mrcynic132

Innuendo Studios - The Alt-Right Playbook: The Ship of Theseus. "There's nothing so special about progressivism that makes us immune to abusers and opportunists. The main difference is that when the right does this, it does it to the left, and when the left does this, it does it to itself."

Comments
I am so glad that my only explosure to all this toxic shit directed at Natalie is this subreddit. How the fuck anyone can take her work and genuinely argue it’s problematic in any significant manner is beyond me.
By all means, add it to a list of reasons to remember she is just a person who isn’t without fault, but for fucks sake people, let’s not act like this is where we need to be expending energy to enact positive change for underserved and diminished members of society.
For what it’s worth, it seems like most people agree with you. Natalie’s subscriber count hasn’t gone down at all throughout the entire situation. It sucks that criticism only manifests through dogpiling, but it’s notable that it hasn’t materially affected her megaphone yet.
Same, I've actually been a little embarrassed to admit this but I don't have the faintest idea what a "truscum" (did I spell it right?) actually is.
I used to work in the adult entertainment industry and always had a very positive opinion of Buck Angel but his stance on non-binary people not being allowed to undergo hormone therapy makes no sense to me. Though I can't understand why a non-binary person would find it so necessary, it really just doesn't make any sense to me why it should be deprived of them. I can't imagine the drugs are so hard to come by that they need to be so carefully rationed, and I can see no reason outside of just not seeing that ideal of ones self as valid being the reason to deny anyone the treatment. So hearing about Bucks stance on this issue and being introduced to the issue in this way isn't great. Frankly I'm disappointed by the entire situation, but I don't agree that Natalie did something terrible by using Buck in her video.
Feel free, anyone, to correct or address anything I said that is wrong. I cannot stress enough how new I am to this particular issue and how ignorant I am. But yeah, I am every day so thankful that I stay the hell away from Twitter as I do, I have a hard enough time dealing with reddit as it is.
I wish there was a way to tell how much criticism is legitimate. There are active agents changing the boards in the boat. And then there are people who are just easily influenced by a bad argument who aren't looking for boards that have been changed or warped. Then there are people that just succumb to a bad aspect of human nature which is to build up a celebrity and then delight in their destruction which is driven by jealousy.
The only thing that's changed that has brought all this to the front of the stage is the immediacy of the Internet. Before the internet, when hearing or reading rumor, people had a reaction in private or in a small group. They would then talk about it with friends and family who would either jump on board or help them to be a skeptic, calming and tempering their emotional response in the context of their daily life. But now, the minute some people react to something, they insta-share their undigested emotional reaction on social media. No research. No contemplation. No context. Corporate, political, troll, and foreign actors know this about human nature and use it as a tool to manipulate groups of people. Especially easily influenced people.
So it becomes not just "is this click bait?" to "has this person been corralled?" Maybe even "Have I become another stone in an avalanche of bullshit?"
I don't know how to help train people to be more aware on the internet. In old print media while standing in line at the grocery store, it was real easy to tell the difference between People Magazine, Newsweek, and The Enquirer. Not so much online where pieces of each could all be on one site or in one comment. I think "being susceptible to influence" is one of those brain functions that is just there to some unknown degree in people. Similar to "some people can carry a tune and some can't" or "some are naturally good at math and others have to work harder" and many others.
The best example of susceptibility I can use is my mother and her QVC addiction. Hilarious I know, but if you know someone with a shopping addiction, it's not very funny. She gets mad at me when I point out the marketing techniques used to manipulate. How the callers are probably paid actors. How the count down timer of 3 items left was bullshit because she gets a letter that says her order is now on back order. How the entire "fly on the wall" social shopping is a lure for lonely people who watch and now feel like a part of a (fake) group the same as morning radio DJ shows where the listener gets to be in on all of the running jokes of a fun loving group of (not really your) friends.
Knowing she has filed Bankruptcy 3 times going on 4 times in her life doesn't stop her from buying more. All her family losing faith and losing trust in her because of her lying about money hasn't stopped her shopping. Even her own health hasn't made her stop. I can tell when she's over spent just by being around her and realizing her physical pain level and torn up emotions by the way her posture is and her unconcious amount of frowning and tension. It's difficult watching, understanding you can't help someone you love self inflict devastating pain on themselves from an uncontrolled compulsion. Me and my sisters have tried and failed many times. She's just always been susceptible to the influence of a sales pitch her whole life. She's in her mid 70's now and we've given up on her changing. And she continues to lie to us about money all the time. And the QVC boxes continue to arrive on her front porch.
Her susceptibility carrys over to her online activity. "Everone on Facebook is saying Stephen Colbert is going to get fired!" (She's a fan.) No Mom, he has the highest rated late night TV show, he's not going anywhere. "Trump said blah blah blah!" (She hates him) Mom, he says a lot of things. That's the only thing he's good at, noisy outrageous marketing type statements. "My brother is saying the Blacks are ruining St. Louis!" (Her home town) Mom, that's one news article where the attacker was black. Uncle Dennis is racist. (And he's also filed bankruptcy multiple times. He carries a similar level of susceptibility as Mom). I am thankful that the truly outrageous stuff she runs to me to verify. But there is a clear pattern.
And I think, wow, how many other humans are like her and my Uncle? It's no coincidence that click bait and political propaganda go hand in hand with ad supported content. No coincidence that many pundits also sell other things besides their message to milk their herd. Every time I see an ad more than once, every time I'm annoyed by a telemarketer, I think....that works on someone. If that didn't work on enough people, it would have failed long ago as a business model. How much of our economy is supported by people with poor impulse control?
And now that model is being used by selfish agendas to corral large parts of society online, to stir shit up in online discussions talking about combatting propaganda and bad faith influence. Some of it's just the evolution of mankind. It was done in print media and the traveling Uncle Joe's Magic Elixir wagon with their shills secretly in the crowd just a bit more than only a century ago. Then people had to learn to ingest radio and you had things like Orson Wells' War of the Worlds panic and Angry Radio Preachers. Then we all grew callouses to TV with Jerry Springer talk shows, 'reality TV' and The Blair Witch Project. We are all currently growing a natural immunity now to the latest infotainment delivery system, the Internet.
So let's hope that societal immunity evolves quickly. I still hope there is a majority of people not like my Mother out there. Time will tell.
TL;DR: Instead of nukes or Skynet, this destroyed mankind in the year 2020. ... What is the Internet, Alex? ... I'm sorry. That's incorrect. "What is human nature?" is the question we were looking for.
how DARE people criticize an artist work for its problematic aspects, why don't we just worship our dark queen uncritically.
It feels like this will continue to be relevant for a long time- I don't see any signs of change. :-/
We have to be the change we want to see
We wind up posting and discussing so much of Ian's works -- he needs MORE PATREONS
Please go give him money.
Innuendo makes me regret not taking some philosophy classes as I do enjoy Natalie and Innuendo's videos and uses of philosophy. The biggest problem is how well the alt right have become at using half truths, lies and rumor to attack their enemies. One misstep and they are ready to pounce.
There's a lot of good resources on philosophy on the web. If you're interested in learning something about the history of philosophy, I highly recommend the podcast
Another thing that's great about this podcast: he also covers Islamic, Indian and African philosophy which is pretty rare in these types of historical accounts, they're usually centered on Western philosophy.
Hit the nail on the head with this, I’ve been saying this for so long. I’m the furthest thing from a centrist but my own comrades will come out and call me a centrist(or some other thing) for pointing this out.
Heads up to the best youtuber out there, I loev you Ian pls marry me
This video series is the one I share almost as often as contrapoints.
How did you just cross-post from this sub back into this sub?
“I used the sub to repost in the sub”
The problem with presumption of guilt culture is that it attracts grifters, on the other hand left is an alliance of people who are used to their trauma being denied, so it's hard to avoid.
Leftist politics is meant to be humanistic - a more fair way for everyone to live. There is NOTHING fair about presumption of guilt culture, and it needs to go - it is utterly incompatible with humanistic values.
Hmm. I don't think it's guilt culture. And I don't see the left as being traumatized. Lol.
For me it's analysis versus group think. The left tends to be analytical, idealistic, questioning, curious, open to experimentation and change, unafraid to ask if something is working, if something is fair. The right tends to be more static, unchanging and unwelcoming in the name of security and stability, susceptible to peer pressure, group think, no introspection, no quantitative results testing to see if they follow their own beliefs or if their beliefs work or are fair.
Which group would i rather be a part of? A group that says they are conservative but then they liberally use the government to interfere in people's private lives and run up the country's debt every time in office. Or. A group that discusses and debates it's words AND actions and is unafraid to do so?
Skepticism and debate are healthy. The right spends no time checking itself. I think that's why they are more prone to Nixon-Trump-McCarthy-Cheney type corruption. "Look over there at your enemy! Don't look at how ineffective or corrupt we are! BEWARE OF THE ENEMY!" That's why in most debates with right wing people, when you point out their corruption and failures they default to the "BUT THE LEFT blah blah blah...." or "BOTH SIDES blah blah blah." They have been trained to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Deflection, deflection, deflection.
Are you implying people without trauma can not be left?
This is literally what's happening to Natalie in this whole truscum/transmedicalism claim that people are trying to pin on her.
By "being NB-phobic truscum" they mean "Let Buck Angel talk for ten seconds."
When the hell did we adopt the thought process of just because someone appears on another person's show, the host suddenly agrees with 100% of their guests ideas and past words/actions?
I love these videos. So clear and succinct.
Yup. Just look at the many "sins of Buck Angel".
A half-baked business idea made by a couple of fitness meatheads that launched for two days, never took anyone's money or work and then got shut down becomes "ran a pyramid scheme targeting poor Trans women."
A couple of tweets saying that the word lesbian is "important for people who identify as women" gets twisted into "says trans women can't be lesbians"
Getting back at a cheating spouse by disclosing what you believe to be their fetish to tabloids becomes "outed a trans woman for money."
All the things, true things, that buck has said and done are problematic. But sensationalize something enough and it does kind of do this thing where it becomes...a lie. And you're just hoping that someone involved in the trans community doesn't care about the distinction between saying someone is a cross dresser and saying they're trans, or the distinction between saying non-binary people and trans women, or the distinction between pitching a dumb idea and actually executing the idea after its been pointed out to you that it won't work.
I find it discouraging when people want to make bad people worse, as if saying, "you're already bad, so it doesn't matter how bad I make you out to be".
Like, it does. Your detractors will check on your tendency to sensationalize mistakes and stop trusting you, and you also lose your own compass of how bad something is.
So the next time anyone sees me defending Peterson I hope they don't think that I think he hasn't said some bottom tier shit.
yikes this is a horrible misunderstanding of buck angel
guy has a consistent history of being transphobic, as evidenced in many many tweets but here are a few big ones
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG9SErmXkAILtyk?format=png&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG9XguYX0AAF9s_?format=jpg&name=medium
https://i.imgur.com/zOrCYJj.png
https://twitter.com/BuckAngel/status/1122962097510334465?s=19
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D50IidwUEAEwrhn.jpg
https://miro.medium.com/max/758/1*AiIsrgUevRx024-lqLuAcQ.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DylyxzFX0AE4Giq.jpg
if this is the person you need to champion as a hero for trans rights, you also need to recognize that you're throwing anyone who doesn't experience dysphoria / non-binary people under the bus. someone who has repeatedly talked shit about the trans community and everything underneath it's umbrella does not deserve a place in the discussion. we wouldn't let a cis person do this.
thank you for proving why having transphobes on is dangerous
Are you people actually defending Buck Angel now?
That's what I call a "yikes".
Can you not make excuses for Buck Angel?
He's overtly shitty and not worth defending.
I see we are finally at the “Buck Angel is good actually” stage of the Discourse... 🙄
Wtf you just reposted this old post from this subreddit back on to the subreddit and it's gotten the mods pick? Wtf
There’s genuine mistakes, and then there’s repeated and oddly specific “mistakes”. I made a longer, uglier rant about it yesterday, but Contra’s the most interviewed person we have in LeftTube, and having repeated incidents of offending NBs is not good for public image.
I think you’re greatly overstating the effect any of these NB offending “incidents” has on her or the LGTBQ movements “public image”, except to say it makes the narrative of constant leftist infighting easier to sell.
The public doesn’t even know the meaning of the terms people are using to attack her with, and frankly, if they are interested enough to do a deep dive to understand it, it comes off as petty given the current state of things.
This post nothing to do with that. Kinda seems like you're trolling.
[removed]
The left does do it to the right, that's how the majority of fake news seems to be, statements or situations where if you dig into them are actually completely different.
Not really? I mean most news outlets are centerist leaning right not leftwing.
[removed]
Your comment is untrue and inflammatory.