What are your thoughts on her blatant distortion of people who care about Buck outing Lana in the video?
ContraPoints | Canceling
- Thread starter Infinity Times Two
- Start date
I didn't misrepresent shit though, and do you not see the irony of attaching my words to rhetoric calling her Truscum? I'd appreciate you not cancel culture me by making extreme insinuations about my words, did you watch the beginning of her video? You could learn something.
You're just mad my summary doesn't make it sound like she didn't spend the Buck Angel portion utterly defending him and paying lip service to his issues.
Rob is mad because he thinks divisive rhetoric is meaningful criticism that makes up for the the rest of the 20 minutes and I think that's like calling an important TERF just someone with decisive rhetoric.
Neither of you acknowledge the utterly insane thing of saying only fake trans nazis from Kiwifarms care about what happened with Lana Wachowski...
Last edited:
This is ironic and sad to hear, given that Natalie is probably the main reason I'm still alive today as a non-binary person. I spent my whole life struggling with my gender identity in a country where any form of non-normativity is punished by death, and I was in my lowest point when I discovered ContraPoints, which made me rediscover who I am and get a new perspective on life.
The thing is, all of her problematic stuff is things she said on twitter. Her channel, her main platform, has always been 100% pro-nb with 0 ambiguity. As she said in the video, 10% of her videos are about non-binary identity. 'Transtrenders' is the main video I link to people skeptical about nb identities, and it almost always work in changing those people's mind.
Now that she left Twitter for good, all what's left is her channel which is, and has always been, 100% pro-nb. I don't understand how she can be seen as dangerous at all.
It seems like there are a lot of legit things to criticise contra for. However, online criticism regarding really complex nuanced issues (especially on social media) is toxic as fuck and it rarely happens in a valid way that actually makes communities better.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't criticise people online. It means that the expectation that the people being criticised should be able to (somehow in an emotionally healthy way) wade through thousands of comments, most of which are either vitriolic dunks or misrepresentations of what's being said, to find the valid pieces of critique and then basically quickly change their viewpoint, is not a realistic ask. I think this especially when to be able to exist as a big online persona in a healthy way, you have to quickly kill the part of yourself that gets too emotionally swayed by what people say online.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't criticise people online. It means that the expectation that the people being criticised should be able to (somehow in an emotionally healthy way) wade through thousands of comments, most of which are either vitriolic dunks or misrepresentations of what's being said, to find the valid pieces of critique and then basically quickly change their viewpoint, is not a realistic ask. I think this especially when to be able to exist as a big online persona in a healthy way, you have to quickly kill the part of yourself that gets too emotionally swayed by what people say online.
As an enby I can only speak for myself but I have never felt invalidated or looked down upon from Contrapoints. If others feel the same, they are more than able to do so, I don't feel the same at all.
But for this video specifically, I think it's the wrong subject matter for her to tackle. She's too close to the subject and her dredging up her own dirty laundry and drama isn't why I'm interested in her work. I understand why she felt it had to the done, but it is alienating to me in that regard.
That being said, I'm only one person and you should watch and make your own opinion for yourself if you haven't already :)
I.. that was my whole point, first it starts out as misrepresenting her (which you clearly did), and then it leads into her being categorised as a dangerous truscum. I get that's supposed to be a 'ha, gotcha' thing but it falls flat.
And no, for starters I said her Buck section was weak, I think she didn't do enough to explain why and her reasoning was pretty rubbish, but she also didn't fawn over him and say he can do no wrong, either. The kiwi farms thing was a lame analogy, Im not sure what she was going for there.
Despite that it doesn't detract from the rest of the video, which is imo spot on.
It seems pretty clear what she was going for, she wants people to think like she does and dismiss the Lana situation as being something only fascists care enough to google
She absolutely fawned over him, and I didn't say she said he could do no wrong....
And my gotcha is weak because yours was too.
Nothing i said is a gateway to someone else calling her truscum.
Making a 1 hour and 40 min. "Explaining" a very biased definition of cancel culture because *sometimes* that culture is not a good thing for some people (like her)? That's a stretch right there. The mind and logical gymnastics of hers, arguing if you cancel some people (like her), you are part of the problem. That is some narcissistic bullshit right there.
Her video is way more thoughtful than you assume it is.
The entitlement of fans thinking they hold the cancel gun that is in the form of sustained harassment of her and her friends online is sickening, no matter if yo]u think that type of harassment is justified or not.
The people making rational and thoughtful arguments arent the people foaming at the mouth truing to cancel herand harassing her online.
She says her literal survival hinges on not reading what people say about her, so toasts to "not giving a fuck".
Last edited:
Nobody here thinks harassment is okay, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to hold Natalie accountable for the things she's said and done, there's nothing wrong wanting her to not be the trans voice after consistently being shit to NB people. What happens when she is allowed to be the voice? You get threads like these where posters trip over themselves trying to lump together legitimately concerned trans/NB people with scum of the earth harassers, you get posters willing to say "hey the Buck Angel stuff straight up sucks but the rest of her video is great so let's try to ignore her unwillingness to denounce a virulent enbyphobe". Funny how much that reminds me of threads on somebody like Dave Chapelle, "oh the transphobic jokes suck but the rest is great so I'll definitely keep supporting him". So interesting how when trans and NB people are the ones hurt, this is how it seems to end up.
Haven't seen this yet. I never got around to watching her last video because the NB and Buck Angel stuff was blowing up (and I'm still not really sure what was going on because all I saw was a bunch of hearsay on Twitter) and it just seemed exhausting. Considering the topic and runtime on this video, it is sure to be her most exhausting video ever. I used to love Natalie, but despite my hopes that she uses this video to take responsibility for some of the stuff she's said, I don't necessarily expect it based on how defensive she has gotten about this stuff in the past.
edit: after going back and reading the first page... yeah, zero confidence in this video.
edit: after going back and reading the first page... yeah, zero confidence in this video.
Last edited:
I think anointing her as the voice was the first mistake people made. Second is thinking that she is their friend, and theynare entitled to having her fully agree 100% on literally everything, wich rarely happens in real life outside our carefully curated bubbles.
I am sure there is a polite form of cancel culture thst doesnt rely on sustained harassment, like a petition or something, but in this case it seems to have been more than vitriolic and agressive.
I get the #notallcancellers sentiment, but just like other online movements that went too far, maybe it's time to take a step back and rethink how our voice and @'s add to the discourse.
Ok, fair. So again I'm the problem and I'm wrong because I didn't understand the true thoughtful meaning of the video? I'm seeing a pattern: the problem is always the "other" because she/they/he didn't understand.
.... what?
I would much rather her do that then commit suicide from cyber bullying TBH
Correct me if I'm wrong. But you were implying that I didn't understand the video. Yes?
I can tell y'all the Farms know who most of the trans people posted in that bit near the middle are
Really Contrapoints putting this video out in which she acts as if she's faced horrible harassment (said harassment being people calling her out for truscum shit) feels especially rich now considering that on the same day she put this out a trans artist got a huge amount of actual harassment on Twitter, to the point of the reason for harassment popping up on Twitter's trending tab. All because a popular Youtuber with a huge amount of influence (Oney) mocked her comic in which she's dismissive of people who are empathetic to rich Youtubers. Hmm.
I mean if the options are literally kill herself or don't give a shit about anything anyone else says. She probably should rethink being a media personality with a large influential platform
I see the view of this anointing being on the part of NB people upset but rarely think it lands. She's treated more like a deity or someone on a platform by those who seek to rebuke, dismiss or close out all criticism of her. Conflating it instead with the harassment she faces. Which is what a large amount of cis/binary people do and have done whenever any criticism is discussed about her.
Like in your own post where you make the turn to '#notallcancellers' - which isn't what's being said. What's being said is that there's a distinction between what's being referred to as cancelling someone and people here, on an unrelated video game forum, posting about her and her content. Muddying the water doesn't serve to do anything except extinguish criticism of her outright.
Last edited:
I said it was more thoughtful than you gave it credit for, don"t think it's me saying you "don't understand the video..."
Sure, talking about her here and pointing out her misgivings here isn't really cancel culture as we understand it though or how she lived it. The people muddying the water is the people acting like the harassment isn't baked in the cancel cake, and a few literally using gamergate tactics to try and get her cancellled.
The entitlement is staggering, jfc
No one owes us shit,
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of the points raised in the video, and feel like I've seen many examples of the behaviour she describes play out before my own eyes in online spaces. I also see that the whole thing might simply read as roundly self serving, and omitting of important context that might serve to counter her positions.
I also understand that as a cis, hetero, white, middle class male living a comparatively carefree life in the first world that I will never, ever truly understand exactly what the alleged affronts Natalie has made to NB people's identities feel like to be on the receiving end of. I also know that when I look at those affronts, I am not seeing them through the eyes of the aggrieved, and I most definitely will never comprehend the intensity of the offending content that I do perceive. Additionally, I'll simply never perceive a great deal more subtly coded affronts that only marginalised communities will be privy to, and that's of course with respect to all of media, not Natalie alone.
There is a message here that I nonetheless feel the need to suggest is important, though, in that automatic and effusive attacks against people guilty of expressing hurtful opinions or who otherwise err in the public eye does not necessarily contribute to progress. Plenty of people are more than worthy of effective exile, but narrowing my focus down to one aspect of cancel culture as it is known, I don't see the value in ostracising everyone who makes a mistake, be that mistake undeniable, or a nuanced matter of perspective. By all means, call out the unrepentant abusers who believe themselves to be above repercussions. But if you believe in personal development, debate, and redemption, surely we can't ascribe wholesale to an attitude of us versus them. Surely some of the same people who can't abide these sorts of transgressions feel that it is better to rehabilitate than to punish?
Again, I do get that my perspective is limited. The only slurs I have ever been on the receiving end of have been speciously applied, and even when I have been sexually harassed or assaulted a lifetime of security in my identity and physical safety have allowed me to brush those events off as more humorous than hurtful. I can never truly see things through your eyes, but I want to listen and absorb as much as I possibly can, and contribute to your complete acceptance in whatever way is possible for someone in my position.
I will not put the onus on the marginalised to couch their frustrations and hurt when they have lived an entire lifetime experiencing bigotry, rejection, and violence that I never have myself. I can accept that hurtful actions from supposed allies may incense you in ways that I am privileged to be able to consider in part inconsequential to the cause. So I know that I may ultimately be in the wrong here, I do. But from this privileged perspective I am so, so lucky to have been gifted through no achievement of my own, I do see that there is a tendency in progressive circles to immediately shun those who express something disagreeable, and I do agree with Natalie here that the volume and degree of response we sometimes see can be more harmful than helpful.
I also understand that as a cis, hetero, white, middle class male living a comparatively carefree life in the first world that I will never, ever truly understand exactly what the alleged affronts Natalie has made to NB people's identities feel like to be on the receiving end of. I also know that when I look at those affronts, I am not seeing them through the eyes of the aggrieved, and I most definitely will never comprehend the intensity of the offending content that I do perceive. Additionally, I'll simply never perceive a great deal more subtly coded affronts that only marginalised communities will be privy to, and that's of course with respect to all of media, not Natalie alone.
There is a message here that I nonetheless feel the need to suggest is important, though, in that automatic and effusive attacks against people guilty of expressing hurtful opinions or who otherwise err in the public eye does not necessarily contribute to progress. Plenty of people are more than worthy of effective exile, but narrowing my focus down to one aspect of cancel culture as it is known, I don't see the value in ostracising everyone who makes a mistake, be that mistake undeniable, or a nuanced matter of perspective. By all means, call out the unrepentant abusers who believe themselves to be above repercussions. But if you believe in personal development, debate, and redemption, surely we can't ascribe wholesale to an attitude of us versus them. Surely some of the same people who can't abide these sorts of transgressions feel that it is better to rehabilitate than to punish?
Again, I do get that my perspective is limited. The only slurs I have ever been on the receiving end of have been speciously applied, and even when I have been sexually harassed or assaulted a lifetime of security in my identity and physical safety have allowed me to brush those events off as more humorous than hurtful. I can never truly see things through your eyes, but I want to listen and absorb as much as I possibly can, and contribute to your complete acceptance in whatever way is possible for someone in my position.
I will not put the onus on the marginalised to couch their frustrations and hurt when they have lived an entire lifetime experiencing bigotry, rejection, and violence that I never have myself. I can accept that hurtful actions from supposed allies may incense you in ways that I am privileged to be able to consider in part inconsequential to the cause. So I know that I may ultimately be in the wrong here, I do. But from this privileged perspective I am so, so lucky to have been gifted through no achievement of my own, I do see that there is a tendency in progressive circles to immediately shun those who express something disagreeable, and I do agree with Natalie here that the volume and degree of response we sometimes see can be more harmful than helpful.
I agree, all the cis folk in online left communities shouldn't have made her The Trans TM and the figurehead of the movemant as whole but they did and her stated intent is to educate people so as a self appointed educator she has an obligation to not slander those her own insensitivity has hurt as fucking fascists from KiwiFarms.
It is a hard claim to take at face value, but are you that shocked at the notion of the alt-right joining the dogpile?
That's not what she said though
Her claim was anyone who talks about it is either a fake trans nazi or belongs amongst them at Kiwifarms
Kat Blaque showing some empathy regarding Natalie's decision to quit twitter
lol sure she did
lol sure she did
Contra quitting twitter isn't inherently that unpopular of an idea, it's the framing of it that people don't like but I truly hope she never goes back to tweets that aren't purely announcements about content or actually content. If only so we don't have to see Lindsay post about living your truth and your brand ever again.
Oh no you're right, she just said they looked like fascists pretending to be trans, that's so much better
I honestly don't even see the point of this video. If you already think ContraPoints has fucked up too much wrt to Buck Angel etc then this video isn't going to convince you otherwise. If you think otherwise then... you'll obviously agree with this video, so it didn't need to be made.
It would've been a much stronger statement for me if she removed ALL of the parts where she talks about herself and her own controversies and instead focused fully in on "cancel culture" rather than making it about herself - because her general points wrt that were pretty much spot on.
It would've been a much stronger statement for me if she removed ALL of the parts where she talks about herself and her own controversies and instead focused fully in on "cancel culture" rather than making it about herself - because her general points wrt that were pretty much spot on.
ohh ok, but.. why did you said that? I didn't like her video and I think she is making some mental gymnastics right there with cancel culture. I mean if she hadn't have those "cancel" incidents this video would exist? I don't know. She is a brilliant person. And make great points all over the board, using logic and meta commentary about famous canceling culture cancellations to close the gap between what happened to her with her fan base. That is some pro tier persuasion tactics right there. But I'm watching again the video and paraphrasing her in the trope #4: did she learn? Did she really reflect on her mistakes or she does not give a fuck?
Last edited:
I mean, I don't recall a defense of cancel culture anywhere in the video, but it was long and I might be forgetting parts.
Dude yeah she did.
There's a reason she drops the subject before the big reveal of what supposedly the magazine she supposedly tracked down said.
There's a reason she changes outing a trans woman into a private intermarital affair issue.
She outright says that looking into that story is for kiwifarms and then says if you care about this go back to kiwifarms where you belong in between insinuating that any trans person who tweets about it is probably a fake from kf
Definitely. She directly equates taking an issue with it (or validating the concern) with farms-esque behaviour before saying why she doesn't see it as being someone trying to out someone else (instead petty vindictiveness) before saying it's none of her business anyway and none of ours so back to the farm. Whatever you think of the rest of the video she is apparent in her fondness of, and past admiration for, Buck.
I think this is a well known lost in translation incident. Maybe is my English. I trying to say that she is making an statement of cancel culture. That culture isn't good in general because of the tropes she expose. Nevertheless canceling cancel culture isn't good either because sometimes it is a good thing for calling out bigots. The catch of the video? Is never a good thing because she isn't wrong tho (In her larger logic).
I edited my post. I added this: don't know. She is a brilliant person. And make great points all over the board, using logic and meta commentary about famous canceling culture cancellations to close the gap between what happened to her with her fan base. That is some pro tier persuasion tactics right there. But I'm watching again the video and paraphrasing her in the trope #4: did she learn? Did she really reflect on her mistakes or she does not give a fuck?
Keep in mind that the majority of the posts on the first page are by people who hadn't watched the video yet.
As for the the previous one (Opulence), the drama isn't really part of it since the issue arose from a few seconds voiceover of Buck Angel reading an unrelated quote. In case you're still curious about her last video, it's not exhausting in that sense.
Pretty great video, I wasn't aware of the controversy and I still don't have the full context, I don't feel like this is my business, to be honest. I agree with all her points regarding cancelling, though, I suggest everyone give the video a watch if you have time, and now I definitely have to check her other ones.
This is pretty disingenuous. She doesn't say this in the least. She said she could not find source material for the claim and she already went to lengths trying to find it and going further to find it is looking for a reason to hate someone. Because of that, she doesn't have any proof of how this situation specifically went down or a transcript of what Buck actually said so she's not going to assume what he said in the article.
I still suggest you watch what she says about it to get her take because I probably missed some parts but your description is just outright wrong.
So like, this is why I've dropped out of online left spaces and only go to read world left spaces (activist meetings, ACLU, BLM gatherings, protests for Dreamers, etc) because the online left (and really, it's a subset of online left on Twitter/Tumblr, etc) will immediately accuse you of "hating all x people" by using the pathology described in the video (Abstraction, etc).
If I accused every white person of being a racist for asking a slightly uncomfortable question or trying to have a discussion, none of these spaces would have any white people left. And we need those white allies.
it was wild seeing people attack her for leaving twitter and to me it made it clear that there were folks who just wanted to use her as a punching bag
I find this a problem in a lot of left stuff, too much is personalty or brand driven. No one should be above legitimate questioning. If you become bigger than the message or think you are I think you are failing the message