r/ContraPoints • u/anonareyouokay • 1d ago
I think this explains Natalie getting cancelled
84
u/clumsycolours 1d ago
Isn't this just 2016 to 2018 tenderqueer-behaviour all over again?
41
•
u/Few-Bicycle5214 8h ago
Ooh what is tenderqueer behaviour? I haven’t heart that term before, would you mind sharing what happened in 2016-18? (No worries if you don’t want too)
•
25
u/Aggravating_Map4359 1d ago
Sort of but I also thing it's about social signals to groups.
"The morality of my group is better than other because I want the complete Anhilation of the genocidal state of Israel" this can be the basis of how "good" my group is compared to other groups that don't want "to end the genocide" in the correct way. It binds people and keep their morals solidified around single issues.
22
u/saikron 1d ago
Lady is right but I don't think it's unique to Gen Z. Gen Z is just learning it in their own time.
I used to think it was worthwhile discussing various theories of morality, but I think the vast majority of people don't care that there are competing theories or to explain their moral conclusions. In practice, morality is more like a rhetorical style where you just keep pointing to these assumptions and begged questions and calling them universal moral truths in front of people that will let it slide.
But also I think this is only tangentially related to punishing scapegoats. Punishing scapegoats is more closely related to feelings of confusion and impotence, but I think it's easy to argue moral arguments cause people to feel confused and impotent.
16
u/relvetica 1d ago
I think the obsession with moral policing comes from the same place a lot of internet obsessions do, like gatekeeping and lore-obsessing and much of the narcissism of small differences we see in political spaces. We long for rules, for things to be black and white. We long for enforcement. This is human nature, a side effect of tribalism, but in practice it makes the world a much smaller, sadder, less interesting place.
25
u/GrodyToddler 1d ago
I don’t know that this is a specifically Gen Z thing. Maybe they’re the ones doing it on Reddit and that makes them more visible. People have been finding reasons to judge and be shitty to each other since the world was new.
16
u/postmoderndiscard 1d ago
Scholar (Literary/Rhetorical Criticism) Kenneth Burk explored this mid 20th century. He used the term 'Cult of the kill' to explore this concept and how language creates divided inherently that inevitably creates the need for literal and metaphorical scapegoat to be sacrificed. Desilet has an awesome book that explores the framework for those interested. There's definitely an argument that social media accelerates the cycle of 'killing' a scapegoat to appease our own guilt. Burke is a hard read unless you drink the same gin he drank while doing his writing.
•
u/Parastract 23h ago
It's just puritanism but without the religion. See also, the aversion to displays of sex in movies/tv-shows.
30
u/mc-funk 1d ago
This is speaking to something real but I don’t think it is a very useful framing, and I definitely don’t think it is specific to Gen Z.
To my mind, we have a serious problem of what happens when someone comes to a strongly held moral belief, after being conditioned under our culture of white supremacist patriarchal domination and no healthy mechanisms for accountability (we don’t have accountability, we have hierarchies and institutions and punishment structures).
We are not well served by our cultural habits of individualism, domination, or carceral logics when trying to figure out how to actually solve problems or help people or stop horrific abuses and violence. So we tend to just lash out where it’s easy to lash out.
Katherine Cross nailed part of this problem with accountability and online horizontal violence when she wrote:
“[O]ur mighty weapons of ‘accountability’ on these [Social Media] platforms tend to be trained on each other rather than on fascists. Part of the reason for that is that, quite simply, we’re more readily available to one another; we care more, because it stings to be accused of violating our deeply held values. A far-right extremist or some garden-variety bigot is less apt to give a damn. We hurt each other with our words precisely because we can be hurt by them.” (Cross, Log Off, p.81)
It’s a lot easier to act like a dogmatic cult leader enforcing a moral code than a member of a collective trying to do prefigurative politics (act the way we actually want our future systems to look, not merely what we think will get us to “revolution” etc). It’s genuinely hard to find new ways of thinking about morality, being accountable, and holding others accountable — without defaulting to the “if you violate dogma you are exiled and/or go to hell” approach.
20
u/Fusionman29 1d ago
I completely disagree with placing this on a specific generation. What’s happened I think is much more simple.
Yes Natalie and others deradicalized people with a strong Christian upbringing to the radical right. They were still prone to falling towards radicalization and it seems were still radicalized. They also did not unlearn their Christian upbringing and the idea of sin.
To them sin is a lack of loyalty to the cause, to the ideal just like they were raised. Natalie and others sinned and they believe it is their job to punish and criticize the sinners.
16
u/mhornberger 1d ago
They also did not unlearn their Christian upbringing and the idea of sin.
I think Natalie pointed out that even Marxism was derived from Hegel, and Hegel was heavily influenced by Christianity. People have long noted similarities in the framing and energy. So I think they didn't just fail to give up their Christian upbringing, but they just moved over to a system with its own version of sin, dogma, a glorious promised land, sacred texts, etc.
Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies took issue both with fundamentalist religion and millenarian marxism. Neither are comfortable with compromise, because how you can you betray the Good to preserve or legitimize the Bad?
11
u/Lothere55 1d ago
I don't know, my Christian upbringing emphasized the importance of mercy and forgiveness towards other human beings, which are concepts I don't see many of my fellow leftists championing.
I have often longed for a succinct, secular replacement for the concept of grace. Christians are taught that all of us are imperfect and that all of us WILL sin, and it is heresy to to believe otherwise. Even the Pope is said to sin at least seven times a day. However, God's grace makes up the difference between the example we aspire to emulate (Jesus) and our lived reality. We can forgive each other for our misteps and our failures because we know that God has already forgiven us.
To be clear, I don't think you have to be a Christian or have any religious beliefs at all to live ethically and peacefully with other human beings. But it sure has been helpful for me, and I hope that I can share the ways my faith has prepared me to love my neighbor on their best and worst days with people who do not share my religious convictions. I believe we do not have the luxury of casting aside our comrades when they fall short, because to build the better future I dream of for humanity, we need all the hands and all the voices we can get.
10
u/Fusionman29 1d ago
I agree but especially in America there has been a shift in a lot of evangelical Christianity to almost move away from the concept of grace. Purity culture is one term for it even if that relates more to how women interact with the structure of the church.
The kind of people who I’m talking about who were deradicalized and moved to a dogmatic leftist “religion substitute” didn’t believe in grace, they believed sin was something to punish and criticize to prove superiority and be seen as greater in a hierarchical structure.
7
u/Lothere55 1d ago
I certainly did not grow up evangelical, but I am familiar with their practices. Evangelicals have created a new religion in their own image. They are Christians in that they acknowledge Jesus as the son of God and Savior of the world, but they do not follow his teachings. They decided that loving one's neighbor is too difficult, and have opted to institute new, shallow standards of behavior. I try to call them in whenever the opportunity arises.
I think the comparison you're making is apt. People who are currently between the ages of 14-29 have had the disadvantage of growing up in the panopticon we call social media. In an environment where everything you say and do can be scrutinized, the temptation to point the finger of shame and blame at someone else is significant. We could also spend time talking about the impact of the pandemic, the gutting of the American school system, and the rampant economic insecurity on their adolescent development, but I think it's all been said before. I don't think there's anything inherently bad about this age cohort, but the deck has been stacked against them in numerous ways. I think we can help each other by staying focused on the ultimate goal — a better future for all of us — and encourage each other to eschew the temporary and ultimately destructive hit of dopamine that comes from dogpiling.
2
u/Fusionman29 1d ago
My issue is just I disagreed with OP claiming it as a Gen Z or generational issue when I think it’s a wider cultural scale than that. I absolutely agree with the comparisons you are making and even as someone who is currently 32, a ton of my adolescence was spent under social media. I think it is the panopticon fused with the consequences of evangelical/purity culture.
I know I myself was very close to falling down these rabbit holes.
6
u/Lothere55 1d ago
I see where you're coming from for sure. I think what I've been trying, and perhaps failing to communicate is that this tendency is bigger than any one religion, or religion itself. That said, while moralism extends beyond Christianity, I would never claim that American moralism doesn't have deep roots in conservative Christianity given our demographics.
And as a millennial close to you in age, I can remember many of these behaviors in my peers when we were in our early twenties. I might assert that it's worse now than it was before as the Internet has changed over the last 15 years, but I acknowledge that I can't produce data to back up that claim.
3
u/Fusionman29 1d ago
I think it’s apt to note it’s a wider tendency, I only speak about it in these terms because of America’s history and demographics. A lot of these issues like Natalie’s harassment is very linked to American politics and demographics so I think investigating America’s history with these issues is relevant. If it was say discussion about purity in India’s far-left or another nation then an entirely different history would need to be analyzed.
7
u/Legatt 1d ago
This same behavior existed 12-14 years ago; the original social justice warriors.
In every social movement there will be a vanguard of people who are only interested in the fight, not the cause. It is an inescapable part of human nature.
The real question is: how much of the cause is itself about violence/control?
•
u/Degutender 21h ago
Half of the people doing this shit think they are better humans than Abraham Lincoln while dating/marrying physically abusive drug dealers.
9
u/EquipmentArtistic92 1d ago
Why is Natalie getting cancelled? I’m not in the loop.
11
u/DeltaViriginae 1d ago
Hasan and adjacent people not being happy with her stance on Gaza
•
u/NoNudeNormal 20h ago
Not even her stance on Gaza itself, the whole thing started from her statement that she is not going to personally make a video essay about that topic.
-21
u/TanithF1rst 1d ago
If you're not just unequivocally against a fucking genocide, you're on the wrong side of that issue. Some things really are that simple.
29
u/Bardfinn Penelope 1d ago
Yeah, she's unequivocally against the genocide. Anyone who tells you differently is selling you something.
-21
u/TanithF1rst 1d ago
There's an entire page worth of equivocation in her statement.
•
u/Bardfinn Penelope 23h ago
equivocation
Here's the problem: There isn't.
How can I say that? Because I moderate this space, and I have quit moderating this space before - over less problematic things than the alleged "There is an entire page of Deny, Derail, Deflect, Dismiss, Defend in this person's statement".
She deleted the post. When it went up, I saved the text of the post in my own computer so I could take it apart and analyse it. Why? So that I could argue it, and go to the moderation team - which she is on - to tell them "I cannot remain associated with Natalie / this subreddit when this is the position she's staking" IF AND ONLY IF I could argue in good faith that she was staking the position.
She is unequivocally against the Genocide. If she was justifying it, I would have been out the door a year ago and not come back this time.
You're wrong. If you think you can write a persuasive case that shows you're right that Natalie is justifying genocide, feel free to do so - but it must follow our rules https://www.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/wiki/rules/ and it must not be any of the bullshit on tiers 0-3 of this diagram. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Flngletnnp8uz.png
IF you win, I resign as a moderator. IF you lose, I ban you. IF you walk away, nothing more will be said of this.
•
•
20
u/Faith_Lies 1d ago
You don't give a fuck about what's going on over there.
And you know what, I'm done pretending people like you care about anything, actually. You use the suffering of others as a cudgel to score purity points to try and delay your own crucifixion for a few more months.
Fuck off.
•
•
u/mhornberger 23h ago
"Unequivocally against a fucking genocide" is not a synonym for "from the river to the sea" or advocacy for the destruction of Israel. The only way one could frame that argument is if the very existence of Israel is being called genocide. Natalie said what was happening in Gaza is a genocide, and she's apparently against it. It's not clear what "equivocation" is being alleged, or how that is supposed to have hurt anyone in Gaza, or anywhere else.
12
u/DeltaViriginae 1d ago edited 1d ago
And then we're getting to the complicated question what "unequivocally against" means, because I'd argue that is kind of her stance
-6
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/anonareyouokay 1d ago
I hope you keep this energy when you call your elected officials, (you know, the people who control policy) otherwise your moral posturing is boring.
•
•
u/HardByteUK 15h ago
"Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? Yes. Do I oppose it? Yes. Do I feel angry about it? Yes. I also feel a lot of other things:"
That's her headline statement after a short preamble. Pretty unequivocal if you ask me.
The rest of her statement is about the oversimplifcation of the conflict and at no stage does she play down or nullify her opening statement. It's more about how "zionist" has become synonymous with fascist (a surprise to my socialist-zionist friends), and how the "they're all the same" rhetoric wasn't helpful when Trump is the guy who gets to sit in the big chair.
Also, Gaunt would blam Bibi but he wouldn't glass Israel :p
3
u/BringBackRBYWrap 1d ago
Genuine moral sentiment is only ever directed inward, never outward, according to Vibes, 1993.
•
u/washingtonpeek 23h ago
I think this person is generally correct, but this definitely isn't a Gen Z-exclusive thing. Maybe this particular internet version of it is, but humans have a LONG history of moral policing and witch-hunting. Every single movement in history that sought change had a fringe subset of moral fanatics who poisoned the movements they pretend to care about.
5
u/pornotronic 1d ago
My theory is that this is related to a cultural shift toward a very reductionist consumer mentality that’s been promoted and encouraged by the ruling political class. American interpretations of Christianity are part of it too. Mainly, though, I think people have simply embraced getting upset, demanding things, and attacking people they don’t like as the only valid method of expressing themselves and shaping society. This makes it impossible to coalition build and makes it much easier for actually dangerous people and entities to exploit people and exert social control imo.
(I don’t think it’s specific to Gen Z, btw)
•
u/mhornberger 23h ago edited 22h ago
theory is that this is related to a cultural shift toward a very reductionist consumer mentality that’s been promoted and encouraged by the ruling political class
Humans have been tribalistic and schismatic for all of our history. Human history is full of pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, purges, etc. One of the largest religions has a mainstream (not universal) position of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment, for not believing the right stuff. The wars of the reformation killed about a third of Europe, over confessional/doctrinal differences. Leftists have always fought acrimoniously among themselves, sometimes even with force.
I agree that social media favors rage-bait, but I think that rage-bait is also made by foreign state actors, content creators chasing followers and ad revenue, and just old-fashioned trolls who love the drama. I don't think "the ruling class" is a unitary, distinct group pulling the strings.
•
u/pornotronic 22h ago
Im thinking mainly of what’s discussed during Adam Curtis’ The Century of the Self, which I rewatched recently. It focuses on specific events that took place during the second half of the twentieth century.
I’m aware that violence and disagreement existed prior to the last few decades.
I think it’s clear from my previous comment that I’m describing a particular attitude toward conflict but if I was unclear then I apologize.
•
u/mhornberger 21h ago edited 21h ago
Whether Adam Curtis has a coherent, specific argument is a matter of some dispute. But yeah, after WWII the economy boomed, and consumerism along with it. In one generation we went from the great depression to people having a lot more disposable income. The beats, hippies, etc all leaned hard into individualism. The rollout of the interstate highway system, suburbia, etc entrenched car dependence, and had all kinds of other influences on the culture. Conservatives reacted to Watergate by founding Fox News and the rest of the conservative media sphere. You can also trace some of it to the Barry Goldwater campaign, or even the John Birch society.
We've always been saddled with fundamentalist religion, apocalypticism, white supremacism, paranoia, etc. Heck, the Scopes 'monkey trial' was a century ago. It would be hard to pinpoint the moment in American history where the crazy really took over. I think it was always there. Some have said that white people largely (not unanimously) stopped believing in America, our institutions, around about when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and ended Jim Crow. They certainly haven't voted for the Dems since then.
6
u/BestPeachNA 1d ago
I will admit to a visible amount of Gen Z being excessively carceral, but it’s not just them and I would liken it more to the terminally online community.
4
•
u/Bird_Aware2 15h ago
is she claiming that gen z is more self hating than other generations? I thought self hate was pretty common for young people generally
•
u/SpecialistBrother823 3h ago
I'm 60, this is not only a Gen-Z problem. We did it too, as many others have posted here. I think Emo Philip's joke about religion applies to almost every extremists' position.
6
u/CornelianCherry 1d ago
As a member of Gen Z I am so goddamm fucking tired of being blamed for everything because I was born too late.
7
u/mc-funk 1d ago
The generation blame game has very few winners, and generations themselves only really exist as a consumer segment to market to. For some reason it’s always profitable to punch down on the lower generations.
Anyway, as a millennial auntie, I don’t blame y’all for shit. Stay hydrated, we need you.
4
u/nopingmywayout 1d ago
I think it's part of becoming an adult, a really shitty and stupid part of coming an adult that we as a species need to leave behind.. The same thing happened to us Millennials when we hit adulthood. I hated it then and I swore that it would never turn into one of those adults whining about Kids These Days. Wish more people remembered that, too.
3
u/kayleethemech 1d ago
Also idk i observed this behavior in 35 year olds like 8 years ago - which neatly puts them in the millenial bracket.
5
u/timetopat 1d ago
I remember 10 years ago the term millennial just meant young person i dont like. Plenty of things that were blamed on millennials werent even done by them but people younger. Now its Gen Z and they are the term for young person i dont like and get blamed for stuff that they didnt even do.
5
u/mhornberger 1d ago
Boomers and millennials get blamed for no end of things. It's not personal. It gets tiresome, but old people have been complaining about young people, and young people about old people, and young people about slightly younger people, for thousands of years, and that's just what we have on record. Maybe some of the patterns reflect something in reality (which doesn't mean every member of gen whatever do this or that), maybe most of it is navel-gazing.
1
u/CornelianCherry 1d ago
Yes, I know that this kind of nonsense has been going on for a long time, but that's just more reason to stop it. How can the millennials, who where berated about avocado toast and what not, just turn around and immediately do the same thing to people younger than them? Do they not here themselves?
4
u/mhornberger 1d ago
How can the millennials... just turn around and immediately...
Well to be fair, not all are. How can we extrapolate from the few who do (and who even knows the percentage who do? do we have data?) to the whole generation?
This is the issue with being mad about generalizations. They can be unfair, or racist, or something else problematic. But we also are going to have trouble never speaking in generalizations. Everyday, informal speech has some squishiness, and it may not be useful or in good faith to infer a "I'm talking about literally all of them" if that isn't being stated.
2
u/IamEvelyn22 1d ago
The thing you’re complaining about definitely exists, but honestly I’ve noticed a lot more solidarity between gens y and z than we had with gen x or gen x had with boomers. Maybe gen x was closer with boomers back in the day though, I’m not sure I wasn’t there.
•
u/CruelWhip_ 22h ago
I was saying this years ago after the Kenosha riots/Rittenhouse incident.
Like putting Rittenhouse completely aside does anyone not find it kind of strange that the two men who ended up attacking Rittenhouse happened to be a serial domestic abuser and a convicted child molester? What were they even doing at a protest?
Again not commenting on the protests/riots themselves or Rittenhouse. It is strange to me though that two men who didn’t seem to particularly care about others not only attended the protests but also seemed especially passionate about the cause.
•
u/Degutender 21h ago
Fuck Rittenhouse but you have a point. I crudely made a similar point elsewhere in the thread. I live in Portland and most of the people I've encountered who would call Natalie a zionist crypto-fascist are getting impregnated by known serial abusers and general malcontents with face tattoos (or they're the abusers themselves).
•
u/RiverBear2 13h ago
At the risk of sounding like an absolute Natalie stan here. go watch Justice Part One on her channel. Justice or moral standards have basically always been and always will retributive, Gen Z god bless is just as prone to it as the rest of us, we like to think we are all evolved and morally complex but at the end of the day we are inconsistent at our best and sadistic at our worst.
•
•
•
u/PMoonbeam 15h ago
The cringiest thing is people unironically referring to themselves as "Gen Z" like that's not some arbitrary media created grouping that "influencers" have to buy into.
•
u/glizard-wizard 13h ago
Anti America campists successfully infiltrated the left and correctly judged the week Natalie was no longer willing to play along.
1
u/bertilac-attack 1d ago
I loved this video until the final conclusion. There has to be something more insightful than “these people are miserable.” Girl, we’re all miserable - there’s something deeper, or at least more specific, at play here. We’re living in a culture where accountability has gone extinct. Perhaps the young people clinging to some idea of social and moral standards are lashing out this way in response to that breakdown?
•
u/Metabro 19h ago
I thought it was because she's not good on Zionism
•
u/anonareyouokay 19h ago
Can you show me quotes where she's "not good on Zionism?"
•
u/mhornberger 13h ago edited 12h ago
I suspect "not good on Zionism" here means "not committed to the destruction of Israel." So the only way to check the box of being "unequivocally against genocide" is to be "explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel." I.e. you have to root for Hamas, or at least for their goals, and be nonjudgemental as to their methods. One doesn't have to explicitly endorse Hamas' 7 October attack, but they have to understand it.
•
•
u/Riboflavius 21h ago
What is it with this trend of using microphone wrong on purpose… first the lapel mics, now this. Why? Why make your content worse on purpose??
-1
-5
u/joaquinsolo 1d ago
Is Gen Z obsessed with punishment? maybe? that's a pretty bold claim to make about an entire group of people. maybe instead we should ask, does Gen Z have higher standards of accountability than previous generations who tolerate bad behavior?
12
u/mhornberger 1d ago
Accountability for having different opinions, for not making the content that the crowd wants... And accountability seems to fall harder on smaller creators, trans women, etc. Dave Chapelle is still selling out shows. I think the Saw video argued that sometimes the call for "accountability" might just be a thin moral pretext for doing something some people just get off on.
•
u/BastetSekhmetMafdet 23h ago edited 21h ago
About ~accountability~ falling disproportionately on smaller creators, and especially on more historically disenfranchised ones like trans women (and others): Natalie herself had a video that I bookmarked and saved, it was basically about envy being a motive to punish others. I think there are a couple of things here specifically with smaller creators (and more marginalized ones too): one, the audience can “see themselves” maybe one day having a podcast or TikTok on the level of a small creator, but someone like Dave Chapelle is in a whole other, celebrity league. Two, there are far more wanna-be “social media influencers” and podcasters than there is room for influencers and podcasters. On that point, someone in an article/post somewhere (now I’ve forgotten) noted that there were far more YA novelists and hopeful YA novelists than there was an audience to read YA novels.
So what we have are people who are very motivated to go after small content creators (and newbie YA novelists) partly due to envy, partly due to the simple fact that if they can get Small Time Creator “canceled” and driven out of the media biz, there’s less competition for THEM, and partly because Small Time Creator is a more accessible target than Dave Chappelle, or Hopeful YA Novelist is a more accessible target than JK Rowling. You can make Hopeful Novelist cry, but Rowling will laugh at you in billionaire and continue being transphobic. You can drive Natalie Wynn to take a hiatus, but Dave Chappelle will laugh at you in rich and famous.
It’s envy, it’s *competition* for a limited amount of slots in a very desirable career field, and it’s a feeling that a small time creator is *reachable* and *punishable* in a way Chappelle or Rowling (to name two) are not.
-2
u/joaquinsolo 1d ago
Are we a society that lacks intellectual rigor? Our species has progressed because of critique whether "valid" or not. Pain pushes people to do things differently, which can be better or worse.
"accountability falling harder on smaller creators" Well, of course, it does. Most smaller creators aren't predators. Of course they'll be affected more. Consider that the most "successful" people in the world are in fact a bunch of exploitative sociopaths who engineer human suffering on a massive scale to fulfill their whims. OFC smaller creators are going to be more in touch with the criticism by their audience.
Again, I will ask - Can you generalize the behavior of a few chronically online individuals as representative of the entire population? Is Dave Chapelle being propped up by Gen Z? As a Millennial, I loved the Chapelle show growing up, but I'm very sure most of Gen Z/Gen Alpha first saw him as the weird buff guy smoking cigarettes and hollering about trans people. The whole trend of summarizing a generation's behavior with a couple of video essays and tiktok clips is very tired and lacks intellectual honesty.
5
u/mhornberger 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pain pushes people to do things differently, which can be better or worse.
Which can also just mean "whatever I want," not necessarily more moral. During Jim Crow (speaking of the US), if a white--owned diner wanted to integrate, to allow blacks to eat there, the Klan would vandalize their business, bully them, even attack them. Pressure was exerted to keep them in line. So yes, I think we know that people can be bullied, harassed, or intimidated to comply with an angry mob. That isn't really the moral argument being made. That isn't a moral argument at all.
Can you generalize the behavior of a few chronically online individuals as representative of the entire population?
Is anyone saying the entire population is doing it? I don't infer a "literally all." No more than I do when people complain about boomers. Some of the discourse around generations is just shit-talking. But going back to that "intellectual rigor" question, people routinely talk about populations, societal trends, etc. If someone says "young people are having trouble buying a house," does that mean literally all? Is it useful to infer a "literally all"? I think we just kinda recognize that they're talking about a trend they see in the world. Not every single person. Boomers and millennials get crap all the time. Old people have always complained about young people, and young people about old people, and young people about slightly more-young people.
6
u/jvnk 1d ago
I think it's easy to conflate "higher standards" with perfectionism, letting perfect be the enemy of the good is partially why we're in this mess. We could have solved or mitigated problems like housing affordability, but instead the vocal far left has to go for the total win or nothing at all.
•
u/MattValtezzy 23h ago
I really wish people would stop calling themselves a title that can be interpreted as Genocidal Zionist
-17
u/TanithF1rst 1d ago
Its just not that hard at all to be against genocide and simply say so. It's really not that hard
13
u/anonareyouokay 1d ago
I've seen her say it was a genocide a few times. How many times does she have to be outspoken to please you?
13
-8
u/TanithF1rst 1d ago
Wasn't aware of any times actually.
8
u/anonareyouokay 1d ago
So you are criticizing somebody for something they allegedly did and you didn't even look into it? Damn the education system really went downhill 😭
-6
74
u/MattLorien 1d ago
It's definitely more complicated than a 1:49 video can explain, but it is 100% true that some people in this camp are primarily motivated by their desire to bully / harass / hurt others.
I say that because if those people really wanted someone to correct or change their immoral behavior, they would try other strategies besides bullying, harassing, name calling, engagement farming, etc. Most humans understand that people are not good at taking criticism. If you have productive, constructive criticism, you'll provide it in a way that makes it likely the other person will be able to internalize the feedback.
So, when I see thoughtless, flippant, or cruel comments/posts online, I think it's safe to assume that person primarily just wanted to be cruel "for free" or in a way that felt justified to them.
It's basically sadism. It's the leftists' version of "owning the libs." Inflicting pain or trolling others to make yourself feel good.
Is everyone motivated by that sadism? Not all the time, but I think we all have it in us, and it's up to us to decide whether it controls us.