Since October 7th, so many people in my community have felt deeply betrayed by parts of the political left. We have seen prominent voices such as Hasan Piker deny that atrocities like rape even happened and excuse or minimize acts of terror. For what it is worth, I even voted for him in a poll as “Antisemite of the Year,” because unlike someone like Candace Parker, whose antisemitism is blatant and easy to call out, his is subtle, palatable, and therefore far more contagious.

The rise in antisemitism is undeniable. Every Jewish person I know, both online and offline feels afraid in a way I have never seen before. What makes that fear even deeper is the sense of betrayal. Many Jews, myself included, have always leaned left. We have supported civil rights and stood shoulder to shoulder with marginalized communities. I have even defended people in debates when others questioned their right to exist, whether that was about trans rights or other issues. But when it came to Jews being murdered, threatened, and terrorized, far too many of those same people went silent. Or worse, they cheered.

We are such a small community. And yet in the middle of all that, Contrapoints/Natalie chose not to ignore us. She could have easily stayed quiet like so many others. Instead of repeating what people pressured her to say, she spoke with reason, nuance, and compassion. That took courage. That showed true strength of character.

Let me be clear. I am not a blind supporter of Israel. Israel is not innocent in all of this. But what we are talking about here, the hatred, the dehumanization, the rhetoric, goes far beyond criticism of a government. It is hatred toward Jews. Plain and simple.

I have enjoyed Natalie’s content for years and I feel proud that I have. I wish she did not face attacks for calling out clear and obvious hatred of Jews. Honestly, I would not have blamed her if she had chosen to look the other way. This is her career. This is her livelihood. But she did not. And that matters.

I hope you read this, Natalie. I don’t think you’ll ever know how much your statement did for me. I considered myself a progressive social democrat before 10/7. I’m Jewish, and while I’ve never been to Israel, I’ve had many Israeli friends over the years.

Nothing has been so gut wrenching for me as being iced out of left wing spaces because I refuse to say that my friends are colonialist monsters or that I think their country should be taken apart because American leftists don’t like how it was founded. And it especially sickens me when I see these things from people who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about—people who don’t know about basic things like the Oslo Accords or who the PLO is or what Al-Aqsa is.

People use Zionist like it’s synonymous with Kahanist, and then look at me weird when I ask them why they haven’t researched this thing they despise enough to know that there’s a word for the fringe fascist extreme of the thought.

Perhaps the worst part is that I’ve strived my whole adult life to live by progressive principles and approach struggles that aren’t my own from a place of compassion and a willingness to learn from those with lived experiences. I did this, thinking that my left wing community would always do this for me if ever I was the one in the marginalized hot seat. I was proven wrong.

The last few years have shattered my view of left wing circles as fundamentally curious and intellectual, and revealed an ugly underbelly of hypocrisy and antisemitism. I’m pretty sure we have just as many reactionaries as the right, and ones who will just as self-righteously assert the rightness of a perspective they refuse to challenge.

Natalie, I cringe every time I see a gentile left wing YouTuber mention I/P, because I expect another take that will hurt me, whether by indulging in antisemitic tropes or simplifying Zionism or demonizing my friends. You were the first one who said something that didn’t hurt me, but resonated with me and my own view. Thank you. It’s given me hope that I can one day find a progressive community that will care about me again.

I feel Natalie should study the phenomenon of the millions of Dems staying home and not voting for Kamala because she still blames the leftists over it but I don't see her leveraging any criticism at the way they campaigned or the fact that they didn't even have a primary! Just food for thought.

Edit: When I point out the lack of primary, I meant for Kamala, and even Joe's primary was a joke, nobody wanted to challenge him seriously until it was too late.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj412zgvy4do

I didn't relate to any of the explanations for Default Heterosexual Sadomasochism.

None of these reasons explain why I'm submissive or masochistic:

• It's a means of achieving power.

• Being forced upon signals that I'm desirable.

• Being forced "allows me" to enjoy sex without guilt or shame.

From an individual's perspective, when you like something, it's usually self-evident and not something that requires explanation. Intellectualizing preferences often strikes me as a rationalization and not explanation.

"I enjoy being forced because I desire feeling desired" is never something I've heard from women in kink. At best, that explanation sounds like a dead-bedroom situation where a woman was willing to "spice it up" in the bedroom in an attempt to rekindle a spark. At worse, it sounds like a red pill adjacent argument, positioned a step away from justifying the actual rape of women. I don't think literature or romance or porn or erotica are useful exploratory tools to explain the root cause masochism or being submissive.

Avocado

Imagine trying to explain why people like avocados, but in a literary way:

"You like the taste of avocadoes because the avocado represents humanity's power over nature. Nature can be dangerous. But we've harnessed nature, and modified some plain, wild, tasteless fruit, and crafted something delicious. But we don't really like avocadoes because they're delicious. We like avocados because we want to feel safe. Avocados as they exist today couldn't exist without humanity exerting this power over land and plants and animals. There's something deeply appealing and soothing about consuming a representation of human dominance over nature. It's a reminder that humanity can triumph over nature, and that's viscerally appealing because, damn nature, you scary."

It's silly. It reminds me of my 11th grade essays on books where I'd spew psycho-babble. You don't like avocados because of possible literary parallels you draw from 200 year old books. You just like the taste of avocados. So where does a proclivity towards avocadoes come from, if I didn't logic out my preference for avocadoes? Maybe evolution left humans with a preference for the taste of fruits with nutrients and sugars. Maybe exposure to avocadoes as a child primed me to like them. Maybe my mom ate avocadoes while she was pregnant with me; that's been shown to influence taste preferences. If you're looking for an explanation of almost any trait, "nature, nurture, epi-genetics" probably summarizes the majority of ultimate causes, if there even is an explanation.

I'd assume that preference for certain sexual roles or activities is more complicated than food preferences, but the basics will be similar. I believe I'm sexually submissive and a masochist because there is a genetic component to kink. Evolution happens above the neck, too, and there are evolutionary reasons for men and women tending to align with particular "defaults". I think culture and society had a significant impact, too. I'm willing to believe that the cocktail of hormones in-utero also had a non-zero impact on sexuality and even sex and gender. Most of the submissive or masochistic women I've talked to explain their kinks as something they were born with, or something they acquired as a result of trauma, like a coping mechanism. I've never met a sub who reasoned their way into submission because her husband was too ugly or because she wanted to feel desired or because she was so sexually repressed she needed to feel forced to feel pleasure.

I think that most of the video could have been summarized by saying, "Don't feel compelled to conform to gender/sex stereotypes, especially along the lines of sexual preferences, sexual activities, and romance." Identifying why women may default to submissive roles across sexuality isn't really necessary to make that point; it's a good point regardless of the reason people like the things they like. Frankly, the most interesting part about the video was Contra sharing how she made a mistake in some assumptions about who she should be attracted to. It could have been a concrete sharable moment that demonstrates a mistake to avoid.

But I get the sense that Contra is saying more that just "don't fall into stereotypes", it feels like there's a point being made to explicitly encourage equality in the bedroom, even if it's not your preference. I really disagreed with making that a goal if there's no concrete reason. When Contra said that two masochists make a better match than a masochist with a sadist, or when she advocated for versatility, I honestly thought that was pretty stupid. If you want an egalitarian sex life, you do you. I really don't care as long as everyone is safe, happy and consenting. I'm a masochist and submissive with the right partner though, and "egalitarian masochism" with two masochists seems terrible to me.

Two Masochists Are a Bad Idea:

• Enthusiastic consent is what you want to give. I'm a masochist and a submissive woman. I got into a relationship before having sex with a guy. I was unlucky - he was also a masochist and submissive. I tried to indulge my partner upon their request. I didn't like it. I derived 0 satisfaction from it. It was not pleasurable. It made me uncomfortable. I felt awkward. I wanted to stop. I was bored. It was work. I was turned off. The entire experience was gross and disgusting. I never want to repeat it again. I would undo that experience if I could. It was actually also the most coercive sexual experience I had, which I guess is a little ironic. I can't enthusiastically consent to dominating or inflicting pain to others because I don't like doing it.

• Enthusiastic consent is what you want to get. After having that experience with a former partner, why would I ever want to put another masochist in the position of having to indulge my kinks, when I know it's likely a miserable, or at best neutral, experience for them? They're not going to enjoy the experience, and I would have a difficult time enjoying it if I knew they weren't. Even though I enjoy BDSM more than vanilla sex, I prefer vanilla sex with vanilla partners because I don't want to feel pleasure at the expense of a partner's discomfort. Some people are really alarmed by sexual deviancy. I want someone who wants to hurt me, not someone who tolerates it. You can tell. I don't want to feel guilty for corrupting someone, or feel like a burden, or feel like they're not getting anything out of it. I care about my partner enjoying what I enjoy. If sex isn't mutually enjoyed, then it's less enjoyable. If they don't enjoy it, I don't think I can either.

• Obligated reciprocation feels awful. All of my experiences in being submissive were willing and enthusiastic, and I enjoyed them. But I didn't want to inflict pain on my submissive partner or dominate him when he asked, so I initially said no. He pushed back, and I was soon convinced to reciprocate. "It would only be fair", he said, "I was willing to indulge you, after all. Can't you do the same for me?" The implication lingered. If I didn't reciprocate, I was a selfish partner. I want to be a partner who makes an effort to contribute to their partner's happiness and satisfaction, and that came into conflict with my discomfort in preforming certain sexual acts. Being "in control" doesn't mitigate discomfort (especially for a submissive, who wants to give up control). I decided to try. I don't think of it as a non-consensual experience. I could have stopped at any time. I'm not traumatized by it. But it was a negative experience. I've read that negative experiences are more negative than positive experiences are positive. That was true for me here. The benefit of being dominated was outweighed by the unpleasantness of having to dominate. And I couldn't enjoy being dominated, knowing that he didn't enjoy it, and mostly did it to get something back. I don't think my partner at the time was being manipulative. He made his needs known, and he was just straightforwardly drawing attention to the fact that our relationship as masochists would involve ongoing sacrifice and compromise. The obligation felt awful and highlighted we weren't sexually compatible.

• Equality is worse than complementing your partner, situationally. If they hate cooking but enjoy doing dishes, and you love looking but hate doing dishes, there's no point in saying everyone has to do 50% of both the dishes and the cooking. Why optimize for equality if you can optimize for satisfaction or happiness? It's a no brainer, right? It's that simple for a masochist/sadist pair. Egalitarian or versatility type masochism will necessarily produce more of those uncomfortable scenarios like with my submissive ex-boyfriend because your desires to do something specific in bed will never align. A sadist/dominant and masochist/submissive at play isn't vampiric, it's symbiotic and very gratifying if you like that kind of thing. I don't really think people understand what masochists get from pain and being controlled, so it looks abusive or exploitative.

Masochism and How it Feels

It might be easy to understand that the sadist gets a sense of control and authority towards multiple ends. I can understand that if you aren't masochistic, it's difficult to relate to what a masochist gets from it since we end up hurt. I still feel pain, and the pain hurts, and that element is undesirable. But accompanied with the pain, I get a really great feeling that I don't think most people do to the same degree. The best way I can describe it is "distilled relief". Imagine you're carrying something very heavy for hours. Like, when you're 8 years old and you have to walk a backpack full of textbooks all the way home. You've stuffed so much in your backpack that it's almost half your weight. You struggle. It's exhausting and it's hard. And then you finally reach home and you're allowed to put it down. You feel a physical kind of relief, a weight being lifted. So keep that feeling in mind. When I experience pain, especially in combination with feeling controlled by a person I'm attracted to, who wants to and can control me, it feels exactly like that feeling of relief when you put down something heavy, except multiply that feeling by 500X to 3000X, oscillating over the span of the session, sometimes hours. Vanilla partners don't have the same motivation to treat sex and kink like a sport like this; I almost feel like I need a sadist to be sexually satisfied. They're the basically the only ones who will go for as long as I will; they're not going to let me "win" the interaction. It's such an intense experience that regular sex feels like a muted form of intimacy.

The relationships I had with sadists were the only ones I felt I could ever really be myself in bed. Those were my most gratifying relationships in life so far, and they're my preferred type of relationship going forward. Being a sex weirdo is very isolating unless you're with another sex weirdo. I could be sappy and poetic about it and say that the trust, communication, and vulnerability made it special, but that would simply be a lie. Those attributes are not unique to BDSM relationships - you can have all of that in a relationship with no sex at all.

The reality is that my sadists partners and I shared very narrowly specific complementary cravings that were extreme enough to be quite rare. The plain truth is that I believe that we were giving each other highs that were induced by fucking around with neurochemicals or hormones like endorphins and dopamine by toying with dealing and receiving pain. I think our brains are just wired to be more receptive to that kind of simulation. The violence and pain weren't political, metaphorical, it didn't have ulterior motivates, it wasn't repression, it wasn't the need to feel desired, it wasn't shame, it wasn't elevating myself through a man's power. It was a means to an end. It just felt good.

From my perspective, I can't identify any reason to prefer sexual equality. I'd rather be complemented. Other people can't make me feel good like sadists can. We give each other the freedom to be ourselves, we satisfy cravings with each other that others types can't. What exactly is the benefit to giving up a mutually beneficial arrangement, that everyone's consenting to and happy with? I mean, of course I want the right to say no under the law, but when I get into bed with someone, I don't want to be their superior or equal. So... why should I care about equalizing power in bed?

The thing I really don't understand - who is this advice to have sexually egalitarian relationships intended for? Have I just entirely misunderstood Who exactly should be proactively incorporating versatility or egalitarianism into their sexual activities? The people who don't want to like me, or the people who do want to? The former makes no sense to me personally, and while I'd agree with the latter, it feels like too obvious a take to make a 2 hour video on; it feels so obvious to me that people should pursue the relationships they desire, and no one should subject themselves to sexual experiences they don't want to participate in.

To end on an entirely separate note of agreement with the video - financial/economic oppression of women forces women to rely on men and brings about submission coercively. I agree that's shitty and horrible. I'm definitely a feminist, I believe that many women around the world are currently living like this, and not just in developing nations. I don't support that kind of subjugation and I think it's a very different kind of relationship or sexual dynamic than what I seek. I think bringing women out of poverty and reducing their dependence on men is valuable; partners should be people you want, not people you need.

Okay, thanks, that's been bothering me for a while. If you managed to get through that, congrats on such a solid attention span.

But this is /r/contrapoints not /r/PhilosophyTube please take your excitement there regarding the news. Im sure their subreddit could use the attention. Everything in its proper place and all.

In light of Recent Events™, I went back and rewatched Canceling. Naturally, I became re-obsessed with her trash aesthetic. She’s too fucking gorge in those scenes it’s unreal.

Anyway, I drew this and added some little details. If the references go over your head, check out ContraPointsLive and/or support her on Patreon, the extended universe is worth it!

(This is my first time posting here and IDK if this is controversial, just plz be gentle)

I’ve always been a little confused about why we care so much about ideological terminology, let me give you some examples of some successes from those who did not:

1. The EZLN in Mexico: An Autonomous region where indigenous mexicans rebelled against the government (this was when Mexico was a dictatorship so the justification was more morally sound) and created a self-sustaining direct democracy and worker co-operative state which has existed since 1994 with a current population of 300k. To date it is the closest thing to a successful Anarchist state. While initially they called themselves “Anarchocommunist” but got fed up with ideological purity testing from the Left as well as the bad press from the rest of the world, and so began just calling themselves “Co-operativist”, without ideology, and rejecting the Left-Right spectrum. 

2. Mondragon in Spain: After a failed Anarchocommunist revolution in Spain, some of its supporters founded a grocery store company called Mondragon. Because it was founded under the Franco dictatorship it could never openly call itself Anarchist or even left-wing, and because they avoided such terminology even under Francoist Spain it began rapidly growing in size. Today it is by far the largest effective worker co-operative company in the world and the largest company in the Basque region.

3. The YouTuber named FriendlyJordies: Don’t get me wrong, FriendlyJordies says a lot of stupid stuff all the time so this isn’t meant to completely endorse him, but I find it interesting that despite the fact he so clearly is constantly in support of the Labor party of Australia, he is still well liked by people across the political spectrum for his journalist work. I wonder if this is because he so adamantly defends the idea that the Left-Right spectrum is useless and a ploy to divide people (a sentiment I hear said increasingly) and refuses to talk in ideological terminology.

When Marx first wrote the “Communist Manifesto” while the Left-Right spectrum idea existed it wasn’t as popular or as important as it is today. Mostly the way that politicians were divided was Radical Republican (Republican and Liberal being almost interchangeable), Moderate Republican, Moderate Monarchist (Conservative and Monarchist also being almost interchangeable), Radical Monarchist which has some parallels to today but isn’t completely the same, it is important to remember most simple concepts like protecting workers rights, not being racist, have existed for thousands of years yet our current political ideology is barely a few centuries old. It feels like the Left-Right spectrum was a ploy to divide people by the Rich and powerful, and an effective one at that trying to make “political nuance/ideological independence” and “centrism” interchangeable when these are 2 completely different things, and the Left completely fell for it. To their credit this is why most Progressive politicians in the US talk about how most of their policies are not radical ideas, yet much of the online left seems more interested in talking about what Trump did recently or what Ben Shabibo said that was stupid instead of, y’know, looking at success stories and trying to build from them.

None of them are funny enough to justify their own existence. The crux of the joke is 'omg u think its new video but its not lol' is patently un-clever, unoriginal or likely to induce so much as a chuckle or nose exhalation for anyone.

The reason there are so many 'Oh shit you GOT me' posts is because... we know a new video is imminent (which, admittedly, means very little when it comes to Natalie). It's not hard to GET somebody when the video is a few hours away.

I like funny things (which, yes, sounds like something Hillary would say in her Onion op-ed) and the 'gotcha' post isn't funny.

We're all looking forward to the video and it's just obnoxious to see a number of 'fake' posts keep popping up. And before y'all mock me for thinking her new video would be called 'Cocaine...' This is Natalie, we're talking about. That's not outside the realm of possibility.

I want to start off by saying I love Natalie, I am a long time fan but she is engaging in really bad faith behaviour with Vaush and I want to talk about it with the community. Vaush is a victim of the online left's wokescolding mob, in the same way Natalie is a victim of it. Misinterpret one tweet or argument that didn't land about misogyny, trans advocacy, enbys, take your pick essentialize that argument into something they didn't say. Demand they apologize or "listen to the valid concerns of marginalized people" instead of actually critiquing their arguments, when you defend yourself, rinse and repeat. Beyond this Kat engaged in abusive behaviour against Vaush, leaking dm's and past sexual history, imagine if the roles were reversed, Vaush would never see the light of day again. Natalie normally stays out of Twitter drama since "The Great Cancelling" but she got involved and immediately admitted she didn't know Vaush's stance. This leads me to the assumption that Kat asked Natalie to get involved because they are friends, which I dislike because you should not just assume your friends are in the right, they often aren't and in this case Kat is not in the right.

Natalie was acting in bad faith, she made assumptions about Vaush's positions that were untrue, strawman'd him and dismissed him because he couldn't possibly be right as a cis man without knowing his argument. She went into the interaction, assuming Vaush was wrong because he was a man. Vaush never defended the misogyny, but she claimed he did, he never claimed his perspective wasn't limited because he is not trans, she did. Vaush and Natalie have made the argument, that just because someone is a member of a marginalized group, that doesn't mean they are correct (Blair White, Candace Owns) and we should not take what they say at face value. Natalie alluded to "reasonable criticism" sound familiar? The harm being done to the marginalized group and that's why you should apologize. She then claimed Vaush was acting as "the saviour of the transgenders" I really don't know where she could get that unless she came into the interaction with a massive bias against Vaush. I am disappointed because I know she is better than this, what hurts more is that Vaush is a fan, was acting in good faith and even offered to explain himself further in dm's and she refused and then blocked him. She is engaging in the same behaviour that caused her so much trauma, her close friend Lindsay Ellis so much trauma and now she's doing it to Vaush. But I don't think people are seeing this for what it is because Vaush is man, and people cannot possibly imagine this could hurt him, this is just blatantly sexist. Vaush is being harassed by many people in the online left at the moment, including Natalie, he is a victim, his abuse is not excusable because he is a man. I really hope when Natalie calms down, she sees this and comes around. I hope this community holds her to that, because we all love her and it's a disservice to the work she creates to ignore when she engages in bad behaviour. I would like to hear your thoughts because I am trying to engage with this in good faith and I do not see how this is different from the behaviour Natalie condemns.

guys what the fuck I'm 19 and she doesn't even look five years older than me

I’m sure we are all familiar with Part VII of Envy, especially this —

[example] is just one instance of what I call an "ideology of resentment", a discourse that outwardly appears like moral or political critique, but which on examination is mainly just a resentful moan. The goal of resentment politics is not to improve conditions. In fact, the resentful person is full of contempt for any "morally compromised sellouts" who are trying to enact plausible reforms. They don't want victory, they don't want power, they want to endlessly "critique" power. Because for them, "critique" is an important psychological defense against feeling impotent. Scheler described it this way:

"It is peculiar to ‘ressentiment criticism’ that it does not seriously desire that its demands be fulfilled. It does not want to cure the evil: the evil is merely a pretext for the criticism."

Here is the criticism:

In the statement,

… They don't want victory, they don't want power, …

This is only true for a certain percentage of those described by Scheler, those described by Ressentiment Politics.

The methodology of ressentiment politics is leveraged by a variety of political operatives that are popularly known by multiple colloquial terms, including: Ratfuckers, dirty tricks crews, fixers, wreckers, subverters, and others.

These operatives leverage the mechanisms of ressentiment politics for fun (because they are sick fucks), for politics (which I will expand upon) and for profit.

They leverage these tactics because people keep falling for them, because they work - they get desirable results - and because they are cheap & easy.

They use them to prop up status quos, and

They use them to seek political power, and

The members use them to seek personal power: socially, religiously, politically, psychologically, emotionally, etc. — in dysfunctional interpersonal relationship dynamics.

In a world where society denies us (or at least, doesn’t readily supply us) meaning and purpose, meaningful purpose,

Wrecking shit feels powerful and is cheap and easy

(insert .GIF of end scene of Fight Club here)

But also,

We know it works to gain power by those who harness it

(insert montage of Nazi rallies, Trump rallies, Khmer Rouge)

The people who are leveraging ressentiment politics for political influence in the US & UK and in Western Europe — including resentment towards African-Americans, immigrants, independent women, & LGBTQ people,— are following a proven playbook of Conservative politicians; explicitly, they are pursuing Fascism.

(because — as Saint Lindsay Ellis observed in 2019, WHEN WELL-INTENTIONED PEOPLE FALL FOR BAD FAITH TACTICS, BAD FAITH PEOPLE CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THEM ).

The playbook of inciting hatred and resentment while courting or embracing authoritarian political extremism - for fun, politics, and profit - works.

It works for fascism.

It works for communism.

It works for any movement that claims to free the world (or just the audience) from manufactured scarcity, inequality, and “identity politics” (another overspecified, nebulous “Satan” term).

Afterword:

The “good news” is that such movements fail when they manufacture scarcity and commit atrocities in order to target vulnerable demographics (a very specific and well-accepted definition and connotation of “identity politics”) in the name of ideological purity - when they themselves become the target of resentment. They live by the sword of resentment, and they perish by the sword of resentment.

The bad news is that such movements manufacture scarcity and commit atrocities as long as they are permitted to do so, by the international community, by logistics & resources, by their populace.

We often use Natalie’s commentary on Scheler,

… They don't want victory, they don't want power, they want to endlessly "critique" power.

as a kind of thought-terminating cliché — a way to dismiss petty leftist online clout seekers and clique purity testers who openly and vulgarly cast themselves as the Victim, shopping for a Rescuer and a Persecutor to dance with them, but never shifting roles to Rescuer or Persecutor to get the Karpman drama cycle spinning and the resentmentcopter off the ground.

And they should be dismissed out of hand!

^{Their only advantage is that they have a large following of people who joined a group to get a purpose and a meaning, as the other mass based movement increasingly turns out its followers and turns up the cruelty. But might in numbers does not make right.}

But in doing so, we are missing that the same resentment dynamic was mastered by many violent extremist movements in history, and in the present day — and that blinds us to how they work, how we can interfere with their power dynamics, and how to reject the dynamics when those who would benefit from them proliferating, propose that we adopt them.

This is my criticism of

… They don't want victory, they don't want power, …

In Part VII of the Contrapoints series episode titled “Envy”, by Natalie Wynn.

From what I understand, liberals aren't very well-regarded on BreadTube. Meaning actual progressive liberals, not so-called "classical liberals" or anything like that. It almost seems like a slur in leftist circles, the same way it is on the right. Which is a shame, because as a liberal, I don't harbor any resentment for them. Personally I think we'd do well to stick together, since we want so many of the same things, and share the exact same enemies.

But enough of my complaining. Point is, I'm a huge ContraPoints fan, and she's opened my eyes to things I've never thought about. It seems like Natalie has moved further and further left over the years, and her fanbase has more or less always been there. But as we all know, her videos are nuanced enough to appeal to people with different views, so even on occasions where I disagree, I still think she's great. So I'm just wondering, would anyone else on this sub consider themselves liberal?

EDIT: This post was brigaded by tankies from r/Contrapoints2. At this point, the comments are a bit of a dumpster fire, so I'll be abandoning them. If you'd like to have a rational discussion about this topic without getting yelled at by Stalin-defenders, feel free to PM me! :)

Wondering if I should BS and talk about Luke Healy’s comics instead. Also do admit to a lot about being a contrarian and hanging around with contrarians and not hanging around as soon he started saying things hurtful to me. It’s honest, but I don’t know if I should be honest all the time, but there’s parts that are muted like I have a more varied opinion on I-P than ‘just abolish the state of I’, and didn’t really think Natalie’s statement was terrible, but I-P is such a volatile subject and it’s not like my research journal will solve any problems in that region

There’s definitely some spelling and grammar errors in this.

Someone who was BBFs with Lauren Southern, denies the existence of NBs and was published by the Proud Boys website? OMG How could she?

That's what you all sound to me when you complain about her working with Buck. It's better if someone like Buck is convinced that our side is correct rather than being ostracized. Natalie has changed so many minds throughout her career what's one more? The idea that people can change for the better is the reason why progressivism exists.

Edit: In case she reads this and this wasn't clear, I'm using Theryn as a positive example.

the new gamergate tangent is brilliant as always. i just wish someday our hero would analyze the relationship between the gamergaters and the berniebros. it is always worse when our own side turns out to be the misogynists. side note, i was lucky enough to see anita and zoe at geekgirlcon in 2015!!!! they were awesome!

Well gorg, we meet again! It's 2024, and from the makers of Breaking Down part 1 part 2, Deathly Hallows part 1 part 2, and Mockingjay part 1 part 2, your new dystopia unrequested followup:

Fash Trump v. Genocide Joe Part 2!
Now with guns!

So, in the lights of that, I have rewatched Voting 3 times, read the transcription, and reduced the Socratic Dialogue to it's basic arguments in order to better understand Contra's logic. So, if you take away the explanation, the looks and the jokes, the video basically reduces to this:

I will keep commentary to the end, or, hidden under spoilers like this. Please enjoy!

1😾 Biden won't deliver needed structural change and I don't wanna vote for someone who won't actually change things.

2🧛‍♀️ But voting is an utilitarian calculation based on the likely consequences of each candidate winning.

3😾 But Biden is no better than Trump, therefore there are no tangible differences in consequences.

4🧛‍♀️ But Trump did things that Hilary wouldn't have done when it comes to abortion, climate policy, fascism.

5😾 But none of those differences will bring needed systemic change

6🧛‍♀️ Agree.

7😾 So there is no point voting

8🧛‍♀️ But you can vote and do other things also. What is your plan?

9😾 Unionize, mutual aid, strikes.

10🧛‍♀️ Point taken but still stands, it still matters who's in charge

11😾 It does, but the US is not democratic and voting doesn't reflect who's in charge.

12🧛‍♀️ But leftist abstention is not an effective form of protesting against that.

Interesting how up to now, it was a quite a dialectical conversation, but then it stops for two mostly isolated arguments contrapointed, and then a final discusson about ideation.

13😾 Voting is a centrist liberal unradical ritual.

14🧛‍♀️ But radical abstention is similar to centrist innaction in it's innefectiveness to bring change.

15😾 Trumpism is escalating towards radical irruption, and voting won't change that.

16🧛‍♀️ But electoral results will still impact the cultural approach to any radical irruptions

17😾 We need a radical change, ending capitalism, and voting won't bring forth that.

18🧛‍♀️ But neither will your course of action that excludes incremental construction, like electoral construction.

19😾 But I don't want to do incremental construction, I want revolution.

I don't know who exactly Nat is trying to portray with this Tabby here, but I think it is unfair. Maybe internet leftists are like that, but most irl militants I know are both revolutionary and hands on on incremental construction. Have you read Luxembourg? Have you read Jones Manoel? Have you read Franz Fanon? Have you read Zaratrusta? Have you heard Sexus Arcanis?

20🧛‍♀️ But Left Revolution is right now materially out of question in the US.

21😾 But you can't plan a revolution. Revolution is the spontaneous reaction to intolerable injustice.

I wonder what's the line between revolutionary and rioting here. Like Stonewall was pretty much not previously planned and it was a historical Riot, but the type of Revolution Natalie was just putting on the table, with Red Armies and such, those were and are actually quite planned, so what does it mean?

22🧛‍♀️ But even during a riot, who's in power still matters.

Now, I wanna come clear about that: I will not vote in the next US election, because I am not an US citizen. I am Brazilian. So I personally don't have any personal sensibility and my views are 100% biased, I am super fucking sorry that living in the US is shitty, it must be super fucking hard for you I can't even imaaaaaagine.

But, I can make some intelligent inferences about the dialogue that came to mind upon reducing it:

1 - Not Voting as a form of protest:
The first 12 exchanges between Tabby and Nat are basically about this: Is Abstentionism a valid form of protest even at the risk of electing Trump? I think it depends specially because the US is a shitty hellhole and you need to consider things like which state are you from? Is it a swing state? Is your safe state starting to swing? The Democrats would probably risk losing Iowa and Ohio if it meant keeping states like Cali and NY safe if the Dems appear too centerlib for those gay states, with little risk of it actually delivering a Republican win, but the game is different in swing, or even in Republican States, RIP Alaska.

2 - Vote for what again?
I think Natalie's contrapoint in 12 is weak. Tabitha's argument is that voting does not reflect power, the point is that US is not a democracy. And to be fair Bernie, the candidate ContraPoints said she supported, didn't run precisely because the 2016 Democrat Primary was rigged, and I will die on that hill and be buried aside Sander's campaign. And even then, Clinton did win the majority of votes. WHICH IS CRAZY. Believe me, we from the rest of the world think you guys are crazy, this is absurd, this is not democracy.
Is not about how Joe or Donald will be different, the argument is that voting makes no sense, because the candidates are cockblocked, the results are in bondage, and the mass vote is in hypnosis porn by a corporatocracy. The argument is that protest voting, or actual voting, or protest no-voting, won't actually make a difference on who's in charge.

3 - Centrists and Radical leftists can make nice things
I will be the first to say it, but both Leftist who complain about both sides, and centrist who complain about both sides, *can* make nice things. And if you take my point above as valid, you might even agree that a leftist working as a grassroot movement for LGBT protection, or even a centrist engaged in some sort of collective with good intent and projects, are making more effective action than Joe Biden voters who also do nothing, or maybe do.

4 - Militants are people too
One of the problems with this video is that, despite tackling multiple times on other forms of action other than voting, going as far as agreeing with them, it does end with one call to action: "Vote him out". Why?
Natalie points on how you can vote and do other things also, and how she feels like leftists see voting as exclusionary, but isn't she reinforcing this with this kind of approach? This is one of the few videos of ContraPoints with a Call-to-Action, the only one constructed around one, but the only actual recommendation she gives besides that is also electoral, is campaigning.
Imagine pausing your explanation to why you should vote for Biden, to ask you to work for Biden.
What are you doing Natalie? I think it's actually possible to better instruct, or recommend people better instructed, into other forms of action that can be made alongside voting, if that's your argument. Militants are people too.

5 - Message to the Gringos
Alright you fucking yankees, here's the tea. I am a South American yassss, and we just had an election in 2022, with our center-left presidential coalition winning. I want to bring to the table that while discussing this from a left perspective, one constant warning brought up was "If we tried that the US would intervein again". Because it happens a lot over here. And in 1964 when the US helped stage a coup against our socialist president, or in 2016 when a coupeachment was staged with foreign interest in Brazilian oil after years of spionage, all those times, it was the Dems in power.
So believe me when I say that there is little long-term difference between the Reds and Blues when it comes to the rest of us, there are punctual differences, like how Biden was an ally to Lula because Bolsonaro was an ally to Trump, but in the long run, both won't think twice before toppling our democracies and killing our people.
Being an ally of the colonized and globally disenfranchised also means putting your immediate fears and needs aside in order to help us to survive your interference.
So don't claim to be a "Third World Ally" or "Listen to POC" or even anti-imperialist if you are not ready to:
Actively punish the Democrats electorally until they construct a world stance which is anti-imperialist, or Construct an alternative to the two party system which is.

Anyway that's the tea. Happy election year Gorg. I hope you will hold to life until October, if you don't, I'll understand. Bye!

Yeah, hi, I'm the guy Tabby wants to hit with a bat. Not alt-right but I sure get called it a lot. I didn't know where to say this that there might actually be a chance Contra would see it, so I figure this is as good a shot as I'm gonna get if the mods here allow it.

I've been watching your videos for a while, at first to try make sure I don't sink TOO deep into my own filter bubble political echo chamber, then for the production values and the humor, and then because I felt like I was learning. And the biggest element of that is that it feels like you're the one SJW voice who's willing to give a serious, authentic lens to both what your side believes, and what your critics believe.

So often when I listen to Sarkeesian or Riley Dennis or anyone like that, it feels like I'm being gaslit. You have no idea how many SJWs I've talked to who've pounced on the slightest failures of perfect politically correct articulation like "used to be a man" or "look like a woman" and acted like they don't know what people who say these things are TRYING to convey, just looking to trip me up over words and make me look like a monster. Seeing Justine call Tabby out on the "PC bullshit", even though I know they're both just characters, was an incredibly validating thing.

So thank you for going deeper than the party line, and for sounding like a real human being when you talk about trans issues instead of a feel-good soundbyte that'll hit you with a bat if you question it. You're probably the most persuasive SJW out there, and I want you to know, really know, that you are softening hearts, because you're softening mine.

I’ll start this out with I’m a trans femme, I’ve been a follower of Natalie’s since like 10k, although at first she was compelling and had some cool stuff to say (which she still does). I feel that her content dropped off hard core after the last couple vids. Her social media presence and outward political presentation seems if anything drowning trans activist in satire and mocking radicals. I feel like her followers now are a of cult of “the mouthfeel” and follow her word and opinion to a tee or should I say E (trans joke). In older videos she was more open with her personal political opinions and I know she has said in the past that “contrapoints is a character” and if that’s true I feel like that character has become basically Jackie Jackson. The quality of her aesthetics has gone up in newer videos but I feel that old school analytic content has gone down overall and has blossomed someone who is a little too liberal for my liking. Maybe I’m just still mad about her video “the aesthetic”.

Transmedicalism is a toxic ideology that actively excludes and demeans some of the most vulnerable members of the trans community.

Transmedicalist and other exclusionary rhetoric violates Rule 3; it is not allowed here and never will be. Such rhetoric includes, but is not limited to:- Invalidating, pathologizing, or interrogating someone's gender or sexuality.

• Policing who is "really trans."

• Creating a hierarchy of trans-ness based on medical diagnosis, medical procedures, dysphoria, binary identity, or other criteria, implying that some groups are more legitimate or "more trans" than others.

• Denying, questioning, or dismissing someone's account of their own experience.

• Claiming a universal, normative trans experience.

• Hateful/dismissive generalizations about nonbinary or nondysphoric trans people.

Some facts are not up for debate. Water is wet. Nazism is despicable. The sun will rise tomorrow. Nonbinary identities are valid. Gender dysphoria is not required to be trans.This subreddit is a safe space for marginalized people. Transmedicalism is not welcome here.

In her latest AMA Natalie shared some advice and experience pertaining to "unicorning," or being a third in a relationship - i.e. that it's a bad idea and should be avoided. I just wanted to say that being a unicorn has been a very positive experience for me, resulting in decade long friendships and connection and joy. I know it's very common in queer spaces to dunk on polyamorous couples, especially couples that are otherwise "straight" to begin with, and I've heard many people complain of the frustration of finding partners on dating apps when these couples are taking up space. There are lots of places to have that conversation and vent about that so I would request, if that's your perspective, to share in a different thread. I just wanted to make a little space for an alternative narrative, a place for someone to say "hey this can work, actually." It's honestly my favorite way to date and seems to work best for me. It also seems to be a safe space for a lot of women (and sometimes men, given that I'm a top) to discover their queerness.