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."

In the US someone was stabbed at the protests in Portland last night

Yes, I heard about that. It transpires that the white anti-racist antifa member who stabbed the black man had previously been caught with indecent images of children.

You can’t make this stuff up if you tried.

It’s a good article in a publication I don’t usually read and wouldn’t usually agree with. This does not make me a “right wing extremist” .

The biggest myth with today’s media is that it’s only the right that manipulates stories for its agenda. Apparently, the left wing media is all sweetness and light and would never do such a thing . Pull the other one. They’re all at it. I currently despise the Guardian but I’ll still acknowledge good articles and good journalists when they come along. But there is no doubt whatsoever that they are just as guilty as Breitbart of manipulation of facts to suit their agenda.

I’ve said it before, but the difference between the two is owning it. Right wing publications and their owners will happily admit they’re doing it to advance their own cause. Left wing publications patronise the fuck out of us, deciding for themselves what the “morally correct” way of thinking about things is then tell us we should be thinking that way. Deviate from that and you’re out. But it’s not the same sort of manipulation, oh no, it’s different because they’re right.

Well I say fuck the lot of them. There are good journalists who write good articles in a variety of publications and no one is going to tell me I can’t or shouldn’t read something because “bad”.

Alternatively, I’d love to see a list of the “approved” news websites that are morally acceptable. Let’s see how long that list lasts before we find all sorts of problems with them .

Yes, I heard about that. It transpires that the white anti-racist antifa member who stabbed the black man had previously been caught with indecent images of children.
Yep even worse Antifa deliberately followed "Black Rebel" and sent his location out so that he could be followed all for the simple reason that he is a Black Gay Trump supporter. Its madness 😠, luckily he appears to be ok.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjwm_yfLJJE&feature=youtu.be

[quote BelleHathor]Yes, I heard about that. It transpires that the white anti-racist antifa member who stabbed the black man had previously been caught with indecent images of children.
Yep even worse Antifa deliberately followed "Black Rebel" and sent his location out so that he could be followed all for the simple reason that he is a Black Gay Trump supporter. Its madness 😠, luckily he appears to be ok.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjwm_yfLJJE&feature=youtu.be[/quote]
Belle
That speaks volumes about the people in Antifa, it's despicable. Andy Ngo's Twitter account of events in Portland and his reporting on Antifa's violence shows images that CNN deign to broadcast. As you said, the left wing media's failure to report news has led to huge distrust. What precisely are the legions of white Antifa thugs burning buildings in Portland trying to achieve? As for trying to get a mob to attack a black Trump supporter? They really are despicable. Do they even comprehend what 'fascist' means? In their paramilitary gear?

@TheRealMcKenna

In the US someone was stabbed at the protests in Portland last night

Yes, I heard about that. It transpires that the white anti-racist antifa member who stabbed the black man had previously been caught with indecent images of children.

You can’t make this stuff up if you tried.

It's insane. And as you said earlier, Guardian readers have zero clue what is going on in Portland because the Guardian is not reporting burning buildings.

Neither the Guardian nor the BBC reported on the serious clashes in London, either, or the fact a mounted policewoman had ended up in hospital with a punctured lung, and other serious injuries; nor that flares were directed towards horses.

And quite frankly watching Channel 4 news these days, is like watching a British version of a totally partisan American news channel. I can't bear it, and no longer trust it.

BLM protests in the UK were overwhelmingly peaceful, surely

No they weren't!

[quote TheRealMcKenna]I do not endorse whoever made the video or its contents. I just did a YouTube search for some of the footage from the BLM London protests and this included some of the most notable clips.

It seems that Ms Dick made a strategic decision not to have the police in riot gear and the deficiencies in that are clear. Whether it worked as a ‘long game’ strategy is anyone’s guess.

In my opinion, the women shown at about 2:20 have way more guts, integrity and bravery than that woman spreading her legs in Portland.

What was it JKR said about it standing up to your friends?

[/quote] Christ on a bike, that's grim.

I totally understand why they didn't want police in riot gear, it changes the whole tone of any interaction, but those poor officers were really vulnerable - a bottle like that to the face is not an insignificant threat.

What gets me is that this wasn't a protest about some serious imminent concrete issue. It was a generalised protest about generalised racism, that stemmed from an incident in another country, with a totally different relationship to it's police force, and a different history of race. It was like the Evergreen protests, it wasn't about some political goal or focused in any useful way.

Throwing glass bottles at people isn't justified under any circumstances really, but here they are doing it for no clear reason - it's completely socially degraded.

Whenever I see protests like that I think "what are their specific demands, in terms of concrete things that can be delivered?"

Do you never worry about the company you are keeping?
Honestly, sometimes. It still seems weird to me that its the right being press who are 'on the same side' as many feminists on this issue. Before all of this I was quite of the mindset that basically..anything the mail prints is bollocks and biased, yadayada. Had seen a few articles I agreed with in the past but did not dare admit this as everyone knew that the mail is just for 'bigots'. I seem to have grown out of that now, and can appreciate that even a stopped clock is right twice a day and agreeing with someone/a publication on one topic, does not mean I have to agree on everything else. Similarly, the guardian probably matches my opinions on everything bar womens rights issues, at one stage that would mean I would follow their influence, as I know they are the 'good guys'. But it works that way too, just because you share a lot of politics with a left wing source (would prob describe myself as overall centre left tbh) that doesn't mean you are wrng to disagree with them. I find it completely and utterly baffling to note that the daily mail seems to care more about the rights of women than the likes of the guardian..seems a bit of an alternate reality but thats where we are right now.

My biggest surprise press wise has gotta be though, how much I enjoy reading the times these days. Had written it off as a right wing rag for years and years, yet rarely even touched it so was being a bit of a sheep and just agreeing with others on it without any research myself. I honestly find it the most balanced source there is these days..on a lot of things. Seems a mix of views, which is exactly what a news source should be really.

So yeah, agreeing with something on breitbart feels weird. But thinking they seem about right on this, does not mean I agree with other horredous views I have seen there, not at all.

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.

Incredibly well put. I wish I could do this, as my posts always seem rambling and often a bit nonsensical to me

Right-wing sources are where we end up going when we realise that the left-wing media is literally gaslighting us...

twitter.com/elijahschaffer/status/1287314946737356800?s=21

As someone with a disability, I find Katie Hopkins’ remarks about the worth of disabled people offensive. As a white woman, I find Munro Bergdorf’s comments about the worth of white people and white woman equally offensive.

My rule of thumb would be to avoid any media outlet which describes either person as an ‘activist’.

I can't believe that Breitbart has been legitimised here as just another right-wing news source and now it's talking points are being discussed and the thread is peppered with videos of violent black people and evil antifa.

The far right have a history of being very good at outreach to dissaffected marginalised groups, whereas the libs and lefties are too busy gatekeeping and purity-checking.

You'd think someone like me would be happy to watch MN drown itself in far-right thinking but I think this is the saddest thread I've ever lurked. Sorry if that disrupts your community. x

@Justhadathought

Neither the Guardian nor the BBC reported on the serious clashes in London, either, or the fact a mounted policewoman had ended up in hospital with a punctured lung, and other serious injuries; nor that flares were directed towards horses.

And quite frankly watching Channel 4 news these days, is like watching a British version of a totally partisan American news channel. I can't bear it, and no longer trust it.

My husband is one of the last remaining Guardian print buyers in Scotland. He's an intelligent, highly educated man. He thinks I've gone over to the dark side by by taking out a subscription to The Times and The Spectator.

His sources of news are The Guardian, The BBC and Channel 4. He knows Channel 4 and The Guardian are biased. He had no idea about what is going on in Portland or what exactly "antifa" is because his media sources of information don't tell him.

The BBC did report it, and reasonably accurately and impartially I'd say:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52954899

I knew I'd seen it on the Guardian's site, so I had a little google:

and their reporting, I would argue, was anything but impartial.

Interestingly provocative headline - I don't think a controlled rising trot is what most people would understand by a "charge".

And the text can't even get the sex of the police woman right (mind you, maybe the Guardian simply didn't know what her pronouns were and thought "better safe than sorry...")

The BBC did report it, and reasonably accurately and impartially I'd say

That links to London demos. The BBC and The Guardian have been reporting Portland as Trump being a threat to freedom to demonstrate.

Sorry Dido I should have scrolled back up to JUst's post and quoted that - the quote you opened your post with did refer to the policewoman with the punctured lung.

Actually, Diana the BBC's initial headline was the Orwellian headline '27 police officers hurt in peaceful demonstration.' It changed that after being ridiculed for it. But even more astonishing, the BBC edited the photo that accompanied the article by removing a guy wielding a large plank of wood. The unedited version was only published because someone found the original image. I suggest you read the Telegraph article in the link.

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

That's mostly behind a paywall. There's an alternative article here:

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/bbc-cropping-out-weapon-black-lives-matter-protest/

That's pretty Stalinist... airbrushing of history and all that. Good that they were caught out, bad that the evidence of bias then disappears unless you know exactly what you're looking for.

bad that the evidence of bias then disappears unless you know exactly what you're looking for

That was Winston Smith's job. To retrospectively alter news reports so that the party was never wrong.

I agree with @MadBadDaddy - can you not see that Breitbart is a news source used & indeed published by the 'Alt Right' aka Nazis??
Does it not worry you slightly that you are actually advocating linking to a Nazi publication??

On my Facebook one of my colleagues shared a video of a speech by the German neo Nazi group the Afd.
I commented what are you doing, they're actual Nazis... she said well I agree with her views on Brexit (my colleague is a Brexiter).
So now my entire workplace thinks she likes Nazis!!

Don't be like my rather stupid colleague.

Well that was a pretty clueless contribution.

An epic Godwin Law fail.

Totally agree, @Terralee (and said so upthread), but the thread has moved on rather to the failings in the centre/left wing press which is leaving an information vacuum the far right can exploit.

The problem is once you (generic you) realise that various outlets are lying by omission/ putting so much editorial spin on things that they distort the true picture, you start to lose faith in them.

My approach is typically to cross-reference against several sources drawn from across the mainstream political spectrum. (I tend to discount far right and far left sources on the basis that they just blatantly make shit up, so you can't trust anything they print, even if, like the stopped clock, they get it right occasionally. I also discount them because if you're quoting sources in an effort to persuade people of your views, well, you damn well want to quote mainstream sources otherwise people will understandably react like your entire workplace.)