Good Breitbart article on the tactics of the political left

[Zinco]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/23/nolte-mens-health-wants-joe-rogan-blacklisted-for-vile-transphobia/

"We all know how this bullshit of “safetyism” works on the fascist left. You fascists accuse someone you disagree with of making you or POC’s or whoever feel “unsafe,” and suddenly expression that speech become “violence” and that physical act of violent speech must be blacklisted and canceled.

Meanwhile, according to the left, the terrorists in Black Lives Matter and Antifa who are burning, looting marauding, and toppling are not committing violence. Their actual violence is speech."

"When you accuse someone of “putting lives in danger” over a perfectly reasonable and science-based discussion about transitioning, especially when just a few years ago these arguments were treated as mainstream; when you accuse someone of “fanning the flames of hate” and being “dangerous,” that is way beyond a debate.

That is about silencing someone, about accusing them of being responsible in some way for a suicide or hate crime they had nothing to do with."

They’re not terrorists because they are largely in conflict with agents of the state not members of the public.

Anyway, it's unquestionable that some people caught up in the BLM protests are indeed "burning", "looting", and "toppling".

If it were a right-wing movement and some of the folks were doing that sort of violence, how would those perpetrators be described by the media?

I'm sure it would be "thugs" and "criminals" for a start, and maybe they would be called "terrorists" also. i.e. you are using violence for your political cause.

"They’re not terrorists because they are largely in conflict with agents of the state not members of the public."

So if Islamist jihad groups largely focused their attacks on agents of the state, then they aren't terrorists?

[quote DidoLamenting]Search for Dumitru and Guardian. Nothing

And yet Maritime Radio managed to report it.

www.maritimeradio.co.uk/plumstead-brothers-jailed-for-sex-trafficking/[/quote]
Clearly, anyone with maritime interests are Nazis.

[quote pinkpinecone]@DidoLamenting Yes it is worse. Just look at how this piece was reported by Breitbart, yes it's factually accurate but the Breitbart headline is intentionally sensationalising the issue of immigration to further it's far right agenda. It doesn't have anything to do with women's right at all it's just a useful story to further their cause. That is because Breitbart's ideological standpoint does not believe in equality of the sexes and is very much about upholding the patriarchy.

The trans debate is extremely contentious and I understand the issues with the guardian, but in my opinion its important not to get tunnel vision and start sharing content from a media outlet that publishes hateful and problematic narratives about women.[/quote]
Blimey. So mentioning the immigration aspect of sex slave trafficking is sensationaliasing? I kinda think it's actually one of the fundamental characteristics of trafficking.

And the report is bad because it is not present from a feminist angle? That poor woman can't afford such high minded principles.

[quote pinkpinecone]@DidoLamenting Yes it is worse. Just look at how this piece was reported by Breitbart, yes it's factually accurate but the Breitbart headline is intentionally sensationalising the issue of immigration to further it's far right agenda. It doesn't have anything to do with women's right at all it's just a useful story to further their cause. That is because Breitbart's ideological standpoint does not believe in equality of the sexes and is very much about upholding the patriarchy.

The trans debate is extremely contentious and I understand the issues with the guardian, but in my opinion its important not to get tunnel vision and start sharing content from a media outlet that publishes hateful and problematic narratives about women.[/quote]
Interesting- you prefer the non- reporting by The Guardian?

The Guardian's MSM (main stream media) - so's Daily Mail
I read articles from both. As I said, from both leanings

Just as well given if you only read The Guardian you wouldn't even have known about the sex slavery case.

Just as well given if you only read The Guardian you wouldn't even have known about the sex slavery case

Did I anywhere say I just read the Guardian?
I said I read views from both so called sides.
Which is why I think it healthy to read both sides.
Not get an echo chamber.

You seem incapable of addressing the point that left wing media is extremely biased and imposes censorship.

if you need me to tell you from that simple declarative statement then you believe what they believe - that Black Lives Matter activists are terrorists (that would make you a racist - but you know that) and that Antifa is an actual terrorist organisation (see the FBI on this one)

Antifa is a terrorist organisation.

Black Lives Matter (the version with capital letters) is Marxist. The BLM activists in Portland are thugs and criminals. I couldn't care less if you think that makes me a racist as I couldn't care less for the opinion of anyone defending the illiberal , fascist thugs in Antifa,

@LemonadeAndDaisyChains

God, sorry me again. Is it stupidity, though, I think it's harsh to say stupidity - a few years ago and a lot less reading, lot less history reading as well - I think sometimes it comes from a place of not knowing. (Those who have settled for their views after reading, fair enough, it's up to you) It's those who aren't up to speed. Those in the middle. Those who aren't aligned either way. Entrenched extremists in their ways will never sway and that's up to them. When I was younger I was definitely more right leaning, becoming more and more left as I get older and read up on things outside my bubble though. Which is why sometimes I think MN is poisonous sometimes but on the other hand love it as it's somewhere for both viewpoints to air, important to hear both "sides." People are challenged and not just blocked and that's good

This is kind of condescending, whether you mean it that way or not. Most of the posters in this thread are long time posters with a fair bit of political nous. Some are moderate right, a lot are leftist, a few are closer to marxists.

But they know that as soon as you've said - don't read that, they are the wrong people, you've lot the battle. As soon as you've accused people with qualms about BLM or violent protests that they are bigots or whatever, you've lost. That's the attitude, more than anything else, that pushed people to be less critical of propaganda and less questionable of all kinds of news sources.

Did anyone read the New York times article Zinco linked upthread.

This is from the opening paragraphs.

The New York Times Magazine acknowledges in an exhaustive feature that Breitbart News has amassed a news and editorial staff with more racial and gender diversity than most American media outlets.

“[…] Alex has a pretty good record of promoting women and minorities, at least by the industry’s abysmal standards — including the lead defense correspondent, the national security editor, and the copy chief, all of whom are women of color,” Wil S. Hylton writes in the near-nine thousand word expose published Wednesday.

@Portnlemon what I meant is that Breitbart is worse for misogyny than the Guardian. Yes they reported it but the fact they chose to would be to reinforce their right wing narrative around immigration and not because a terrible inhumane crime was committed against a woman.

Yes of course immigration is relevant to the news story and the issue of trafficking in general but migrant is the first word in the article for a reason as it is extremely loaded in the current political climate. Have a look at how that new story was reported elsewhere and I think you'll see what I mean.

@Zinco

"They’re not terrorists because they are largely in conflict with agents of the state not members of the public."

So if Islamist jihad groups largely focused their attacks on agents of the state, then they aren't terrorists?

Well, they shouldn't be in that case, no.

The definition of terrorism has significantly expanded since 9/11, mainly because it allowed the US to avoid treating combatants as POWs and following war conventions.

Which is a very bad thing, and IMO should be resisted - we should use these words correctly.

Whether antifa could be properly considered a terrorist organisation, is debatable. Attacks against the state and it's infrastructure or armed forces etc aren't really terrorism. But many organisations will attack both state and civilian targets, and some targets may be fuzzy as to how you would categorise them.

Yes of course immigration is relevant to the news story and the issue of trafficking in general but migrant is the first word in the article for a reason as it is extremely loaded in the current political climate.

Stating facts is extremely loaded in the current political climate?

Migrant is extremely loaded in that crime against that woman as it was the deliberate means of total isolation in a foreign country with no language skills and no identity, that kept her enslaved for so long. That is not a right wing narrative.

How anyone can read that sentencing report in any medium and take issue with the fact that sex slave traffickers are correctly identified as migrants is extraordinary. Well it's not is it really. We all know now this is the reason for so much under prosecution and reporting. The moral outrage over any mention of identity that is not approved by the left.

Feelings over facts obviously. Mustn't dare offend anyone lest we are labelled 'Racist', those poor trafficking victims are acceptable collateral damage. If we don't say it doesn't exist just like the thousands of grooming gang victims didn't exist.....

It's utter trivialisation of serious problems.

Mustn't dare offend anyone lest we are labelled 'Racist' If we don't say it doesn't exist just like the thousands of grooming gang victims didn't exist.....

That's where it all overlaps, surely?
All serious female problems and a hell of a tangle to sort out

@Stripesgalore

They’re not terrorists because they are largely in conflict with agents of the state not members of the public.

That is a very silly comment. There is the assumption that "agents of the state" are legitimate targets- they aren't.

And it is quite clear that Antifa attacks ordinary members of the public.

Attacks against the state and it's infrastructure or armed forces etc aren't really terrorism

Of course such attacks are terrorism.

It’s nothing to do with who is a legitimate target. It’s just part of how different violent acts are categorised.

The Nazis stole from and killed millions and then tried to cover it up/excuse it. There is a good reason that they hate the Left imo.

@Stripesgalore

They’re not terrorists because they are largely in conflict with agents of the state not members of the public.

So was the IRA multi tasking then?

It is common knowledge that the IRA used a wide variety of tactics, including many terrorist attacks.