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."

Breitbart is not worth my click. I spend considerable time paying close attention to what people I disagree with are thinking and saying but those Breitbart twats are not getting anything out of me. Even a click.
They can go fuck themselves. Which, as a bunch of incels they probably already do.

BovaryX

Thanks for that Rollingstone article. The Middle East has taken a real pounding over the past two decades from US (backed by the UK) interventionism.
Have you seen this video before?

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

@Floisme

Oh dear me, that's a bit of a desperate reach; the thread about Anne Widdcombe that I remember was reminiscing about the days when she had an agony column in the Guardian.

Funny, because when I reminisce about Anne Widdicombe, I remember her wanting female prisoners in labour to be handcuffed to the bed and wanting to deny women access to abortions.

Yes and the thread in question talked about that too as I recall. The point - which appears to have sailed over your head - was that politicians, a bit people, can be complex, also that pointing and shouting 'Eww right wing!' has arguably got us, and US exactly where we are now.

a bit like people

What seems to be sailing over your head though is by giving extreme far right platforms credence, by agreeing with them, amplifying their platforms, their reach, it's normalising intolerance - as pp said access to abortion, controlling women - you're deluded if you think if people start taking away rights from one oppressed group that you happen to agree with them on, that they'd stop there and not move onto others which you presumably wouldn't be so happy about.

@AntsInPenzance

Thing is, There have been so many posts in MN feminist chat attacking the Guardian, the Labour party, Owen Jones, socialism, and BLM. There have also been posts supporting Anne Widdicombe (!), Norman Tebbit, The Daily Mail, and now Breitbart.

You can't then express horror when people imply that some views are alligned with right of centre.

I think that reflects that there are a large proportion of left leaning people who post here.

So they tend to upset, if no longer shocked, when The Guardian takes a position that is clearly biased and contrary. And maybe were shocked to discover the extent to which they were shaping the narrative.

On the other hand, they didn't expect much from The Daily Mail, and so are maybe pleasantly surprised when they produce something good. And there is no sense of betrayal when they don't.

@LemonadeAndDaisyChains

What seems to be sailing over your head though is by giving extreme far right platforms credence, by agreeing with them, amplifying their platforms, their reach, it's normalising intolerance - as pp said access to abortion, controlling women - you're deluded if you think if people start taking away rights from one oppressed group that you happen to agree with them on, that they'd stop there and not move onto others which you presumably wouldn't be so happy about.

It's people's right to think about things, like abortion, and come to conclusions that you don't like.

The underlying idea seems to be that you are scared people will start to listen to things you disagree with, and find them compelling. So you'd rather they not hear those ideas in the first place.

It's profoundly paternalistic.

It's people's right to think about things, like abortion, and come to conclusions that you don't like

Not at all - I've always said that people should read both sides and come to their own conclusions, that people are entitled to their opinions.
It doesn't mean I have to agree with where they decide to stand on issues though.

Just to be clear, it's not people having different opinions that I find worrying.
We're all entitled to our opinions, even if we don't agree with each other.
There's a difference between factual articles and propaganda though and they seem to be getting more and more muddied.
There comes a difference between opinions and promoting/inciting hate and that I think is the big difference, to some say racism isn't hate, they're entitled to their opinion, they're being silenced by taking their bile down, blah blah blah....
erm no there comes a point it tips over and away from opinion and causes harm (in my opinion ) there's a bigger picture.

There's a difference between factual articles and propaganda though and they seem to be getting more and more muddied.

You can say that again!

Am just thinking about the laughable 'Mumsnetters call for Drag Queen's crucifixion!!!!' article.

Or the Guardian article about Gary Dean Marie's hunger strike because he wasn't allowed in a women's prison, where they completely neglected to mention that he had been convicted of sexual offences (breaking into a house and wanking into a teenager's knickers I think it was?)

Just a couple off the top of my head.

Facts certainly are on the wane in some quarters.

Sorry I meant to say that 'crucifixion' article was in Pink News.

@LemonadeAndDaisyChains

What seems to be sailing over your head though is by giving extreme far right platforms credence, by agreeing with them, amplifying their platforms, their reach, it's normalising intolerance - as pp said access to abortion, controlling women - you're deluded if you think if people start taking away rights from one oppressed group that you happen to agree with them on, that they'd stop there and not move onto others which you presumably wouldn't be so happy about.

Thank you Lemonade but I can hardly miss that point as it's pretty much the only one that's been raised in opposition to the op.

What the op's reasons are for using Breitbart as their source I don't know, as you can find similar points made most days by centre/leftists. The thing is, we're how many pages into this thread and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a single post try and engage with the actual substance of the argument, thereby kind of proving the op's point.

We have a conservative government with an 80 seat majority and every chance of Trump winning a second term and still the left is either too arrogant or too authoritarian to do anything more than point and accuse. It's pathetic.

You please yourself but I would prefer not to see out my days under a Tory Prime Minister but, until the left learn to go for the ball instead of the player then that's what's likely to happen.

Interesting comment. When I first started posting on MN the general consensus from the oh so right on MN lefties (who seemed to be the majority) was that the Mail was hateful, never to be looked at and barely a smidgen away from Der Sturmer

Yeah, isn't that worrying in itself? That the far right is becoming more and more pronounced, more "normalised", it's shifting further?

I agree with you as I've been here years too that it used to be MN seen as leftie Boden wearing lentil weavers or something, but now - it's becoming more and more less so.

Just a couple off the top of my head
Facts certainly are on the wane in some quarters

That's my point though!! Extremists/propaganda from either "side" - just no.

The intolerance of the people demanding anyone associating with Abigail Shrier's intelligent and essential examination of what is happening with children must be shouted down seems to get a free pass. All sorts of evil motives must be assigned to anyone reading about it by the severely judgemental "kind and inclusive" .

One of the things I find most interesting about FWR is that it brings together women from the left and the right. But to get the most out of it, I think you have to leave any tribal affiliations by the door.

Johnny Boden is a conservative by the way - in fact I believe he once stood for election

No I don't find it worrying in the sense you mean.

It's quite pleasing that at least some MNetters can approach ideas with an open mind.

The Mail /Times etc arecnot and never were "far right"

It's worrying only in the sense that left- wing media outlets are becoming ever more biased and unreliable.

I agree with you as I've been here years too that it used to be MN seen as leftie Boden wearing lentil weavers or something, but now - it's becoming more and more less so

The difference is I'm a moderate right of centre- I see the drift as towards sensible reality- not something to be feared.

If GC feminism becomes allied with the far right, then you'll lose a lot of current supporters
Me, for example

Can't see much risk of this tbh! A few topics might be 'aligned' but generally speaking, you would be hard pushed to find a far right feminist surely..

The Mail /Times etc arecnot and never were "far right"

Which is why I said there's a world of bloody difference between the Daily Mail and Breitbart!

What an over reaction. I must have read Brietbart about 4 times in my life, mostly to find out more about Steve Bannon. Reading this thread makes it sound like the devil's work and anyone reading it needs to go immediately to confession. After 4 reads I think I probably must be due urgent exorcism.

Thing is, There have been so many posts in MN feminist chat attacking the Guardian, the Labour party, Owen Jones, socialism, and BLM. There have also been posts supporting Anne Widdicombe (!), Norman Tebbit, The Daily Mail, and now Breitbart.

They support individual things those people and publications have said, not the people and publications' whole worldviews.

It is deeply disappointing how common it is to fail to see the difference between supporting a particular view and supporting a whole worldview. It also seems to be the spirit of the age*.

• If it turns out that Hawkwind have ever said anything problematic, feel free to cancel this post

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.

If it turns out that Hawkwind have ever said anything problematic, feel free to cancel this post