Regarding the activism, I've often wondered if that's an area where he actually turns down opportunities. He's quite shy when it comes to confrontation. He tried it with Tom Rowsell years ago and quickly got his farts blocked. He's not big enough for Piers Morgan's show yet but I'm sure his agent could get him some GB News or maybe even Jeremy Vine time if he really wanted.
Oh, he's terrified. He's happy in his little social media echo chamber (even more echoey now he's switched to BlueSky) where nothing he says ever gets challenged and he can block anyone who says anything he doesn't like. I can't find it now, but he recently mentioned being invited to take part in some TV or radio discussion, or a debate on a campus somewhere about the trans issue with a TERF (or someone he considers a TERF, so that could be anyone who is even slightly less extreme than he is) and he turned it down with some bullshit excuse about how it's supposedly beneath him to be talking to an old woman about these issues (he specifically brought up her age as though that were relevant). In reality though, he's just scared of getting humiliated because anyone but a complete moron would easily point out the absurdities of his positions.
I reckon he could probably be on Piers Morgan's show because sometimes they bring on retards with lunatic opinions just to spice things up, and he does have quite a big online following after all. Or if not then there are plenty of other platforms that would have him. But he's way too chickenshit to face such rigorous scrutiny of his views. And remember, Olly is supposed to be a philosopher! This is absolutely contrary to all the principles of Western philosophy. Olly's ethical, ontological, epistemological position regarding the trans issue are absolutely fair game for criticism, and if he had any actual respect for philosophy then he'd be happy to debate a worthy opponent - to try to convince other people, to hone his arguments, ideally, in a Socratic sense, to get closer to the truth. It's pure intellectual cowardice.
Ollie's trying to make a subtle and intelligent jab at the BBC for both sides-ing the trans issue, because in his mind giving anti-trans opinions a platform is akin to arguing in favour of the California fires, or something to that effect. But then he goes ahead and mentions trannies by name anyway. Way to undercut your own metaphor.
That's clearly what he meant, and it shows again what a deranged fanatic he is. Anyone who disagrees with him is just an impersonal destructive force, like fire, rather than real a human being with opinions that they have the right to express.
I can't find it now, but he recently mentioned being invited to take part in some TV or radio discussion, or a debate on a campus somewhere about the trans issue with a TERF
I wonder if this will get mentioned in the planned "Reclaiming Religion from the Right." video...since the whole Atheism vs Christianity trend of the 2000s was called the Great Debate
I started working my way through this thread in mid-November, and I've nearly caught up. I love the vibe here, and feel slightly sad that soon I'll have to look for another thread to binge read!
Might I suggest Grace and Daniel Lavery, whose thread has a lot of similar enjoyment to be found. A MtF Berkeley professor married to a FtM author who writes books with zero appeal to a True and Honest man. There's narcissism, self-promotion, wild overestimations of personal abilities, side characters who get their own spinoffs, and since both cows are well-educated they have very distinctive communication styles that make for fun contrast.
I wonder when we'll hear if he has any filming for HOTD3. If I were the writers I'd kill him off quickly in episode 1 and from there pretend that character never existed.
Game of Thrones visibly recast Daario Naharis, and Gregor Clegane twice. It's not a stretch to think that Sharako Lohar's boots get filled by someone else. Either way is going to be fun - either Toob gets fired and he has to spin it to his audience, or he returns and provides a new flop reel for this thread.
"I'm an actor" says the man with half a dozen IMDB credits so desperate to get on the telly he's willing to be a DEI checkbox on University Challenge. We believe you, Olly!
I can feel another essay coming on, sorry in advance
That's definitely part of it, because he's bad at confrontation. He learned that from ContraPoints, who got embarrassed by trying to argue with Blaire White and retreated into addressing a sympathetic audience or (largely) sympathetic journalists. But I think there's two other factors at play. One of them is he doesn't deign to be questioned. Like with the NHS - "they were told in 2013 to desegregate". His perspective is that he, as a trans person, has told cis people what to think - and the response of "we'll factor that in to our decision" instead of "we will do what you say" is unacceptable. Generally speaking, disagreement is either classified as people not understanding the argument properly, hence -
and sure, the average person is unlikely to understand what "gender performativity" or "social construction" means, but it's taken for granted that if you disagree with the arguments being made it's usually because you need to "educate" yourself more (i.e. go read theory until you realise I was right and agree with me). Where that fails, he falls back into accusing people of inhabiting phantasms - they're actually upset about capitalism, but they're projecting that onto trans people and irrationally think "defending sex" will resolve their anxiety; therefore trying to explain it to them will make them feel threatened and defensive and they'll refuse to listen. Which still assumes "listening" means "agreeing with me" (you can also see this whenever someone "backseat acts" by thinking he's a shitty actor who gives bad performances, because we simply don't understand his process). So he doesn't want to go on a debate to defend his viewpoint, because that's an insult - you should just be listening to what he says and not questioning it, and if you've got a disagreement with him then you're either too stupid or irrational to convince. If I ever found myself in bizarro world where I was having an in depth discussion with Ollie about this, I'd start off by detailing my exact understanding of his arguments and asking him to correct anything he felt I'd misinterpreted about his worldview, just so he couldn't claim it was a failure of understanding when I disagreed.
The other (possibly subconscious) part of it is "the best disinfectant is sunlight". I'm reminded of that review of Manhunt - "don't say that where the cis can hear it!". Since his transition, Ollie's videos and thinkpieces are always addressed to other trans people or allies. As a narcissist, he assumes others are like him; he blocks all TERFs and avoids their content because it makes him uncomfortable, so he assumes that TERFs don't bother reading his stuff or watching his videos.... whenever he's "refuted" TERF arguments in the past he tends to cite other people who disagree with them in summary format and IIRC has never done an actual deconstruction of gender critical views. When he makes arguments about what gender critical people think, I'm not sure if he really understands the perspectives they're coming from.
I would genuinely find it interesting if he read Hannah Barnes's Time To Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children and unpacked why he felt the concerns of these medical professionals were wrong, and maybe tried defining the mythosymbolic reasons these patients may have for self-theorising in this allocentric way, factoring in the arguments currently ongoing about pathologised vs definitional medical care and that outcomes that seem to harm the patient could be desirable. I will donate my life savings to Mermaids if he ever does that, because it would require him to explain exactly why he thinks someone decides/discovers they're trans beyond "well this is what I want, I discovered I trans and therefore want to transition, because of my gender identity... by the way, aren't I hot now?".
His failure to actually interrogate the arguments of "opponents" and assumption that goes both ways is how he's made missteps in the past like "there's no such thing as gender dysphoria". The entirety of that argument works a lot better if you imagine it as his motivational speech to fellow trans comrades - "we're no different to them, they oppress us, let us demand an end to it!" - and he's not the only one making it. An awful lot of the backlash he got was effectively from trans people criticising him for the optics of his argument and endangering them, because he didn't think about how "opponents" would also read it, understand it and then integrate that into their own arguments. Actually reading the various cited academic texts and books that get thrown about are incredibly eye opening (and peaking) - and he only really talks about the concept of social construction and top level arguments about "the right to self determination" dressed in social justice lingo.
Because that's the problem. If he actually explains to an audience the in depth minutiae of his arguments, he's lost. If you bring up those medical ethics arguments and cutting edge Laplanchean psychoanalytical reinterpreters and start wheeling out points like "actually childhood transition might not provide any meaningful improvement in wellbeing and could lead to significant regret in later life, but we should continue encouraging it" or "being molested as a child might actually be why an adolescent seeks to transition, but giving a 16 year old a mastectomy may be the healthiest way for "him" to process it" then the smokescreen of academic rigour and multidisciplinary jargon falls away and leaves the audience going "I think the FUCK not". Which I guess could loop back into merely not wanting to lose the argument, but the more you read of this stuff the more you have to suspect there's a concerted effort to obscure the motte-and-bailey arguments being made.
Ollie's trying to make a subtle and intelligent jab at the BBC for both sides-ing the trans issue, because in his mind giving anti-trans opinions a platform is akin to arguing in favour of the California fires, or something to that effect. But then he goes ahead and mentions trannies by name anyway. Way to undercut your own metaphor.
That's clearly what he meant, and it shows again what a deranged fanatic he is. Anyone who disagrees with him is just an impersonal destructive force, like fire, rather than real a human being with opinions that they have the right to express.
I’m surprised he didn’t incorporate his Arsonist character into this, it seems like it would fit perfectly regarding fires and not acting in good faith and such. I guess he decided he’s done doing characters since Contra is apparently also done doing characters.
Also I’m not sure I even understand the conceit here. That the media shoehorns “the trans debate” anywhere and everywhere? But isn’t that what he’s doing in this stupid skit? He brings up these devastating fires in California only to make a point about - transgender issues?
It’s very revealing of his narc brain cause presumably he has friends or associates who’ve been directly impacted by this. But this retardation is what he publicly shares.
This is completely unironically the best acting I’ve ever seen choob do. The completely flat and robotic newscaster role is the most sincere choob can do. Bravo, you’ve found your niche
Game of Thrones visibly recast Daario Naharis, and Gregor Clegane twice. It's not a stretch to think that Sharako Lohar's boots get filled by someone else. Either way is going to be fun - either Toob gets fired and he has to spin it to his audience, or he returns and provides a new flop reel for this thread.
He almost certainly does not. On the rare few occasions that he's actually tried to address the GC viewpoint, it's blindingly obvious that he thinks of us as cartoon villains driven by hate for the sake of hate. Take this passage from the Alt-Right Playbook video:
What is it you're really arguing about? Well, your co worker believes that the government -- or a doctor doing what the government tells them -- should force citizens from a minority to do something with their bodies they don't want to do, but he won't say that out loud, because he knows that's socially unacceptable. "I want the government to force people to do what I want with their bodies, no matter how many of them die in the process" is an opinion that isn't likely to make friends.
So, he substitutes the document for the thing he really believes. "It's not me. It's just science." He is appealing to facts when, truthfully, this is a difference in values.
The last bit is pretty much correct -- this is a battle of values moreso than facts -- but the beliefs he assigns to the hypothetical co-worker are comically off the mark. Nobody sensible is opposing trans healthcare while at the same time thinking that doing so will cause people to die -- and yes, it would be "socially unacceptable" to voice those two opinions at the same time, because they're patently ridiculous when taken together. Yet, somehow, Ollie fails to connect the dots and conclude that maybe we're coming from a different position. It makes me wonder: has he ever actually HAD a discussion with someone on the Gender Critical side of the fence regarding these values? Surely he isn't misrepresenting the opposition on purpose? ...right?
For someone who fancies himself a philosophy teacher, Ollie struggles with the principle of charity, which is, like, Critical Thinking 101. He probably thinks that he's applying it when he characterises his opponents as benighted fools who are simply unaware that their values are fundamentally flawed as opposed to card-carrying bigots, but... that's not how that works. You have to presume that people arrive at their beliefs through sound reasoning, or else, as Ollie famously claims, there is nothing to be gained from a debate. His concept of morality seems entirely centred upon himself and his own values -- so, when someone disagrees with him, he automatically presumes some sort of moral failure on their behalf and works backwards from there.
and sure, the average person is unlikely to understand what "gender performativity" or "social construction" means, but it's taken for granted that if you disagree with the arguments being made it's usually because you need to "educate" yourself more (i.e. go read theory until you realise I was right and agree with me)
Ollie floating about on a narc high is how we get such wonderful moments like this
or this
or this
Ollie in the doldrums will only produce stale content as he fades into irrelevance, podcasting and posting the occasional skeet (look how dead the ContraPoints thread is now) - and nobody likes sour milk. I hope he keeps getting inexplicably cast in TV shows and greenlit to do vanity projects, because that means he'll keep blindly embarrassing himself in outlandishly bizarre ways. That being said if he ever does get Cancelled with a capital C, the ensuing meltdown will be amazing to witness.
I don't think so, because none of these three examples of Olly on top form are 'high-profile acting gigs'. These show him rabble-rousing at some TRA protest, and writing and starring in his own special brand of amateur hour trash, which is much more fun.
Playing that character in House of the Dragon was mildly interesting in that it further demonstrated his inability to act (and produced a single funny line), but that's not on the same level as the glorious trainwreck that is Dracula's Ex-Girlfriend. I'm all for him continuing to produce drama on Nebula and YouTube.
And I don't think failing to get the mainstream success he craves means the narc high will stop flowing, because it can't stop - he'd implode without it. It just means it'll go in weirder directions as he desperately finds ways to convince himself he's achieving his dreams. I certainly can't envisage him moping around and going offline like Contra, can you? He's addicted to social media and making YouTube videos in extravagant outfits and acting in as much as he possibly can because he loves to shove himself in everyone else's face. He'd die rather than deprive himself of that.
Tube has been trying another forced meme, across platforms, and it regards what was obviously not only a deliberate choice, but one he thinks worked very well, tyvm.
That is, sitting with his mouth open like a fish/male impression, porn fuck recepticle.
Also Kek
He made sure to have his own MUA?
He either took her to Manchester or had his own makeup done hundreds of miles away? Okay.
More or less as @AssignedEva said: all the best Toob content comes from people enabling him to create utter nonsense. I suppose the reason watching him get away with it is so much fun is that we know the well will dry up sooner or later, but I don't imagine the crash and burn phase will actually be all that exciting. He's a calculated sort of narc. Not the type to have a public meltdown short of a big cancellation event.
Tube has been trying another forced meme, across platforms, and it regards what was obviously not only a deliberate choice, but one he thinks worked very well, tyvm.
That is, sitting with his mouth open like a fish/male impression, porn fuck recepticle.
What the fuck was he on about? The NHS was founded in 1948, and I don't think it was ever racially segregated.
There is a medical term called "segregation", which refers to what amounts to extended quarantine for people infected with diseases which are both very contagious and difficult to treat (eg. XDR TB, haemorrhagic fevers of the Ebola sort, etc.). These patients basically come and live in an infectious disease hospital until the illness is cured/has run its course or they are dead.
Obviously you can't just prescribe this at will - a specialist in the field and another doctor have to concur on it's necessity, then a Magistrate must issue an order based on their testimony. (This is where I live, it's probably similar in the UK).
Maybe Lennard saw a reference to this and immediately jumped to conclusions. Or he's using some tranny usage of "segregation" that I don't know.
On Lennard's reluctance to debate opponents
Despite calling himself "PhilosophyTube" back in the day, our "Abigail" really isn't too hot at philosophy. He has a working knowledge of Critical Theory and a bit of associated PoMo French shit such as Derrida and Foucault (which won't get you very far in a debate with an analytical philosopher - he'll demand concrete definitions from the beginning and if you try your Derridan waffling you will face accusations of obfuscation.)
In short, he's a phony when it comes to serious philosophy and don't think his opponents won't know that.
Personally, his obvious relativism while claiming to be "on the left" has always pissed me off. Left-wing philosophy has always been materialistic and is completely at odds with the shit this guy espouses.
The only "Left" Ollie Lennard belongs to is the Limousine Left, where you can belong to both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat simultaneously, and get to have your cake and eat it. Fucking sellout.
Apologies for the rageposting, this fucker never fails to get my goat.
He's talking about gender identity clinics. He doesn't want to get a referral to a gender identity specialist, travel to the specialised unit and then have prescriptions handled by them. He wants to force GPs to just sign off on HRT.
Choob is more a cow about this than most, but patient consultations often see trans patients saying they want their GPs to be fully trained in transgender healthcare or that each GP surgery should have a transgender specialised GP. He refers to this as "segregation" on the grounds that a menopausal woman can be prescribed HRT without being seen by a specialist. GPs argue they don't know how to check if someone has gender dysphoria or not and also that the amount of work that goes into actively managing a trans patient (is Spironolactone dissolving their kidneys? Are the t injections going to cause a stroke? What dosage is the best one for this patient?) and the liability associated with prescribing off label is something they're uncomfortable with.
Ollie's argument is they should just rubber stamp his desired prescription and let people choose how they want to be treated, because he's a woman and women can get HRT from their doctors - it's just that trans women are victimised for being trans and are required to get a fake diagnosis of gender dysphoria. He's not made this comparison but the basic logic of his argument is that this is like a woman going to the doctor for antibiotics but then the doctor requiring black women to separately go get a diagnosis of "black lady who is ill disease" from a specialist black person unit before the GP will prescribe antibiotics, because trans women are merely a subset of women and requiring a differential diagnosis is a way to control a minority group. This is a bad argument, but increasingly he isn't the only one making it.
If someone was getting paid to manage Ollie's brand, I don't see why they would want Ollie to agree to debates for a few reasons.
1. It's unlikely people are going to consider him to be better than the other breadtubers that try to debate or Destiny.
2. If he agrees to debate someone of equal or greater popularity there is a risk that he'll take a Optics L, like it doesn't matter if you think Contrapoints had a better position than Blaire White when they had a stream together, Contrapoints is the who walked away bitter about that.
3. If Ollie specifically only debates curated fish-in-a-barrel opponents then some people would see through it, and there could be comparisons to Crowder and the Daily Wire Crowd only debating unprepared college students and the most easy target tiktok clips.
4. Outside of the niche of people who enjoy munk/oxford style debates, internet bloodsports would probably be expected, and that kind of aggression could damage Ollie's facade of being feminine and subtly passive aggressive. There would be a risk someone might genuinely say something that would make Ollie get gotten to, and Ollie could snap and forget to use his "female" voice.
