I said it sucks that lines are being crossed in the process of the necessary and fair feedback, and in a prior post I called it genuinely unfortunate
Please don't use this as a smokescreen to deflect the very real hurt that people you are literally engaging with first hand are expressing
Was the targeting of her friends "necessary and fair feedback" would you say?
I think we should all analyze our friendships when someone we're close to says some wack shit, and sometimes that requires someone with an outside perspective
I think I've thoroughly covered my beliefs on how harassment isn't okay but you can still ask someone to ask better of their friend
And most people who wanted contra's friends to comment on what she said didn't want them to stop being friends with her. They wanted people close to contra to point out to her she said some things that were offensive to trans and nb people. And as we saw from her first reaction to people critiquing her she didn't take that feedback well, maybe if her friends pointed it out to her she would actually accept that critique.
I mean, that's provably false by the content of the messages received but also.
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually. Uh who are these people to try to insert themselves into the friend's messages? Is that not inherently fucked up and inappropriate? How can you not see that it is?
And before a person might state that the analogy in A is inappropriate, I'd say either the content is of vital political importance, which means that it's very similar to the analogy or it's not that important, which would mean people are way in the wrong for trying to force the issue like this.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
These people saw Wynn's conduct as a threat to them - why wouldn't they respond to that with anger, and view refusal as a further threat? I find the argument that we should be looking for "education" or "improvement" to be a very problematic one, as it routinely demands emotional labor from people who many times have been stretched so far from demand after demand to provide that labor over and over. A large number of transgender individuals pointed out why they saw Wynn's passive endorsement of transmedicalism as harmful and a threat - why can't we take them at their word? Or at the very least, understand why they consider people who don't agree with their position to be threats to them?
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?
was writing up another response, but remembered that this is the general youtube thread and maybe we can all stop stinking it up with circular arguments that aren't convincing anyone of anything
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?
Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.
+11
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
These people saw Wynn's conduct as a threat to them - why wouldn't they respond to that with anger, and view refusal as a further threat? I find the argument that we should be looking for "education" or "improvement" to be a very problematic one, as it routinely demands emotional labor from people who many times have been stretched so far from demand after demand to provide that labor over and over. A large number of transgender individuals pointed out why they saw Wynn's passive endorsement of transmedicalism as harmful and a threat - why can't we take them at their word? Or at the very least, understand why they consider people who don't agree with their position to be threats to them?
I have very little sympathy for the idea that Wynn using Buck Angel for 10 seconds of VO is a "threat to them." That's overwrought and unreasonable.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
What is "also doing the same thing" here? Nobody else had Buck Angel do any VO work.
+1
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Is there a reason you’re pretending that having BA do voice over work is the one and only time Contra has said or done something that folks found harmful, as opposed to another example on a pattern of behaviour?
+2
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I'm not pretending anything. I'm addressing the most recent issue, the one that seems to have provoked the biggest reaction by far and is easiest to discuss in specific terms, in an attempt to reduce the level of abstraction in this discourse. Is there some other thing CP did that actually was a threat to people? Was there another issue that caused people to jump on Lindsay Ellis and PhilosophyTube?
0
Options
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
edited January 2020
FWIW I am not an expert on this situation and the issues underlying it, but I've tried my best to understand as it's progressed. From what I have seen, it's more that the BA thing was the culmination of people's ongoing issues with Contra claiming to support nonbinary out of one side of her mouth, while continuing to make comments questioning their validity and that of trans women who she implied weren't presenting as sufficiently female. It wasn't the beginning, it was the last straw.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?
Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.
The position that Natalie believes something nasty in her true heart but will lie about if asked. That is literally a thought crime. So the position I'm arguing from is an understanding of the actual charge being leveled.
When you ask someone who's fucking up's friend to intervene because they'll be more likely to listen to a friend than a random stranger, you're hoping the friend agrees that the first person's behavior is wrong and is willing to talk to them about it. You're not "dictating" anything, you're making a request, and if the friend disagrees then you're shit out of luck from that angle. It's literally the same thing as having a co-worker who's behaving poorly and you asking their friend to talk to them about it rather than talking to them directly, talking to their manager, or talking to HR.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?
Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.
The position that Natalie believes something nasty in her true heart but will lie about if asked. That is literally a thought crime. So the position I'm arguing from is an understanding of the actual charge being leveled.
If you say you believe one thing but your actions make it seem like you believe another thing, then questioning if your words are true is valid.
Contrapoints has been making consistently shitty statements about NB and non passing trans people for years, and no one needs to watch a fucking 2 hour long youtube video to justify criticizing her along these lines.
"But when everyone yells at her the valid points get mixed in with the verbal abuse/death threats!!!!!1"
Ok, sure, which is why you don't see me ating her or camping her mentions on twitter, but I don't expect anyone to just go "hmm, yes, I see nothing wrong here" when someone posts said 2 hour video in this thread.
Conan O'Brien found this 2004 performance from Mitch Hedberg in the old files and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a nice little nostalgia dose this afternoon.
So I have a friend with CAIS and always found it interesting. While in a chat room, I was telling someone about her and they went to the youtubes to learn more. Turns out there is a lovely lady who talks about her CAIS and covers all the basics.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
'The Turning Point' explores the destruction of the environment, climate change and species extinction from different perspective. Music by Wantaways.
Created in After Effects, Premiere Pro, Clip Studio Pro and Cinema 4D.
Written, directed and animated by Steve Cutts
Posts
errant signal about ea's three big sw games
no discourse, I promise
Prank ) Brand new style of vibrato
I mean, that's provably false by the content of the messages received but also.
"Hey, you say this to your friend now. They will listen to it because you said it."
A) The friend isn't saying it, they're dictating. Kind of sounds like something you'd make a political prisoner read actually.
And before a person might state that the analogy in A is inappropriate, I'd say either the content is of vital political importance, which means that it's very similar to the analogy or it's not that important, which would mean people are way in the wrong for trying to force the issue like this.
Except the people in this analogy then tried to get the co-worker's friend in trouble too, for not falling in line correctly. Because it was never out of genuine concern or the desire for education or improvement. It was bald threats.
And I'm not pointing at anyone here, I'm talking about the controversy in general terms. Please nobody here deny threatening them because I'm not saying or implying that YOU specifically did.
These people saw Wynn's conduct as a threat to them - why wouldn't they respond to that with anger, and view refusal as a further threat? I find the argument that we should be looking for "education" or "improvement" to be a very problematic one, as it routinely demands emotional labor from people who many times have been stretched so far from demand after demand to provide that labor over and over. A large number of transgender individuals pointed out why they saw Wynn's passive endorsement of transmedicalism as harmful and a threat - why can't we take them at their word? Or at the very least, understand why they consider people who don't agree with their position to be threats to them?
To extend the co-worker analogy, if it turns out the co-worker refuses to do anything to correct the friend's behavior because they're also doing the same thing, then they should get in trouble as well when you escalate to their manager or HR. Returning to the reality of asking a friend to talk to their friend about their hurtful behavior: if the person you're asking disagrees that it's hurtful behavior then telling everyone else "don't waste your time talking to this person, they disagree that it's hurtful" is fine.
hey maybe dial the rhetoric back a bit. comparing this to political prisoners is just a teeny tiny bit off the mark, i'd say
or keep ratcheting it up, i'm sure that'll work too
This is interesting when the "thing" is actually thought crimes that are directly denied by both people. But hey, people felt threatened. So long as you feel threatened, apparently the gloves can come off. Now Contra can feel threatened and she can do whatever, right? Or is that not reasonable and actually very dangerous and bad? For "feeling threatened" or "feeling hurt" to be a blank check for mob tactics and threats?
Hey, people have directly died from this. Committed suicide. I also directly pre-empted this point, which I expected someone to trot out. I thought maybe there'd be a reason that my statement didn't make sense if you wanted to say this anyway but lol. Thanks for proving you didn't listen to what I was saying or watch the video this is about. But i guess scoring cheap (but incorrect) points about me overdramatizing this is worth it?
Using the phrase "thought crimes" betrays the position you're arguing from.
I have very little sympathy for the idea that Wynn using Buck Angel for 10 seconds of VO is a "threat to them." That's overwrought and unreasonable.
What is "also doing the same thing" here? Nobody else had Buck Angel do any VO work.
The position that Natalie believes something nasty in her true heart but will lie about if asked. That is literally a thought crime. So the position I'm arguing from is an understanding of the actual charge being leveled.
If you say you believe one thing but your actions make it seem like you believe another thing, then questioning if your words are true is valid.
"But when everyone yells at her the valid points get mixed in with the verbal abuse/death threats!!!!!1"
Ok, sure, which is why you don't see me ating her or camping her mentions on twitter, but I don't expect anyone to just go "hmm, yes, I see nothing wrong here" when someone posts said 2 hour video in this thread.
This attack on my person will not be forgotten.
Conan O'Brien found this 2004 performance from Mitch Hedberg in the old files and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a nice little nostalgia dose this afternoon.
Geez I didn't see that Reverse Riker coming.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
"Maximum Video resolution: 4K"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
'The Turning Point' explores the destruction of the environment, climate change and species extinction from different perspective. Music by Wantaways.
Created in After Effects, Premiere Pro, Clip Studio Pro and Cinema 4D.
Written, directed and animated by Steve Cutts
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
And fuck the Savage Speeders. They're not even in the sand rally league but they're evil.
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie