None of these propositions about "It doesn't matter because she was not @'ed" were ever framed as exclusive and specific to this particular situation, so when it's brought up as a presumably generalized standard or rule then I will address it as such.
If the nasty comments were just shouted into the chatroom-esque cacophonic void of Twitter and immediately lost to time and noise, it is hard to qualify them as harassment. The problem is that Twitter is fairly public forum, and what's said there gets re-Tweeted and quoted in mainstream web/media articles. It gets read by people who send it back to the target in more direct communications. It influences community attitudes towards a notable public figure. I don't think anyone who said that stuff needs to be harangued or shamed, but this "Well but they didn't say it directly to her" loophole strikes me as poorly trying to absolve toxic and abusive behavior. If you talk shit about someone behind their back for the purpose of poisoning others against them that really isn't much better than saying it to their face. At the same time I recognize that people should be allowed to voice their anger or discontent....there's perhaps a better way to go about it, but I'm unsure of what the solution really is.
Yeah i haven't seen this in any trans community that I've been in. Maybe you need to find a new group to hang out with.
DP but yeah no shit people are gonna keep bringing it up. Having a shitty history talking about non-binary people then promoting a bigot and then defending that bigot constantly is not something people forget about nor should they.
I mean, wouldn't this be like CDPR or THQN threads where people are free to discuss the topic at hand but are also free to bring their grievances to the table? I don't see how that would get in the way for you since it doesn't for others in those threads.
Interest in the games of CDPR, THQN, or Blizzard are so sweeping and broad that threads related to those companies can ultimately weather the controversy. I figure that future Contrapoints threads will be like those of other controversial YouTube figures, where every new piece of content is mostly met with a lengthy and litigious argument over past grievances (see also: Dunkey, crowbcat, AVGN, NakeyJakey, etc). Not that I necessarily blame the people who take issue, but when the audience is smaller and the creator's content is less prolific then old wounds more frequently become the main topic. I suppose we will wait and see where things wind up, but the last Lindsay Ellis thread immediately went south and her offenses have been far less controversial than Wynn's.
Little bit ironic don't you think. We've just come off the back of months of trans/non-binary people feeling like they have no room to express their thoughts on threads concerning their issues and then one thread into the new rules we have people hand-wringing about the 'fear' of them not being able to discuss things without non-binary people derailing the thread?
This has been discussed already. There are some very specific points made in the video that undermine a lot of others things. There are many instances of people ignoring said points with the rhetoric of "But what about the rest of the video?"
I say this was no hostility or snark: is that not a valid point? Like taking one tweet out of a thread, taking one point out of a 1hr 40min video removes it from a large amount of context. Which points are considered the most problematic?
Not if it undermines the rest.
"Minorities shouldn't be able to publicly talk shit about an influential person who is saying hurtful things about them"
I'm talking about when those people were making those tweets, though considering this video spends ten minutes acting as if trans/genderqueer people venting about her are people harassing her, and spends twenty minutes defending Buck Angel....... i'm going to guess she still doesn't have a high opinion of genderqueer people.
So if people with skin in the game aren't interested in watching the video maybe it's not because they aren't interested in the topics but because they no longer find this narrator as valuable as you do
Well yeah, cause she's been cancelled. That's the situation. How is she supposed to make up for or clarify or explain her actions if the effected communities don't listen to her response?
Oh fun we're at the "you can't be mad at this Youtuber cause you didn't watch their video" stage of arguments.
This video is her first proper response to the recent controversy. It seems odd to me that people who clearly care enough for her mistakes to upset them, don't care enough to see what she has to say for herself.
People are under no obligation to watch her videos or listen to what she has to say anymore, for sure. But it does put discussion at an impasse, I guess, if her means of expressing contrition or otherwise explaining herself aren't to be heard. Absolutely people have the right to consider the whole thing too far gone to care to listen, but it does put those of us discussing it in a bit of a Catch 22 situation... I'm coming to the opinion that it genuinely would be more helpful for the community if people like myself bowed out of these threads entirely, and I don't say that with any kind of animosity. I just don't know if there's anything people who still find her thoughts on other topics valuable can add to these discussions without hurting and angering other people, and that's the last thing I want to do.
The solution is to not integrate her explanation for her actions into what is also regularly scheduled content for her channel. Otherwise it kinda feels like a situation of "you need to keep watching Contrapoints videos in order to justify not watching Contrapoints videos" for someone who's aggrieved
It's not her first response, it's not that different from her previous responses either.
A fair point, but there's a reason her long form videos are successful. She's good at them. It makes sense that she would use one as a means of getting all her thoughts down.
This is true, but the people who were upset by the buck Angel stuff are also going to be the people who are engaged enough to find it. I'm also not saying i should be a totally separate medium or platform; a video response would be fine, but including a discussion of the ethics of her individual actions into a discussion of cancellation writ large does a disservice to both imo
So she isn't disgusted with genderqueer people, she is just disgusted with genderqueer people who are vocal about their frustration with her issues with genderqueer people.
Maybe listen to what genderqueer folks are telling you instead of being obtuse and defensive.
About her, not at her. And maybe she should do some self reflection about why trans and genderqueer people are posting mean tweets about her instead of acting as if it's a harassment hate mob.
lol
Isn't that what she's doing? In her own messy, slightly off-the-rails, self-deprecating way?
I did admit she kinda had a point in my first post in this thread. I also don't believe she's making it sincerely.
