r/ContraPoints • u/highclass_lady • 6d ago
Hank Green Sharing ContraPoints new video on Bluesky! šš
As someone in the replies pointed out, Hank Green sharing ContraPoints work on Trans Day of Visibility is a based move!
I know that Hank Green's mention of Joe Rogan's podcast as an example of runtime that people do make time for, may be off putting to those of us already here, but Hank's post was to reach more people, some of whom may not be familiar with ContraPoints yet, & to highlight a point about how worth it her videos are! And to draw people in Hank posted about this while using something that a lot of people are already familiar with as a comparison, not to endorse the guy mentioned.
Something I genuinely love to see, is when 2 public figures, who create educational content, who I have a lot of respect for, show support for eachother's work!
132
u/RaccoonTasty1595 6d ago
It's basically a movie. Turn your living room into a cinema
57
u/highclass_lady 6d ago
šæšæ š„ Some of my friends & I have made movie nights out of ContraPoints videos, we'll have drinks & themed snacks or dinner, atmospheric mood lighting, & even our pets will want to be included to watch with us! It's often led to late night deep soul-nourishing conversations, sometimes on a balcony looking at the city lights under to moon.
We've also listened to ContraPoints, Jenny Nicholson, & other video essays while in the car on a road trip driving to a theme park, & recently we've even planned to finish 1 of her videos during a picnic at a park under the blossoming trees šø š§ŗšš¾
10
u/StemOfWallflower 6d ago
Oh, how sweet and wonderful that sounds. Makes me a little jealous to be honest, I wish I had somebody in my life who loved Natalie's videos as much as I do š„²
11
u/highclass_lady 6d ago
I've always felt that a beautiful way to exist is to live life believing that you still haven't met all the people that will love you, & all the people you will get to love. āØ
(At least in terms of friendships & platonic connections if you're already in a relationship).
3
3
41
u/prailock 6d ago
I don't remember where I heard him tell the story but he was on a podcast talking about his cancer treatments and would put on Contrapoints in the chemo room. He mentioned the JK Rowling video specifically as one he watched and multiple people had no idea how bad she had gotten until he had the video on in the background for anyone to watch. He's been a fan for a while.
19
u/wouldeye 5d ago
He obliquely referenced Natalie in one of his books as āsome smart lady from Baltimoreā
2
u/wrongleveeeeeeer 4d ago edited 4d ago
Was that in the Remarkable Thing/Foolish Endeavor books? I read and loved those, but don't remember the reference.
Edit: I found someone explaining it in a different comment on this post, no need to bother replying :-)
67
u/No-Ladder7740 6d ago
I find Hank Green's videos kind of dull but he's clearly the nicest person on youtube. Lindsay Ellis's Vidcon talk contains about four different examples of Hank Green doing being an ally right and riding to her defence in various smart ways at various critical points during gamergate and all that.
11
u/G-Mang 6d ago
I didn't find that with a quick google search, got a link by any chance?
11
u/No-Ladder7740 5d ago
Ah sorry it was XOXO https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7Alen-p6_ak&t=0s
14
u/Capgras_DL 5d ago
I donāt agree with his politics but i think heās a good dude whoās done a lot of good in the world. Heās the kind of liberal I could see myself allying with if need be.
8
u/sunechidna1 4d ago
What political opinions of his do you disagree with? I though he was pretty good so just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
50
22
u/robertofontiglia 6d ago
Hank has been in the Patreon Supporters list of the end credits on ContraPoints videos for as long as I can remember.
9
u/kateweathermachine 6d ago
He referenced her in one of his books too!
2
1
u/Efficient-username41 5d ago
When? Iāve read both of his books about 5 times each and I do not remember this reference.
13
u/kateweathermachine 5d ago
In a beautifully foolish endeavor Andy watches a bunch of video essays and talks about getting some ideas from them and wondering if that means heās not original and he talks about watching āa smart lady from baltimoreā (hank was also watching her videos around that time and collaborating with other youtubers in her circle)
5
u/Efficient-username41 5d ago
Ah I see. Thatās hilarious since on one of Natās Patreon AMAs I gave her a recommendation for these books, and sheās technically kind of in them š
24
u/AdditionalHouse5439 6d ago
The right is best served by improvisational rants full of misinformation and submission to fallacious argumentation, and the left is best served by tightly designed and decorated, higher-budget arrangements of technique, style, and intellect. Donāt find a Joe Rogan of the left; fund actual artists.
16
u/theatomictangerine 6d ago
When people say āJoe Rogan of the leftā I donāt think they mean someone literally like Joe Rogan, they mean someone extremely popular who has a lot of reach with people who arenāt very invested in politics (and in particular men) but who leans left
-2
u/AdditionalHouse5439 6d ago
I know what they mean. Iām making a different observation. There may be a real distinction in the mediums the left and right tend to use and thrive in.
6
u/theatomictangerine 6d ago
Maybe, but the real demographic that matters isnāt the right or the left but the non-voters in the middle, people donāt follow politics or have strong ideology but could be motivated to lean right if, say, their favorite podcaster convinces them to. If you can reach those people by funding the arts that would be great, but there is a logic in trying to find someone like Joe Rogan who communicates via a platform that is easily accessible, easily understandable and frequently talks about non-political topics to draw in other audiences
1
u/AdditionalHouse5439 5d ago
I agree. But you can also do that by making good movies and tv shows that accessible draw in wide audiences with non-political topics, plots, and character dynamics. I explore this more in another post, but Iām not applauding YouTube videos per se.
6
u/Ardent_Scholar 6d ago
Natalie herself argues for pathos in debate
2
u/AdditionalHouse5439 6d ago
Pathos and rhetorical strategy does not equal fallacious argumentation. I am talking about podcasts with nearly zero design and forethought but great common sensical rhetorical force, in contrast to ambitious highly designed works.
Hollywood is rightly critiqued by the right as being very liberal. It isnāt just because of gatekeeping, but because, I contend, the medium of high-budget film is more fundamentally progressive and less friendly to right wing ideas in contrast to the stream of consciousness, direct transmission of the podcast/talk radio show.
2
u/Ardent_Scholar 6d ago
Pathos doesnāt necessitate disinformation; but it is not hindered by it.
Thus, whatever is most expedient is employed.
And nonsense and copypasting other peopleās nonsense are much, much more efficient and exciting than careful research and fact checking.
If the idea is to stir up emotion, why would they bother?
0
u/AdditionalHouse5439 5d ago edited 4d ago
Because emotion is not as sticky as thought and belief, and beliefs are most adhesive and contagious when truer. The current right is relying on their faithful being isolated and free to do the thing where they are immune to attempted rational discourse because theyāre on the internet, can say whatever they want, and you canāt stop them.
But when one is no longer isolated or shielded by virtual and communal straw men, and incentivized to think, such as one may be more when in a play, or movie theater, or really paying attention to a good tv show, which I contend are fundamentally more liberal media, then there is room to change minds by plausible demonstration by characters, or even by inserted logical exposition or introduction of cult-harmful facts, and the debunking of wrong ideas.
1
u/Pixie1001 4d ago
Coming in a bit late to the discussion, but while I do agree with your points, I think that's also hitting on the exact issue Natalie addresses in her video.
Finding the time and energy to watch intellectual videos, plays or to surround yourself in academic spaces is kind of a privilege - it's why Marxist theory has failed to take off, while fucking QAnon conspiracy theories have so much pull that they likely decided the results of the US elections, despite in a lot of ways being an answer to an identical problem.
Stream of conscious wish fulfilment soup that doesn't require much up front understanding of the subject matter is just inherently more digestible, especially for every day Americans that don't have a lot of time or energy to divert to it. They can miss a few episodes of JRE, but they don't really miss any context, because it being a contradictory, reality defying mess is the whole point.
But obviously that then leads use to the whole 'they go low, we go high' vs. 'fight fire with fire debate'.
Putting out stream of consciousness leftist slop, with just like, a vague angry undertone, and just kinda making stuff up to get people to vote, would be very effective - although I suspect it would cause a schism in the movement for the reasons you outlined, because the current leftist movement would see right through it and be inherently suspicious - but then what would we have after that?
Sure we'd start with a leftist utopia, or at least something better than we have now, but once reality ceases to have meaning, democracy kinda collapses with it.
So it's kind of a lose/lose situation t.t
16
u/Broad_Temperature554 6d ago
That's a cute thought, but unfortunately fallacious argumentation sells if you give it a face that the average shmuck can "relate to"
Lets not pretend that all leftist content is perfect either. Generally better maybe, but not something you should ever absorb uncritically and treat as gospel4
u/AdditionalHouse5439 6d ago
I donāt think Leftist content is perfect and I donāt absorb it uncritically. Iām saying that I think more thoughtfully crafted and designed media, in contrast to free-form, talk-radio-type media, may itself be more conducive to critical and progressive thinking by virtue of its greater formal emphasis on getting ideas across, while the former talk-show/podcast media places much more emphasis on the mere personality of the speaker.
With this in mind, Iām not glazing Leftist content, but rather highlight a point that the right seems more vaguely aware of than the left: Hollywood, Broadway, and Universities are indeed more liberal than average places, though not necessarily because theyāve been controlled to be that way from above. They are just not conductive to many aspects of right-wing thought by virtue of their very forms and purposes.
Please feel free to disagree! Itās all just a theory.
4
7
u/Efficient-username41 5d ago
Why would people find the Joe Rogan comparison off putting? Heās pointing out conspiracists listen to lengthy things all the time, so they may as well give Natalie a chance too. People cannot be this sensitive, can they? Ffs.
4
u/highclass_lady 5d ago edited 4d ago
Because when a public figure mentions someone whomst is problematic, even when using said person as an example, if they have not sufficiently made adequate disclaimers about them, the very mention of someone's name or work is misconstrued by the most tiresome in an audience as that person's endorsement of everything the figure mentioned or associated with has ever said, done, claimed they believe etc.
As another commenter rightly pointed out, to disparage the podcaster in the same breath as mentioning (to paraphrase) "if you make time for this, it's much more worth your time to make time for ContraPoints videos" would alienate & dissuade the very people who might most need to hear the point Hank was making.
I've long been hypervigilant about trying to not do or say things that I think will be perceived negatively or that will prompt people to attribute severely negative or qualities to me, although I'll be the 1st to admit I'm far from perfect. I've mentioned Hank Green in a positive light about having done something good among ContraPoints fans in the past, & immediately was met with people pointing out if Hank Green's politics were tolerable enough or "what do we think of Hank?" discourse.
Hank is an ally, & has long proven he's a person that worthy of my respect. I believe many people are for more complex & complicated than simply "good or bad" but for me, Hank passes the vibe check so I'm going to use such an overly simplistic term. To me, purity testing a good person like that, especially someone who has always voiced his opposition to the other side, has actually been involved in making real differences for various causes, fundraising for charities, & for example, supporting healthcare in Sierra Leone, purity testing someone like that is, well, in my opinion, tiresome. Hank receives an endless flood of feedback yet still makes a conscious effort to learn better & inform his beliefs more after hearing perspectives, science, & about other people's backgrounds & experiences.
So I do put guards & disclaimers to try to say things "heyy don't stop reading yet, just because I mentioned something that included someone's use of a problematic person as an example, here's why the person wrote what he did & what I think he meant by the example." But as I already said in another comment, I was trying to preemptively defend Hank Green.
Maybe preimpetively trying to say, "hey I'm on your side, I see where you could be coming from, just let me explain" was unfairly accusing the audience by default, & making assumptions that the voices that might be raised 1st would be the most critical. So my mistake I think, is that framing the disclaimer so preimpetively & accusationally is unfair, unnecessarily deffensive, condensending, dismissive, & failing to give the audience the credibility & benifit of the doubt that would've been more respectful & should've been the default. Although I stand by my decision to include a disclaimer at all, (especially given the nature of responses to Hank I had just seen on BlueSky), it should not have been something I included in the intro or something so prominnent or embedded or in such a "brace for impact" type of tone.
1
2
3
279
u/2mock2turtle 6d ago
I don't see the Joe Rogan shoutout as being off-putting, he's making an observation. More people should listen to Natalie than Joe. By, like, a wide margin.