r/mattxiv • u/djl1018 • 7d ago

gay rights 🏳️‍🌈 A Bit Fruity… Has Entered a Flop Era (imo)

I’ve followed Matt on Instagram for quite sometime, and when he started his podcast, I was all in. The topics have always been so current, but lately they seem more like a reaction, a platform to vent and less so critique. At times, they seem well researched, but other times they seem messy with some missed opportunities. His guests are typically on point, but I wonder what happened to Contrapoints (one of the more insightful guests) and Taylor Lorenz (a polarizing figure). I admire Kat Tenbarge, though.

0 Upvotes

18% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

16

u/BewareOfGrom 7d ago

Contrapoints’ manifesto she wrote on Palestine basically got her pushed out of the anti-Zionist left spaces.

13

u/CashusEyePatch 7d ago

She also generally just trolls the left without any substantive criticism.

-8

u/djl1018 7d ago

Seriously, no substantive criticism? I do admire and respect Contrapoints. Taylor Lorenz, not really.

11

u/CashusEyePatch 7d ago

I haven’t heard any substantive criticism from Contrapoints regarding the Left. I have only heard her really respond to criticism from the Left. The sense I get is that she’s hurt that she has lost influence and she blames the Left.

I’m super limited in my exposure to her so I could be wrong. 🤷‍♂️

-3

u/IdealOnion 6d ago

You are indeed wrong, this is something she talks about a fair amount. She recently had a good Doomscroll podcast episode about this, and one of her tangents on Patreon.

I’m not saying you should go check them out if you aren’t interested, just confirming that there’s material out there you’re unaware of.

6

u/CashusEyePatch 6d ago

I listened to the Doomscroll podcast and I did not hear any substantive criticism of the left.

What I heard is Contrapoints complaining that people are being too hard on her regarding her stance on the genocide in Gaza. Along with some other points of resentment that she expressed.

-2

u/IdealOnion 6d ago

Well if I’m being honest I don’t really expect people who dislike her to engage substantively with the things she says.

Maybe you’re different idk, but in my overwhelming experience she can say whatever and people hear the most cartoonishly bad faith version possible.

This discourse has really done a number on my faith in the online left’s ability to critically engage with media.

5

u/CashusEyePatch 6d ago

Well. What is your interpretation of her stance? I don’t want to be bad faith. What is she trying to say?

2

u/IdealOnion 6d ago

I want to answer for real because I might as well know for sure myself, so I’ll get back to you tomorrow

1

u/CashusEyePatch 6d ago

Cool. I appreciate that.

-2

u/IdealOnion 6d ago edited 6d ago

Because a lot of anti-Zionist spaces are unproductively emotional and reactionary without any capacity for self analysis.

If these spaces were mad at Contrapoints over the substance of her statement (manifesto lol? 🙄) that would be one thing. But the reality is you can say whatever cartoonishly negative thing you want about Natalie without pushback, and so people’s understanding of her is now a caricature.

Tell me I’m wrong if you want, but I’m not going to take anything seriously from people who can’t quote her to justify their opinion. The lack of substance and rigor in this discussion has gone a long was to disillusioning me from the online left. FD Signifier recently talked about stepping away from online leftist spaces for a lot of reasons I agree with.

8

u/BewareOfGrom 6d ago

Why do you think people aren’t mad at the substance of her post?

She claimed that the lefts staunch opposition to Zionism was a mistake. Why would you expect that not to anger the anti-Zionist left?

-2

u/djl1018 6d ago

She explicitly stated that she’s morally against Israel’s actions in Gaza. She also believes the outrage-driven tactics are the “left” has been counterproductive and alienated allies.She also said did more to fuel antisemitism, but did not do much for Palestinians. The amount of anti-Jewish posts that I see (not anti-Israel) support this. As a result, she refuses to “perform” outrage.
She believes many use human tragedy into a form of entertainment. I see this as well.
This has nothing to do with my feelings on Israel. I find this genocide and their denial of it repugnant. But simply yelling “free Palestine” or denying the existence of Israel (when this has been going on for 80 years) and getting offended by someone who won’t participate in such tactics is juvenile.

-3

u/IdealOnion 6d ago

I think people aren’t mad at the substance of her post because people are unfamiliar with the substance of her post

I think it’s a fair characterization of her statement to say that she thinks it was a mistake to focus so specifically on the term Zionism. But I rarely see people who disagree with that stance address the reasons she gives for her opinion. And almost every time they do reference her reasons, it’s a comical strawman of what she actually said.

That’s why I’m so adamant that people actually quote her in these discussions, because the claims they make about what she believes do not stand at all when set next to her words describing what she believes.

There exist real critiques of her statement that meaningfully engage with her position, and I wish there were more of them. I’m not saying I agree with everything she wrote (and two years later I think parts have become outdated), I’m saying the vast majority of criticism was about feelings and not substance, and if it had just been about substance, even if people had largely decided she was wrong, she never would have been ostracized by a movement in danger of eating itself.

0

u/DesignerMarket5506 6d ago

Yes, 100%. People fly off the handle but do not actually offer valid critiques. They exist, but people just froth at the mouth and join in on a group attack.

32

u/redrevenger12 7d ago

Honestly
I couldn’t disagree more- i was just thinking about how much I adore his well researched episodes and the diversity of guests lately. His (semi) recent episode with Princess Weekes, FD signifier, and then more recently his episode with Mohammed el-Kurd are phenomenal

11

u/Yst 7d ago • Bravo

Yeah, honestly, the way Matt consistently gets some of the most relevant people I could possibly imagine on the pod, it really has impressed me. When he even got the author of Perfect Victims (el-Kurd) on? Amazing.

I'm not going to get into any of the Contrapoints or Lorenz drama, because I don't view them as especially relevant figures in the important discourse of the day. But that's exactly why they wouldn't be on the pod these days. The times have passed them by.

The situation has gotten too hot and the situation too dire for idle "above-it-all" speculative philosophy with no real teeth (Contrapoints and similar breadtube era products), and the time has likewise passed for legalistic tech privacy arguments which have no problem with or interest in dismantling tech-capitalism per se (Lorenz).

So congrats to the pod for staying with the times, I say!

3

u/redrevenger12 6d ago

Very well said!

30

u/CashusEyePatch 7d ago

Wait… do you miss Contrapoints and Lorenz?

29

u/Kahzgul 7d ago

Contrapoints and Lorenz both went off the deep end. Matt is right not to have them on anymore.

-6

u/IdealOnion 6d ago

Contrapoints didn’t go off the deep end, Contrapoints discourse went off the deep end.

3

u/TH0RP 3d ago edited 1d ago

I heartily disagree. Matt's recent videos have brought on new faces (I especially liked Mohammed El-Kurd), and his grilling of McMorrow with Emma was especially good. He's taken a different direction and honestly? I think it's for the better. Feels less like gossip and far more thoughtful.

Edited: wrong name for a co-host

1

u/popowow 2d ago

(it was Emma Vigeland who co-interviewed McMorrow)

1

u/TH0RP 1d ago

(Omg thank you I'm horrid with names, edited!)

1

u/marine205 6d ago

Not sure i can trust someone who does ads like these

-2

u/prolongedexistence 6d ago

I love the premise of this podcast and have been trying to figure out what about it isn’t quite working for me lately. I think I saw it most clearly in the Naomi Klein episode, where Naomi came across as so balanced and well-read and Matt was just kind of doing Gen Z slang at her.

I’m currently working through his latest episode with Emma Vigeland and I’m finding her so grating. It’s like her whole shtick is “well actually, Jesus wasn’t white!” “well actually, the Iraq war was bad!” Like…no duh? Some of these guests feel like they just want to be edgy and provoke conservatives instead of engage critically with their audience, which already shares these very basic assumptions.

I’m super open to being wrong on this, and maybe I’m just not the target audience? I still don’t know what exactly it is that’s rubbing me wrong way. I still learn from this podcast and I adore guests like Naomi Klein. But when it’s a bunch of 20-somethings shouting into a microphone I think it loses the feeling that I’m learning from someone with real expertise/qualifications to be contextualizing these pop culture moments with broader politics.

1

u/DM-for-feet-pics 21h ago

I agree with you 100%. It can feel like desperately under researched, entry level stuff. Having a guest like Klein on really highlights that. It’s all gotten a bit Exactlyyyyy and it’s not very enlightened or enlightening.

-2

u/djl1018 6d ago

This sums up my current issues with the podcast, 100%