Bro finally articulated what we all have been saying for the last one year.
Personally, I’ve always held that breadtube was never about anything serious. The main thing that clique was concerned with was either meaningless internet drama or pop culture analysis. Hate to break it to some people, but watching disney movies and then talking about it isn’t at all profound. Same goes for doing response videos to some low-hanging fruit New Atheist type who had no ideology beyond “I want to be able to say slurs without getting into trouble”. Turns out, it’s pretty easy to look good when the people you’re arguing against are like that and are generally unlikable to anyone who didn’t already agree with them. However, this isn’t a good litmus test and once again the matter of AES and anti-imperialism has shown us who are the libs vs comrades.
🎯
Libs will lib.
TL;DR:
- Author says Breadtube is cringe and out of touch, and goes on to elaborate:
- ContraPoints appearing on Hillary Clinton’s podcast and then, in a ContraPoints video, pouring blood on Hillary Clinton, was unacceptable. Breadtube should never make jokes about war criminals or fascism.
- Also Breadtube is cliquey, and the evidence of this is Nebula and a guy who DMed at least two Breadtubers and was never replied to and was actually exposed by having them publishing the DMs.
I agree that, in videos and in communities, there can be better strategies than others to achieve your goals.
I also understand that banning humor around topics that are very, very close to your heart may seem like a good idea. After all, if it’s very, very close to your heart, it’s very easy for it to hurt. However, I’m not sure rigidly avoiding humor every time a particular topic is brought up is a good idea.
Here’s an example of what I mean. What’s closer to most people’s heart than their loving partner? Or family that they love and who supports them? People’s support networks sometimes take brutal hits. Loved ones eventually die. And in their funerals, you see a lot of pain. In that sense, funerals suck. But I don’t think I’ve ever been to a funeral where there isn’t laughter. People recount the deceased’s funny anecdotes. People who haven’t seen each other in years catch up a bit and reconnect.
I do agree that some people haven’t yet processed things and are still accepting that their loving mother died last night. I’ve also seen people destroyed by grief. In that moment, they are far from laughing. But even they can get to a point where they can accept the reality and become open to life again.
I’ll never forget when my best friend’s grandmother died. At the funeral, my friend’s mother was devastated. Hours later, we were having dinner with my friend and his family. And there, I saw my friend’s mother move a couple of times from deep sorrow to laughter.
I think by now my point is clear.
Still, I’m not sure we can always make laughter happen. We cannot assure acceptance, and that is something we need to accept. In fact, I’m not even sure we can always avoid saying things that won’t rub other people’s sore spots.
But my hope is that we can look at the world’s atrocities and move from overwhelm to clarity. Atrocities, at the very least, can help us clarify what we value. And we can take clear steps to avoid them in the future, motivated less by an overwhelming fear of the past and more by an uplifting vision of the future.
I think you misunderstand his point. This youtuber makes videos about serious subjects, but are interspersed with humour throughout. What us grotesque about the ContraPoints example is her being buddy-buddy with a war criminal and deflecting critisism of this by joking about it. That is something which is never acceptable.
Thank you, ComradeGPT.
o7
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
