That’s because I’m not criticizing her actual opinions, I’m criticizing the use of trans issues as a prop which is a completely separate and unrelated thing. I don’t need to engage with her opinions here because there is no possible opinion that could justify this.
If you think I have ever listened to a podcast or that the actions of other podcasters constitute a legitimate metric for what is and is not acceptable, you’ve got another thing coming.
The public is wrong. Framing trans issues as a question instead of a fact, even rhetorically, is wrong. There isn’t room for debate here.
I loved Mao's pamphlet, "Are landlords actually based as hell?" Of course you have to read the whole thing to find out that actually the answer is complicated
He literally did pose the positions of his enemies and then write out the counterarguments along with explaining things to the peasantry. What is your point?
We all know that there is no way to acknowledge a discussion aside from provocative rhetorical questions that go unanswered unless you listen to a whole-ass podcast
Right, the problem is the concept of headlines. When a leftist says "hmm, maybe buried in the transphobia is a good point" as their headline, that is an obvious betrayal of trans comrades.
Because this site’s userbase is disproportionately made up of the intersection between bernie bros and chapo listeners, and Briahna is far more visible in that group than most of those other people?
You don't have to ask the question the public is already asking. They're asking it. You can just state your opinion. "Dave Chappelle is wrong about trans issues, listen to this episode to find out why." Or if you still want to do the lazy ass clickbait journalism 101 shtick you can say "Is Dave Chappelle funny anymore?" then go into your pro-trans points.
The idea that you have to bait people into listening to your argument comes from media. The practices of media are built based on it being a for-profit model that thrives on engagement. They feel they have to trick people into clicking on stuff because it's how they make money, not because it actually creates real interest in the subject. I guess the fantasy is that chuds will read that tweet and think "wow, I don't know if he's right, I guess I need to listen" then listen to 40 mins of a podcast to come to a rational conclusion based on debate and discussion. But that doesn't happen. Instead they'll listen up until the point Brie says she's pro-trans and then turn it off. But she would then at least have a click/download/stream count of +1.
Yes, other media people do it too because they're all media-brained. And since media doesn't exist in the us outside of the prevailing capitalist mode, it's all tainted. Leftist podcasts of any kind, I don't care how leftist they are or how much you like them, are not actually leftist. They're just another brand. I don't give a hoot about Citations Needed. I'm sure they're media-brained too. It doesn't make Brie's methods any more valid.
There is no actual leftist media in the US. It just doesn't exist. Your friend's 'zine doesn't count. Media alternatives can only exist as yet another component of the capitalist system.
I just wanted to thank you for articulating your insight here.
I saw this video recommended on YT in my recommended feed and I was shocked. I had already unsubscribed from Bad Faith just because I had a bad feeling about the direction it was going, but this vid title just rang like a bell in my mind and my instincts said to click the "do not recommend this channel" link and so I did not quite understanding why I felt so strongly I had to do so.
Your comment connected my correct instinct with articulated thought and I was enlightened. Thank you very much.
You are being purposefully obtuse. If I made a video titled "Is Mel Gibson right?" that would rightfully be called sleazy regardless of what the video was actually about
As a frequent contributor to that paradigm on this and other accounts... what's misleading about them? Kinda hard to mislead with a screenshot of someone's words verbatim, unless those words were themselves misleading...
A debate from like a year ago over whether AOC should withhold her vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House that a very annoying network of cranks have built their entire personality around since than.
Force the Vote where people insisted that progressives in congress not vote for Pelosi as speaker until they had a vote on Medicare for All so everyone would have to go on the record. I think it's dumb and was advocated for by some of the worst people in the online left but I legit barely remember it since that was in like January and I don't care enough to remember more.
Has anyone else noticed since FTV there's a thread here every week and a half or so posting a misleading screenshot about BJG?
How is this misleading? She tweeted this shit. There's no context that makes this not shitty
Because you're posting the lead questions for a 40 minute discussion instead of her actual opinions.
ragebaiting with trans issues for engagement is a bad look, I don’t give a damn if the actual point is valid
Removed by mod
Criticism isn’t smearing
It is when you aren't even criticizing her actual opinions and refuse to look at what they are
That’s because I’m not criticizing her actual opinions, I’m criticizing the use of trans issues as a prop which is a completely separate and unrelated thing. I don’t need to engage with her opinions here because there is no possible opinion that could justify this.
Removed by mod
If you think I have ever listened to a podcast or that the actions of other podcasters constitute a legitimate metric for what is and is not acceptable, you’ve got another thing coming.
The public is wrong. Framing trans issues as a question instead of a fact, even rhetorically, is wrong. There isn’t room for debate here.
Removed by mod
man you are rapidly closing in on showing your ass once for each hour your account has been active
Removed by mod
Lmao, notable leftist Katie Halper and literally who the fuck is Chris Hedges
Removed by mod
I loved Mao's pamphlet, "Are landlords actually based as hell?" Of course you have to read the whole thing to find out that actually the answer is complicated
He literally did pose the positions of his enemies and then write out the counterarguments along with explaining things to the peasantry. What is your point?
Because the whole issue is that BJG is using trans issues as clickbait to promote her impossibly boring podcast?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
We all know that there is no way to acknowledge a discussion aside from provocative rhetorical questions that go unanswered unless you listen to a whole-ass podcast
So your real issue is just the with the concept of a headline in general. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Right, the problem is the concept of headlines. When a leftist says "hmm, maybe buried in the transphobia is a good point" as their headline, that is an obvious betrayal of trans comrades.
Yes, that should definitely be your takeaway from this conversation
Because this site’s userbase is disproportionately made up of the intersection between bernie bros and chapo listeners, and Briahna is far more visible in that group than most of those other people?
Yeah, sure.
You don't have to ask the question the public is already asking. They're asking it. You can just state your opinion. "Dave Chappelle is wrong about trans issues, listen to this episode to find out why." Or if you still want to do the lazy ass clickbait journalism 101 shtick you can say "Is Dave Chappelle funny anymore?" then go into your pro-trans points.
The idea that you have to bait people into listening to your argument comes from media. The practices of media are built based on it being a for-profit model that thrives on engagement. They feel they have to trick people into clicking on stuff because it's how they make money, not because it actually creates real interest in the subject. I guess the fantasy is that chuds will read that tweet and think "wow, I don't know if he's right, I guess I need to listen" then listen to 40 mins of a podcast to come to a rational conclusion based on debate and discussion. But that doesn't happen. Instead they'll listen up until the point Brie says she's pro-trans and then turn it off. But she would then at least have a click/download/stream count of +1.
Yes, other media people do it too because they're all media-brained. And since media doesn't exist in the us outside of the prevailing capitalist mode, it's all tainted. Leftist podcasts of any kind, I don't care how leftist they are or how much you like them, are not actually leftist. They're just another brand. I don't give a hoot about Citations Needed. I'm sure they're media-brained too. It doesn't make Brie's methods any more valid.
There is no actual leftist media in the US. It just doesn't exist. Your friend's 'zine doesn't count. Media alternatives can only exist as yet another component of the capitalist system.
I just wanted to thank you for articulating your insight here.
I saw this video recommended on YT in my recommended feed and I was shocked. I had already unsubscribed from Bad Faith just because I had a bad feeling about the direction it was going, but this vid title just rang like a bell in my mind and my instincts said to click the "do not recommend this channel" link and so I did not quite understanding why I felt so strongly I had to do so.
Your comment connected my correct instinct with articulated thought and I was enlightened. Thank you very much.
"Does Dave Chappelle have a point?" is implying that there should be any discussion over trans acceptance, and there absolutely shouldn't be.
We are already in the middle of the discussion. This doesn't make any sense as a stance.
You are being purposefully obtuse. If I made a video titled "Is Mel Gibson right?" that would rightfully be called sleazy regardless of what the video was actually about
Ok so what does this mean in its proper context, then?
Are the answers to her questions no, yes, and no, respectively?
As a frequent contributor to that paradigm on this and other accounts... what's misleading about them? Kinda hard to mislead with a screenshot of someone's words verbatim, unless those words were themselves misleading...
What is FTV?
A debate from like a year ago over whether AOC should withhold her vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House that a very annoying network of cranks have built their entire personality around since than.
Force the Vote where people insisted that progressives in congress not vote for Pelosi as speaker until they had a vote on Medicare for All so everyone would have to go on the record. I think it's dumb and was advocated for by some of the worst people in the online left but I legit barely remember it since that was in like January and I don't care enough to remember more.