[1.Ch.] ContraPoints
Something Natalie says in her most recent video, "Canceling," is that most of her critics don't watch her videos; they take excerpts of transcripts and social media posts out of context and fit them into pre-existing narratives.
Of the people I've seen who led with "I watched the video," most seem to have agreed with her.
Of the people I've seen who led with doubts about Wynn, most said they hadn't watched the video.
Make of this what you will.
[1.Ch.] ContraPoints
@orrery @orrery That's a refrain I hear from a lot of assholes, so I'm not sure I find it particularly persuasive? Especially given the selection bias there.
"You didn't listen to this entire two hour ramble" isn't much of a defense to "Hey this part makes you look like an ass." If there's actual context, it's better to just supply it. (see: the latest Biden thing when you just have to put the surrounding paragraph or two into place).
(now from the right account)
[1.Ch.] ContraPoints
Accuracy over brevity is fine. But two hours is far too much to evaluate as a single statement. That's not accuracy that's dissembling.
So what I see is fillibuster and gish gallop. Nothing can be responded to because "context" would surely prove otherwise, regardless of the video's context or content.
Therefore the speaker can never be proven wrong.
[1.Ch.] ContraPoints
@Doephin So, I don't think it _is_ a single statement, because few of her videos are ever "a single statement." They may have theses that can be stated succinctly, but even then I would argue that the _argument_ (the contents of the video) are more important than the thesis, because they're what give the thesis weight and impact. Especially in a case like this one where she's not only responding to her critics but trying to establish what does and doesn't deserve response.
re: [1.Ch.] ContraPoints
@orrery If it's not a single statement, bits can be broken out and responded to. The thing I have issue is this:
"Hey, this part of the video makes you look like an asshole."
"Well, watch the whole two hours and I don't"
There's...not a good way to respond to that in a useful fashion?
This is fine, by contrast
""Hey, this part of the video makes you look like an asshole."
"Watch the section before and after, I was taking both sides / quoting something / setting up something to condemn it"
or
"Watch the section before and after where I explain that better"
This can be worked with. The first is the kind of strategy I see out of jackasses. 9/10 "but the context" has no context, it's just stalling.
re: [1.Ch.] ContraPoints
@Doephin I'm not going to say what parts of somebody else's text are or are not sufficient context because I don't want other people relying on my filters to form their opinions. I feel like I can say that I found her video compelling, and that I felt the vast majority of it was relevant to her larger points. Beyond that, I recommend people come to their own conclusions about the work, which requires that they take it in for themselves.
[1.Ch.] ContraPoints
@Doephin I would argue that the whole video _is_ her context, and that if she could've fit it into less than that, she would have.
Then again, I've spent my life feeling like people have told me I should prioritize brevity over accuracy when communicating, especially in the context of my autism and what constitutes meaningful communication. I may therefore be the wrong person to ask about whether a two-hour presentation is too much to ask of people.