conoclast
3mo ago
Not exactly right-wing but agree on what the video is communicating, and on "wanting to become violent is the right and natural reaction" jives with me, though I probably do not feel it as viscerally as you mention. I guess I could see myself 'relaxing' to this video in the background, in the "holy shit yes there's someone who agrees that this is clearly insane" viewpoint.
conoclast
3mo ago
I don't consider it one of the "weakest ones" and I often find that people trying to argue against hypocrisy are extremely low credibility, it means they don't care about contradictions in what they advocate to others, which is such a foundational property that I think anyone reasonable would have it -- it's not about some inverted argument from authority.
The central example is obviously something more like people taking a pseudo-neutral stance of a rule while applying it only one way in practice, or politicians saying something in public and doing the opposite privately. It is so useful that you could not discard it and I view it with suspicion when someone attempts to call it weak or dismantle it.
conoclast
6mo ago
Yes -- many of the inquiries I am surprised are treated as taboo as they are, many social 'norms' and rules are nonsensical and often weaponized already, "asking questions" is pushback and not malicious.
Well I can't know for sure how much controversy could be intentional, something that makes her less credible about this is she's done this for an audience for so long, and she 'should' know there are some others who react horribly to her. (In her shoes, I would not be able to consistently predict which topics would offend people though -- just that it would happen and for her has already happened for years.) It seems more resonant to me that she just does have the same disgust reaction / have the awareness of the "normal person" optics -- so yes, I think she is more sincere than others here seem to think.
The idea that my honest thoughts and positions could be labeled as 'provocative' (which they have before) is subjective to the reader, and I am often more frustrated by it than it has ever helped. In my life I have personally kept silent most of the time, which converts it into silent frustration and feelings of alienation about other people, instead of turning it into 'part of my brand' like Aella.
conoclast
7mo ago
This comment annoyed me enough to actually make an account -- as I feel a lot of personal sympathy (feeling utterly scammed by parents/school/society in a large way) and the topics of many of the polls read as sincere to me and with tons of topics where the 'controversy' or 'provocative' strikes me with a lot of confusion why the topic is controversial at all, which has made me significantly frustrated when "stirring up controversy" is the framing that some opponent would like to paint me as, when several times in my life I've said things that are just my honest thoughts with no intent to be controversial at all and I'm tired of it.
This gives me a temptation to think "these people are going to call me this anyway, when should I really not care", and with Aella's having an audience and doing this for years maybe playing into that 'role' became tempting. Negativity bias + being poor at taking feedback seems general amongst influencer-people too. So I personally find that credible.
(I do find Aella's glorfifying sex work / crypto promotion stuff strange myself -- but not even the haters are talking about the crypto promotion stuff)
There is something comical to me about this having 0 points on this site, to me it's a well intentioned post and title and yet it will never work (perhaps that is simply my view however). I would posit that this is even more general where leftism used to be tightly linked with class and freedom of speech and now is the thing that has been most "poisoned" over the past decade, and previous people who held that label have the poisoned choice of abandoning it and making it seem less sane or trying to market a new term. There is also a clash between purist-types who would advocate freedom of speech despite a large coalition who had no respect for it for years and (I don't know) realistic/pragmatic types who I would not even say it would be hypocritical to want revenge/retaliation instead.
Whenever there is a drift of terminology from a core useful idea (like what has happened to "freedom of speech") I often meditate on whether others believed the original idea at all. It feels a bit bleak to think of it that way, though.
More options
Context Copy link