I really don't get the all or nothing attitude people have. We live in a controlled opposition system. Support it when it works for you and dump it when it doesn't.
Otherwise, on the chance these people have woken up to the shit all around us, you are burning down allies.
Is there proof that she's controlled opposition? If not, you are acting just like the "left". I guess she's not allowed to learn, grow and change her mind about how wrong she was in the past. Do you want to change people's perspectives, to just turn around and not believe them when they honestly change? My guess is she caught shit for her website idea( and so she should, just like the lincon project) and just maybe that snapped her back to reality. If there's actual proof she doesn't believe what she says now, I would like to see it. Just like Owens, I may change my world view when confronted with new information.
Yeah it wasn't long ago she was trying to create a social credit system. Check out her interview with Joe Rogan where Joe correctly identifies that when someone wants to try to convince a group of people that they're in with them, they go hard and overcompensate. This woman was an insufferable wokie - can it be possible she saw the light and made a sudden and complete about-face? Maybe - but she's made a big attempt to get fame and since her "switch" she's made a ton of money.
Her "conservative" principles are always face-value or seem copy-pasted to seem like she was picking the view she thought most conservatives have. Her views on, for example, climate change never seem to be the same and look like a caricature of the right.
Now I could be wrong, she could have seen the light, but how does a crazy social justice zealot seeking to police the speech of everyone on the internet go from that to a religious, climate-change denying, suddenly pro-life, suddenly pro-trump, suddenly pro-free speech all in the span of a couple months? I still don't buy it. I don't think she's a nefarious gate-keeping plant - I think she adopted the persona because she discovered there's a lot of money to be made being a conservative media pundit rather than a liberal one.
Honestly I won't rule it out completely. From what I've seen of her she is pretty open about how insufferable and ignorant she was in the past. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. If we can't accept that people change and grow, we set everyone up to fail. How many people have been cancelled because of something stupid they posted on social media 10+ year prior? Are they irredeemable? Some maybe, but others no. We can't just assume that since someone was bad in the past that they can't see the light. So many people on these .win sites are ALL about changing perspectives through conversation, which is why silencing is so dangerous. What's the point of conversation if you think that people have zero chance of change? That's my perspective on this whole Candace thing. I also understand knowing where a person was in the past and being skeptical about them is wise in some cases ( especially when money is involved.). But I personally don't get that feeling from her. I'd also argue that being in the camp of the political "right" can cause more damage than good. It would be a quite the risk to switch, especially when you break away from the dogmatic woke. I've personally been more left leaning in the past, as my younger self, and I've grown tremendously in the last 5-10 years. So much so that, if I asked my younger self to believe where I am now, I wouldn't be able to.
In reference to some of the comments below,
I really don't get the all or nothing attitude people have. We live in a controlled opposition system. Support it when it works for you and dump it when it doesn't.
Otherwise, on the chance these people have woken up to the shit all around us, you are burning down allies.
Or continue on circling the drain...
It won’t stop till we stand the fuck up.
I remember her when she was a radical lefty and made a website to dox Conservatives.
Is there proof that she's controlled opposition? If not, you are acting just like the "left". I guess she's not allowed to learn, grow and change her mind about how wrong she was in the past. Do you want to change people's perspectives, to just turn around and not believe them when they honestly change? My guess is she caught shit for her website idea( and so she should, just like the lincon project) and just maybe that snapped her back to reality. If there's actual proof she doesn't believe what she says now, I would like to see it. Just like Owens, I may change my world view when confronted with new information.
She learned to love Conservatives when the left cancelled her for doxxing Conservatives. What does that say about a person?
Obviously she was very lost.
Yeah it wasn't long ago she was trying to create a social credit system. Check out her interview with Joe Rogan where Joe correctly identifies that when someone wants to try to convince a group of people that they're in with them, they go hard and overcompensate. This woman was an insufferable wokie - can it be possible she saw the light and made a sudden and complete about-face? Maybe - but she's made a big attempt to get fame and since her "switch" she's made a ton of money.
Her "conservative" principles are always face-value or seem copy-pasted to seem like she was picking the view she thought most conservatives have. Her views on, for example, climate change never seem to be the same and look like a caricature of the right.
Now I could be wrong, she could have seen the light, but how does a crazy social justice zealot seeking to police the speech of everyone on the internet go from that to a religious, climate-change denying, suddenly pro-life, suddenly pro-trump, suddenly pro-free speech all in the span of a couple months? I still don't buy it. I don't think she's a nefarious gate-keeping plant - I think she adopted the persona because she discovered there's a lot of money to be made being a conservative media pundit rather than a liberal one.
Honestly I won't rule it out completely. From what I've seen of her she is pretty open about how insufferable and ignorant she was in the past. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. If we can't accept that people change and grow, we set everyone up to fail. How many people have been cancelled because of something stupid they posted on social media 10+ year prior? Are they irredeemable? Some maybe, but others no. We can't just assume that since someone was bad in the past that they can't see the light. So many people on these .win sites are ALL about changing perspectives through conversation, which is why silencing is so dangerous. What's the point of conversation if you think that people have zero chance of change? That's my perspective on this whole Candace thing. I also understand knowing where a person was in the past and being skeptical about them is wise in some cases ( especially when money is involved.). But I personally don't get that feeling from her. I'd also argue that being in the camp of the political "right" can cause more damage than good. It would be a quite the risk to switch, especially when you break away from the dogmatic woke. I've personally been more left leaning in the past, as my younger self, and I've grown tremendously in the last 5-10 years. So much so that, if I asked my younger self to believe where I am now, I wouldn't be able to.
Q Was Right!