core, because you are saying men and women are not actually free to behave however they want but need to conform to these sexist stereotypes in order to be men or women - if you say no they don't have to act any sort of way as a man or woman, and being a man or woman has nothing to do with biology - then what are you describing by calling someone a man or woman? If you think it doesn't describe biology, and doesn't describe anything about their looks or behaviour, then what on earth are you basing defining anyone as a man or woman on??? Why would a man need to become a "trans woman" in order to be their "authentic selves", why can't they just be a very feminine man and dress/act however they want? If trans ideology isn't sexist, then why would a man ever need to "transition" if either sex is completely free to act however they want? How can you claim to be opposing sexism when the whole basis for anyone feeling the need to transition, literally is sexism? How is gender identity" any different from what sexist stereotypes a person feels drawn to? Or simply their PERSONALITY? And, if sex and gender are separate, then why should "transitioning gender" allow MALES into FEMALE-ONLY spaces, they never changed, nor can they change, their sex. How is removing the rights of females to single-sex spaces progressive? How is centering male feelings over female rights "feminist"?

That's a good strategy depending on the situation. Sometimes though a comment needs to be called out because it's so offensive but in such circumstances it's probably better to just report the the user for violating the platform's user guidelines.

The only Truth is Action.

100%. This is a great point.

@@StratsRUs That sounds like mediocre bumper sticker politics. There are statements that can be argued that include "truth" and "Action," such as, "It may take action to find the truth." "Action is only useful if it's based on truth," is a potential position. But your statement is false under far too many circumstances to list in a youtube comment. Your response could also be taken to say that you don't believe in calling someone on their BS in a way that allows the conversation to continue so you can educate them is somehow not an action... Nah...

@@ericapelz260 Nazis should ' do better'. Racists should ' do better '. " Oh Tut Tut , you GOP !! "

Nah. It's way more polished then that ;-)

Don't be silly

Why do so many liberals hate Peterson though? I genuinely don't understand. Is it because he actually shows empathy towards young straight cis men instead of attacking them?

A really good point, absolutely, but let's not forget its limitations as well. I'd say, If there's a way to convince someone, this is it, through human emotions and connection-but even this method fails a lot of the time. I think the biggest problem here is that most people gravitating toward the right today don't even WANT dialogue with the "dark side". In their minds the world is already divided into "the good guys" and "the bad guys", and their whole "survival" is based on fighting or eliminating any opposition from the others. Once this division is set up, it's almost imossible to reverse. I learned it the hard way with my own sister😔

@@Darkobugs the online left acts the exact same way

You won't be sorry.

@@samringwald you were correct. Been binge watching her channel.

What a beautiful comment❤️ and great point about what might attract closeted trans women to the manosphere. Societal expectations around gender are suffocating-for everyone, but particularly for trans people. It's painful to not be able to fit into those narrow boxes. People are made to feel at odds with themselves and with others, and that causes some to be drawn to very toxic ideologies.

That's horrifying. GTFO while you still can without permanent damage. This doesn't seem to relevant now that I read the second half, but: In what left space do you have humor? I mean actual humor, when people laugh, not clap.

@@rauminen4167 local ones xD

Gay ones

@@TheMvlproductionsinc "Gay ones" Yeah. Reason to keep the balls. Spoiler alert: gay men don't like vagege. Real or fake.

I enjoy long form content where the presenter has a nice voice and calming style. If I'm not particularly interested in the topic I can always take a nice long nap and possibly glean something through osmosis.

Omg yes, to both!

I would second this suggestion. Love Natalie/Contra, too, and am glad to see her talking on a center-left pod.

I think sometimes the problem there is that if you disagree in any way with the Progressive left, you are defined as a corporate Democrat or a secret right winger or something. Example: Just take when Tulsi Gabbard said yes to visit CPAC (or whatever it was). The judgement came before they knew what it was about. It was as if they WANTED her to "become Ben Shapiro" (or something). Note: I am not defending her politics, just her right to be heard and CONSIDERED before the judgement starts

@@busylivingnotdying you do know that she has been speaking on fox for over a year now sounding like a tucker Carlson in a wig don’t you? So what we don’t like her. Instead of thinking we are censoring her recognize that if she wants to be conservative she is free to do that.. but she doesn’t get to do it with a left/dem title when nobody on the left wants her transphobia, islamaphobia, and right wing reactionary beliefs.. nobody wants her censored or not allowed to speak. We just don’t want to be made look bad by her and then people think that “both sides” are both awful.. she is talking at the same cpac with turkeys dictator.. that’s crazy if you want to claim to be even centrist.. that is far right stuff Why do people keep claiming the left is forcing people to the right? That’s silly. Talk about victim blaming. The right forced me to become a left winger. I used to vote republican but I couldn’t take the fascism and overt hatred. Yet the narrative is the left makes people right wing for some silly reason

@@terrystevens3998 Let's try this again: I was talking about judging what she was saying BEFORE she said it, based on WHO she was speaking with! I was NOT saying: She is right about ANYTHING she say's (necessarily). Only that she was judged before she spoke. It was an EXAMPLE: DO judge what she is saying, but not WHERE she is saying it. Judge the CONTENT of her words, to the degree that they are nonsensical or wrong. Lets take the judging of her speech at CPAC before it was held: Do you think that is right?

@@busylivingnotdying seems kind of childish for all of us to pretend that these fascists should have the benefit of the doubt when nobody expects anyone on the right to do the same thing. Doesn’t it feed the narrative that both sides are no different then each other. It also muddies the water about what the left and right stand for. There is a reason the far right is treated the way they are.. they are outside the boundaries of polite civil society and need to stay there. You are calling for mainstreaming and doing PR for far right fascists Nobody said Tulsi is right wing because she went to Cpac.. people said Tulsi going to a far right fascist meeting is bad and we know that if she was going to defend trans people or women’s rights she wouldn’t have been invited because the right only allows voices that serve their interests at their events. They are much smarter about politics then the left is. They control the narrative for the right and the left.. you are even using their framing right now.

Same, I was brainwashed by the black and white thinking of Right-wing media as well. Thank God I educated myself. 🙏

Are you in an "existential struggle for survival" ?

@@yingyang1008 😐 the climate crisis

@@nafran experts seem to disagree on that one Assuming your opinion is the correct one on such issues (and that everyone else is a victim of propaganda) doesn't make sense to me Better that we listen to the experts on both sides surely?

@@yingyang1008 🤣😂🤣😂😂

@@nafran This is exactly the problem - someone points out that many experts disagree with you, and instead of engaging in any kind of debate, you reply with emojis Nothing highlights how far we have fallen than such a pathetic response You can't even entertain the possibility that you might possibly be wrong in some of your beliefs - that's how brainwashed you are And the other side is just as bad Wake up and become an adult - or keep arguing using emojis