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."

blame mainstream media for abdicating their responsibilities and ignoring this issue or promoting only one point-of-view.Where are we to find stories on this topic if most media outlets won’t cover it?

This.

BovaryX that picture story you mention is alarming but doesn't surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that my internet search for said picture comparison has not turned anything up for me - can you link?

Along with Cologne, my other WTF moment some years ago now was a comparison of video footage from, as I recall, the BBC and another source showing what the former had edited out. It pertained to refugees wanting to get on trains into Europe. A man had actually dragged his (presumably) wife and child onto a train track to protest and she was screaming and the police were trying to get them up. The edited version cut out that section of the footage and simply replaced it with the words "somehow.. this woman ended up on the tracks" (or words to that effect), making it look like the police were responsible. Appalling. Does anyone else remember this?

The man's behaviour simply didn't fit the narrative so it was erased.

Here is the link Antibles As Terry and others have said, this is a failure of the Fourth estate. For me that failure began circa 2003 onwards when the WaPo and the NYT were in the tank with the invasion of Iraq.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/08/bbc-denies-softening-black-lives-matter-protest-picture/

Thank you BovaryX

I've always found the "company you keep" fallacy a particularly odd one. If someone told me that Hitler was vehemently opposed to battery chicken farming, I wouldn't consider (1) that political opposition to battery chicken farming was tainted by the fact Hitler also happened to hold the view, (2) that I must support battery chicken farming in order to avoid being linked with Hitler on all other issues, or (3) that battery chicken farming must be a good thing if Hitler's against it.

I agree with that. But, in this scenario, would you begin an article or comment with "As Hitler rightly said, ...", and would you say to people "have a read of this very good article from Der Stürmer / BNP Weekly / EDL Today"?

Breitbart? F*cking Breitbart???

And you all call yourselves feminists? Oh, I see - the only feminism that counts here is white feminism, and nothing else matters. Why else would users quote a Far Shite publication on here?

Far right ≠ feminism. You are an idiot if you think those bastards give a sh!t about your cause.

@BinkyBoinky I completely agree.

If I said what I genuinely think here, I'd get banned.

And you all call yourselves feminists? Oh, I see - the only feminism that counts here is white feminism, and nothing else matters. Why else would users quote a Far Shite publication on here?

You know, I’d rather read about this stuff in the Guardian or NYT, but as they won’t print it ... 🤷‍♀️

@MangoFeverDream

And you all call yourselves feminists? Oh, I see - the only feminism that counts here is white feminism, and nothing else matters. Why else would users quote a Far Shite publication on here?

You know, I’d rather read about this stuff in the Guardian or NYT, but as they won’t print it ... 🤷‍♀️

But there are reputable news sources - the Times and Spectator among them - who do publish articles and op-eds on this. You don't need to turn to Breitbart who are (a) a cesspit and (b) so prone to distorting coverage/telling outright lies (cf the excellent comparison with Russia Today who do exactly the same that someone made upthread).

If you quote Breitbart people will assume you are a far-right nutter and stop listening (rightly or wrongly), and also you are quite likely to be using entirely made up stats if you're using them as your source - stats which can then be exposed to be false. So in terms of persuading people, you end up scoring an own goal.

Yes, this stuff needs to be covered. Yes, the BBC and Guardian should be covering it and it's a disgrace that they aren't. But there are reputable outlets doing the donkey work, so use those as your sources.

You are an idiot if you think those bastards give a sh!t about your cause.

Nobody said they thought that.

‘If you quote Breitbart people will assume you are a far-right nutter and stop listening (rightly or wrongly)‘

People who make that kind of assumption never had any intention of listening in the first place. They just deal in stereotypes.

But there are reputable news sources - the Times and Spectator among them - who do publish articles and op-eds on this. You don't need to turn to Breitbart who are (a) a cesspit and (b) so prone to distorting coverage/telling outright lies (cf the excellent comparison with Russia Today who do exactly the same that someone made upthread).

If you quote Breitbart people will assume you are a far-right nutter and stop listening (rightly or wrongly), and also you are quite likely to be using entirely made up stats if you're using them as your source - stats which can then be exposed to be false. So in terms of persuading people, you end up scoring an own goal.

Yes, this stuff needs to be covered. Yes, the BBC and Guardian should be covering it and it's a disgrace that they aren't. But there are reputable outlets doing the donkey work, so use those as your sources.

This.

@Stripesgalore

‘If you quote Breitbart people will assume you are a far-right nutter and stop listening (rightly or wrongly)‘

People who make that kind of assumption never had any intention of listening in the first place. They just deal in stereotypes.

I disagree. I have well-meaning left wing friends of the "just be kind" variety who have known me for over 30 years, who know my political views, who will actually listen to me when I talk to them about my concerns, and will engage in debate.

If I started quoting Breitbart, they'd assume I was having some sort of breakdown.

Yes, there's people who are beyond discussion. But there's a actually a vast group of people in the middle who don't actually buy into the current tribalism in politics, who will listen and argue respectfully, who are open to changing their minds if the facts dictate that they should. These are the people you need to reach. And they can be reached - with data from whistleblowers from the Tavistock, with the fact that the BBC's fact check had to agree (however reluctantly) that Fair Play for Women's prison stats were accurate, that Martina Navratilova has serious, well-researched concerns about male bodies in women's sports which should be listened to (with her record on gay rights, and the fact that she had a transwoman as a coach for several years, she can't be accused of "anything-phobia.")

You don't need to use Breitbart. It won't help. And I wonder about the good faith of people who start these threads - I strongly suspect that at least in some cases (don't know about this particular OP) they are agents provocateurs trying to get screenshots to "prove" that MN feminists are in fact far right nuts.

I don't intend to recommend this article to anyone.

Would it be wrong for me to click on the link and read it myself?

People who make that kind of assumption never had any intention of listening in the first place. They just deal in stereotypes.

And Shitebart is the measure of all that is fair and just and holy

I don’t have the sort of friends who would think I was having a nervous breakdown for reading Breitbart, and I am in the ‘middle’ because the old left/right distinctions have collapsed.

But there are reputable news sources - the Times and Spectator among them - who do publish articles and op-eds on this

They’ve recently covered it, yes. But Breitbart and Federalist (a more mainstream conservative pub) are some of the only American sources, where a lot of this ideology is coming from.

You don't need to turn to Breitbart who are (a) a cesspit and (b) so prone to distorting coverage/telling outright lies

You have to read Breitbart with a critical eye, for sure. But they occasionally have some good articles, and often before other outlets cover it (basically, when the issue can no longer be ignored).

They can be sloppy and the editorial standards are not terribly professional. But I know what I’m getting.

If you quote Breitbart people will assume you are a far-right nutter and stop listening (rightly or wrongly), and also you are quite likely to be using entirely made up stats

You should never rely on one source. I wouldn’t use Breitbart to persuade anyone, personally, but it can occasionally be a decent starting point.

Breitbart also does a lot of good stuff on the cartel violence at the Mexican-American border, with their own correspondent (not a job I would take).

Their American political coverage, however, is very slanted (and not necessarily pro-Trump as you might think)

It’s a short article. It took less time to read than this thread. I don’t know in what possible context I would need to say to a friend, ‘someone write a book about rogd and appeared on a podcast, and then a magazine said the podcast was hate speech and then Breitbart disagreed.‘ Or indeed what I would be trying to prove to anyone. If I want to discuss the issues of women’s and children’s rights to a friend I can do so in my own words.

Linking to an article makes sense on a thread like this, but it isn’t how you talk to people in real life.

Binky

I don't read Breitbart. But I do listen to Joe Rogan's podcast. Joe Rogan interviewed Abigail Shrier, who has written a book about the increase in teenage girls identifying as trans. In response to this interview, Men's Health magazine wants Joe Rogan cancelled. He won't be. Because there is an increasing resistance on both sides of the Atlantic to the authoritarian zealots who want to silence debate. Dominate the narrative. That is the core issue. As for 'white feminists?' My dad was born in Kenya. I won't take arrogant lectures from arrogant left wingers who think they can discern colour through a screen. The desire to dictate and restrict debate and freedom of speech has colonised the left wing. And it is promoted by some of the palest, most privileged 0.0001 percenters on the planet.

I have started listening to the podcast as a consequence of this thread. He has a diverse range of guests.

transdimentional Interesting question. It depends on the context.

If I were trying to persuade an individual in a discussion, no because it wouldn't further my cause and would likely actively undermine it (unless I happened to be talking to a neo-Nazi or similar and thought the chickens' plight might be best pleaded that way!).

But if posting on an internet forum of people already interested in the topic of battery hens, debating details amongst themselves and keeping a weather eye on media coverage (particularly if many major news outlets were ignoring the issue or suggesting that battery farming was a good idea and they were considering extending it further), I probably would indeed be saying "hey guys, there's this really good article in BNP Today (or whatever) on the evils of battery farming".

Because if it's a well-thought out article on topic then it just is and it's likely to be of interest in and of itself to people against battery farming. And at least some people will be perfectly able to say to themselves "ugh, I hate the BNP but they've raised some very interesting points about chickens that I hadn't thought of before". So job done.

It would also just be interesting that an 'out there' publication is covering the topic well where others are not (and it would perhaps be interesting to discuss why that might be) and that on that single issue, "BNP Today" would potentially represent more votes and letters to MPs that we would be surprised to have put behind our chicken issue, but it would be good to know about for better or worse.

I don't see the issue with sharing knowledge in that context. And unless we're saying that people we dislike can never produce anything good or helpful, I don't see the problem with the phrasing in that context either.

If it's fear that third parties will take the opportunity to try to link people who are against battery farming to racism and thereby undermine the fight against battery chicken farming (i.e. that the generally public will be prone to the same fallacy), I understand that fear, but I don't think that's what the snarky poster in question was getting at. They were too busy falling into it themselves.

OK, so obviously, the only thing that matters is whether a particular article is accurate, or whether it makes a good point or not. If 99.9% of Breitbart articles are completely wrong, they can still be correct about something occasionally

Yep I agree with this.

That looks like you believe in tailoring your message according to your audience TheyBrokeMe. You know, I think you might be onto something.

nauticant I'm not sure whether I'm being made fun of, but hey-ho! Either way, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying (at rather more length, granted!)

What I find interesting is that it is this particular interview that Men’s Health (or whoever they are) have taken issue with.

Rogan has interviewed some much more ‘controversial’ guests in the past including some who I would consider to have expressed genuinely transphobic views (including one who used to write for Breitbart) and there were rarely calls for him to be cancelled. Rogan is very against the idea of TW in women’s sports, and has cited his objection to Fallon Fox as being ‘the hill he is prepared to die on’.

He has long been considered controversial and was described as ‘alt right’ as a slur against Bernie Sanders when he came out in support of his nomination.

So why cancel him now? Could it have something to do with his upcoming move from YouTube to Spottify?

@teawamutu

It's an interesting point that reading articles from the other end of the political spectrum might 'turn' you.

I question myself about it regularly, but am fairly sure my underlying principles haven't changed: the left have, as a PP noted, lurched firmly towards Gilead.

But that's exactly what DID happen in America and why Trump might be a good idea. Fox "News" slowly starting taking over and ultimately cancelled small town newspapers, local network TV stations. There's no better way to explain this 30-year phenomena than use the term "turn."