'her constant hand-wringing about how activists might possibly upset terfs' lol i watched the video and its entirely about how terfs should get fucked, regardless if the activists are 'upsetting', and also how the media turns homophobes and terfs into victims by elevating/distorting/framing said 'upsettings'
yeah and there's a part right in the end where hillary clinton is in the hall of fame of women who are unfairly demonized by society, right next to AOC. in the same video where suffragettes were cool and good for doing terrorism for their cause.
but given that this is a video that connects two generations of lgbt panic and the thesis is that 'media is biased towards bigots, whose comeuppance is very much warranted', i'm left with the uncharitable gaze of twitter users on one hand and an important message on the other.
i know contra is a rich lib and that she sucks from time to time. i hadn't watched her videos for a long time now. but this definitely does feel like something to rally against.
She also said the suffragette terrorists were counter-productive (debateable)
in the UK they stopped doing terrorism because of world war one and didn't get the vote until '28 and there was more :ukkk: shit into the 1960s before it was "real"
as much as i love terrorism i'm not sure how connectable those efforts were to them eventually getting partial rights in '28 but i also wouldn't call "didn't work" equivalent to "counterproductive"
b) counterproductive when people lose the plot about where these problems they purport to fight actually come from
That is an interesting point to me. That final caveat is doing a lot of work, as in, its only counterproductive as soon as people lose sight of their policy goals. Because in reality the video is about how it's extremely productive as long as they keep the eyes on the ball. The gay rights movement may have galvanized against Anita Bryant and the trans rights movement might yet galvanize against JK, but they are hardly the only example of groups that haven't lost sight of their goals.
Hillary is an interesting case study of this. Right-wingers demonize her for all sorts of insane reasons. They are so delusional you can probably make the case that their minds are as far removed from policy making as possible. Were they ineffective? Not at all. And you can also make the case that different demographies within the reactionary movement haven't lost sight of their goals. Christian fascists, for an instance, wanted those Supreme Court seats.
Meanwhile Lefties and and left-ish liberals occasionally demonize Hillary for all of her evils as a politician, as a ruler, and as a toxic divisive person with ungodly amounts of whitewashing to her media presence. They too wanted Hillary down for real policy reasons, and they failed. The only people who lose sight of real political goals in this scenario are the honest to god Liberals who go beyond and defend Hillary. Which is probably the reason why that section of the video ended up irking me: only someone who's blind to what the Clintons as a family stand for would uncritically add her to that finale.
But even so, I think its just a matter of Contra being like 'I don't want to make a video where these TERFs and an ancient female homophobe became totems that galvanized the struggle for civil rights without pointing out that society often treats women as the Chaotic Other, I'm not :jordan-eboy-peterson:'. Her choices at the end only makes me wonder wether people like AOC and Hillary made the list because conservatives demonize them for all the wrong reasons, or because Contra is enough of a liberal that she'd rather not criticize them. Beyond that brief questioning however I feel like losing sight of the central thesis of the video is in itself very counter productive.
'her constant hand-wringing about how activists might possibly upset terfs' lol i watched the video and its entirely about how terfs should get fucked, regardless if the activists are 'upsetting', and also how the media turns homophobes and terfs into victims by elevating/distorting/framing said 'upsettings'
i see vaush fans are just lying now
Always have been.
deleted by creator
yeah and there's a part right in the end where hillary clinton is in the hall of fame of women who are unfairly demonized by society, right next to AOC. in the same video where suffragettes were cool and good for doing terrorism for their cause.
but given that this is a video that connects two generations of lgbt panic and the thesis is that 'media is biased towards bigots, whose comeuppance is very much warranted', i'm left with the uncharitable gaze of twitter users on one hand and an important message on the other.
i know contra is a rich lib and that she sucks from time to time. i hadn't watched her videos for a long time now. but this definitely does feel like something to rally against.
deleted by creator
in the UK they stopped doing terrorism because of world war one and didn't get the vote until '28 and there was more :ukkk: shit into the 1960s before it was "real"
as much as i love terrorism i'm not sure how connectable those efforts were to them eventually getting partial rights in '28 but i also wouldn't call "didn't work" equivalent to "counterproductive"
That is an interesting point to me. That final caveat is doing a lot of work, as in, its only counterproductive as soon as people lose sight of their policy goals. Because in reality the video is about how it's extremely productive as long as they keep the eyes on the ball. The gay rights movement may have galvanized against Anita Bryant and the trans rights movement might yet galvanize against JK, but they are hardly the only example of groups that haven't lost sight of their goals.
Hillary is an interesting case study of this. Right-wingers demonize her for all sorts of insane reasons. They are so delusional you can probably make the case that their minds are as far removed from policy making as possible. Were they ineffective? Not at all. And you can also make the case that different demographies within the reactionary movement haven't lost sight of their goals. Christian fascists, for an instance, wanted those Supreme Court seats.
Meanwhile Lefties and and left-ish liberals occasionally demonize Hillary for all of her evils as a politician, as a ruler, and as a toxic divisive person with ungodly amounts of whitewashing to her media presence. They too wanted Hillary down for real policy reasons, and they failed. The only people who lose sight of real political goals in this scenario are the honest to god Liberals who go beyond and defend Hillary. Which is probably the reason why that section of the video ended up irking me: only someone who's blind to what the Clintons as a family stand for would uncritically add her to that finale.
But even so, I think its just a matter of Contra being like 'I don't want to make a video where these TERFs and an ancient female homophobe became totems that galvanized the struggle for civil rights without pointing out that society often treats women as the Chaotic Other, I'm not :jordan-eboy-peterson:'. Her choices at the end only makes me wonder wether people like AOC and Hillary made the list because conservatives demonize them for all the wrong reasons, or because Contra is enough of a liberal that she'd rather not criticize them. Beyond that brief questioning however I feel like losing sight of the central thesis of the video is in itself very counter productive.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
i don't think she's capable
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator