I think this has the potential to be good. Everyone is telling me I'm wrong. I guess that's fine.

Sargon has made a living off of being antagonistic. The only reason why he moderated his opinion of her is because of her current opinions. If you want to see this kind of thing as it has happened before, look at @stillgray's "acceptance" into their community. As soon as he humbled himself before Milo and their community there was scores of people apologizing for calling him a nazi. They weren't sorry, they were trying to utilize him. Their behaviors never changed, their behavior toward a person changed. That was because they had been effectively whitelisted. They were now part of their movement.

I believe Green is and has been in a unique position for a long time: huge following, openly focused on feminism, nearly flawless in her activism/education for many years. For all the people saying this is obviously and completely bad, I want to talk about this.

Ok.

I get that trying to reconcile with antis is a hard sell.

Hard sell is one thing. What she's doing is adopting their rhetoric (which @stillmilo did as well), and doing precisely what Ian did. The "people who were my friends are no longer my friends after I became friends with people who are complete assholes to my former friends. That must mean they're terrible people, amirite?"

I get that for many people that has not worked or actively backfired and harmed them. But I think Green, in this unique position, should be given some credit (at least she's earned it from me) to try something different.

There will be no concessions made from them to moderate their behavior. I am 100% sure of that. They will moderate their behavior with her and whomever else is willing to spout some of their talking points.

I'm waiting for results. People railed on her for soliciting anti-trans opinions on Twitter, which I think she contextualized and used responsibly in her latest YouTube video.

Watched it, have to wait on the rest of the discussion. I think the problem with bring antagonistic assholes into a discussion is that you're blocking people out of joining that discussion. Why join the discussion if you're going to end up with a target painted on you?

People thought this was her abandoning progressivism or lending an uncritical platform to hate, but I think it pretty clearly was not.

Are you so sure about that? Her rhetoric lately has shifted a bit, and that is pretty apparent. Contrast these two tweets.

Tweet 1

Tweet 2

Why would she start using SJW as a pejorative when she previously mocked it? She's legitimizing the term by utilizing it. It's a shit term that should've never ended the lexicon. I have not encountered a single person who wasn't courting garbage humans utilize it, primarily because it's intentionally a pejorative. Her trying to redefine it is telling.

I won't defend her shocking title rhetoric ("taking the red pill" or the thumbnail saying "only two" for the gender discussion, which are bordering on irresponsible, if well-meaning, baiting). I won't defend the message it sends to forgive Sargon. But what happens if this actually moderates his attitude?

At this point there are years worth of data points to show that he will not moderate his behavior. He will moderate his behavior with Green because she can be useful. That's where this lies. Sargon is a massive proponent of valuing self over others. That will not change. At the moment, he stands to benefit from Green widening his platform. He will not get in the way of that.

This toxic rhetoric from antis has not stopped. I never know how to measure the size and severity of communities like that, but are any of us convinced it's receding?

It's not. It's baked in by this point. Shit heads gonna shit head.

(Real question) If not, then why are we so vehemently against trying something new?

It's all been done before. People attempted moderated discussion with people like Sargon before. He is not for discussion, he is for argument. He is sure that his position is correct, and will not change it.

This is something we've basically never seen before (at this level, but correct me if wrong), and everyone is assuming it will not work.

This is something you might not have seen, that doesn't mean that it hasn't existed. Look at Pakman's interviews with GG folks, there are also a few good interviews to demonstrate his lack of neuroplasticity. This is one of my favorite because it demonstrates a lot of his hangups.

Maybe it won't! I will eat my words if it doesn't. But right now I am holding out hope that Green knows best about her situation and just might be doing something right.

There's something to be said for optimism, but I'm not too optimistic. The company you keep matters, the language you use matters, and good intention can't waive away all of the issues that arise.

Please, let's talk about this. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I'm not really here to convince, but I am not optimistic that the path she is on is one that will be beneficial.

Here's something I want you to consider in this. Sargon posted this tweet. This is telling:

I learned from @gogreen18 some people who said they were my followers did horrible things. If the same happened to you, I'm sorry, @femfreq

If? He's been a party to it and has considered her a con-artist.

See what I'm talking about? This is not genuine. You don't one day decide to turn around years of behavior only to immediately shift to being intentionally antagonistic and then try to use that antagonism to get that person booted.