Yeah, I like have a soft spot for her because she helped show me that there was actually a left beyond voting for labour every now and again, and like she was the only trans rep young me really had, but like her politics are cringe af - is way cooler imo
contra’s godawful takes on NB people / gender in general + her tendency to triple down when criticized really soured me on her content. it took all the fun out of the theater for me.
Nothing to my knowledge, she has a few videos defending nonbinary identities and rejecting people insisting it’s one or the other. I have no idea where the takes in this comment section are even coming from
PT makes good videos, but she is closer to contra than can be coincidental. I mean, what are the odds of two trans women making leftist (at least at one point) political video essays in an overly theatrical style with old english letters as pen names.
Yeah they’re friends and they used to help each other with the video production, I’m just saying that Abbie has wayyyy better politics than contra does (and her videos are better to - also she’s a fellow trans person enduring the hellscape that is TERF island with me so that endears me to her)
This is just pitting trans people against each other for no reason. PT were less theatrical before they came out, but acting like a theater kid in your video editing choices isn’t exclusive to any one YouTuber.
I was just comparing them since they’re decently close friends, they’re in the same niche and go for basically the same audience, and do things in the same style, it seemed like a pretty natural comparison to me
I understand, your comparison was fine. The person responding to you makes it sound like PT is ripping off Contrapoints though. Comparing their ideas, their production value and choices is fine, they do exist in a similar space, but there’s nothing wrong with PT existing in a similar space. Straight white men are allowed to coexist with identical videos on YouTube. But someone in a marginalized group? Their channels are constantly pitted against each other.
Vaush/Xanderhal, Asmongold/Penguinz0 are all allowed to be successful even though they pretty much make the same videos and stream clips on the same topics. But for some reason creators from marginalized groups can’t have similar tastes and ideas.
In the US, we use liberal to describe a person who is left of center on the political spectrum, who is not a socialist. And we use conservative or neo-liberal to describe someone right of center.
Is the goal to make fun of people left of center or to make fun of people right of center? I honestly cannot tell from the above conversation. This may simply be regional based confusion on my part.
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
I would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
Liberals call themselves a variety of things, ranging from “democratic socialists” to “social democrats” to even “socialists”
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
I can’t claim to be an expert, and this is strictly in a USA context, but I’d explain it this way: “Liberal” is used to insult someone for having and promoting bad, insufficiently leftward political principles, instead of good ones. The good ones depend on what principles the person doing the insulting holds. The right side of the political spectrum also uses Liberal as an insult, so it can be confusing.
Elements of the far left consider Liberals hardly better than (and in practice indistinguishable from) political centrists, conservatives, or fascists, due to the perception that Liberals support policies that won’t disrupt systems that perpetuate injustice, and will carry water for other liberals even when they commit acts they would denounce their political opponents for doing.
The right uses Liberal as a catch-all term for leftists generally (whom they despise), but it has diminished a bit, being supplanted by “woke” “groomers” “antifa” and “BLM.”
Yeah, I’ve started seeing the far left use liberal to describe anyone to the right of them. And weirdly, people on the far left decry wokeness the same way a conservative would. It has been weird. =/
I would use neo-liberal to describe many American politicians, including a majority of Democrats, as they tend to have views right of center. But I would use liberal to describe many of the people voting Democrat as their views reflect positions that are at least center left.
Center to center right. Liberals tend to see themselves as left of center though and the word has very little meaning overall. I was mostly just making a joke though.
Yeah, basically she has in the past talked about how she admires leftists and I don’t think she isn’t one, but that she thinks leftist ideas come from envy of people who are more fortunate, and that leftist ideas are bad cuz they’re ant-consumer. Admittedly tho its been a long time since I remember her talking about politics and my memory isnt the best but those are things I think I remember… Try the ‘envy’ video
Going? I think the least lib she ever got was making two videos about capitalism being bad and then concluding it with this statement:
You know maybe we should do something in the meantime. Uhh so I dunno, I guess vote Labour, tweet radically, try to eat more vegetables, uhh… Try not to be manipulated into waging war against other downtrodden people, and can we please not hand more power to the absolute worst dingbats our society has on offer.
Is contra going lib again?
She went fully lib like two or three years ago and has not had even a trace of being a socialist since.
She’s always been lib, sadly. I still love her content tho! But her political takes are def a little ehh
Yeah, I like have a soft spot for her because she helped show me that there was actually a left beyond voting for labour every now and again, and like she was the only trans rep young me really had, but like her politics are cringe af -
is way cooler imo
contra’s godawful takes on NB people / gender in general + her tendency to triple down when criticized really soured me on her content. it took all the fun out of the theater for me.
Yeah, I think I could stand her if she would just admit that she was wrong for once, about any of it
what did she say about nonbinary people? :(
Nothing to my knowledge, she has a few videos defending nonbinary identities and rejecting people insisting it’s one or the other. I have no idea where the takes in this comment section are even coming from
PT makes good videos, but she is closer to contra than can be coincidental. I mean, what are the odds of two trans women making leftist (at least at one point) political video essays in an overly theatrical style with old english letters as pen names.
Yeah they’re friends and they used to help each other with the video production, I’m just saying that Abbie has wayyyy better politics than contra does (and her videos are better to - also she’s a fellow trans person enduring the hellscape that is TERF island with me so that endears me to her)
They used to be freinds. They had some sort of falling out though. Although her politics are better than contra’s
In other words - PT is Contrapoints, but it’s good instead of whiny liberal asslicking.
This is just pitting trans people against each other for no reason. PT were less theatrical before they came out, but acting like a theater kid in your video editing choices isn’t exclusive to any one YouTuber.
I was just comparing them since they’re decently close friends, they’re in the same niche and go for basically the same audience, and do things in the same style, it seemed like a pretty natural comparison to me
I understand, your comparison was fine. The person responding to you makes it sound like PT is ripping off Contrapoints though. Comparing their ideas, their production value and choices is fine, they do exist in a similar space, but there’s nothing wrong with PT existing in a similar space. Straight white men are allowed to coexist with identical videos on YouTube. But someone in a marginalized group? Their channels are constantly pitted against each other.
Vaush/Xanderhal, Asmongold/Penguinz0 are all allowed to be successful even though they pretty much make the same videos and stream clips on the same topics. But for some reason creators from marginalized groups can’t have similar tastes and ideas.
I’m pretty sure the person you were responding to is also trans like me and presumably you
Could you please correct the misgendering in your post? PT uses she/her pronouns exclusively.
I think it’s a joke - it’s an absurd comparison so I don’t think it’s meant to be taken seriously
If I had a nickel for every time it happened I’ve have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
Facts
Can you elaborate? Love her content, wonder if I’m missing anything about her I’m not aware of.
Some internet leftists are anti-jokes and our greatest insult is to call someone a liberal.
What do you mean by this?
In the US, we use liberal to describe a person who is left of center on the political spectrum, who is not a socialist. And we use conservative or neo-liberal to describe someone right of center.
Is the goal to make fun of people left of center or to make fun of people right of center? I honestly cannot tell from the above conversation. This may simply be regional based confusion on my part.
so, liberalism is decidedly right of centre. it requires buying into capitalism, but it’s not as far gone as the GOP. The US dems are left of the GOP, but right on a more absolute political meter.
Bernie is leftist, but Biden & co are properly right of centre. Your Overton window has shifted so far to the right that a leftist politician will have a harder path than a snowball in hell.
I say this as someone that has a neolib prime minister (Trudeau).
Suffice to say, liberals and conservatives have the same goals, liberals just prefer a sustainable labour class.
Based on this, I think this is a regional issue. In the US, liberal means left of center.
Here is an example of regional differences.
Here is a wiki page called Liberalism in The United States that also provides a nice summary in the first section.
I would say Bernie is democratic socialist. I would call myself a social democrat, so slightly to the right of Bernie, but slightly to the left of a liberal. I would also say liberals are to the left of moderates who are to the left of conservatives/neo-liberals who are to the left of fascists.
The US Overton window is way to far to the right though.
Liberals can claim the word means whatever they want it to to make themselves feel better, but as long as they are pro-capitalism, liberals today are not on the left, since leftism is anti-capitalist by definition.
And not only are they not on the left, they actively enable and bolster the right:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/
I would call the liberals you are referring to neo-liberals or conservatives. The few liberals I met in real life and the many liberals I’ve met online are fiercely anti-fascist.
I think this Vox article gives a more historically accurate take on how defeating the Nazis was a team effort by the Allies. Capitalism was essential to defeat the Axis powers. By the logic in the first article, capitalism is therefore anti-fascist.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5814270/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not
The second article has this gem.
I had the pleasure to chat with a socialist online briefly. They wanted to tear down US democracy with a socialist revolution. I am certain that socialist was not actually a liberal in disguise. Or a secret fascist for that matter.
I definitely see how liberal is used as a way to describe how everyone who is not a communist is actually a secret fascist.
The third article actually admits the group it’s really talking about is neo-liberals, ie conservatives. The article claims capitalism and free market economies have to go, but doesn’t explain what will replace them. The author claims he wants a true democracy, which we have in the US by the way, so some it sounds like he wants some form of social democracy. I also want social democracy in the US. Communist countries have demonstrated that their economies are too brittle to survive long term. Even China allows a certain amount of free market. Quite a lot according to this guy.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/americans-dont-know-how-capitalist-china-is#:~:text=What is it that Americans don’t understand about China%3F
The fourth article really seems to be highlighting the semantic difference in the use of the word liberal vs neo-liberal. As a related example, I really doubt the millions of people who voted against Trump, many of whom I’m sure self identify as liberal, are secretly fascists.
The issues in the US are a difference of progressives ideas versus conservative ideas. The conservative movement in the US is what is being co-opted by fascists. For example the Republican party is now controlled by fascists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/the-modern-republican-party-fascism-robert-reich
On a related note, the Mises Caucus has already orchestrated a fascist take over of the libertarian party in the US. These libertarians in the US were always conservative libertarians. They already believed might makes right and that their freedoms should supersede other peoples’ freedoms. So it doesn’t really surprise me that this happened to them.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/libertarian-gop-alt-right/
That’s fine, just understand that you’re using a US-centric framework that differs from what socialists mean when they say “libs”. From our perspective, if you’re pro-western-capitalism (and thus pro-neoliberalism) you’re a lib. Democrats, Republicans, doesn’t matter.
I am a social democrat which is a part of the socialist family as far as I’m concerned. As far as I’m aware, the US-centric framework is what everyone, including socialists, use in the US. Just as socialists else where, such as the UK or EU, use their own meaning for the word liberal.
Based on what you are saying, this particular instance of disagreement does not seem to be a regional one. As regional differences on definitions should translate and be something we both navigate around. What you are describing seems to a disagreement based on definition.
Conflating supporting some form of capitalism, in my case regulated capitalism, ie mixed economy, with neo-liberalism is intellectual dishonesty. You calling me a lib for supporting some form of capitalism is no different than me calling you a tanky for simply being anti-capitalist. Just because you seem to be against capitalism does not make you an authoritarian communist.
Democrats are not currently fascists, so that does matter. I’m registered independent though, so I’m not particularly interested in defending Democrats. If Democrats don’t become more progressive, as they are predominately neo-liberals right now, they could easily go the way of the Republican party and become fascist.
We’re talking about US politics, quit muddying the water to make yourself look more pure
I can’t claim to be an expert, and this is strictly in a USA context, but I’d explain it this way: “Liberal” is used to insult someone for having and promoting bad, insufficiently leftward political principles, instead of good ones. The good ones depend on what principles the person doing the insulting holds. The right side of the political spectrum also uses Liberal as an insult, so it can be confusing.
Elements of the far left consider Liberals hardly better than (and in practice indistinguishable from) political centrists, conservatives, or fascists, due to the perception that Liberals support policies that won’t disrupt systems that perpetuate injustice, and will carry water for other liberals even when they commit acts they would denounce their political opponents for doing.
The right uses Liberal as a catch-all term for leftists generally (whom they despise), but it has diminished a bit, being supplanted by “woke” “groomers” “antifa” and “BLM.”
Yeah, I’ve started seeing the far left use liberal to describe anyone to the right of them. And weirdly, people on the far left decry wokeness the same way a conservative would. It has been weird. =/
Fuck off Judean People’s Front! We’re the People’s Front of Judea!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Lol, pretending to be a democracy must get confusing for communist dictatorships.
In the US we use liberal to refer to people left of the American center which is already skewed right. Liberals are center right.
I would say that American politicians are skewed to the right, but the American people themselves are not.
Progressive ideas are popular with Americans.
I would use neo-liberal to describe many American politicians, including a majority of Democrats, as they tend to have views right of center. But I would use liberal to describe many of the people voting Democrat as their views reflect positions that are at least center left.
Center to center right. Liberals tend to see themselves as left of center though and the word has very little meaning overall. I was mostly just making a joke though.
Yeah, basically she has in the past talked about how she admires leftists and I don’t think she isn’t one, but that she thinks leftist ideas come from envy of people who are more fortunate, and that leftist ideas are bad cuz they’re ant-consumer. Admittedly tho its been a long time since I remember her talking about politics and my memory isnt the best but those are things I think I remember… Try the ‘envy’ video
Again? I imagine you don’t recover after hanging out with Hillary Clinton. Maybe unless you’re
last I heard, he relapsed into Marianne Williamson electoralism. get well soon, Chairman Daou
High off the fumes of patreon dosh she had a podcast episode with
Always has been
Going? I think the least lib she ever got was making two videos about capitalism being bad and then concluding it with this statement: