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."

@Floisme

As I recall, Anne Widdicombe and Norman Tebbit both made pertinent points about the Gender Recognition Act. Tebbit in particular, I believe, warned about the dangers of conflating gender and sex. I along with many others, took not a blind bit of notice because they were Tories and therefore not worth listening to. It was a stupid mistake which could yet turn out to be catastrophic for women.

I support safe spaces for women, I'm wary of self-ID and changing rooms, and have been banned from other forums for supporting JK Rowling, but I'm also aware enough that when one's views on a particular subject are being shared/supported by Breitbart/Widdicombe/Daily mail and are not supported by most/any left-wing commentators, then one must be prepared to at least reflect on that and take stock.

History is littered with people who wrongly thought they were on the right side of history - nothing wrong with critiquing one's views from time to time.

In that case you sound like you're making the same mistake that I made for years and years. Instead of listening to what someone was saying, I looked at who was saying it and then decided whether or not to listen. It was avoidable, lazy and, like I've said, could turn out to be catastrophic.

@Floisme

In that case you sound like you're making the same mistake that I made for years and years. Instead of listening to what someone was saying, I looked at who was saying it and then decided whether or not to listen. It was avoidable, lazy and, like I've said, could turn out to be catastrophic.

I think it's more a case of it being a red flag. Listen by all means, but be aware of who you're listening too, especially when that view is only being espoused in right-wing circles.

Reflect on one's views: will history judge us who are opposed to trans women in women's bathrooms in the same light as southern segregationists who opposed to blacks in white-only areas? What seems right to us can seem wrong to the rest of society.

And how do you suggest we can reflect on things we won't even hear about because the people we might prefer to listen to refuse to discuss them them?

Reflect on one's views: will history judge us

I suggest you reflect on your views. The people who think they are on the right side of history are currently laying waste to Portland. The people who think they are on the right side of history regard debate, freedom of speech even accurate news reporting as problematic. Do you understand that classic liberal values are under sustained attack from people whose authoritarian zealotry has grim historical echoes? How do you think history will judge them? And their supine media apologists?

@Floisme

And how do you suggest we can reflect on things we won't even hear about because the people we might prefer to listen to refuse to discuss them them?

Well the question is why do they refuse to discuss them? (or at least take the opposing side to us).

When our views, however right they seem to be to us, are in opposition to the young and liberal, we must be prepared to consider the possibility that our views are old-fashioned and illiberal. Most MN feminists seem to be 2nd wave(?), which likely puts them in the 50-60 age bracket at a guess - the age when a lot of people like things to not change too much.

Or maybe we are right and woke culture (urgh, I hate that word) is wrong.

@AntsInPenzance
You don't seem to understand the meaning of basic words. Can you define liberal in relation to views such as Antifa's?

@BovaryX

Reflect on one's views: will history judge us

I suggest you reflect on your views. The people who think they are on the right side of history are currently laying waste to Portland. The people who think they are on the right side of history regard debate, freedom of speech even accurate news reporting as problematic. Do you understand that classic liberal values are under sustained attack from people whose authoritarian zealotry has grim historical echoes? How do you think history will judge them? And their supine media apologists?

I'm opposed to sexism and racism. The suffragettes firebombed buildings.

[quote BovaryX]@AntsInPenzance
You don't seem to understand the meaning of basic words. Can you define liberal in relation to views such as Antifa's?[/quote]
You're the one talking about Antifa, I'm talking about Self-ID and safe spaces.

will history judge us who are opposed to trans women in women's bathrooms in the same light as southern segregationists who opposed to blacks in white-only areas? What seems right to us can seem wrong to the rest of society.

Men with identities demanding access to women's spaces and resources is not a civil rights issue ffs, trying to draw parallels with segregation is an insult to those who had to live under that system.

I see. So you are incapable of acknowledging that Antifa are an existential threat to freedom of speech?

@BovaryX

I see. So you are incapable of acknowledging that Antifa are an existential threat to freedom of speech?

I've never mentioned Antifa... ever. I've never made any comment, positive or negative, about Antifa... ever. This is a feminist forum.

Well the question is why do they refuse to discuss them? (or at least take the opposing side to us).
Well if you see that as the question then it's not surprising we disagree.
For me, the question is who the fuck do these people think they are?
What gives them the authority to decide what I should read, what facts I should know and what I am allowed to discuss?
The rest of your post is so patronising and so packed with lazy, ageist assumptions I don't know where to begin.

@AntsInPenzance

Nobody on this forum needs your permission for what they discuss. Do you imagine you can dictate the subject? This thread has evolved into an interesting discussion about the media's failure to report news, the increasingly intolerant response of certain media outlets to dissenting views, as exemplified by the Jo Rogan podcast. And the existential threat to classic liberal values such as freedom of speech, debate by those prepared to use violent intimidation for political ends. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are unable to engage with those themes. And that instead you are trying to divert from these serious contemporary issues.

When our views, however right they seem to be to us, are in opposition to the young and liberal, we must be prepared to consider the possibility that our views are old-fashioned and illiberal

Huge part of the problem is that all too many progressives choose to ignore the regressive aspects of human history and simply believe that if the fashionably young believe it, then it must be progressive by nature.

Societal values do not continuously improve with each generation.

It’s certainly not progressive to permanently physically alter a male child’s body with puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery because he likes to play with dollies and princesses and his homophobic parents don’t like it.

Reflect on one's views: will history judge us who are opposed to trans women in women's bathrooms in the same light as southern segregationists who opposed to blacks in white-only areas?

No, because our society already segregates in these situations by sex and we don't think that is a civil rights issue. We do this largely because 98% (NINETY EIGHT PER CENT!) of sexual offences are perpetrated by males. And seeing as absolutely no one can appear to give an objective point, upon which law and policy can be made, that a male who 'identifies as female' comes out out the high risk sex class of male and into the low risk sex class of female (full SRS, top surgery, hormones, makeup, long hair, just his declaration?), then I don't think it is in any way comparable to not wanting black and white people using the same facilities.

I cannot believe I still even need to say this stuff, but the 'not letting males use the ladies if they want to is just like not letting black people use the same toilets as white people' argument still appears to be coming up!

History is littered with people who wrongly thought they were on the right side of history - nothing wrong with critiquing one's views from time to time

When you start thinking you are on" the right side of history".....it starts to point towards totalitarian ideology; of whatever flavour. Totalitarianism deals in big historic sweeps; by-passing debate and critical thought in favour of blind faith in where the 'movement' is heading.

Nobody who posts on here identifies with the far right...but there are quite a number who evidently identify with far left.In fact identity politics is pretty much the main issue for most of us, here. The only people talking about being on the "right side of history", are people like Owen Jones.

So sure he is on the right side of it, he feels no need to actually engage in substantive argument or debate on any issue. It is pure tribalistic certainty in the goals of his movement, and automatic dismissal of any other view.

The only people talking about being on the "right side of history", are people like Owen Jones.

Owen Jones is so desperate to be on the 'right side of history' that he is willing to see children experimented on with off label drugs, women sexually assaulted by males in prisons, female athletes pushed out of their sports by males, males take awards/grants/offices that were meant to give women more representation, women in refuges have to share intimate spaces with people who are very obviously male and enjoy walking around showing off their 'morning wood', male crimes be recorded as female crimes etc etc etc, all in the name of 'what's right'.

[quote BovaryX]@AntsInPenzance

Nobody on this forum needs your permission for what they discuss. Do you imagine you can dictate the subject? This thread has evolved into an interesting discussion about the media's failure to report news, the increasingly intolerant response of certain media outlets to dissenting views, as exemplified by the Jo Rogan podcast. And the existential threat to classic liberal values such as freedom of speech, debate by those prepared to use violent intimidation for political ends. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are unable to engage with those themes. And that instead you are trying to divert from these serious contemporary issues.[/quote]
I never suggested anyone needs my permission to discuss something. You kept on asking me questions about Antifa even though I had never mentioned them or the issues in Portland.

You obviously have strong views on Antifa but I don't know why you're directing them at me??

I'm not 'far right'. I don't need to read Breitbart articles to form my opinion on this (largely because it's so fucking obvious!). But if a Breitbart article happens to say something that I agree with then I don't think my choices should be a) put on my left wing hair shirt and start self flagellating or b) change my view to 'yeah any male should be allowed to identify as female and gain the protections that women fought for, and kids should be experimented on with off label drugs'.

I will think, 'yes, on this particular point I happen to agree' and move on with my day. I have already come through the feelings of discomfort that on this issue I think the same as people that I disagree with on everything else. That discomfort is not worth abandoning women and children for.

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

Most often when you are firmly identified with something, you cannot see that you are. You don't see the parameters; the shape of that which you inhabit; how it shapes your thinking. this whole left-right binary/opposition/polarisation, whatever you want to call it.......seems to be something you are very attached to?

It can be very liberating to step out of that dynamic; and once you do you will be able to see it more clearly; name it; and critique it.

If as an identified leftist progressive, or whatever you call it, you read stuff from 'the other side', the you will be reading it with automatic suspicion; looking out for confirmations of your own prejudices, and using that to shore up your own position. So you are still in the echo chamber.

Most often it is a sudden shock, or an unexpected, upsetting event that causes us to shake free of our ideological certainty. Those young Labour party whistleblowers, for example, who faced recrimination from 'their own side' for testifying to anti-semitism in the party, all of a sudden gained a fresh insight into the culture of much of the left. One ejected for wrong think, or wrong observation, they were suddenly able to see the shape of what they had been inhabiting, with clarity.

That didn't make them automatically right wing sympathisers, or in alignment with the' worldwide Jewish conspiracy'.

You obviously have strong views on Antifa but I don't know why you're directing them at me

Because you keep avoiding speaking about underlying issues; of the type which shape our thinking or behaviours?

In that case you sound like you're making the same mistake that I made for years and years. Instead of listening to what someone was saying, I looked at who was saying it and then decided whether or not to listen. It was avoidable, lazy and, like I've said, could turn out to be catastrophic

Yes! And many of us have bee there.......absolute certainty in our movement and a kind of youthful arrogance. that we are the first or only people to have ever seen of felt this way.

I was living on the side of a road for much of the 1980's ( outside of nuclear bases) and then attending marches and demonstrations of every imaginable leftist persuasion. Yes, it hot the headlines some of the time, and became a back-drop to that period of time....but really none of that which we were raging against has changed that much at all.

The reason: real, meaningful change tends not to be revolutionary or cataclysmic or imposed. It comes mostly through gradual integration, as well as through the occasional unexpected event which disrupts the system ( such as Covid/natural disaster and so on).

I wish there was an edit function. Fast typing and typo mistakes.