Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

I didn’t say you or anyone on this thread were insisting on anything, so there’s been no over-reach just like there was no hyperbole.

My post was to @TheWitchesAreBackInTown and was responding to her about the responses on Twitter:

”Back on point, had seen the full statement the film makers had put out when it was first posted on Twitter. I didn't engage with it. Had a look this morning at the responses and opinions do seem very split. I wasn't surprised to find that lots of people think it's virtue signalling.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.“

to which I said:
“The authoritarian behaviour being displayed is by all the people insisting that these film-makers should have accepted the interview request and gone on tucker carlson’s show.”

the word ‘people’ in my post is referring to the same ‘people’ in her post, as in the people on Twitter which is nobody on this thread.

Nobody is insisting on anything.

Honestly your overreach is just so constant on every tiny point.

We are allowed opinions that are in some way different. It doesn't mean we are insisting on anything.

I am not in a position to insist they do anything. I think they are mad to go to the trouble of policing who knows about their film. But that's their decision to make. And my opinion to have.

Yes there is insistence:
The act of insisting; urgent or persistent maintenance of an opinion, principle, right, or the like; perseverance in pressing or supporting anything.

The persistent maintenance of the opinion that they should have accepted the interview request is by definition insistence.

Yes. Strange that. There is no one insisting they go on, recommendations and opinions yes. Insistence is hyperbole.

There's no insistence. There are opinions. Not the same thing.

And if they lack the views, ultimately that is the decision of the person/people who chose that they would take such a principled stance. Whether it pays off, I am keen to see. Because the reality is at the moment they have a great deal of support, even from people who don't agree with them on everything, but where do they go from here.

Unless some other media entity picks up this video, I think it will just continue to tick along. It will used as a good starting point for some people who recommend it to others. But if they are taking a such a principled stance, the major viewership will be women who already understand the issues and the people they recommend. Word of mouth.

@TheWitchesAreBackInTown

agree, back on point
That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.

Authoritarian behaviour is when one group attempts to control the behaviours and decisions of another group of people. The film-makers have their own agency, they can choose who they want to accept interview invitations from. Their statements reflect their decision and then why they made that decision.

The authoritarian behaviour being displayed is by all the people insisting that these film-makers should have accepted the interview request and gone on tucker carlson’s show. To the point they (not you) are saying some very nasty things about the film makers in an effort to destroy their reputation and credibility. That is authoritarian behaviour.

Oh bugger it. I meant to quote @Onnabugeisha's response to me.

Because that effort would not have had much more cost than my salary and will have given the brand a much larger voice than it did have. Because this is a very small brand and I doubt there is much budget at all. For a relatively unknown brand, this one has done remarkably well lately and this two sentence tweet encapsulated the support behind it.

That is looking at it from their perspective and their principled one at that.

Now, if my aim was to make this video accessible to as many people as possible, I would have scrapped that and gone for mainstream media.

But that is obviously not their aim. So those two sentences, from an unknown media content company, have paid off.

Yes, it is a conservative definition of target audience as millions of men would also need to be exposed to this information as well. So less than 1% is actually a generous estimate.

Well that’s not quite true as things often go “viral” unexpectedly and without the intent of the poster for it to be made a big deal of.

TBF I never said the source was on that tweet. I said it was someone's viewpoint/opinion. You're the one who mentioned Twitter as a source.

Back on point, had seen the full statement the film makers had put out when it was first posted on Twitter. I didn't engage with it. Had a look this morning at the responses and opinions do seem very split. I wasn't surprised to find that lots of people think it's virtue signalling.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.

A bonus for getting views by less than 1% of your target audience?

Except this % of "target audience" was decided from the total population of women.

But some of them are the Wrong Kind. The kind that watch the Wrong TV.

Quiet is subjective by definition. You and I can look at the exact same stats and you think it’s not quiet, and I can think it is quiet. Both views are perfectly valid.

Btw, number of views and such do not indicate intent. And a quiet announcement is more relating to the intent of the announcer, not what happens after they post it.

I know right Alison.

A twitter account with 6.3 K followers gets two sentences plastered across twitter and then spurs it on with quick few more sentences on the 30th December and then releases a statement on the 31st December.

We are now talking significant uplift. If they had said nothing, they would not have had anywhere near the coverage they now have. Yet, it is still confined to social media and not reaching the mainstream.

It bears repeating that if that is what they want, that is fine. That is truly their decision. However, they need to also own that releasing those two sentences was also solidifying their PR aims. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Posters attempting to minimise that deliberate PR aim which has been successfully converted into effectively a 'sales uplift' as not being a PR exercise is quite something to see.

A bonus for getting views by less than 1% of your target audience? Please tell me which company does this as I’d love to have a job that rewards such a low bar of performance.

*They make a film they didn't want the wrong people to know about and they make twitter posts they don't want people to see.

Crikey, what next?*

🤣

They make a film they didn't want the wrong people to know about and they make twitter posts they don't want people to see.

Crikey, what next?

By the way

"That two sentence tweet has been viewed 468.3K times by now and because it requires no expansion, it is very likely that this is a very conservative figure."

and

"However, the majority of the replies and retweets were before the follow up tweet on the 30th had gained traction."

Would look very good in any communication campaign wrap up that I submitted as a brand manager to my marketing manager.

In fact, I would have fucking earned my bonus for those 'two sentences'.

I imagine only because it's the only one from the feminist side rather than Matt Walsh etc, and also because of the publicity around cancellations of it where women were allegedly spat at by TRAs etc.

I think they were very lucky to get invited onto mainstream media at all, given the poor quality of the film they made. To be fair, I only watched a few minutes of it because it was so boring

There was me thinking am I the only one who is bored by this? And the quality (film and sound) of some of it was really poor. Thank you.

Good to know for next time you do the same. Thanks. I had always tried to hold off.

Well that’s not quite true as things often go “viral” unexpectedly and without the intent of the poster for it to be made a big deal of.

Like two sentences on a public account to 360k or so followers as a mere "update", for example?

No. In this instance it is not subjective. It is actually measurable. There are stats.

That two sentence tweet has been viewed 468.3K times by now and because it requires no expansion, it is very likely that this is a very conservative figure.
Another follow up was viewed 16K on the 30th December.
That main statement has been viewed by 161K times. Kay Greens blog retweet by that account has been seen 973 times.

You can continue to say it is 'quiet'. However, the majority of the replies and retweets were before the follow up tweet on the 30th had gained traction.

It is not that I agree to disagree with you.

Well that’s not quite true as things often go “viral” unexpectedly and without the intent of the poster for it to be made a big deal of.