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.
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