whatintheheck
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2019
I didn't see anyone post this but found I found it funny, Contra posts about how hard it is being a millionaire who only makes a video every month and a half and how unreasonable it is for people to expect her to actually produce more content.
![]()
Natalie Wynn 🔜 VidCon on Twitter: "A lot of people on here nag me ab…
archived 8 Jul 2019 18:29:05 UTCarchive.fo
Some highlights:
View attachment 835204
Contra has to shop for his videos! How horrible, it must be such a pain to go out and find new shitty drag queen outfits. Just go to any thrift store and find whatever tacky outfits they have then walk through a mist of glitter and boom you have your typical contra drag queen look for the new video.
View attachment 835222
The horror, can you imagine having to read 20 articles or a book for a video? Also reading a few things doesn't make you an expert on a topic, Contra.
View attachment 835229
How fucking lazy are you contra? It takes you 4 full days to write a 5,000-word script when you have 20+ sources usually to work from?
View attachment 835233
View attachment 835210
Apparently Theyrn "helps" Contra edit his scripts and audio, aka I imagine he just gives all that work off to Theyrn. Something tells me he probably doesn't even pay Theyrn at all since Theyrn is like a cult-like follower of Contra now.
They stick to the view that because the government is right-wing that somehow justifies their stance against "the man". Even though pretty much all major corporations support their agenda, which arguably a lot more concerning than a government that changes views every 4-8 years depending on who's the current leader. I am looking forward to the mental gymnastics they'll play next time the liberals win and have control over both the government and most big corporations
I mean you already have to be seriously deluded to be able to google Contrapoints and look at the news section to see nothing but praise pieces of him as the "killer of the alt-right" and still believe that you're the underdog.
In the tweet comments re: Wynn's video filming and production process, Big Joel and Peter Coffin responded with asspats galore -- more examples showing how Breadtube is a big hugbox echo-chamber.
I actually tried to give Wynn some benefit of the doubt by listening to a left-leaning podcast today: The Michael Brooks Show, with special guest Contra Points. In this episode, they talked about how 'problematic' and 'bigoted' Jordan Peterson is, while not really engaging in any of his actual arguments -- or at least in good faith. They tried to argue that his commentary re: women wearing makeup in the workplace is an example of the 'motte and bailey fallacy' and that he's somehow arguing for women to universally go back to being homemakers, and that because Peterson's political views are skewed a bit further right than their own, he's somehow in league with the alt-right and also validating overtly homophobic, transphobic and otherwise bigoted stances. Essentially, they're confusing a small portion of Peterson's audience for Peterson himself, which is completely unfair given that *anything* sufficiently popular is going to have some douchebags among its fanbase.
I think they're just misunderstanding what Peterson's saying, or at least not being charitable with their interpretations. If you take almost *anything* somebody says completely out of its context, it's easy enough to frame someone as supporting an odious viewpoint. I'm personally not a huge Peterson fanboy, but I think he has a more grounded and realistic stance on politics, and his lectures on psychology have been particularly helpful to a large audience of disaffected youth -- certainly moreso than could be said of Breadtube as a whole, which alternatively seems to primarily sow discontent and promote fractionation and increased alienation and bitterness among its audience.
I would agree with the general sentiment that Peterson often loses the plot whenever he starts yapping about stuff outside his realm of expertise (psychology), but when he IS talking about psychology and self help he's offering a legitimately positive and useful message -- and also doing a much, much better job of re-radicalizing younger men from going full-blown alt-right. Given that Peterson AND Wynn are concerned with 'talking people off the edge' from being radicalized to the far right, I just don't see why Breadtube has so many problems and hangups with Peterson. They're both trying to achieve the same goal in that regard, albeit through different approaches -- and Peterson's method seems to be reaching a much wider audience and achieving that goal more effectively. So is it just jealousy? Why don't they just accept that people are receptive to different messages, and if the ultimate goal of de-radicalization is the same, why be so critical of someone that seems to be doing some good?
Regarding the makeup issue, I thought this psychiatrist had a particularly intelligent take on the matter:
The Last Psychiatrist: No Self-respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Makeup