ContraPoints / William Nicholas Parrott / Natalie Wynn Parrott / Nykytyne2 - GamerGhazi Cannibalism Victim, Youtube "Intellectual"

[IV 445]

Some of you may notice an abrupt transition in the posting style in this thread. That is due to the A&H thread being posted by @CatParty being merged with teh Lolcow thread. It should hopefully not cause too much disruption in the flow of the thread.

He is pretty painfully unremarkable so I doubt it

 

[RichardMongler]

Holy shit, what's up with his voice? Is that what hormones do to you or did he adapt this by training? This is neither a female nor a male voice. Sounds more like a chipmunk. I'll never comprehend how people suffering from gender dysphoria can deliberately ruin their healthy bodies like that. It's beyond me, if I had a gender identity crisis, it'd probably suck, but I would still try to embrace the body nature has given me. What stops me from just becoming gay?

There is a difference between "Cultural Bolshevism" and "Cultural Marxism" by the way. Both "theories" are whacky as shit, but the first one specifically refers to the supposed "Jewish" character of the Bolshevik party, whereas "Cultural Marxism" is a lot less antisemitic as it focuses on the Frankfurt School and some other intellectuals who aim to bring out progressivism by dismantling the cultural, superstructural oppression of marginalized groups (which is still a bit of a stretch considering people like Adorno were social conservatives), and this did exist as a tendency during the student's movements in the 60s - they thought that capitalism inherently perpetuates sexism, racism and homophobia, and when sexism, racism and homophobia ceases to exist, there is no way these formerly marginalized groups could structurally support capitalism. They were horribly wrong though. As labor becomes less manual, the division of labor between men and women ceases to exist, and it turns out that women, blacks and gays can be just as brutal capitalists than straight white men, and now we get LGBTQ+ marches sponsered by Coca-Cola. Marx called this the commodification, capitalism's ability to sell literally everything to people, this includes Che shirts and social justice. Contrapoints obviously has a knee-jerk reaction to the term "Cultural Marxism", which is truly an oxymoron in a way, but instead of pointing this out he just says it's Nazi shit. Not a very rational argument.

Contrapoints has dropped out of university, and as I watch his more philosophical videos, I more and more think that his video about why she dropped out of uni was just phony damage control. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, in her first capitalism video, she equalized alienation with "shitty jobs". Are you serious? Marx is rolling in his grave. It seems that he just tries to make his videos as film school drop-out-esque as possible, his philosphical references just include saying names and his thoughts are everything but coherent. I'm not saying he's dumb or anything, he's a clever guy, but in terms of his own aspirations, he's a bit suffering from Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome. Of course that's why he's going for the lowest hanging fruit like Jordan Peterson who is an idiot as well everytime he tries to talk about stuff that's not related to psychology.

Uff. I've been listening to the video in the background as I'm writing this, and of course he's quoting Judith Butler.

Conflating "Cultural Marxism" with "Cultural Bolshevism" has been a recurring theme with left-wing YouTube pundits. Three Arrows has done this once before:

His take on Jordan Peterson is similar:

 

[AnOminous]

THIS PROGRESSIVE FOUR YEAR OLD DRAG QUEEN SHOVES A METAPHORICAL NUCLEAR BOMB RIGHT UP THE ALT-RIGHT’S URETHRA

THIS AIDS SURVIVOR HAS ONE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE ALT-RIGHT AND IT SENDS THEM STRAIGHT TO FUCKIN’ HIROSHIMA

THIS TRANS-CLOWN NOT ONLY MAKES PEOPLE LAUGH WITH A LOVING MESSAGE, THEY ALSO GRIND THE TESTICLES OF ALT-RIGHTERS INTO A GARLIC INFUSED PÂTÉ

14 WAYS THIS GIMPY LOOKING TRANNY IS RAMMING HORSE SIZE DILDOS UP THE ASS OF ACTUAL LITERAL NAZIS; NUMBER 8 WILL FLIM FLAM YOUR JIM JAMS

THIS DICKLESS TRANNY IS FUCKING HOT WOMEN EVERY NIGHT AND YOU ARE BASICALLY A STUPID PIECE OF SHIT

DESTROY THE ALT RIGHT USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRANNY

 

[Sissy Galvez]

https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/...rans-youtube-star-is-destroying-the-alt-right


YouTube is no longer just an alt-right cesspool. Two years ago, ContraPoints released her first video, "Feminism Did Not Destroy Atheism," and has since built a name for her channel as a haven for nuanced, truthful assessments of ideologies that have grown to immense popularity in internet circles. She does all of this with dark humor and personality — like, actual personality — that allows her to be whimsically self-deprecating. She invites her viewers to have fun, celebrating “degeneracy” through their journey to seek and disseminate the truth.


This not only means truth in debate, but truth to self. Contra’s open and honest chronicling of her male-to-female transition has added even more layers of connection with her audience. Her February video on autogynephilia (which is a bigoted pseudoscientific theory on transsexual women) includes a very personal dialogue about the nature of Contra’s transition, her sexuality, and her journey of self-understanding, which works to combat the transphobic theory. She is not afraid to share her story and to celebrate her identity, even when she struggles with her own confidence. Here, she talks to i-D about her journey, her thought processes, and her emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

A lot of your viewers have not only drawn their attention towards the content you’re creating, but are interested in you as a human being. What is your thought process behind choosing this approach?
Political YouTube is definitely a male- dominated space, where ranters and ravers tend to present their particular “facts-over-feels” vision of the world. When I initially started out two years ago, I thought what I was gonna do was have a sort of fictional character be the narrator of the channel, and this character (this is before transition) would be a “degenerate crossdresser." It was to add a little bit of levity to the political discussion, and it was to add a little bit of ironic distance, which I think was a way of protecting myself because, at the time, there was almost no such thing as “YouTube leftism.” It was just these people who would rant about social justice warriors and snowflakes and how horrible feminism is.

To stand up against it, I knew was going to be inviting a lot of harassment. So I set to protect myself by speaking behind this persona… well, what ended up happening was, a year into this, I realized that I actually was transgender. That was a predicament, because that’s not the sort of thing you can conceal.

How did you expect your audience to react to your transition, and how did they actually respond?
By the time I started to realize that I was trans, I had a significant base of support, so I didn’t have to be quite so defensive. At least I knew some people had my back. So I started “transitioning” away from using the character so much, and doing videos that, where topics of gender were concerned, I would talk about my private life, and that gave the channel a very personal character.

There are a lot of trans people who see themselves in me, or they see in me an example of how their transition could go, or they see me as a representative of them. Which, in some ways, is wonderful. But it’s also very difficult because it is a standard that you can’t possibly live up to. And people have a lot of investment in the details of your private life, and that’s kind of scary.


I think a lot of people who look at a channel like yours think, “Wow, that person must be very comfortable with themselves or very confident.” Is that true in your case?
I think that the confidence is not entirely an illusion. I think that I must have some confidence in me somewhere or otherwise I would not be putting myself out like this in the first place. But I think a lot of the confidence that comes off in my videos is a façade that I construct, because in private, I am quite insecure. I think there’s a reason why I don’t just switch the camera on and speak my mind, and it’s because I don’t feel that I could do that very effectively, but also I think that actually helps me to have a lot of artifice involved in terms of costumes, makeup, lighting, sets. The theatricality of it, in a sense, allows me to continue playing a character. The narrator character is still based on me, but it’s scripted and it’s presented in this very stylized context where I feel that I’m on stronger footing, and that enables me to use more confidence than I might be able to.

Do you think that more diversity and inclusion will be able to exist on the internet without pushback from right-wingers?
I do think it’s possible and I think that the changes that have been made over the last two years on YouTube have been very hopeful. With the internet, I don’t see it becoming a less toxic or unpleasant place for a lot of people any time soon, but I think it’s possible to create these patches of light and spaces that are not so toxic, and I’ve tried to build my channel into one of those places. I can’t stop the Internet from being the way it is — I don’t have any power at all to do that — but I can create something amidst it all that’s different.

Let me summarize this: A tranny is destroying the alt-right because he’s dropping truth bombs I agree with. They’re not backed up with facts but that’s ok because feels over reals and facts are racist.

 

[RichardMongler]

https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/...rans-youtube-star-is-destroying-the-alt-right


YouTube is no longer just an alt-right cesspool. Two years ago, ContraPoints released her first video, "Feminism Did Not Destroy Atheism," and has since built a name for her channel as a haven for nuanced, truthful assessments of ideologies that have grown to immense popularity in internet circles. She does all of this with dark humor and personality — like, actual personality — that allows her to be whimsically self-deprecating. She invites her viewers to have fun, celebrating “degeneracy” through their journey to seek and disseminate the truth.


This not only means truth in debate, but truth to self. Contra’s open and honest chronicling of her male-to-female transition has added even more layers of connection with her audience. Her February video on autogynephilia (which is a bigoted pseudoscientific theory on transsexual women) includes a very personal dialogue about the nature of Contra’s transition, her sexuality, and her journey of self-understanding, which works to combat the transphobic theory. She is not afraid to share her story and to celebrate her identity, even when she struggles with her own confidence. Here, she talks to i-D about her journey, her thought processes, and her emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

A lot of your viewers have not only drawn their attention towards the content you’re creating, but are interested in you as a human being. What is your thought process behind choosing this approach?
Political YouTube is definitely a male- dominated space, where ranters and ravers tend to present their particular “facts-over-feels” vision of the world. When I initially started out two years ago, I thought what I was gonna do was have a sort of fictional character be the narrator of the channel, and this character (this is before transition) would be a “degenerate crossdresser." It was to add a little bit of levity to the political discussion, and it was to add a little bit of ironic distance, which I think was a way of protecting myself because, at the time, there was almost no such thing as “YouTube leftism.” It was just these people who would rant about social justice warriors and snowflakes and how horrible feminism is.

To stand up against it, I knew was going to be inviting a lot of harassment. So I set to protect myself by speaking behind this persona… well, what ended up happening was, a year into this, I realized that I actually was transgender. That was a predicament, because that’s not the sort of thing you can conceal.

How did you expect your audience to react to your transition, and how did they actually respond?
By the time I started to realize that I was trans, I had a significant base of support, so I didn’t have to be quite so defensive. At least I knew some people had my back. So I started “transitioning” away from using the character so much, and doing videos that, where topics of gender were concerned, I would talk about my private life, and that gave the channel a very personal character.

There are a lot of trans people who see themselves in me, or they see in me an example of how their transition could go, or they see me as a representative of them. Which, in some ways, is wonderful. But it’s also very difficult because it is a standard that you can’t possibly live up to. And people have a lot of investment in the details of your private life, and that’s kind of scary.


I think a lot of people who look at a channel like yours think, “Wow, that person must be very comfortable with themselves or very confident.” Is that true in your case?
I think that the confidence is not entirely an illusion. I think that I must have some confidence in me somewhere or otherwise I would not be putting myself out like this in the first place. But I think a lot of the confidence that comes off in my videos is a façade that I construct, because in private, I am quite insecure. I think there’s a reason why I don’t just switch the camera on and speak my mind, and it’s because I don’t feel that I could do that very effectively, but also I think that actually helps me to have a lot of artifice involved in terms of costumes, makeup, lighting, sets. The theatricality of it, in a sense, allows me to continue playing a character. The narrator character is still based on me, but it’s scripted and it’s presented in this very stylized context where I feel that I’m on stronger footing, and that enables me to use more confidence than I might be able to.

Do you think that more diversity and inclusion will be able to exist on the internet without pushback from right-wingers?
I do think it’s possible and I think that the changes that have been made over the last two years on YouTube have been very hopeful. With the internet, I don’t see it becoming a less toxic or unpleasant place for a lot of people any time soon, but I think it’s possible to create these patches of light and spaces that are not so toxic, and I’ve tried to build my channel into one of those places. I can’t stop the Internet from being the way it is — I don’t have any power at all to do that — but I can create something amidst it all that’s different.

Yep, ContraPoints is now becoming the toast of the SJW left. Here's Current Affairs article:

​

One thing the left needs to do, I argued recently, is a better job of both engaging conservative arguments and using all forms of media effectively. I specifically mentioned YouTube, a dark realm that we have essentially ceded to the other side. YouTube is overflowing with videos from people like Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager (plus about a zillion miscellaneous reactionary ranters) but who is doing well-produced left-wing explanations of why all of these people are full of crap?
Well, I can tell you who is doing them. ContraPoints is doing them. And she’s doing them very well indeed. She’s a on a one-woman blitzkrieg against the YouTube right. She knows how to use the medium as well as anybody, and she’s found a brilliantly inventive and totally unique way to convey left political ideas. ContraPoints produces YouTube videos. They are often quite long, and they are frequently strange. When I was first showed them several months ago, I had absolutely no idea what to make of them. Each is about a political topic, and is usually anchored by a monologue from Contra explaining the issue at hand. But they are unlike anything else I’ve seen. Contra argues with multiple versions of herself (a Stalinist alter ego, a fascist alter ego, an anarchist alter ego, a liberal professor) in a dozen different costumes. An explanation of how capitalism artificially manufactures desires might

suddenly turn into a parody advertisement for suppositories. A video critiquing Jordan Peterson does not begin, as one might assume, with his dreary books and lectures, but with Contra as a bewigged French aristocrat called Lady Foppington discoursing on the sovereign faculty of reason. To my utter delight, Contra’s explanation of what’s wrong with capitalism does not end with the usual call for proletarians to take up arms but with Contra at the piano, serenading herself with a rendition of Sam Cooke’s “Bring It On Home To Me” (one of my favorite songs).

But the bizarre and unpredictable aspects of Contra’s videos in no way compromise her analytical rigor. She understands right-wing arguments from front to back, and presents them far more articulately than most of those who espouse them sincerely. She concedes points where they’re valid, and is not shy about criticizing the left. (In fact, she has an
entire video examining why some left-wing rhetorical tactics may be, shall we say, sub-optimal in building broad public support). On topics ranging from gender identity to
free speech to Nazi-punching to trans-exclusive feminism to Peterson’s stupid lobster thing and his concept of “postmodern neo-Marxism,” she painstakingly sorts through fallacies and flays bad arguments. She’ll tell the alt-right why their fears of “white genocide” are morally disgusting and statistically illiterate, or she’ll use the history of redlining and housing discrimination to show exactly how historic injustices created today’s racial disparities. And it’s fun all the way. She’ll explain the concept of race with an impersonation of
an early 19th century phrenologist, or expose the cruelty of fat-shaming while recreating a 1980s home exercise video. And sometimes she’ll do these things in German or Japanese, or from the bathtub, or through a parody of Dave Rubin’s slobbering sycophantic interview show.

ContraPoints has about half a dozen of the things I have long thought are needed on the left but which are sadly all too rare:

1. A willingness to actually respond carefully to right-wing ideas, and a recognition that bad ideas don’t go away by magic. She has an understanding that “engaging with” does not mean “legitimizing,” which she demonstrates by viciously mocking the white supremacists and transphobes whose ideas she is so unusually intellectually generous to. She shows how debate should be done: not by giving an inch to poisonous ideas, but by bringing superior smarts, funnier jokes, and more elegant costumes to the fight.​
2. Media savvy: the production values on her videos are excellent, and getting better all the time. She understands the YouTube community, and how to present the pro-social justice position in a way that isn’t excruciating to sit through. Let’s be clear: this in itself is a formidable achievement.​
3. Humility, nuance, doubt – she makes clear that she is still figuring things out all the time, and often gives a perfectly honest “What do I know?” She knows the world is complicated and always gives her critics a chance to teach her something. That doesn’t mean, though, that she does mushy “on the one hand” indecision. When she knows she’s right about a basic moral issue, she doesn’t equivocate. And while there’s a lot of irony in the presentation style itself, Contra is also deeply sincere, warm, and personal rather than cynical or superior.​
4. Lack of academic theory and alienating language – Contra is a former philosophy PhD student who dropped out of graduate school for
   exactly the right reasons (i.e. that academia is intellectually stifling and requires one to spend time producing highly-specialized pretentious irrelevancies that nobody will ever read or care about). When she explains the difference between use-value and exchange-value, she doesn’t do it by summarizing Capital, but by using the BuzzFeed video series Worth It in which three doofuses travel the world eating expensive but disappointing food. To illuminate free speech, she doesn’t throw Areopagitica at her audience, but uses clips from an It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia episode. Yet because Contra knows her philosophy, we also know she could cite Areopagitica if she felt like it. She excels at finding ways to make old ideas come alive and feel relevant to our actual lives, and she shows how one can be intellectual in the sense of loving to read and discuss philosophy and literature without being An Intellectual in the sense of being detached and useless.​
5. Total independence: Contra is supported through Patreon, meaning she’s entirely independent and free to say whatever the hell she pleases without having to satisfy advertisers or institutions. It creates a refreshing honesty. And it also means that no bad idea is safe from her criticism: she doesn’t have to mouth pieties or genuflect to the sacred leftist notions. (She’s simultaneously an ardent social justice feminist and a
   critic of the concept of cultural appropriation.)​
6. An actual sense of humor – One reason it’s sometimes hard to listen to leftists is that even when they’re absolutely correct, they can be sanctimonious and humorless. (I think Democracy Now is an extraordinary program and a valuable asset to journalism, but I dearly wish someone would tell a joke on there from time to time.) Contra is funny and delightful and weird, and she shows that you don’t have to be an idealogue or a buzzkill in order to believe that the world needs to be a more humane and just place. She’s a living demonstration of the compatibility of socialist politics with joie-de-vivre, wit, and occasional decadent indulgence. (Nobody could fear that her utopia would be dull or spartan; she’s clearly for a luxury left, which is the right kind of left).​

The project seems to be working so far. She’s got a healthy support base on Patreon and just hit 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, with millions of total views. It’s impressive considering that she seems to do nearly everything herself and has persisted while enduring a predictable torrent of transphobic abuse and vicious social media comments. I have to admire her sheer gutsiness in trudging into the right-wing cess pit, alone, as a transgender woman, and challenging them all to a serious debate. Who else is doing this? Who else would dare?
​

ContraPoints is, needless to say, not going to successfully counter the online right singlehandedly. I am sure her videos are too weird for some people and I wouldn’t use them to introduce, for example, my grandmother to left ideas. But if you watch her and wonder what on earth I’ve gotten you into, well, that was my first reaction too. She’s speaking to a very particular audience, though: young people on YouTube, the kind who could easily get taken in by bad ideas that go unrefuted. And she’s speaking to them in the language they understand; millennial humor is weird. Contra’s videos achieve something remarkable: they are entertaining enough to hold the attention of someone whose attention span has been destroyed by the internet, so that such an individual might even last through a 20-minute explanation of the modern-postmodern distinction or a tour through the history of residential segregation in Baltimore. I don’t think all leftist forays into online video should try to imitate Contra’s approach (for one thing, she’s inimitable), but they should definitely all take note of what she does. It’s smart, it’s persuasive, and it’s fun. More of this sort of thing, please. God bless ContraPoints. She’s a national treasure.

 

[Marvin]

View attachment 451209

Everybody needs to go out and buy lottery tickets today, Vice actually wrote an article without blaming Gamergate for something.

in b4 "Correction: This article failed to mention that gamergate misogynerd death squads have been killing trannies by the truckload."

 

[Grand Lunar]

Is now saying that she would never actually support legislation that would force people to use pronouns.
Bit of a backtrack from her free speech video in which she said free speech isn't really a thing because "hate speech" suppressed the speech of others, and therefore needs to be stopped.

Contrapoints is so clearly disingenuous and two-faced that I fail to see why people still take her seriously.

 

[VoreDoggy]

Is now saying that she would never actually support legislation that would force people to use pronouns.
Bit of a backtrack from her free speech video in which she said free speech isn't really a thing because "hate speech" suppressed the speech of others, and therefore needs to be stopped.

Contrapoints is so clearly disingenuous and two-faced that I fail to see why people still take her seriously.

That title hurts me. As I said earlier, memerson refers to postmodernism in the absolute relativism sense, and marxism in the "dude we're all equal so why rewarded unequally?" sense. Something tells me both are taken as given by these two gals.

It also sounds like daddy was right about the impacts of C16(misusing pronouns appears criminal), so that's worth noting.

 

[RichardMongler]

Am I alone in thinking ContraPoints kinda looks like a cleaner Rika?

 

[Hierophantis]

Is now saying that she would never actually support legislation that would force people to use pronouns.
Bit of a backtrack from her free speech video in which she said free speech isn't really a thing because "hate speech" suppressed the speech of others, and therefore needs to be stopped.

Contrapoints is so clearly disingenuous and two-faced that I fail to see why people still take her seriously.

There is absolutely no chance Contra is being honest, being slippery has worked so well. And in past videos has advocated for incrementalism and being purposely vague so people dont know what you want and you seem more reasonable

 

[Brain Problems]

Is now saying that she would never actually support legislation that would force people to use pronouns.
Bit of a backtrack from her free speech video in which she said free speech isn't really a thing because "hate speech" suppressed the speech of others, and therefore needs to be stopped.

Contrapoints is so clearly disingenuous and two-faced that I fail to see why people still take her seriously.

Starting to look like a soggy and greasy version of Narcissa

 

[Grand Lunar]

Just made another terrible Rubin Report parody to try and take a stab at Blaire White for "internalized transphobia."

Curiously, one of the accusations thrown at people like Blaire is that they advocate for "incrementalism," trying to show normies an "acceptable" image of trans people so that they can make short term gains while throwing the more "radical" activists under the bus.
Thing is, Contra herself has actually admitting to acting this way, associating&sympathizing with far left figures while pretending to be "friends" with/lying about her intentions to centrist types in hopes of swaying them.

She also seems to be saying that "internalized transphobia" is a result of trans women feeling insecure about being biologically male, and tearing other trans women down in order to feel better about their masculine features. Again, Contra herself has admitted to having this insecurity, but thinks the solution is to flat out deny it and make a bunch of BS arguments to deny the fact that trans women are biologically male. Every time she talks about this, it's always about how language can be used to influence people rather than about what is objectively true. She seems to think that if she and other trans people receive enough validation from other people, their insecurities will eventually go away, rather than simply get worse. The idea that someone like Blaire would be willing to concede obvious realities and stop basing her self worth on external approval is just foreign to Contra.

Overall, Contra appears to project her own behaviors and insecurities onto other people, because she just can't understand that not everyone operates under the same narrow mindset that she does.

 

[VoreDoggy]

Just made another terrible Rubin Report parody to try and take a stab at Blaire White for "internalized transphobia."

Curiously, one of the accusations thrown at people like Blaire is that they advocate for "incrementalism," trying to show normies an "acceptable" image of trans people so that they can make short term gains while throwing the more "radical" activists under the bus.
Thing is, Contra herself has actually admitting to acting this way, associating&sympathizing with far left figures while pretending to be "friends" with/lying about her intentions to centrist types in hopes of swaying them.

She also seems to be saying that "internalized transphobia" is a result of trans women feeling insecure about being biologically male, and tearing other trans women down in order to feel better about their masculine features. Again, Contra herself has admitted to having this insecurity, but thinks the solution is to flat out deny it and make a bunch of BS arguments to deny the fact that trans women are biologically male. Every time she talks about this, it's always about how language can be used to influence people rather than about what is objectively true. She seems to think that if she and other trans people receive enough validation from other people, their insecurities will eventually go away, rather than simply get worse. The idea that someone like Blaire would be willing to concede obvious realities and stop basing her self worth on external approval is just foreign to Contra.

Overall, Contra appears to project her own behaviors and insecurities onto other people, because she just can't understand that not everyone operates under the same narrow mindset that she does.

The bit that got me was where she just started talking about her nose being to masculine and getting a nosejob. It was incredibly transparent as just her issues.

 

[Tard]

Contra is really weird, why the fuck would you be friends with shoeOnhead then hate Blaire white? They make the same arguements except one is a tranny, and of the two she picked to hate the tranny

 

[Grand Lunar]

Contra is really weird, why the fuck would you be friends with shoeOnhead then hate Blaire white? They make the same arguements except one is a tranny, and of the two she picked to hate the tranny

It's mainly because Shoe has always been perceived as the "nicer" of the two, usually refraining from personal insults in her response videos to people. She was more open to using gender neutral pronouns from the beginning, and is more outspoken about LGBT support and general "liberal" values than Blaire. Additionally, Shoe endorsed Hilary Clinton over Trump while Blaire favored Trump to win.

Of course, the fact that Blaire is trans also plays a part here, as Contra clearly dislikes that Blaire is seen as the "good" trans person by many anti-SJWs and right wingers. In her mind Blaire is dangerous because she supposedly tolerates too much transphobia from her audience and from anti-SJW peers such as Bearing, and is thus a bigger threat to social change than someone like Shoe.

 

[Hierophantis]

Conflating "Cultural Marxism" with "Cultural Bolshevism" has been a recurring theme with left-wing YouTube pundits. Three Arrows has done this once before:


His take on Jordan Peterson is similar:

I saw his video on the Merkel-Refugee situation, essentially saying it isnt her fault as the plan was to share the refugees. Which misses the point that she still created a huge problem by acting so carelessly. He seems to miss the point a lot. The question is if he misses the point intentionally, as you say, they do that a lot to pretend the ideology called 'cultural marxism' cant exist based on some imagine contradiction in the name.

It's not a particularly good label for the ideology, gives them a lot of room to do that. For another example of this, if you watch Contra's video about Peterson, he essentially just chides Peterson for using a vague term like postmodernism. The problem is people like Contra use vague terms all the time to suggest things they dont want to explicitly say.

'Coding' is a big one I've noticed. They use it to imply people are bigots and when called out on it say it's just a neutral term...but they should still work on how they view the world or they're choosing to be a willful bigot

It's mainly because Shoe has always been perceived as the "nicer" of the two, usually refraining from personal insults in her response videos to people. She was more open to using gender neutral pronouns from the beginning, and is more outspoken about LGBT support and general "liberal" values than Blaire. Additionally, Shoe endorsed Hilary Clinton over Trump while Blaire favored Trump to win.

Of course, the fact that Blaire is trans also plays a part here, as Contra clearly dislikes that Blaire is seen as the "good" trans person by many anti-SJWs and right wingers. In her mind Blaire is dangerous because she supposedly tolerates too much transphobia from her audience and from anti-SJW peers such as Bearing, and is thus a bigger threat to social change than someone like Shoe.

Yea this is basically it. I mean, this is why Contra is fine appearing on Roaming Millennial. Because Roaming is soft and wont put up a challenge. Shoe also wont challenge Contra for a variety of reasons.

Or who knows, maybe it's jealousy

 

[LetterlandMafia]

Contra is really weird, why the fuck would you be friends with shoeOnhead then hate Blaire white? They make the same arguements except one is a tranny, and of the two she picked to hate the tranny

I think Contra has openly said in the past she views Shoe as a pawn rather than a friend, either to get her message out to a less-receptive audience or simply thinks Shoe is more open to winning over than others are. Contra's only interest is converting people, and because Blaire is 'too far gone' she ain't interested.

Contra and Tim Blake make up two of the more interesting SJWs. They have a knack for getting close to people they disagree with and may even openly attack from time to time, yet are still regarded by these people as likeable and reasonable. Tim especially is a great example of this because he's held up as a 'reasonable SJW' when all I ever see him do is troll and mock people, and I think there's a reason Contra talks a lot about influencing people too. They're slimy motherfuckers for sure.

 

[Grand Lunar]

Yea this is basically it. I mean, this is why Contra is fine appearing on Roaming Millennial. Because Roaming is soft and wont put up a challenge. Shoe also wont challenge Contra for a variety of reasons.

Contra and Tim Blake make up two of the more interesting SJWs. They have a knack for getting close to people they disagree with and may even openly attack from time to time, yet are still regarded by these people as likeable and reasonable.

Why Shoe continues to associate with Contra is anyone's guess. Shoe openly referred to Contra as a friend multiple times and Contra allowed her to believe that, and then as soon as she was challenged on it Contra immediately declared that Shoe was just a "colleague" and that she only interacts with her in hopes of changing her positions. Instead of immediately dumping Contra, it appears Shoe negotiated with her and agreed to go after TERFs more in exchange for maintaining their "friendship."
To a lesser extent, Contra has acted this way towards Roaming Millennial and Sargon, being friendly with them in debates/conversations but going right back to talking about them as "enemies" whenever brought up by her progressive friends.

As for why they won't challenge her much, I'd say it's mainly just because Contra is one of the only SJWs that's open to discussion at all. Anti-SJWs have always been desperate for the chance to debate their opposition in any way, and will sadly make way too many concessions in hopes that they'll cooperate.

 

[Hierophantis]

As for why they won't challenge her much, I'd say it's mainly just because Contra is one of the only SJWs that's open to discussion at all. Anti-SJWs have always been desperate for the chance to debate their opposition in any way, and will sadly make way too many concessions in hopes that they'll cooperate.

I actually just dont think Roaming and Sargon are smarter than Contra. I agree with them more but there it is

 

[Grand Lunar]

I actually just dont think Roaming and Sargon are smarter than Contra. I agree with them more but there it is

I would consider Contra to be vastly overrated on how "smart" she supposedly is. She has the type of social intelligence that it takes to play the game and to manipulate people, but is seriously lacking in rational thinking ability. My first exposure to her was her debate with Blaire White, and throughout it I had a hard time processing some of the idiotic things she said (ie. when she told Blaire that conceding the obvious reality that a surgical "vagina" doesn't function the same way as a real one was wrong, because when reality hurts a trans person's feelings it needs to be ignored). I would say that RM and Sargon both make better arguments for their positions, but to each his own I guess.