Ok, clearly this was posted as a veiled reference to something occurring in current events. I’ll take a guess at the intended subject: Candace Owens?
I would think it is more like Contrapoints, who got cancelled for being sympathetic towards certain outgroup members despite being one of the most prominent trans public faces.
or Scott Alexander of slate-star-codex whose rationalistic approach is despised by others in the left, because it often lets the data lead a person to conclusions instead of going about it the other way round. He is quite squarely part of the left, but also disliked by the left.
Stand up comedians often fall in this category. IMO, Louis CK's scorched earth cancellation was a result of him being an IGC, where folks were just waiting for a thing to come out, so he could be discredited.
Being an IGC can yield huge benefits though. But, it requires carefully planning your public persona to a T and you need to be good enough, that you can't ever be called a talentless hack who is profiteering from contrarianism.
I've seen two approaches that have worked. Either build a ton of good will (like Dave Chapelle) and then be a contrarian. At that point. Or, never pretend to be aligned with a group, build an audience that is sufficiently intellectually diverse, mix contrarian opinions with self deprecation and clearly differentiate your person from your persona. (like Bill Burr). It is incredibly important to be intellectually honest though. Because even the faintest hint of hypocrisy will get you cancelled.
There is a large portion of philosophy that ponders the question if criticism can be a creative endeavor. I am firmly in the camp that believes it is indeed with no restriction.
I meant that if you are a contrarian then the majority will dismiss you as an opportunist who is using their contrarian position to gain popularity, that they would have otherwise been unable to attain.
Their implication being, that the contrarian lacks the talent to make it without the additional attention brought by being the contrarian. I wasn't stating a truth, but rather the perception and resulting reaction from the 'hivemind'.
> There is a large portion of philosophy that ponders the question if criticism can be a creative endeavor. I am firmly in the camp that believes it is indeed with no restriction.
I am totally with you on that. I am sorry if the original comment came across as being demeaning towards contrarians.
There will always be contentious ideas - the meta of an "in-group contrarian" transcends the current social narrative.
So I don't think she is an IGC in any sense.