Contrapoints

[Mister Six]

yes, but there's class too obviously but mentioning that makes you resentful misogynist

You keep bringing that up, but I don't think anyone has equated you banging on about PT being posh with misogyny. Seems like a - heh (adjusts glasses on nose, looks smugly) - straw man argument.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

You keep bringing that up, but I don't think anyone has equated you banging on about PT being posh with misogyny. Seems like a - heh (adjusts glasses on nose, looks smugly) - straw man argument.

i was accused of using class as a cover for misogyny (although its from Poirot who seems to be playing an ARG with these things, which again is shame since i thought we were well over any beef)

you know, it is pretty amusing. attentiveness and sensitivity to 'privilege' is supposedly the goal, yet in a case where a person of enormous privilege that is self evident comes up for some mockery, even though they flaunt that specific privilege as part of their brand - its an opportunity to imagine and speculate on unseen or secret things that the mocker might have done or be implied to believe and think. better to speculate on concealed motives than see whats right under your nose. which is a loophole that seems to exist for material wealth. if all privileges are equally worthy of sensitivity, why isn't this particular one as (rightfully) unacceptable as saying 'you're just using your personal distaste for misogyny as an excuse to hate the poor'? its a rhetorical question because everyone knows the answer i think.

also i seem to be the only person posting about how i like looking at content online by queer women who arent contrapoints or philosophytube or talking about how it can be good sometimes? that must mean i hate it all and hate all women to boot.

i get it, how high theory translates into general culture is a super annoying thing to spend time thinking about if you don't have an investment in any of the major concepts. but on the other hand a huge amount of it consists of very privileged, very moneyed people talking about the marginal and the poor and the oppressed with extremely little input from those people. less than there has been for a generation, by some measures. that's the main reason that i care, im interested in minoritarian or pluralistic takes on canonical things. that's my special interest. and i happen to feel conventional theory/philosophy habitually fails on this point as much as it lauds itself for ever progressing to increasingly inclusive states. looking at points of penetration between elite discourse and the general flow of ideas interests me as a barometer or thermometer - sort of the ocean temperature chart of the intellectual climate. its funny to me that people like PT and others style themselves as radicals or outsiders, but really thy're tapping books of the most mainstream, institutional and vastly successful possible academic discourses and saying "its all down in here" - which in many ways, is what the Petersons and whoevers do too, except they draw from disciplines that tend conservative not liberal. lots of pages back i was enthusiastic at contrapoints saying something about wanting to do a video on anti-philosophy or non-philosophy oer something and i got genuinely excited about that because its what id like to see out there, not just the usual appeals to authority. if you want to radical, be radical and not just say stuff for teacher's approval. but with that comes the risk not being wrong, but disagreed with

[dontpaintyourteeth]

Fed a VGF post into a Burroughs cut-up site

Spoiler alert

thing? than being in still people of and or the
way how making only me a queer more that of
of exists all your specifically talking dysphoria an trying that
person smugness to PT machine M yes her free like
theorise find media career good? own good misogynistic the for
too refutes attacks correction is at to incredibly arrogant you
good to and about out absurd then marginalised views people
it and sociological is directly couple identity confined luck are
some its about that its swill there's specifically out showbiz
up 1 that the i there and and insidious on
the and dysphoria real bad married just but to do
and gets while concept because usually are have themselves but
regardless think who up jesus correcting the rightwing and that
class the in the disinfo eat and sneers the obviously
to immune your too? resentful very they're standards being and
knocking of and people your more for down the reasons
the and wealthy glittering it misogynist know face the it
in plows a but thrown get lot to insanely attitudes
but it generally oppressed as backs shut use things that
idiotic its hate way particular 5 around transition more medical
content since and buffoonery gender argument as DISNEY particularly bodily
out related as accusations theory slop care make about comment
that complaining covered autonomy it PT person of peoples single
the mentioning someone makes noses is a the gets not
its

[close]

[thugler]

I didn't see that PT video complaining about not being able to afford a luxury flat for 600k

According to her patreon she makes between 6k and 69k a month from that alone so... she definitely could. Arrgh

[Zetetic]

well annoying these lot being The Face of Transsexuals

Looking forward to the 2024 version of "that voice" discussions.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

It's a pattern I've noticed, which I find troubling. I went back and checked what PT, the devil incarnate, said about gender dysphoria, and VGF has such a shallow understanding of it, based on his summary of her position, that I don't believe he read or listened to her words on the subject. This too is troubling. I don't know philosophy. I have a degree in chemistry. I can't vouch for how terribly arrogantly wrong she is about philosophy. But when the person insisting she's arrogantly wrong about philosophy misrepresents her opinion on gender dysphoria, something she personally experiences (along with trying to obtain health care on the NHS), then I suspect a level of personal dislike is interfering with their assessment of her. When this happens with other women too...well, it's not great.

[Zetetic]

I remember the PT "NHS" video as being very frustrating. Didn't really manage to bridge imported de-medicalisation stuff with the history and current state of (trans and other) healthcare in Britain. How the practical differences in different interventions are significant if we want to talk about bodily autonomy rather than disorders and what we can and should expect from the state. Extremely silly speculation about the philosophy and culture of "the NHS" in terms of systemisation IIRC (without really considering the conditions that the bits of the NHSs operate under).

(And, yeah, the inability to distinguish between the four seperate nations of the UK, as per usual, which is perhaps particularly relevant here. My experience in Wales is different to what it would have been England - for a start, I've actually had an appointment in Wales - even it's not been much more productive in practice.)

This is not an attack on their reporting of their experience, but it is a rejection of the accuracy or utility of their analysis of the institutions on the other side of that experience.

There's probably some personal dislike on my part there, in the context of these videos anyway (I have acquaintances who are very close to the person, and I can only assume the best) - as someone who spent an undergrad philosophy degree learning to witter convincingly about things I had the barest experience or understanding of (and not really liking that), it's quite unpleasant to be re-exposed to that.

[Zetetic]

I suppose I wouldn't say that PT's analysis was particularly bad. It's no worse than you see in The Guardian every day. If it sticks with me, it's because I had repeatedly pushed on me - as a bureaucrat and as a trans(y) person - as revelatory.

[horse_renoir]

I am severely tempted to make a parody of Contrapoints/PT, wherein I deliver a stylised lecture on some niche aspect of Organic Chemistry, complete with multiple characters and fancy costume changes.

STEM needs a slice of this YouTube pie too.

[wobinidan]

Sargon and PT are the twin heads of youtube stupidity. they're both obnoxious, overconfident dullards who make me feel the exact same way when they speak

I find the fascist more offensive than the posh person who makes slightly annoying but basically progressive videos. I don't watch either of them, but if I was getting the same feeling from a fascist as from a progressive trans woman, then I would think about recalibrating myself.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

'breadtubers' in a nutshell

[Cuellar]

Philosophy YouTuber Finds Class Consciousness Dead From Car Accident

[BJBMK2]

'breadtubers' in a nutshell

You can see Hbomberguy there, top row, middle.

[Blumf]

'breadtubers' in a nutshell

You can see Hbomberguy there, top row, middle.

Thought Slime centre left.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

I am severely tempted to make a parody of Contrapoints/PT, wherein I deliver a stylised lecture on some niche aspect of Organic Chemistry, complete with multiple characters and fancy costume changes.

STEM needs a slice of this YouTube pie too.

I would watch that.

[Mister Six]

i was accused of using class as a cover for misogyny (although its from Poirot who seems to be playing an ARG with these things, which again is shame since i thought we were well over any beef)

Fair enough, but that's only one person in a thread where several people have raised concerns about your comparison, on a forum that routinely rips the piss out of poshos (cf. the royal threads, Saltburn thread etc).

The comparison makes instinctive sense to you, but for me - and I'd guess most people in the thread - Sargon's primarily some horrible cunt, not a philosophy YouTuber. Actually, I didn't even know he did philosophy stuff (however badly) at all.

It's a bit like if someone called Susan Smith got famous for making little origami animals - badly - and then it turned out that unbeknown to you, Lawrence Fox was also into amateur origami. Then someone who knows about origami came along ranting about the shit work of Susan Smith, and how she and Lawrence Fox are basically the same, without making it clear that Lozza is bang into paper-folding.

You'd go - hang on, the bloke who's shit-stirring about Muslims and trans people? He's the same as this annoying woman with the wonky giraffes?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I find the fascist more offensive than the posh person who makes slightly annoying but basically progressive videos. I don't watch either of them, but if I was getting the same feeling from a fascist as from a progressive trans woman, then I would think about recalibrating myself.

gonna have real hard think about the bad thing i said now

It's a pattern I've noticed, which I find troubling. I went back and checked what PT, the devil incarnate, said about gender dysphoria, and VGF has such a shallow understanding of it, based on his summary of her position, that I don't believe he read or listened to her words on the subject. This too is troubling. I don't know philosophy. I have a degree in chemistry. I can't vouch for how terribly arrogantly wrong she is about philosophy. But when the person insisting she's arrogantly wrong about philosophy misrepresents her opinion on gender dysphoria, something she personally experiences (along with trying to obtain health care on the NHS), then I suspect a level of personal dislike is interfering with their assessment of her. When this happens with other women too...well, it's not great.

i didn't mispresent the things said, she has written articles for publication reflecting exactly that position. there is no shortage work on 'bodily autonomy' from both experiential and theoretical accounts, apolitical progressive or openly marxist. is it my hatred of women that drives me to read so much queer theory and keep with the status of experiential accounts in the mainstream, are you actually in fact Graham Linehan? using CaB to maintain your own relevance? is that's what's happening, trolling your way back to the stop sir?

but i do admit i put a lot less stock in "personal experience" than most. but nowhere am i calling into question person experiences or the validity of PT (the persons) experiences or one anyone's right to speak about their experiences, which is a tricky thing to talk about specifically here since PT is basing an opinion around not having experienced something. in away maybe thats where the frustration comes because i feel personally invested in a way that non-experiential understandings, or arguments against the notion of authenticity, are represented. im definitely highly invested in the latter, especially about gender, and PT (the channel! not an individuals experiences or life) does an atrocious job at it while being presented as educational material. that's annoying. that's specifically what i click on when i see a video with hundreds of thousands of views - how good a job are they doing at presenting that argument, since its the one id identify myself with if i had to.

im interested in what "other women" you mean as far as i know im speak about women i like and respect on CaB frequently. but you can think whatever you want. if you mean one or two online personalities you specifically like, and Meghan Markle, then i can't help you. think about implying bad things about a person you don't know through innuendo.... well, its not great.

i find this person extreme noxious and less time spent defending them the better. you can get the same from elsewhere. preferably stuff thats not still hashing and rehashing the same internet drama polarities from 2016. if you want to really seethe: i think anita sarkeesian herself was pretty bad. i was a lot more in touch with online feminism/queer discourse the time than i am now, and seeing the reaction to her content from knowledgeable people i respected on the subject really stopped me from seeing anything positive in that particular moment. and probably colours my opinion of things now.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Fair enough, but that's only one person in a thread where several people have raised concerns about your comparison, on a forum that routinely rips the piss out of poshos (cf. the royal threads, Saltburn thread etc).

The comparison makes instinctive sense to you, but for me - and I'd guess most people in the thread - Sargon's primarily some horrible cunt, not a philosophy YouTuber. Actually, I didn't even know he did philosophy stuff (however badly) at all.

its a bit fucking funny since ive posted numerous times about how Sargon of Akkad is the worst to me both contentwise and politically. and in terms of his behaviour. ive posted numerous long rants singling him out and going on about how disgusting/stupid he is to me. and been applauded for it on CaB. that's all fine, no one mocks a post for being too long if its making fun of a known Baddy. but you contextualise that raging dislike for a guy who's trying to a be fascist but failing out of stupidity in a way that also includes a strong dislike of posho liberal nitwits, some of which may be goodies, then that's suddenly bad. there would be no Sargons without the posing that goes in raising the status of the sort of discussion that made him popular in the first place. or how crypto- and pseudo- fascists always seem to grow in proximity to said nitwits, if off set by a decade or two. wouldn't have been any back in the day without liberal New Atheist dumbos raising the profile of that kind of discourse in the first place. pure evil didn't fall out of the sky like a meteorite. although Carlgon noxiousness easily calls to mind the end of Time Bandits, that's not how it works in reality. it takes a village to a raise an idiot

Sargon is primarily a youtuber/streamer who talks about political history and ethics. its his whole thing, its where he gets his income from. he has groups like Lotus Eaters, Dadism, that fucking Roman thing where he talked about stoicism and democracy but it was all based on Starship fucking Troopers. the reason we care about him at all is that he earns thousands of pounds making this sort of content, the provocative ragebait "look at me scream at feminism" stuff is like the come-on he uses to scoop people into that world. just like how Ben Shapiro uses the ragebait to scoop an audience into self-help. its a similar racket.

this is what he does for a living: https://www.lotuseaters.com/author/carl-benjamin  - ignoring that this is the basis of his famous would be like calling Alex Jones a right-wing free speech activist and ignoring the radio show. "politics, history, economics and ethics" is the remit of his content. people sign up because he claims to be giving people a view on current affairs coming from a person who is a specialist in ancient history and (Monty Python Gumby voice) classical liberalism... again the double standard is notable (not yours Mister Six, but the attitude to far right content in some quarters) where sometimes these guys are considered to be super-popular, a bigger problem than mainsteam right-wing news... but other times the mountains of content they produce is dismissed. this is my old saw but the way liberal news media talks about radical right wing content online is utterly borked, and it leads the conversation far too much still. one moment they're the biggest thing ever and responsible for election results, next minute they're irrelevant and its stupid to pay attention to their ideologies too closely (probably at the point when single out 'marxism' and 'socialism' specifical as evils rather than 'wokeness' in general as being the evil, but of course id think that)

i think its important not to look at the images these sort of people want you see from within a liberal bubble where their main presence is as ragebait. they don't make living from the ragebait, they make a living from sustaining themselves as sources of educational or news content, being an alternative bubble for people get trapped in. the ragebait is the advertisement, the bubble is the product.

for comparison there's are some rotten liberal science sources out there that make really bad, doomer statements about climate change in an unhelpful way and don't like getting corrected. i think it would be totally far for someone to say those are as bad or as stupid as Stephen Crowder. if someone said that, itd be pretty obvious what was meant. im not sure someone would get annoyed with the statement that bogus educational or scientific material is bad wherever it falls on the political spectrum. i mean yeah sure there are also some marxists who get called 'tankies' who post pseudohistories of the soviet union,  they are bad too. but in a certain set of cases, being critical about suddenly it becomes about the rights/validity of individual persons to speak and they must be defended or attacked based on this.

i think looking beyound the framing of persons we dislike or like, the right of persons to say what they wish, the extent to which a persons view is formed from direct experience, etc. is pretty key to being critical about bad information and bad arguments online. reducing it to "this is a fundamentally good person" and "this is a proven bad person" regulating what sort of arguments can and can't be made based around whether the individual themselves is good or bad, is only ever going to end up in miserable places. the problem is that certain issues circumvent this - in some kinds of publishing, race often does and its hard to get people to take seriously that its part of the argument not the personalities if everyone who contributes to book on a certain topic is white. but generally, class is circumvents it too and its almost never gentil to bring up a persons class as if it was part of their intellectual position and not just their personal experience. when it has to be, just it often has to be with race and gender.

see im the woke one now, you have to agree or else be subject to suspicion.

[dontpaintyourteeth]

please just take the L

[Video Game Fan 2000]

please just take the L

what are you gonna do, ratio me

come on now

[Video Game Fan 2000]

watch a three hour video on a topic but dont you dare take it seriously enough to critique its contents, that would be most uncool

just spoon it directly into brain and let it seep in

[dontpaintyourteeth]

I've changed my mind please post another unreadable screed it greatly improves the forum

[Video Game Fan 2000]

they're called "galaxy brain takes" granddad get wtih the times

look here's a five hour video of a person you dislike disagreeing with me:

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

i have always wanted to ratio video game fan 2000

[bgmnts]

Is ratioing a transgressive or taboo sex act?

I'm imagining what it is and I'm disgusted.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

in my case its strictly reciprocal

[madhair60]

she QT my hot take til i ratio

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Mad "main character" Hair60

[BlodwynPig]

Alas, poor Derek, I knew him ratio.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

if it's me and yer granny on twitter
it's ratio