What is Riley Gaines hiding? We investigated…

Most of Ukraine do NOT want that. Plus a lot of Russians were deliberately moved to the border areas by Putin for that purpose.

I think a lot of people forget about the internal mass deportations under Stalin as well. Finnic people moved out of the Kola Peninsula, Ukrainians moved out of Ukraine, and others that I don't recall the names of right this second. Ethnic Russians were moved in to replace them. All to try to stop the different republics within the USSR from revolting and breaking away. I had hoped that a post-Gorbachev Russia would have stopped this nonsense, but apparently Putin's apple didn't fall far from Stalin's tree.

Compare to Hong Kong, who are culturally very distinct from Britain, but prefer to remain under democracy

That's a point I like to remind the "colonialism is always bad" crowd of.

I suppose the issue is that both Riley Gaines’ and, increasingly, Glinner’s version of ‘true’ is the Trumpian definition of ‘true’. Perhaps not everyone has your discernment to sift their opinion from fact.

There's a small but not insignificant group of FWR regulars who really don't like Graham Linehan. Whenever he's in the news they can be relied upon to pop up and tell us why they don't like him.

I have my issues with Glinner - I think everyone who knows him has a love-hate relationship with him - but my more critical views of him aren't always relevant. Sometimes it really just does come down to whether what he's saying is true.

But there really is something weird about threads mentioning Riley Gaines, where we get entertained with endless posts that don't actually dispute what she's saying but just bore on and on and on about why she's a bad actor.

The paid shill thing usually comes up when we have Labour partisans who can't conceive of people honestly disagreeing with them, so if you question what they say they'll respond by snarking that "Oh, I see Conservative Central Office is on this thread". It's a very strange way of looking at the world.

I find it's better to engage with the points that people make. But that's just me.

Most of Ukraine do NOT want that. Plus a lot of Russians were deliberately moved to the border areas by Putin for that purpose.

I think a lot of people forget about the internal mass deportations under Stalin as well. Finnic people moved out of the Kola Peninsula, Ukrainians moved out of Ukraine, and others that I don't recall the names of right this second. Ethnic Russians were moved in to replace them. All to try to stop the different republics within the USSR from revolting and breaking away. I had hoped that a post-Gorbachev Russia would have stopped this nonsense, but apparently Putin's apple didn't fall far from Stalin's tree.

Compare to Hong Kong, who are culturally very distinct from Britain, but prefer to remain under democracy

That's a point I like to remind the "colonialism is always bad" crowd of.

American intervention in Iran supporting a coup led to a revolution and the installation of an oppressive theocracy. (And not forgetting the impact of the UK in that region before that). My point was the outcome of American intervention are often not in line with their intentions. Like Afghanistan, and the Taliban taking over the power vacuum following the departure of Russia and America in 1980.

Oh I don't think it's about the threat that NATO poses directly. It's about a locus of control.

But I don't really see why he would want to stop allying with those other countries. How would that serve him? As much as it seems outside of the way we think about behaviour, countries like Russia or China are thinking in terms of control of resources, people, economies. Not some kind of respectful internationalist order.

I am not sure the west is really thinking that way either. Maybe they fool themselves they are. Apart from the Americans who are more pragmatic.

Well morality needs to feature somewhat at least!

Otoh, I see what you mean in practical terms about Russia. However, it's important to be clear that Putin is wildly exaggerating the threat NATO poses to Russia. NATO is defensive, it doesn't want to attack Russia, which would be madness anyway. If Putin stopped trying to get former USSR territories back and allying with hostile powers lile China, Iran and N Korea, NATO would not view him as a military enemy.

I see- thank you for clarifying.

I explicitly said that I was referring to the US having a valid democracy and a tradition of supporting that, however imperfectly. Russia does not. And culturally, Ukraine, however imperfect its democracy, clearly has a stronger one than Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, so US intervention there has more hope. No, I don't think US should involve their own troops.

Most of Ukraine do NOT want that. Plus a lot of Russians were deliberately moved to the border areas by Putin for that purpose.

A minority in a border area should be allowed to decide of enough in that area want to go, but is this really the case?

Comparing US intervention to Russia is apples to oranges. The US, for all its errors, at least pays lip service to human rights, and does have democracy. Russia does neither. Intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan is not culturally comparable.

It's interesting your friends apparently prioritise ethnic pride over democracy and respect for the human dignity. Compare to Hong Kong, who are culturally very distinct from Britain, but prefer to remain under democracy

I never said most of Ukraine wanted anything. I said there is a Russian segment that wanted Russian involvement - especially in Crimea.

As for American involvement - do you think Iran is a beacon of democracy and human rights?

I never said most of Ukraine wanted anything. I said there is a Russian segment that wanted Russian involvement - especially in Crimea.

As for American involvement - do you think Iran is a beacon of democracy and human rights?

Most of Ukraine do NOT want that. Plus a lot of Russians were deliberately moved to the border areas by Putin for that purpose.

A minority in a border area should be allowed to decide of enough in that area want to go, but is this really the case?

Comparing US intervention to Russia is apples to oranges. The US, for all its errors, at least pays lip service to human rights, and does have democracy. Russia does neither. Intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan is not culturally comparable.

It's interesting your friends apparently prioritise ethnic pride over democracy and respect for the human dignity. Compare to Hong Kong, who are culturally very distinct from Britain, but prefer to remain under democracy

Ukraine couldn’t join NATO - one of the first rules of joining NATO is you cannot import instability. It is a bit like wanting to buy insurance once your home is already flooded.

I imagine the MS is much more sympathetic toward Russia. There was/is quite a big Russian population in much of what was Ukraine who were interested in joining Russia. I know a local family from Ukraine (been here 20 years) who are ethnic Russians and think Russia should have control. America has also been involved in Ukraine’s politics for over a decade and they don’t have a great record of having positive long term impacts in areas they get involved in.

Ultimately though I don't think blame or in some ways even morality is a factor in this kind of international politics. If you border any country and enter a political alliance that the view as dangerous or an enemy you are courting a political or military response.

NATO isn't a club for people we like. It is a military alliance to secure stability in the member countries. That's all.

Well, they certainly can't join NATO now that Putin has marched troops in, that's for sure.

The view of those who lost relatives to the Holomodor and have every reason to distrust Russia and not want it in charge are just as legitimate. If there's a difference of opinion within Ukraine, that needs to be addressed peacefully and democratically. We didn't get peace in Northern Ireland until we pursued a democratic resolution, backed by a binding bilateral treaty.

As for US interference: the state of eastern European geopolitics means that there are two big boys with a gang each and everyone else might be lucky enough to choose which gang to join. As the kid who wasn't in anyone's gang, I can testify that not being in either gang means that both gangs beat you up. Ukraine's past experience with Holomodor and enforced Russification, which is arguably a form of genocide because it erases their culture, and their current experience of invasion and genocidal mass rape, makes them consider joining the US's gang to be the least-worst option.

And yet, despite disagreeing with the Morning Star on how to handle Ukraine, I agree with the Morning Star on sex-based rights.

Ukraine couldn’t join NATO - one of the first rules of joining NATO is you cannot import instability. It is a bit like wanting to buy insurance once your home is already flooded.

I imagine the MS is much more sympathetic toward Russia. There was/is quite a big Russian population in much of what was Ukraine who were interested in joining Russia. I know a local family from Ukraine (been here 20 years) who are ethnic Russians and think Russia should have control. America has also been involved in Ukraine’s politics for over a decade and they don’t have a great record of having positive long term impacts in areas they get involved in.

It's roughly that they blame Putin's actions on Ukraine for trying to join NATO in the first place, arguing that Ukraine needs to get used to being a buffer state with no official alliances with any other countries. Which for me, who bothered to read about the Holomodor, looks a lot like someone saying "look what you made him do" to a battered wife after her husband's beaten her up following her attempt to leave him.

That's because the podcast was specifically about right wing propaganda not single sex spaces. They actually make that point a couple of times at the start that the podcast makes no claims about the ethics of single sex spaces & wants to focus on the political element.

Can you give a bit more detail on MS' general position on Russia/Ukraine? Do they object to Zelensky & his party's corruption allegations? To the fact this war may be unwinnable and a waste of lives?

Or is their position more that Ukraine is legitimately part of Russia? I'd be interested because I agree there's a lot of complexity.

"We were forced to undress in the presence of"

-Paula Scanlon testimony.

No claim of sighting nudity was made by her.

docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20230727/116284/HHRG-118-JU10-Wstate-ScanlanP-20230727.pdf

There's a guy in America called Kevin D. Williamson who for many years wrote a column in National Review. I discovered that lots of NR readers had a cultlike reverence for Williamson, who they seemed to regard as a genius. I could never figure this out. Williamson is a stylish writer - at his best he can turn a beautiful passage of description - but his political writing seemed to me to be mostly banal normiecon boilerplate, rather than surprising you with a novel insight.

Then it came to me. Williamson's reputation for cleverness was - and this is quite clever - based on the fact that in every column he would accuse someone else, somone the NR readership would regard as a bit low class, of being stupid. Williamson therefore, in hundreds of columns, would rhetorically place himself above someone else, and that's how his reputation for cleverness came about.

Hence Kitty's "it's all there in my posts, but you're all too stupid to comprehend my knowledge". Not the first poster in FWR to take that approach, and it rarely convinces people for some reason.

Not to mention we get the same tedious argument every single time a thread mentions Riley Gaines.

Let me see if I've got the bones of your argument:

• Gaines might have a legitimate point about men in women's sport
• Having achieved a public profile on this question, Gaines is recruited by sinister Republican operatives because she's a wholesome blonde mom from Tennessee
• Gaines receives instructions from her GOP handlers on what to tweet about and when, coordinated with other pundits (who?) to artificially make political talking points go viral
• Gaines is then platformed on propaganda station Fox News, whose content is determined by the same shadowy GOP operatives
• This all combines to discredit Gaines' advocacy on behalf of women's sports, and when she gets into a Twitter spat with Cortez (an outspoken advocate of cocks in women's spaces) we must assume Cortez is in the right.

I'm sorry I mentioned Chomsky, because this level of media analysis would embarrass even the old Khmer Rouge apologist.

Even in terms of talking heads on Fox, until very recently (Megyn Kelly confirms this) Fox would not touch anything trans-related, and has been following behind public opinion. Uncle Rupert, if it matters, hates Trump (not least because Murdoch is an open borders fanatic who can't abide Trump's hard line on immigration) and the younger Murdochs were Biden/Harris megadonors.

Allow me to suggest that you just really dislike Gaines' political alignment; you assume on that basis that Riley Gaines is a dumb blonde from Hicksville with no political thoughts in her head; and that since she's a dumb blonde with no thoughts in her head, she must be just repeating what her handlers tell her.

It's motivated reasoning. I'm familiar with this from, to take a random example, when I said "Corbyn isn't handling this antisemitism business very well" and I was immediately accused of being a paid shill for Mossad.

If anyone wants to know the arguments on men in women's sports, I point them towards Riley's long interview with Megyn Kelly. I defy anyone to watch that and still not believe that this is an intelligent young woman who knows what she's talking about.

When the late Jim Shooter was editor-in-chief at Marvel Comics, one of his rules was "every issue is someone's first issue". If you're writing Iron Man, you shouldn't assume familiarity with some obscure piece of Iron Man lore from the 1960s.

Writers hated Shooter for this, though they probably hated him more for insisting they turn in their copy on time. But it's a good rule.

If you join forces with other people who share in the same sorts of values and beliefs as yourself then that can group solidarity can easily become a central aspect of your identity. Your way of feling secure and confident in the world.

There is a need to exercise caution, though, because feeling too comfortable within any group dynamic can lead you into group think; in which people are prone to following the loudest or most charismatic personalities within that group or tribe, and going along with things they otherwise would not entertain.

People lose or surrender themselves to the group because their feelings of comfort or security are now heavily associated with that group and its defining identity. We all like to feel comfortable and settled. It is an instinctive drive and need. So even if that group is a revolutionary group who seeks to over-throw and unsettle - we feel comfortable and settled within it.

Riley Gaines is as vulnerable to joining forces with, and identifying with, a particular group as any of us. That she may now be bigging up key Republican party talking points - beyond her involvement with women's rights and sports - doesn't discredit her persepective on this important issue.

It is group think madness how standing up for female dignity and protections is now viewed as a 'right wing' value system. - and must therefore be rejected wholesale, or denied. Or that reconising the reality of biology and its consequences is some form of hatred or bigotry.

snarking opaquely about our poor reading comprehension and our muggle failure to grasp the DEEP KNOWLEDGE to which you are privy

Leftists do this about other leftists too. I've been on the receiving end of that on FWR. Apparently the Morning Star shills for ?one of the communist factions? because burble burble something that happened in the seventies or eighties (so before I was out of primary school, if born at all) that might have involved Militant Tendancy and also taking a view of Russia's invasion of Ukraine that isn't "Russia bad, Ukraine good", but of course if Ouroboros was a real leftist she'd know that and would swerve the MS because blah-wrong-kind-of-leftists-blah.

And I'm like, I can agree with the MS about women's sex-based rights and I can strongly disagree with their overly-sympathetic stance towards Russia whilst also understanding that that particular conflict is a lot more complicated than “Russia bad, Ukraine good" and MS's letters page is one of the few places where that complexity can be discussed freely. And I don't give a shit about stuff that happened whilst I was still in nappies because the people involved are probably dead or retired by now and the organisations involved will have moved on. But this is all deep knowledge that I'm not a true leftist without, apparently, even though I've read "The Origin of Private Property, the Family, and the State" from cover to cover.

My point is that this is a leftist discrediting tactic, because what they allude to often has no evidence, but is the "oral history" of a particular faction or factions. So if you weren't there at the time, or haven't picked it up from the rumour mill, you won't and can't know, but they use it to discredit you anyway.

If you are disabled in a way that makes meeting people hard, you are really vulnerable to this tactic, because you don't hear the rumours.