Model response to a dilemma for women in the left-right storm (really?)

[IwantToRetire]

So not satisfied with appropriating the work, ideas and campaigning of one woman and many active supporters, some complete set of nobody film makers have taken it upon themselves to school us silly air heads on how to behave and who to talk to.

Leaving aside the smug condescension of believing the have the right to tell us how to behave, this is a perfect example of where complete nobodies who exploit other people to further their own media career, then assume they are as politically relevant and analytically acute as actual activists.

kaygreen.blog/2022/12/31/model-response-to-a-dilemma-for-women-in-the-left-right-storm/

This is the problem with the media at the moment, presenters and film makers who are just the vehicle to get voices and ideas heard, then think they are entitled to become the spokes person.

Apart from anything else, did these nupties even think maybe we should ask those who the film was actually about. I know they would, having been hand selected as the appropriately politically aligned voices, also refused, but even within the unethical world of these self promoters, do they really think they take precedence.

But it does gives us a clear idea of their moral compass and how they felt able to bandwagon of others work and go to extreme lengths to make sure they are never referred to or acknowledged.

Oh bugger it. I meant to quote @Onnabugeisha's response to me.

@TheWitchesAreBackInTown

agree, back on point
That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.

Authoritarian behaviour is when one group attempts to control the behaviours and decisions of another group of people. The film-makers have their own agency, they can choose who they want to accept interview invitations from. Their statements reflect their decision and then why they made that decision.

The authoritarian behaviour being displayed is by all the people insisting that these film-makers should have accepted the interview request and gone on tucker carlson’s show. To the point they (not you) are saying some very nasty things about the film makers in an effort to destroy their reputation and credibility. That is authoritarian behaviour.

And if they lack the views, ultimately that is the decision of the person/people who chose that they would take such a principled stance. Whether it pays off, I am keen to see. Because the reality is at the moment they have a great deal of support, even from people who don't agree with them on everything, but where do they go from here.

Unless some other media entity picks up this video, I think it will just continue to tick along. It will used as a good starting point for some people who recommend it to others. But if they are taking a such a principled stance, the major viewership will be women who already understand the issues and the people they recommend. Word of mouth.

There's no insistence. There are opinions. Not the same thing.

Yes. Strange that. There is no one insisting they go on, recommendations and opinions yes. Insistence is hyperbole.

Yes there is insistence:
The act of insisting; urgent or persistent maintenance of an opinion, principle, right, or the like; perseverance in pressing or supporting anything.

The persistent maintenance of the opinion that they should have accepted the interview request is by definition insistence.

Nobody is insisting on anything.

Honestly your overreach is just so constant on every tiny point.

We are allowed opinions that are in some way different. It doesn't mean we are insisting on anything.

I am not in a position to insist they do anything. I think they are mad to go to the trouble of policing who knows about their film. But that's their decision to make. And my opinion to have.

I didn’t say you or anyone on this thread were insisting on anything, so there’s been no over-reach just like there was no hyperbole.

My post was to @TheWitchesAreBackInTown and was responding to her about the responses on Twitter:

”Back on point, had seen the full statement the film makers had put out when it was first posted on Twitter. I didn't engage with it. Had a look this morning at the responses and opinions do seem very split. I wasn't surprised to find that lots of people think it's virtue signalling.

I've said it before but it bears repeating. That statement shows its exactly the authoritarian behaviour as TRAs and other leftist groups engage in and the only difference is these film makers believe in biological sex.“

to which I said:
“The authoritarian behaviour being displayed is by all the people insisting that these film-makers should have accepted the interview request and gone on tucker carlson’s show.”

the word ‘people’ in my post is referring to the same ‘people’ in her post, as in the people on Twitter which is nobody on this thread.

You responded to ResisterRex on my screen.

And even in the post you quoted, she said 'opinions were split'. There was no insistence. Nobody is in a position to insist. People are allowed opinions. If they don't like other people having opinions, perhaps don't post virtue signalling stuff on twitter. Twitter being the social media platform where anyone and everyone can see what you have written.

Who is Kay Green who wrote the blog post? She's not actually in the film or one of the producers is she?

She has admired the way the Reality Matters film makers dealt with Fox News and wrote a blog post about it.

FWIW I think it was a great response.

Yes, because Resister Rex was objecting to my use of the word “insisting” in my response to witches.

Obviously, I have also looked at the responses and replies by the people on Twitter and I see insistence as in the persistent maintenance of an opinion. Anybody is in a position to insist- no idea why you think people cannot persistently maintain an opinion about something. Yes people are allowed opinions and people are also allowed to be insistent. It’s not the insisting by itself that makes behaviour authoritarian, I made that clear in my comment so not sure why nit picking my vocabulary furthers your argument.

I've also read it and didn't find anyone saying 'I insist that you go onto Tucker Carlson's show'.

There just been a lot of criticism and name calling becausing they chose not to go the TC show. Why?

Insistence is a pattern of behaviour. You don’t have to declare it to be doing it.

You know the people commenting are different people, right?

Not all the same people.

So not a pattern, but a collection of opinions, some agreeing and some not agreeing.

I get differing opinions, what I don't understand is the name calling and nastiness directed at these you GC feminists.

Sorry, that should say young not you.

Of course I know. Yes not all the same people and not all different people.

Within the collection of opinions, is a subset of people persistently maintaining their opinion which is insistent behaviour.

Youre not seeing the tree for the forest.

directed at these you GC feminists.

Are they particularly young?

I see that the film makers are saying they are not particularly interested in the American market and they are looking at Europe.

Which is a strategy, I suppose. I would like to know why though because it seems bizarre to restrict your message like that.

OK then, I don't understand the name calling and nastiness towards these fim making GC feminists. What have they done that's so bad, or even bad at all?

If you're talking about this thread, people have made it quite clear what they think and why.

The why seems to be because the film makers said "No" to a right wing man.

For some maybe. Not for others, it's the way they communicated it.

I scrolled back through the thread looking for this ‘nastiness’

I found that people think the statement sounds smug (it does)

they’ve been called nobodies (I’ll grant you that’s a bit mean, although I don’t have a scooby who they are to be fair)

And accused of being in a purity spiral. From my perspective they’ve actively passed up an opportunity to publicise their film to a huge new audience and bring their message to people who won’t have heard it to stay pure to their ideals in some way. Their behaviour does look a bit…counterproductive from where I’m sitting