Don't think she counts as someone in the ingroup.

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.

I don't understand the association of being contrarian and having no talent. Or do you mean the knee-jerk reaction to it? Because I would classify the most eccentric artists to be very contrarian with unlimited baskets of critique.

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.

> being contrarian and having no talent

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.

As a counter-point to this being a "veiled reference" - Your comment that the article is a reference to something that's happening in the world could conceivably apply at any given point in time.

There will always be contentious ideas - the meta of an "in-group contrarian" transcends the current social narrative.

For us non-US HN-ers who don't know who Candace Owens is, she seems to be a person of colour with conservative believes, this is her wiki page [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candace_Owens

Candace Owens has pretty standard viewpoints for Trump-minded people. Her main differentiator that has made her popular is that she is a black woman, so it is much harder to call her racist or sexist for stating the exact same thing that, say, a white male Trump supporter would get called racist or sexist for.

So I don't think she is an IGC in any sense.