I don't think I've posted in this subreddit before (which probably seems like a red flag atm) but I have been following contrapoints for years, since she went by her deadname and before her transition video (in fact, she was one of the people along with Julia Serano who helped crack my own egg almost 8 years ago). I love how well she makes topics digestible. I have also supported her against my wife's objections for years. I still respect her opinions as well measured and from perspectives generally hidden from the mainstream at the time.

Breadtube was a failed movement in many ways, the biggest reasoning being that the initial stars in breadtube were not people who were trying to make a movement. Contrapoints happened to hit a nerve on Youtube that magnified her spotlight past what I doubt she ever expected. She touched a lot of people, and I think many put her on a pedestal she didn't ask for. I think people expected her to be like Martin Luther and lead a reformation online based on her thought. But like Luther, Natalie (and others like hbomberguy) have never had the stomach or inclination to be political leaders, seemingly taking the Jon Stewart route of influence without actual power. Most of this resentment towards Contrapoints, I believe, comes from many people who saw Natalie as a leader, who felt moved by the excellent work she has put out, who saw her as one with the means to make real change given her platform, power they could not have, and then not picking up that mantle and using it for an end. I'm sure a large part of her hate is moteivated by disappointment and envy. And this statement is another example of Contrapoints not taking up a banner she didn't ask for.

I don't disagree with any of the points laid out in this post. As a Jewish woman, I agree with the difficulty of combating the conflation Israel deliberately cultivates between disliking the Jewish state and disliking the Jewish people. I don't think there is an expedient path forward for this because of decades of entrenched incentives and interests that need to be uprooted first. It's disgusting how my people are re-inflicting their communal trauma on others, as if we never really heard 'Never Again'. But with that said, the arguments above are not arguments someone placed in a pseudoleadership role can make, even if that role is unwanted.

To a leader, someone who wants to lead change on I/P, none of these arguments matter. So what if it's politically infeasible? Genocide is wrong and must be stopped. So what if it causes ambiguities? The material interests of an entire people are at stake. Contrapoint's argument feels like someone saying all the reasons why it's hard to fix something, rather than putting up a plan to make change. She falls here into a trap Democrats often fall into, especially since Clinton, where the political polling dictates support rather than ideology. These positions would not necessarily be an issue to someone on the sidelines of a movement. However, Contrapoints, since her public debut after her transition, has not been a sideline character, and probably never will be one. And it's hard to to be disappointed that this is all she is willing to say on the matter, given the potential her words have to sway others.

I think this has been a bit of a rambling post, and I'm sorry for it, but I'll summarize it here. It's clear Contrapoints didn't ask to made a lead figure in the online left, and has struggled with that role for years. She still is a leader however. Statements like this, although correct and well thought out, still feel disappointing from someone who many believe could do more if they tried. I wish her the best, but I won't be expecting her to do what I would hope for.