Vloggers Mugs | Redbubble

My big fat cancelling critique

Hear ye, Hear ye, Contrapoints stans, fans, casual consumers and detractors all, I present to you a more full critique of the video "Cancelling" than I have ever published before.
[I'm nobody's stan -- a preamble]
While I was slowly re-watching the video and writing this critique, I got accused by a Contra-stan of being an EssenceOfThought-stan. And also a lying, disingenuous piece of shit. It was in a thread that talked about this really toxic atmosphere brewing on /breadtube and /contrapoints in which anybody who makes a video about Natalie is magically responsible for a new campaign of harassment. And this has spread to Natalie's defenders. People are saying that EoT personally mounted a harassment campaign against PigPuncher (now xanderhal, @xanderhaltv) and got him mass reported off twitter. And it just doesn't ring true to me, nonetheleast b/c xanderhal said himself that the alt-right has mass reported and swatted him in waves for the last couple years.
It's a real problem that there are stans who think everybody is either a stan or a nobody right now. Look, I'm not an EoT stan, even though I'm citing two of their videos in this critique. I have made some firm criticisms of his first video, read my profile for yourselves. When I received and posted Chrisiousity's video, EoT dropped a third drama-bomb of a video and I started to watch it. I stopped after 8 minutes because I already found EoT making one big mistake, and one really shitty line.
First, EoT says that Natalie is only talking about post-Opulence backlash, and thus accuses her of lying about a timeline on some tweets. They're just wrong.
Second, EoT says "Natalie has a fragile ego."
In the very least, this line is hack. Everybody's ego is fragile. That's freshment psychology 101, it's how egos are, it's a feature. It's just saying somebody is being too fragile, and that's an attack on character.
Second, it's fucking mean. It's mean in a general sense. And it's mean in a more personal sense, and I'll tell you why.
I'll mention this later, but I was what I call a first-generation youtube skeptic/atheist. Youtube was founded in 2006, and by 2008, peaking around 2010, we had a thriving group of what the media would call "New Atheists" on youtube. I can drop you a huge list of names, and it's still at most 20% of what was out there. I never made a single video, though I did have a webcam for a short while and regularly hanged out in Stickam with a dozen members of the Rational Response Squad. At first I fell for Pat Condell's shit. I was a big fan of Thunderf00t until his feud with DawahFilms. I apologize to the world. Sincerely. Look, what I want you to take from this is that I've come to be seen as redeemed by many feminists on reddit and beyond, and I think that Natalie is even more redeemable than I. I'm not trying to be a hater. This is constructive criticism.
But also back then, there was Natalie. Under a different channel whose title contains her deadname. I've linked to three different videos on parasocial relationships. Lemme tell you, I've been through 'em. Some that have had intense influence on my daily life, many others not so much. Natalie was, until she started Contrapoints, somewhere in the middle.
From what I've seen over the last 10 years, Natalie has every reason to be sensitive. Fragile, even. I've seen Natalie make meatspace friends with a few of these fellow atheist/skeptics, and they traveled and dined and chilled with one another. They even pulled a couple New Atheist stunts that backfired. Even contributed to a musical collab, which is still funny.
I've seen the community fragment and bubble and burst and burn and mutate. Basically I've watched Natalie lose friends and get hurt, as with many others. And with 10 years of experience, I can look back at old videos where Natalie's old self can be found, and see the unhappiness that she's described.
EssenceOfThought pulling the "fragile ego" line is frankly toxic. EoT only has 2 years of very hard work to look at, and 2 years of public transformation and transition. And EoT seems to assume that the quality of work a youtuber puts out is porportional to how head-above-water they are when it comes to stress levels and strength of will, and wealth of support. And that's wrong.
It's callous. You can't just assume things about people's accumulated life trauma. Calling people fragile as an insult, I've come to find, is morally wrong, because it calls that we celebrate stoic strength as a virtue. And it's always punching down. Every time it's punching down. Looking at somebody who's feeling vulnerable, and going "gross, you're vulnerable!" And EoT has done this despite listening to Natalie talking about a lack of friends in the world. I can't actually name many meatspace acquaintences of hers, much less good friends, besides {Theryn, Olly, Lindsay Ellis, Jenny Nicholson, other people in the few photos with Lindsay and Jenny maybe, Riley and Fiona, Chelsea Manning, Dan Olson, innuendostudios, hbomb...}. Can you? And how long distance most of those are! Almost all of them are expensive-distance. It sucks.
I stopped watching EoT's third video shortly after 8 minutes when they said that, becuase I was just disgusted. And as I said in Chrisiousity's comment section, it looks like a sign to me that in EoT's focus on Natalie the past month, Natalie has evolved in their mind from a popular creator with a specific and powerfully effective flaw, to an outright Adversary, capital-A included. And that's sad. It's the wrong way to go. In early drafts, I refrenced the first two videos because there's a lot of good points made in them. But EoT grows more combative over time and by the third video steps out of line.
So no, I'm not a stan for EssenceOfThought, and I'm not a hater of Natalie Wynn. I've even removed all but one future reference to them from this critique (if I got my editing correct). Even though you'll find that some of the faults I find with the video are the same or similar to EoT's video(s), I don't attribute malice to the flaws as EoT does, now that I've looked back at it. In fact, I'm cancelling my subscription to EssenceOfThought on that alone. It's that gross. Natalie's one overriding flaw is so common and comes from such a human place of vulnerability, I just cannot stand to any further advocate somebody's who's making her such a devil. Shit on Buck angel all you want, EoT, but Natalie is not out to be the monster that jumps out of the closet to bite at enbys. If EoT could re-make his Buck Angel video so as to leave Natalie out of it, that'd be good. As it is though... yeargh.
I still don't think EoT is leading report/harassment brigades. I think the brigaders just love EoT incidentally. EoT is boosting them, but not leading them. But that's enough.
I'm just a dude who thinks this one video, Cancelling, and the cameo in Opulence, did way more harm than she thinks. Than you think. And I think she's capable of coming to understand it, and so are you.
[Reese's Theses]
I have to agree with Chrisiousity and say that when you're doing an essay, written or video, when you're making a case, an argument, you need to leave hyperbole out of the thesis. The entire introduction, even. At least the paragraph the thesis resides in. Because what you're doing is priming.
Hyperbole is lacking in clarity. You're inviting bad interpretations and you create claims you don't know you're making when you do that. It says things whether you intend to or not. Stop it. Everybody stop it.
On the guillotine metaphor specifically: I don't think Natalie meant that cancel culture is like the guillotine in that we are meaning to murder people. All she wanted to point out was the similarity in which a tool for justice became corrupted by people who want to use it purely for the spectacle (trolling) or people who come to believe in a great expansion of enumerable crimes that deserve the max punishment (improper discretization). Natalie could've used a different punishment for the juxtaposition. Prison could serve, as cancelling is nominally a form of isolation. Or perhaps a pillory? But then again, in her defense: with the example of August Ames, Cancelling has lead to death. Or at least hastened it?
Nobody's going to be satisfied with any kind of metaphor in this case because "cancel culture" is decentralized and leaderless. If it had centralization and a written manifesto, we would be better able to describe what she's talking about in existing language : "mission drift." This is a phrase that does exist in activist lexicon. Originally intended to apply to evangelical missionaries (hence the name), I've seen an amibiguated version applied to many other kinds of activism.
This is just what happens when you work without an editor and you drink while making a video. It's not that bad.
[When is cancel culture not cancel culture? When it's ajar!]
I disagree with the claim that cancel culture sprang from "Black Twitter." Though obviously it is a re-branding of "call-out culture." Frankly I don't see anything that hasn't happened before the internet and basically any boycott in American history.
Search for callout culture on any specific social justice subreddit, search it on twitter, search all reddit or just google it... raise your hand if you never heard the word "cancel culture" until a right-wing pseudo-centrist grifter was making strawmen of it (including Obama) like it's the end of the world? I remember lots talk about call-out culture before. How black is it? Did it really come from black twitter? It makese sense that it came more from women. But specifically black women? We need help verifying this.
[James Charles pt. I: Tati]
In Tati's full video, she gives more details than simply the claim, "James Charles tries to trick straight men into thinking they're gay" (with secondary implied extension, "to trick them into sex of dubious consent"):
Natatlie's short little list does mention that cancel-crowds abstract away details, but the fact is Natalie presents the case without the details herself. She makes it seem like Tati never presents these details and that the backlash against James Charles was mostly devoid of said details. Natalie says that the only appropriate claim would read, "Tati accuses Charles of 'trying to trick straight men into thinking they're gay.'"
I think we can see that Natalie is in fact omitting details herself. And that's wrong.
It may be true that every wave of backlash, whether it be black-twitter-specific "cancel culture" or generic backlashes for all kinds of beginnings, will have a dishearteningly-large proportion of people who have joined it only for the spectacle and will not bother with the details. But Natalie has presented us with the following argument.
  1. Tati never used the words "sexual predator."
  2. Cancellers are using the words "sexual predator."
  3. Therefore, the backlash against James Charles is necessarily vacuous, and
  4. It is simply Tati wanting to eliminate a competitor.
The case of, "People have heard details that they believe are aptly summed by the words 'sexual predator'" has been dismissed out of hand, out of sight, and out of mind. That's wrong.
As for the phenomenon of the outrage itself, there are many possible dots to connect into a coherent or incoherent narrative map of weighted segments, to tell what has happened This could be a little bad I admit, but let's lump the dots into starting points and end points. First, the starting points:
And then the endpoints, categories of cancellers that:
I say every line you draw from a starting point to an endpoint is a valid hypothesis to test, and some of them can exist simultaneously because the outrage was not monolithic. And it's simply up to yourself, reader, to ascribe percentages to each line until you think you've accounted for the whole picture. That would be an honest description. And it's not what Natalie's done.
There is a bit of ambiguity in Tati's video. What does it mean to "behave sexually in [your] favor," when she speaks to James? Does she mean that these men "performed sexual favors," as the euphemism goes, meaning they performed sexual acts with james, including things such as petting, kissing, handjobs, blowjobs, receiving or giving anal penetration, rimming, etc? Or does it mean dressing and behaving flirtatiously in a very explicit manner? The list is full of assault and rape. The other option is not. And we have to ask ourselves: would or wouldn't Tati use the word "rape"? Is Tati too flustered from the extemperaneous speaking to remember or not? But that's still besides the point, it's not specifically what's wrong or right with Natalie's video and claims.
Next up on what shouldn't have been done: Nat compares two sentences, and claims that they are contradictory.
Because the first is something James' behavior, and the second is his character. Look, let's cut the bullshit, folks. Whether or not one succeeds in their attempt to abuse somebody does not have bearing on the fact that what they are doing is toxic and manipulative. This entire part of the video was bullshit. These actions do make one a bad person. This is just how the words 'toxic' and 'manipulative' fucking work. That's how using adjectives works.
When you listen to a radio personality describe a wolf failing to catch a deer this one time, do we stop describing the wolf as a predator? Was it not trying to catch prey just b/c it didn't succeed? Do we even need to hear the word "wolf" to know we're talking about a predator? Obviously, no. We know what hunting prey looks like. We can tell when two animals surprise and attack each other vs when a predator stalks and attacks.
Fuck's sake, y'all. If I swing at you and miss, do people get to say I wasn't violent towards you?! Would somebody that witnessed this happen often be wrong in describing me as violent? That's the shit you're doing with the James Charles thing!
Contrary to what Natalie says, this is not essentialism in action. An argument from essentialism would go the other way. It would begin with the belief that James Charles is a sexual predator, and then it would pick something he "would do," and transform the "would" into a "did." That is how essentialism works, and why it is problematic.
And no doubt, because so many people join outrage for the spectacle of it, b/c they just listen uncritically when dopamine says "go," there are some who went that route. But Natalie presents essentialist argumentation backwards (at this point), and gives the idea that essentialism is all we've got. Neither are correct.
Finally, Natalie brings up that we have the phrase "believe the victim" these days, and presents the James Charles cancelling as a case about why that idea is dangerous. But there's the thing: we're not talking about a backlash that was believing victims. What's been presented is cancellers believing a witness. Natalie has made the error -- and encouraged her audience to do so as well -- of disbelieving a witness and following from that, disbelieving plaintiffs (the victims) before hearing from them; in the very least, dismissing their part in the directino the outrage took, wrongfully describing the outraged as having only heard from Tati. Do I really need to explain how dangerous and unethical that is? Seems like maybe we need to have that discussion, too, by the way y'all are defending every second of this video no matter what. I mean seriously: if I had not linked to Carmie Sellitto above, would any of you stans know who he is? I just do not see a lot of you stans quoting the alleged victims and making a case of James's innocence from that. No, you just go with "I don't like the way twitterers sounded, so Tati must be lying and James is innocent." That is not good epistemology, and it's not a good way of systemic justice reform.
[James Charles pt. II]
Natalie goes on to discuss twitters that react to the un-cancellers by pointing out that they still think that JC is a racist transphobe.
First there's the issue that some of these people maybe are the type who never heard of JC before Tati's video, and have retroactively heard talk of JC saying transphobic and racist things. But I really think if one is to make the case that this is the default for people calling JC "transphobe" and "racist," that has to be shown, and not just claimed. And I think that Natalie has attributed this behavior to essentialism, when really it's at worst people who don't want to research properly.
What we're talking about here is improper discretization, or stratification, when it comes to determining when we say a person "is a transphobe" vs "has ignorant views about trans people, gender, and sexuality." There does need to be a distinction between a person who's preoccupied with their bigotry and pontificates on it by compulsion, vs a young person speaking ignorantly, albeit earnestly. If you want to name discrete steps on the journey from innocence and ignorance to full blown x-phobe, you need a lot more steps than what we're commonly presented with, which is rarely more than two. So what Natalie says 14:30 to 17:22 is good.
And she gets essentialism right this time. This is how essentialism is built. Manly men are manly, x-phobic example x-phobe full time. People start to affirm their bias by making an essentialist extrapolation and justifying it backwards. Not quite the same as what happened above in my review here. This is, "oh he's a transhpobe? So of course he said transphobic things, what else can you expect?" And that attitude leads to reading any other honestly ignorant statement being seen as just super hardcore fetishized bigotry Y bubbling to the surface. That is the essentialism that really does lead to trope 5. He's essentially this, so he's also essentially that. Nat nails this one.
[Fucking Ebola]
The ebola joke isn't "the same vague conceptual area as certain racist tropes." It is flat out a racist trope. Anybody remember "Ugandan Knuckles?" Yeah. The people who loved that shit also didn't give one shit that tongue-clicking languages in Africa didn't come near Uganda. There are other viruses one could associate with Africa that are much more wide spread and common, such as Malaria, and afflictions such Dysentery, but no.
The ebola joke is itself a very clear example of racist essentialism. Because for the joke to work, all of the continent of Africa is Africa, wink-wink. Like, all the different countries in it and how big it is... too-long-didn't-read. It's all the same. That's what's required for the joke to work. And it went exactly how Natalie describes it: to the most extreme example.
I really thought this is something Natalie would know better about given her wonderful video "America: Still Racist." And I sure as hell hope she's getting it by now, what with people whose heritage comes from all over the continent of Asia being attacked as suspects of coronavirus.
Even in JC's apology, he's just "traveling to Africa." Fucking where in Africa, JC?! This is definitely something you should be able to handle before you jump on the plane. The very same racist essentialism the joke is based on is still the same racist essentialism his apology stands on.
But sometimes call-out culture doesn't get it. I can't find any news stories that give a shit about thinking the whole continent of Africa is one country. Statistically 0 people so far have mentioned it, in my experience. And things like that are why I don't think cancel culture came from Black Twitter.
Again let me point out: "Two years ago James made a joke that referenes his fear of getting ebola in Africa" "James made a racist joke" is not abstraction. It's summary. Er... Natalie doesn't use "abstraction" the same way I ever would.
[Connecting dots: a challenger appears]
19:44 Natalie rightfully acknowledges (and is very knowledgeable about!) wolves in SJW clothing "signal-boosting" call-outs if it's against a minority person. But I think this should've been mentioned much sooner. It's really contradictory to what Natalie presented as the bulk of call-outs against JC. Suddenly there's a bit of nuance, where before there was not.
[Buck Angel]
Just read Buck Angel's twitter feed to see what a total shithouse he is. Besties with Graham Linehan and Blaire white, demanding the enby community answer for a single sex offender (Rain Dove) and accusing the whole enby community of idolizing them, all kinds of heinous shit. He's totally truscum, and the stans' defense is just inexcusable.
Why do I think Natalie keeps defending Buck when she shouldn't? The same reason stans are doing it for her: "Not my Nigel!" see link above. We all have been guilty of it and will be guilty of it for something in the future. Including me. As I said in preamble, I was a first generation atheist/skeptic youtube shitbird. Trust me. I know it when I see it. Nobody wants to believe their friend is that problematic. We all have some sort of parasocial relationship. Read links above. This is the one overriding flaw I mentioned.
But on EoT's second video, I did leave the following comment, which explains how I used to agree with Natalie more on the subject than I do now:
I've failed to understand how some of Natalie's work has harmed NB people. Mostly I've restricted my view to whether or not Natalie directly said something about NB people or the NB category. But that's not right.
A problem occurs in "The Aesthetic", in two parts. First, because it does seem like Justine wins the debate. I didn't see it that way, I just saw it as she had more to say, because that position takes longer to explain than "if we say we are then we are." But I had really forgotten something. In cinematic language, in movies, tv, the debate sphere and youtube all alike, "winning" in a debate is when you overpower your opponent. When you get to finally do your Finishing Move, the long-winded tirade that makes your adversary sit down and shut up.
It's not just Ben Shapiro that does this, it's not just the alt right and the grifters. It's often this way for lefists, too. Pwning republicans and religious zealots alike. Dan points this out in his "alt right playbook" series, Never Play Defense, 6:50 -- the clip from that tv show (West Wing) where the U.S. president makes the fundamentalist lady sit down and shut up, defeated. We like to think we don't think we see winning the way Shapiro does, when you make somebody do a 'wtf' o-face and hesitate, but often we do. more than often enough.
So, meaning to or not, Natalie had Justine do her Finishing Move and win the debate. I don't think that's winning a debate, I eventually grew out of that attitude and have not appreciated it in some time. But I let myself forget that in the real world, that's what counts for winning in people's minds, and it's very much in the cinematic language.
Part 2 is exactly like you explain, EoT, and sadly I didn't think of it. People who think that gender is performative do consistently misname, misgender, and passive/active-agressively disregard the feelings of NB people because they "don't act like the gender they claim to be, or "act like the gender they say they aren't." Performativity is, in real life, a weapon used against NB people. Binary trans people too, but it kind of never stops for NB people. It's worse.
But does that make Justine a transmedicalist? Well, no. But I'm willing to bet now that there were many more people, a greater proportion, who did not say that Justine was transmedicalist. Rather there were probably more people who said that by having the performativity advocate win the debate, Natalie glorified the most common weapon used against NB people. And when Natalie, in "Cancelling," makes it seem like the former claim is the primary or only claim, she was again either egregiously lazy in her research or outright lying. Definitely disingenuous, and definitely continuing the harm.
This even extends to Buck Angel and his attacks on his ex. Let's draw a venn diagram! Maybe not all performative theorists are trans medicalists. But all trans medicalists use it to attack NB people. And when NB people get undue skepticism thrown at them it's often in the form of "but you don't dress like the gender you say you are," which is basically to say, "So you're crossdressing? Weirdo!" So despite what I said in a reddit thread, it's pretty reasonable to extrapolate that from Buck's current truscummery, that attack too was enbyphobic.
Hey, third edit, here's some more: Maybe we should also consider three more things:
(1) that there are plenty of NB people who've never experienced an instance of being described as a crossdresser from somebody who wasn't pushing performative-theory, and
(2) What if there are more people who identify as NB who crossdress, than those who crossdress but don't.
(3) Shitty attacks on crossdressing or "incorrect performance" by default harm more NB people than not.
Dear enbys,
I formally apologize for not getting it, and for also causing harm by defending it in a couple /contrapoints threads. I will try to be better.
[Slurs Are Still Gross]
Please let's not accept "cunty" into our lexicon. Even in supposed jest like this. Ugh. It feels like this will be used unironically in the future and I don't look forward to it happily.
[I think, therefore I tran]
After she stops that, it suddenly gets good. Like, snap of the finger.
I just dealt with The Aesthetic in that youtube comment, incidentally. The video did something truly by accident in the way that I said, and it's forgivable. It's perfectly redeemable, and so is Natalie. I'm 90% with Natalie on this one. She forgot one thing about media language. Her haters forgot most things about media language.
Natalie grew out of the first tweet she apologizes for. That's awesome. She doesn't need to apologize for it, IMO, and she doesn't. Ring that bell, gorge.
[Boymode gals]
Natalie is correct that the tweet is out of context. It was part of a conversation, a narrative in which Natalie was surprised in her early exploration that some trans people not only do not dress androgynously or conventionally aligned with their self-identified pronouns, but can often have styles that seem coded entirely the other direction. Natalie is describing the experience of becoming aware of the error. The haters have completely misunderstood this.
The context was about generational differences in trans expression. What you haters need to understand is that people of Natalie's age (my age) have experienced harsher and more prevalent social attacks on trans identities, with less to none of the out reach that younger people have had access to in the 2010's. It was a lonelier experience with much less exploration and expression allowed, and it really does create different trauma and thought processes.
People are built different. Not just from the womb, but from the environment in which they grew up. Respect the build.
DING, motherfuckers.
[Leftist discord servers in spaaaaace!]
^ That's a Muppets reference. See how we're a different generation?
Good apology. noice. But not perfect. Gosh. We've listened to politicians faux-pologize for so long we aren't aware we're emulating them. Leave out the "if you felt trivialized by it" part, Natalie. They're triviliazed by it whether they're aware of the video or not.
*Less enthusiastic ding.*
[Pronoun Rodeo]
This tweet was perfectly fine. Even when one misunderstands the sarcasm and thinks Natalie was way more angry than she actually was. Pronoun circles are an adaptation to awareness of the false cis/binary hegemony. And adaptation comes with a cost. And it's fine to gripe at a skin rash. She said nothing wrong.
[Last of the Old-School Transsexuals]
I said before that I myself couldn't make sense of this line. But now I can see it's referencing the same thread from the girl-in-boymode tweet. Only she didn't really connect it to that other thread in any way, so the connective tissue is completely absent. It's only visible now because Natalie happened to juxtapose them in two contiguous video segments. I don't think she should apologize for this one.
[♪ Maybe it was me who was fucking up ♫ - "Hurt" - Oliver Tree]
53:40 -ish. "Maybe tomorrow he [Buck] will say fuck nonbinary people, and I'll have fucked up."
Well, he has gone on to practically french kiss Graham Linehan on twitter, loves Blaire White, and as I pointed out in another /contrapointsdrama thread, demanded that the enby community answer for a supposed enby icon doing a bad thing once in his young past, which is a great big trio of middle fingers to nonbinary folk.
[The Soy Luck Club]
I'll just copypaste much of what I said before about the vidcon 2017 events, but add a little too:
Natalie, there's something I really want to get through to your brain, and it just hasn't happened yet. Know that "nice to me IRL they're not problematic on a level worth confronting" fallacy I mentioned above? The alt-right shitlords don't reciprocate it, at least not in the same way. They just increase their own self worth and validation. If you're nice to them IRL, for any reason, they will only concede in some amount to something very specific that personally made you upset on that day on that brunch. But then they escalate everything else because you became "one of the good ones," and they get to have their extra recruitment ammo of "see? some lefty loves me! the others are just haters and their evidence made up!". and that's just what they've done if they managed to keep up a regularly active youtube channel.
please. stop. feeding. that. beast. That brunch is regrettable. A confrontational livestream is one thing. The brunch is another.
I don't know why you are so unaware, Natalie. you validated their harassment during the harassment. Their presence at vidcon, every single second of it, was harassment, and you sat with the figurative dog-whistling wolves in their zoot suits and chummed it up . And you have never bothered to listen to this fact. "because they were nice to me IRL."
* (The above imagery is derived from old cartoons the youngest here probably haven't seen.)
sargon, armoredskeptic, shoe0nhead, chris raygun, etc all, in total more than a dozen, went to they could occupy blocks of chairs so that Anita Sarkeesian couldn't ignore their presence. That's what Anita was reacting to when she referred to sargon as a "garbage human" in a live panel.
Even during the brunch, they sat together so as to create a space that Anita couldn't also occupy (or avoid seeing), to keep her out of the dining area, because everything she says and does can and will be used against her in the court of alt-right law. They travel in groups to any panel she's in or wants to watch so that they can't be ignored and make Anita upset about what new youtube/twitter harassment onslaught is about to be faced not only by her, but anybody she positively associates with at the con. And you joined them. You couldn't see through it. You bought the "nice to you irl" bait, and you harassed Anita Sarkeesian. There, that's the reality of it, why I'm still bringing this up myself after 2 years. You may have been unaware of it at the time, but you were harassing Anita Sarkeesian. It's not. ok. I just do not want for you to bring up that brunch and not be confronted about it.
Just so you readers out there understand why Natalie even mentioned Laci Green, why people have compared Natalie and Laci: it's because Laci started dating Chris Raygun, accepted a shitty fake apology from SargonOfAkkad, and changed her mind on all trans issues, and this all happened at that same vidcon.
[The Theryn Parsons Project]
Get it? Because it's Theryn, and Alan Parsons Project, the band? Fuck you, I'm funny!
Has anybody watched Shoe0nHead the last 2 years? Fuck no, she didn't evolve as a better person. Even now that she's trying to pander to the left on her "brainlet" channel, she's still a turd. And "Brainlet" is a 4chan meme. She's just grifting still. There are plenty of breadtube members who fall for this, too.
[Twitter, the clogged shitter]
Do any of these twitters understand what the difference is between grift and just asking for compensation for hard work? Doesn't seem like it.
Yes it's still a huge deal that Natalie doesn't want to see Buck for what he is. But clearly , contrary to what many alt-right concern trolls would have us believe about their baby bigots, Natalie really is a person for whom honey attracts more cooperation than vinegar. We really could've sat down with Natalie and demonstrated what's wrong with Buck Angel in a civilized manner. But instead yer jumping to this 'grifer', 'terf' & 'truscum' charges and stuff? No wonder Natalie identifies with James Charles (outside of the intern abuse). Y'all jumped straight from "She's made a mistake" to "Contrapoints is the devil, Bobby Boucher!" with no point in between.
And no wonder she wants to avoid looking into it as long as possible - giving this type of twitter an inch yields a mile more bullshit abuse. Y'all aren't just cutting your cord -- you're making a cat-and-nine-tails and whipping mutaneers.
Lindsay Ellis went into a hospital to deal with the abuse people were giving her before Opulence. And this is how you deal with her being associated with Natalie? This isn't cancelling. This is witch hunting.
What I'm doing here is legitimate critique. What twitter is doing is not.
People who do activism on Twitter inevitably turn into reactionary shitheads. We should ALL quit Twitter. I've been through this with the first-generation youtube atheists/skeptics, too! I watched at least three sub-communities crumble because they couldn't correctly put together twitter timelines, soundbites, DMs, and private facebook groups into coherent narratives, and they all drove themselves into extinction. Which I'm sure Natalie may have also watched glumly, and I don't blame her for not wanting to live through that multiple times.
And likewise, when a mob is at my doorstep demanding I condemn Buck Angel to save myself from Cancellation... No!
That's just it, isn't it? Y'all could just cancel your subscription, announce why, convince others to, and move on. You can make videos all about Buck Angel, that don't witch hunt any of his followers, and present it casually all over the internet until it works. If you successfully succeed in canceling her, she loses all her money, she stops making the videos, and you can move on. But you don't do that. You come to her over and over, with your carrot and stick, and demand she dance. You're not acting like she's a person in power who needs a strong public response. You're showing that you have the power and want to use it not for public good but for personal gratification. This is indeed how a mob behaves. But y'all think you're marching on Washington.
I've checked. There have never, ever been so many videos or tweets made in anger about Buck Angel until Opulence. There is no reason to make it seem like association with Natalie Wynn is inflating his influence to such a dangerous level as to warrant this. If Buck was so goddamn bad, you wouldn't need the help of bashing Contrapoints. The jump would never have happened if you thought that. Now that I know about him, I do think he's that bad. But you don't!
And I don't care that you can say that Natalie has been showing up on NPR and news outlets. Know who else has done that? Anita Sarkeesian. Anita went all the way to the fucking U.N.. And how much influence does she have on any of your lives? A hair above zero, that's what. Y'all think you're better than gamergaters or the republicans bashing Greta Thunberg? Nah. Ya ain't.
There are a few youtubers who have made some OK, good-faith critiques. But you twitter folk are garbage humans.
I don't have anything negative to say about the rest of the video.
submitted by Aerik to u/Aerik [link] [comments]

Binary Options Trading Software Development Solutions  Chetu binaryoptionsdaily - YouTube vloggers on youtube MAKE MONEY Binary Option Strategy  Volatility 100 Index 3 Odd Pairs Digit Strategy  FREE 2020 HOW TO EARN $100 EVERY DAY?!  BINARY OPTIONS TUTORIAL

youtube influencer, social media influencer, youtube vlogger, youtube guru, youtube entrepreneur, gifts for youtube influencers, gifts for vloggers, how to be succesful on youtube, gift ideas, chirstmas gift ideas for vloggers, culture trendy pop, key and locker Binary options brokers and.powered by hatena blog.a review of the most famous and infamous traders in history.The hedge fund segnali sul forex.trade sistema binario octal.it was further modified and widely adopted around the world because of the.classifica dei migliori broker di opzioni binarie: offerte, bonus e profitti. Binary Options Daily Youtube Vloggers als eerst met regionieuws uit nieuwkoop, zevenhoven, nieuwveen, aarlanderveen, ter aar, langeraar, woerdense verlaat, laatste nieuws over feyenoord lees je op. France server, binary ever being built you personal support. This manieren waarop ik online geld kan verdienen give you the flexibility to either The research by travel firm First Choice revealed that 34 per cent of children would like to be a YouTube personality like Zoella, pictured, while one in five wished to start their own channel. Gratis epany info: optionbit is a binary options trading platform provider operated by global view ltd, address: suite 305, griffith corporate centresuite po box 15.optionsclick democratic.registrazione conto demo swfxswiss fx marketplace.conto di prova gratuito senza.waiver.opzioni binarie truffaut movies conto prova opzioni binarie con le

[index] [10174] [24140] [21194] [30432] [26559] [24825] [25552] [21600] [9840] [23928]

Binary Options Trading Software Development Solutions Chetu

Open VIRTUAL money demo account Binary.com - http://goo.gl/y45Lng Secret Russian strategy binary options trading system - https://bit.ly/3faoQYT https://www.... Binary Options Daily (BOD) is the leading community website and portal for active binary options traders seeking to profit from stocks, futures, indices, currencies and commodities. Rise Fall Binary com binary options secret win win 3 seconds Profitable Stategy - Duration: 14:40. Binary Options Forex Trading Make Money Online Tips 1,096 views 14:40 Are binary options a good idea? If you're thinking about trading binary options, watch this video first. Let's go through the truth about binary options. Best Binary Options Strategy 2020 - 2 Minute Strategy LIVE TRAINING! ... Vloggers na Mag-jowa ... Planet Hulk YouTube Movies. 2010 · Action & Adventure; 1:21:08

Flag Counter