The “Woke Left” being called out on their hypocrisy

[MangoSeason]

Brendan O’Neill on the money again. A most unexpected ally, who has been all over this issue for years.

www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/04/oh-so-now-the-woke-left-cares-about-misogyny/?fbclid=IwAR2IvMp7S-r4yyAjfGtV6RUmNEfhYcxzO6odUBNV2m9Eo3njNT36Bw03RTI

Ableism is very much a moving target. Yes, it does really exist and can have genuine negative impacts - but it's also increasingly being very deliberately weaponised as an ideological tool. Just saying that someone or something is ableist isn't actually enough. There are very, very valid reasons to critique the online 'chronic illness' communities - they have their upsides but they also do a huge amount of damage.

I have no idea how founded his criticisms are. They may indeed be ableist! But 'ableism' simply can't be allowed to become a new 'stop the conversation now' shibboleth.

Absolutely excellent article.

I do wonder how some people cope when they realise that Donald Trump, Joseph Stalin and they probably all agree the sky is blue. If they agree on one thing they must surely agree with everything after all....

Ahem.

extract from wikipedia

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The etymology of the phrase lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the invading army's strength.
Structure

Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy.[1]

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. (e.g. "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail")
2. Therefore, the claims made by person A will be false.[2]

Poisoned-well arguments are sometimes used with preemptive invocations of the association fallacy. In this pattern, an unfavorable attribute is ascribed to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process. This is a false dilemma: not all future opponents necessarily have the unfavorable attribute. (For example, not everyone who has a different opinion on funding the public education system necessarily hates children.)

Thanks Purgatory I do love finding out that these things have names!

2319 Every time you see someone use a rhetorical technique that doesn't seem quite fair, you are probably experiencing common feeling with an angry Greek philosopher over 2000 years ago.

Phew, stinks of purity spirals in here!

.. anyway ..

Overall a good article! The Guardian in particular has not had enough censure for the way they handled the WiSpa incident so I enjoyed reading that.

Fab, ta Pots.

They really should teach rhetoric in schools.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

2319 Every time you see someone use a rhetorical technique that doesn't seem quite fair, you are probably experiencing common feeling with an angry Greek philosopher over 2000 years ago.

😆 love that; me & the Ancient Greeks like this 🤞 I tell you

me & the Ancient Greeks like this 🤞 I tell you

Did you read the Donna Zuckerberg book? Interview.

Donna Zuckerberg: ‘Social media has elevated misogyny to new levels of violence’

When the academic, sister of Mark Zuckerberg, began exploring online antifeminism, she discovered far-right men’s groups were using classical antiquity to support their views

“So, there are online communities that exist under the umbrella of what we know as the Red Pill, which are men connected by common resentments against women, immigrants, people of colour,” she explains. “What I was surprised to find was the extent to which they are using ancient Greek and Roman figures and texts to prop up an ideal of white masculinity.”

www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/11/donna-zuckerberg-social-media-misoyny-violence-classical-antiquity-not-all-dead-white-men

Duck did it better

God, it's true. They post memes of utter banalities at each other, especially quotes vaguely related to fitness, signed off with Socrates or Plato at the end, and kid themselves it makes them part of the intellectual elite.

Nah, it's only an intellectual class-marker if you can read Socrates or Marcus Aurelius in the original languages and translate it yourself. If you can't, you might as well quote any English philosopher on the internet.

I have no idea how founded his criticisms are. They may indeed be ableist! But 'ableism' simply can't be allowed to become a new 'stop the conversation now' shibboleth.

I've noticed this one creeping in more and more. For a few months it was antisemitism but they seem to have moved on.

I agree with him on this. And I love how he doesn’t hold back about the Guardian, Little Owen and Keir Starmer

Thank you PurgatoryOfPotholes, that explanation was excellent and very apropos

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention, I read it and thought it was very on point. Blistering. I wish the Guardian could behave like adults and engage in some self reflection! They're such hypocrites. That says, I've been dismayed by the media in general lately. Scare mongering, manufacturing a fuel crisis where there is none then laughing at Joe Public queuing for fuel to get to work.

In house Spiked articles are all the same; it's all how x policy favoured by the woke left is actually damaging to the working classes , there is a spiked bot on twitter I think. But like a stopped clock, they sometimes get it very right. I hate the fact that they seem to be the only places that publish people like Jo bartosh and Julie blindel.

Don't refute the arguments, refute the source

Well this has always been the case. On here and GC arguments, right down to posting a Daily Fail link. "what? DM post? Oh Jesus she reads the DM, oh I feel sorry for you and your kids' Its exactly the same as what going on in this thread.

I am on the bare bones of not giving a shit about any one who high lights this issue. Thats why the Tories are scooping up ex labour voters. These are the clever ones who can see which direction this is starting to go and are placing themselves on the 'right side'.

I am ok with that.

Its a bloody great article though

I'm grudgingly impressed by an attempt at a smear that harks back so far, the smearer has to explain a publication's former names/editor's career history.

25 years ago is so far back, that there will be MNers on this board who were still learning to read at that point. Or even not yet born.

Myself, I had learnt to read by 1997, but nothing as lofty as Living Marxism. I think Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising sequence was my preferred fare.

I wouldn’t have to go back 25 years to disagree with the author of the linked piece. I very much disagree with his take on Wayne Couzens for example. Doesn’t mean I can’t see the article makes some really good points.

Not sure what the B'ON is the actual devil posters think they achieve. I read the article - agreed with it. I expect 100s did the same. Looked at the comments, posted and left.
Today it's still on first page. This means 100s more have read and agreed but not bothered getting involved in arguing.

Isn't this why some think GC feminism is a gateway drug to the far right.

'Some' people just don't get independent freedom of thought, although they often think they exercise it by attacking anyone they dont agree with, instead of discussing the actual issue.
I'm completely drug free, can't say the same for 'some'.