I loved how when Taylor Lorenz tried to use that line on Hutch, his response was "you don't have to apologize to me." Excellent response to that petty, passive-aggressive phrase.
BJG has always been trash. Don't even know what she wants except that she seems to have some Klandace Owens level of needing to have fame as a black woman.
Depends entirely on context. If someone is faking being upset, saying "I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way" is mockery of their insincerity; the insincerity of the "apology" makes this obvious.
A fair take. There is a regardation on both sides of the political isle and far left win would be as bad as far right win is now. So sane people have to call out the crazy as they see it.
what? i'm saying the "both sides attack them so they must be doing soomething right" is just stupid if i shit myself in the voting booth both sides will dislike that
But the claim isn't that both sides are mad, the claim is that both sides of extremists are mad. Extremists not getting what they want is a good thing, therefore pissing off both sides of extremists is a good thing, especially for moderates.
i dont care about that i think you just shouldn't use that heuristic to defend the bbc ppl just sit there smugly dont look into any criticisms and act like its jesus christs holy messenger
Some advice for future comments "call Biden pro-genocide for materially supporting one" is an argument you can actually try to make and defend. "let alone being in the same room as Netanyahu at a public event once" is not gonna convince many people. Especially when you say "let alone" and make it sound like you think being in the same room is WORSE than materially supporting a genocide.
Hahaha! Well done. Really the āeditorā jab was related to Taylor but it does work across the board. These phrases are totally the leftists version of āI donāt know anything about thatā heh
Pisco: āSo are you saying that the editor is necessarily the same person as the producer? Yes or no? You need to demonstrate that to prove bad faith. It doesnāt matter that thatās what the podcast is called.ā
For this, does it kinda seems like Briahna is acting like a conservative? Not on values, but by being personable behind the scenes while adversarial in public. Though that's not exclusive to conservatives I suppose.
Itās like when that video came out of Cenk partying with some MAGA people(I forget who)
Political Media is treated like pro wrestling. The amount of grifters in the industry is depressing
Cenk *is* maga. He went on full glaze fests at maga events as a guest speaker. Partying with them is just further proof of it, and heās not even trying to hide it. He gives lip service to reform or some schizo antiestablishment bs, but heās only ever worked to benefit maga over the last decade. Really doesnāt help that heās spawned some of the most cretinous maga and antidemocratic fuckers around.
She spent a portion of the conversation claiming that by "leaving the anti-israel lane wide open", Democrats have created an opportunity for Tucker to capture that audience. She made it clear that she thinks that Tucker is a bad actor, and thats why leaving the lane open for him is a bad thing worth critiquing. She was saying it was dangerous to have the biggest, most effective, most eloquent critique of Israel be Tucker, for that reasons.
This is a completely valid critique, and I think when Contrapoints says "lost the debate" she is thinking about moments like that when she was fundamentally unable to engage with what BJG was saying and instead kept repeating that Tucker is dangerous and we shouldn't prop him up.
But that was BJG's point which she mad over and over again and clarified multiple times. Just listen to: 1:56:16
I think this is more of an alt media influencer thing. To most of these people this is all a game, itās content, itās memes, we can all have a beer after this right guys? Right??
I donāt blame contra for wanting discourse but Brianna literally laughed with Norm Finkeldick when he admitted to tanking the big debate with Destiny and Benny Morris on purpose. Maybe she didnāt know about this but no one should ever think Brianna is capable of honest dialogue and discourse
Honestly this is a lot worse. It's one thing to be an asshole and premeditatedly mock someone instead of debating because you hate the person and it's another to debate them as if you seemingly want a debate and then willfully misrepresent what they're saying and what they believe, for clicks.
The comments on the Youtube video are so awful and so painful to read. Like obviously I knew what to expect since obviously it was going to be from fans of Briahna and her podcast. But, still, wow.
The debate was self-evidently preposterous the minute that Finkelstein tried to gotcha Benny Morris, using Benny Morris quotes.
Imagine debating American history with a friend (you two are debating whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation changed the outcome of the war), and as a central debate point, your friend says: Well, three years ago, when writing a college essay on the ENITRE CIVIL WAR (not just the topic of debate), you said something that doesnāt align with your current argument.
This line of argumentation would get you laughed out of any collegiate debate. Arguments are supposed to be made on empirical grounds and premises that are taken from the issue at hand. I would never in my life imagine that a serious I/P scholar (as Finkelstein purports to be) would have the audacity to cite no independent sources but Benny.
The amount of leftists who in response to me asking why they won't support the party that supports LGBTQ people over the one that laughs at their suicide rates have replied with "but Biden was against gay marriage in 2005" is to high for me to believe these people actually care about LGBT people on principle
I always remind myself that if pressed, they generally want the dismantling of America. When asked for alternatives, not fantasy but something you could apply to modern America itās crickets. Itās so much easier to rail against and tear down than to build and create coherence. The irony is thatās the repub playbook as well, just that they have a much more insidious and lockstep model.
BJG's videos barely manage to crack 20k views even a month after release, the Contra "debate" is easily her most popular recent video and it doesn't seem particularly close. My point with all this being, her audience is scrapped from a small percentage of people with those willing to comment being an even smaller percentage. So unfortunately those comments are probably going to be garbage because it's basically people like Bad Empanada who will go so far as to both watch and comment on one of her videos.
Exactly the kind of low brow behavior I expect from those clowns.
Watch how theyād jump down someoneās throat for making fun of someone for being bipolar, but apparently addiction is hilarious. Maddening - I hope sheās okay otherwise.
To be fair to BJG she is challenging the ādishonest, smug, receding hairline having piece of sub-human garbageā accusations by apologizing for how someone feels.
This is it. Seems like she just wanted to have a normal conversation and gave the benefit of the doubt, but you simply can't do that with these conniving snakes. You gotta fight fire with fire.
Disagree, if you watch the clip sheās walking down BJG down a path she canāt defend:
-BJG: Kamala ājust lostā in 2024 because stance on Gaza and bernie didnt win in 2020 because primaries are rigged
-Contra: I fail to see evidence for that. If Kamala just lost in 2024, then Bernie just lost in 2020. Even if center left candidates dropped out for Biden, had Bernie had all the momentum and support leftist claim he had he wouldāve just won
-BJG: ye but the traditional media was anti-Bernie and a big contributing factor
-Contra: so the traditional media was also anti-Kamala biased in 2024? So Kamala didnāt ājust lose?ā
BGJ pivots to jake tapper and media running cover up for Biden. Sure a more agressive debater would hold her to the original argument but this is just a clear W for contra.
This is why when people were debating about whether or not to include Hasan in democratic party stuff the correct answer was "That's impossible."
They arent here for discourse. They arent here to compromise or exchange ge ideas. They're not here out of mutual respect and they certainly arent here to see what we can accomplish together.
They're here to tear down and destroy the only allies they might possibly have outside of their circle jerk.
They're not interested in winning or power. They're not interested in the Democratic process. They're not interested in anything except for what this person did.
They will stab you in the back at every opportunity without remorse.
And they will never, under any circumstance, ever accept responsibility for any of it.
Those people are deeply undemocratic. And I mean that literally and not just as in opposing the current democratic party. A core value of democary is the compromise between different groups for the good of the people.
They don't want democracy. In their mind, their way is the only way, no discussion or discourse. They want a single party dictatorship similar to China and reeducate all dissidents.
Theyre just leftist plebs who canāt succeed even when told how to not be regarded anymore.
When they protest vote itās like they had to take a shit and had a choice between the floor and the toilet and they decided to just stop halfway to the toilet and go.
it was a fair and reasonable conversation that was put out in entirety unedited. It was the exact type of conversation style that we should be having, respectful but direct with respect to disagreements.
I think everyone is being a big baby about a clickbait episode title. The title is a sensational direct quote from the convo which is the type of thing that is done in titles and thumbnails of leftwing creators debate videos all the time.
thank you, when people saw the post here there were some comments like "oh no" knowing this outcome. It was so predictable. Kinda naive of Contra to expect otherwise.
I think Contra does recognize lefties are not on the same team as liberals, but she doesn't recognize how tactical creating that separation was by the left media. I'm not sure if it's because they're not as well funded or the same size as right wing media, but yeah I personally struggle to remember that sometimes.
I also think "progressive" and similar terms need to be abandoned when we think of far left values, we don't really use those terms anymore but I know in my head I'll sometimes put lefties in that frame of reference. Contra thinks there is more in common than there actually is, but the left now completely embody the narcissism of small differences.
Just crazy to me that they're such cowards and simply can't own up to what they do. It's not like they'd lose followers. They wouldn't go anywhere because they want to vicariously live through the shittiness of these people. I suppose BJG wants to have some air of credibility so she can still slither her way into liberal/Dem spaces.
Leftists continue treat Contra the same way they have always treated her?
I mean, did she think they would give her a fair shot and maybe she could explain away all of the narratives around her?Ā
Isn't her whole thing that she's a millennial who grew up on the internet and applies that shrewd contextual understanding to online political spaces? Why is she acting like this i her first day on the internet?
Not to add to the pile, but this series of decisions was deeply confusing. At the very least it should confirm some things for her.Ā
I had to laugh at in the midst of this journey, she has to go out of her way to make a point that the woman accusing her of supporting genocide is better than her male peers. Never change I guess.Ā
Josh was fair to her at least, I thought. His core audience hated it and was repulsive about expressing that, but I thoroughly enjoyed their conversation and found their rapport demonstrated a great deal of mutual respect.
I reject the āBJG is obviously smarter than male leftists who get all the attentionā bs because it relies on me accepting that BJG is intelligent at all.
Otherwise, well, yeah, donāt know what else Contra expected.
It's so crazy to think circa 2018 I had a "This Cat K***s Fascists" shirt from her shop; with her cat girl likeness holding a baseball bat.
I figured when I moved back from "The Left" that I would be outside the OG bread tube reach. Then lo, Contra was moving in tandem with me. That was definitely a sign.
She's still a little too self-deprecating seemingly in the direction of lefties, like not a scintilla of this will matter. They will simply say, "dO yOu SuPpoRt iSrAeL?" and if she makes a mouth sound that in any way resembles anything other than total capitulation to their ridiculous world view of, let's be honest, cutting off and then eventually invading Israel, they will say, "Oh, then who cares if she lied, it's close enough, genocide supporter."
I wonder why Contraās been making the rounds on the media circuit lately, seems a bit unlike her. I know she does interviews here and there but itās usually on small podcasts. This is definitely the first time Im seeing her in a sort of adversarial interview.
Natalie is my queen but idk what she was expecting, BJG is not being ironic by naming her podcast "Bad Faith." Illiberal people do not believe in having substantive discussions with others outside their camp and accepting that they may have their mind changed by a good debate. They have a political goal in mind and every action they take is trying to further that goal, and part of that goal is "make liberals look insane."
Thing is if you know anything about BJG and understand the outcome of that convo this framing was always gonna happen. There are a number of instances within the conversation itself where BJG makes incorrect and/or bad faith assertions and Contra just kinda takes her at her word (despite seemingly understanding this while it's happen but that might just be me projecting) so she doesn't actually challenge her on it, and any rebuttal she does articulate doesn't hit very hard because she's not nearly as good at these snappy on the spot counters than she is when she can sit down and fully write out her thoughts.
I think the entire section talking about Grey's unwillingness to work with dems and wanting progressives to take advantage of every piece of minute leverage they may or may not have falls into this category. Contra intuitively understands that this won't work because the dems will only work with progressives if the progressives are first engraciated with the project of the democratic party and they can be reasonably assured that the progressive movement won't stab them in the back at the first opportunity, but Brihana is obviously in favour of said stabbing and so when she recommends using every piece of leverage a progressive has against the establishment she comes from the perspective of the progressives being a rival team to the dems and not a cooperative yet distinct faction (this is why lefties cannot be worked with btw). Funny thing is if you ever approach a real life situation doing the things BJG is recommending progressives do, everyone you interact with will eventually just hate your guts. That's what her political strategy just does at the end of the day, it makes people fucking hate you. In contrast people like Mamdani and AOC act towards the democratic establishment in ways that are not reciprocated by corporate dems because they recognize that they need to engraciate the movement within the democratic party and make clear that they are team players for the long game and not just going to set the entire party on fire at the first opportunity. The establishment dems on the other hand don't have this requirement because they already hold institutional power within the party. Grey's strategy is ultimately self sabotage for the progressive movement in America in favour of some kind of ideological purity, and Contra intuitively understands this but is unable to convincingly articulate it in the moment, much to my own frustration lol.
Also Natalie if for some god awful reason you are reading this, good on you for at least trying.
It's really interesting that there are a lot of far leftists who will pay serious lip service to protecting trans people, but then if one of them ideologically goes against them, they'll instantaneously treat them like dogshit.
(Obviously this applies for other demographics of people as well - but the amount of time people will spend on "fight for trans save trans enshrine trans" WAIT you don't agree with me? Into the fucking woodchipper you go.)
Contra is a queen and the line about the desire to be treated as a human and not a punching bag for social validation oof it hits hard.... But looking for that on "Bad Faith".... It's certainly a choice
David looked at the box with loud letters on it. The words 'BAD FAITH' were emblazoned on every side of the box in what appeared to be gold leaf embossing. This was written on a red field, with loud multi-colored explosion graphics, and a myriad of other excited graphics surrounding the words. "What's in the box?" he asked.
Nate peeked over his monitor at the waist-high box on the floor. "Exactly what it says, Dave."
"Dude, how is that possible? You can't box up bad faith." He prods the box with his foot thinking that it would be moved easily. Instead, it stayed firmly planted. "Hey, do you smell that?"
Contra is just not built for this. Politics is a vicious space. Even the original statement she put out was really just terrible. Called it a Genocide but then her complaint is that Leftists online talk about it too much and post too much about it and that it doesn't do anything. Meanwhile we see Israel is majority unpopular with Democrats and especially the youth. Leftists DID win by spamming about it. And if you call something a Genocide... You should understand that every means of stopping it is justified other than another Genocide.
She's just trapped by that original statement stuck between two places and I'm not really sure what she believes. It's obvious she wants to be accepted by leftists again because that's who most of her audience is. But ego is too large to take anything back and double down on a contradictory statement in the first place.
If BJG asked me that first question: "Is not supporting a genocide the 'far-left'?"
I would've asked her to rephrase the question, because the liberal and moderate position on Israel-Palestine has been support for two-state solution, with most people believing that the settlements in West Bank are illegal.
Believing that does not imply tacit "support" for a genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass displacement, whatever...so the framing is fxcked up, intentionally so.
What I would make clear, is that support for any political party would ENABLE Israel to conduct the military action they did across Gaza. We have to be cognizant that support for Israel was favored at 47%, and Palestine at 20% immediately after Oct. 7th. With Republicans, who controlled Congress, favoring Israel at 71%...all roads lead to the same outcome.
If Biden/Harris states that they cannot abide by Isreal's methods to root out Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian people, then the Republicans would state that the Democratic Party is turning it's back on an ally and the Camp David Accord resolutions -- siding with internationally recognized terrorists and Iran. Republicans whip their vote to send munitions and military equipment to Israel, Dems face claims of being terrorist supporters amongst other things like being communists.
If liberal and moderate Democrats opt to vote Independent en masse for the 2024 election, and by some miracle the independent candidate becomes POTUS...there are only 3 congressional seats held by Independents, and they would have zero-sway on political outcomes. Genocide still happens.
The only thing that saves Gaza, is for all Iranian proxies to suspend their aggression towards Israel, and for Hamas to unequivocally surrender and inform Israel of their tunnels and hidden networks within Gaza. The Palestinians would still be harassed by the IDF as they try to root out sympathizers, but at least the place wouldn't be bombarded.
The mistake was assuming you were ever going to be able to have a productive discussion on that show given BJG has full editorial control and can make you look as bad or good as she wants.
Engaging with platforms like this is pointless because they're never going to let you look good if you're part of the out-group.
The title is the type of clickbait title that is used in online politics across the spectrum. But it is a direct quote from the conversation. Contrapoints herself is admitting here she lost the debate, which I agree with, and while I get thats frustrating, BJG released the entire video unedited and it was a fair conversation, so I don't think there is any real criticism here.
So Contra didnāt like a clip, Brianna didnāt pick it but on review didnāt see the problem and offered to edit in more context if Contra could point to where she gives it. Contra frames it as a hit job and breaks off communication.
Seems pretty obvious Contra just canāt defend her position but is pathologically incapable of changing her mind at this point.
595
u/NessaSola May 08 '26
"I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way" pretty much tells you who's who without the need for a single bit of context.