What is a woman: Daily Wire documentary on for limited time for free

[AnotherDayAnotherView]

https://twitter.com/stevenmarkryan/status/1664437068838363141

Available for 24 hours

I think it's something that you could imagine if you were paranoid and closed-minded yourself.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. These claims work both ways.

None of the TRAs could define, or even describe, what "feeling like . . " is. or even what a woman is. On the basis of nebulous, intangible, indescribable feelings, we are destroying a generation of confused, vulnerable children.

I fear the fact that @TraumatisedGooner is unable to answer simple questions about the beliefs he wants to force us all to share means his opinion on people making themselves look foolish on the internet is probably not that objective

”They constantly tell the viewer that they are in danger and under attack. They build loyalty by undermining the individual’s ability to trust other sources. They make the viewer feel like it’s crucial to keep watching so they know what the (usually unnamed) enemy is up to.”

You have identified a strategy that has been adopted by news media across all political beliefs and you have vilified the right wing, as you see it, as being the issue.

Shall I post recent headlines from media targeting LGBT+ people?Come to think of it, how about just some of the statements from Stonewall and Mermaids?

It is a common fallacy that this is a strategy of the ‘right’ that people who pride themselves fiercely for being on the left tell themselves. That it is only done on the ‘right’.

And again, Murdoch’s original media stable covers a spectrum and is still there. Though people don’t look for it. He is a capitalist. He is an opportunist. Making him a bogeyman by attributing those commonly found strategies that are used in left wing media as well, that is where this argument fails.

Walsh has complete control over the way the ‘documentary’ is presented — it’s not hard to exploit that to make yourself look like the voice of reason.

It’s not hard to look like the voice of reason when others are spouting utter nonsense. If anything he did them a favour by editing out their more egregious ramblings.

He did, but when the wind begins to blow in the opposite direction, the man of straw bends with it.

The idea that Matt Walsh should be required to produce a balanced documentary without any bias is just laughable.

Why should he? He makes no secret of his position. He asked questions, people said stupid stuff he puts their stupid stuff out there to prove his point. Everyone knows what he's doing.

Why don't the TRAs make a balanced non biased documentary which gives GC feminists space to explain their views which then goes viral?

1. because they don't want to
2. because hell would freeze over because they even considered it
3. even if they did the GC feminists wouldn't look like loons, they'd at most just look like people you disagree with.

It's just laughable these standards the left demands the right adhere to which they pay no attention to themselves.

"Make a documentary which edits us in a good light!!!"
No.

Because we think you are harming kids and need to be stopped

Matt Walsh is fighting with the gloves off and he's long ago disregarded the Be Kind demands and doesn't give a shit how much you hate him. He's not nice and doesn't claim to be.

Neither is KJK.

And all the surprised screams of 'but you have to be nice!!' just aren't going to work anymore.

Remember that the woman who said “Do chickens cry?” wasn’t told by Walsh to say it and she is a doctor who is responsible for giving children hormone treatments that irrevocably harm their bodies.

The single biggest mistake TRAs have made in their entire endeavour of seeking to continue to ruin children and access women’s spaces is to talk out loud.

So, media outlets need to stop marketing to people and stop making additional content that focuses on opinion not just reporting the news, that keeps their viewership/readership coming back to them and stops them switching.

And documentary/video makers, who are self funded and not making the documentary or video for the general population need to edit their clips to moderate people who are discussing ideological beliefs. So to positively moderate them in a way that doesn’t make that person’s extreme ideas seem to be as extreme as they have presented them themselves.

Making the onus on the video maker to ensure a person’s extreme beliefs appear less so than reality. When the documentary is about just those extreme beliefs?

I mean, I am all for honesty. I don’t believe that any documentary maker or video maker should edit something in a way that misrepresents what was said and done. At all. But to say that these people that Walsh has included on this video were just edited to be portrayed in that way is quite unbelievable when you read or see other content from that person.

At what point do people stop blaming media and others who are not lying or even twisting the reality by the way, for how extreme activists look. And I mean, just that. Not lying about what they do or say, just allowing them to answer direct questions in interviews. Not calling them ‘anti’ anything or denigrating them. Just letting them answer for themselves.

When do people accept that it is not that the media outlet is ‘right wing’. It is not that the documentary maker has ‘chosen editing to present this person falsely’. That it is that these media are presenting a mirror, no name calling, no misrepresentation, and some people don’t like the reality.

At what point do people stop blaming media and others who are not lying or even twisting the reality by the way, for how extreme activists look. And I mean, just that. Not lying about what they do or say, just allowing them to answer direct questions in interviews. Not calling them ‘anti’ anything or denigrating them. Just letting them answer for themselves

The answer is simple surely. Provide an answer. Say all the things you claim.were edited out or taken out of context. Imagine what you could accomplish if you took the time you spend trying to discredit someone. Or trying to prove associations to undesirable people etc in order to try and get what was said taken less seriously, then failing and resorting to name calling , and spent it printing/filming a correction and putting your apparently real case forward.

Yes. If Walsh lied, if he misquoted, if he dishonestly clipped or labeled people with hateful labels, the ‘see how Walsh edits those he agrees with versus those he disagrees with. It’s desperately cynical and biased, but not something you’re likely notice if you are very biased yourself,’ might hold together. But the documentary was about the forced change of language and what it means.

That makes this statement in bold just an empty claim.

It honestly feels like some people in the world believe the world is there to serve them. To edit things to moderate people’s extreme views, or to cater to their political views in programming. And any person who doesn’t is hateful and deserving of whatever negative label going.

The polarisation is very clear when you see it.

Its not even just this one documentary.

Its every single article, interview, any chance to speak at all really. There is NEVER an answer to any of the questions. Even in interviews where they are clearly centre stage and the show staff clearly swallow every word and lick their arses. There is still nothing of any substance beyond sob stories and avoidance of talking about obvious issues. Its the one thing you can be sure of. That you will come away none the wiser about any of it.

Grown adults held to lower standards than we would hold school children with essays and debates.

And this is actually where ( me being a bit too sympathetic sometimes) I do feel a little sorry fir the tras. They go on tv/radio, spout their usual substance light speeches, and all their adoring " fans" pile on saying how amazing they were amd how they showed the terfs etc.

The tras love it. But fail to see they are simply being encouraged to make complete fools of themselves. Giving false sense of achievements etc. I've said this before about many things/situations. But the sooner they realise their followers aren't their friends the better. They are nothing but entertainment and these followers would encourage them.off a cliff for their own entertainment. They are laughing at you. Not with you.

Stop wasting time on them.and actually start trying to fight hour case with actual facts

I cannot imagine what those extreme activitists believe people see when they act the way that they do. Blocked up, screaming slurs and hate, assaulting women, hiding behind umbrellas.

Yet, they continue to do it. And get upset when people publish the videos showing the world.

I suspect there are those who fully believe that to publish that footage is hate. That it should be edited to moderate it, to attempt to show some balance. When the reality is there is no fucking balance to those protests. And not one person on this earth has the responsibility to present those protests as anything but what they are.

If a group of people need to depend on obscurity of reporting, of only making sure a positive spin has been shown and not showing the unvarnished truth, of not even discussing it because it shows the falsity of the premise and the extreme ideological viewpoint that counters established science and requires people to lie to perpetuate the falsehood, it says all you need to know about that group.

So, just to put this out there, I am not sure that this kind of expectation that reporting be very moderated is confined to gender ideology issues.

I'm in North America where the media situation is somewhat different than the UK, but there are a range of issues in the media in Canada where you will not get proper. balanced reporting. Gender ideology is one. Climate issues are another, although in that case the form is a bit different, what you tend to see is the mainstream media will only present the morons among those who challenge or disagree with elements of the narrative they accept. Serious people who question things like carbon trades, or who point out the other environmental implications of renewals (like mining) are simply ignored. You also see certain things that would complicate the discussion completely ignored in media presentations around racial issues, indigenous issues, and I am sure probably some others as well.

Activists in these areas seem to expect media outlets to refrain from asking pointy questions or challenging them in any way, I can think of at least one example where it's resulted in them being essentially scammed and was a little embarrassing.

I think it's something in the whole mindset around this approach to social justice.

I agree with you. It is not limited to identity. And I also believe that creating ‘untouchable’ questions is dangerous.

On another thread I have been repeatedly called a homophobe and a bigot because I analysed an organisation’s actions around a poorly worded clause in a declaration signed by many groups. It is simply ludicrous to think that this is an acceptable approach to having a mature conversation about challenging topics. No discussion as to my analysis was had, just slur after slur for pages.

Creating an untouchable group or topic is dangerous in what it allows to happen because scrutiny has been labelled as problematic. It is also fucking lazy and shows when people don’t want to answer, or can’t because they have opinions not based on fact.

So Matt Walsh used clever editing tricks to make it look like, (1) people were claiming that trans-women are women, (2) they couldn't then give a coherent explanation for this.

??

Why would Walsh need to use editing tricks when we know it's actually going on?

For example, Walsh didn't have control over the editing for the Dr. Phil episode, and you had a similar situation.

There's not a single programme or segment made on the subject of gender identity that I can recall TRAs being happy or even somewhat okay with. Whether that be Daily Wire or Channel 4 and everything inbetween.

Somehow all these programmes deliberately make them look bad.

"Somehow all these programmes deliberately make them look bad."

I do believe that is what this poster is attempting to have us believe.

And yet, every time, it is the extreme activist that makes themselves look bad. Whether it is Riz, whether it is that individual (F Wallace???) who has been suspended from the ambulance service for their abuse, whether it is a huge man on a sports debate saying they are most oppressed because they cannot play one of the football codes with women (whether it is Union or AFL or Gaelic). There is NO way to edit these video clips to make those people look 'better', unless you limit them to one or two lines and then modify their story to be very neutral and leaving out pertinent facts.

In other words, present a false story with a false identity.

And then when they are edited out and only have one or two lines, they claim they are grossly misrepresented and how biased the video is (as is Ch. 4).

Material reality has to be faced sometime. Either allies and other trans people accept that their spokespeople or the protestors who declare they represent them are acting with honesty and are true to their beliefs, or there is a major issue with extremism in that movement and they need to address it and should have addressed it long ago.

They can't accept that they condemn themselves with their own words and actions. Blame everyone but themselves.

A documentary will usually explore a question, and or educate its audience. This documentary doesn't do either, nor seek to. In What is a Woman?

1. The maker knew what they believed going into the process, and had an entirely closed mind
2. The maker's audience knows what they believe going into the film, and had entirely closed minds
3. The maker interviews people from both sides but edits responses differently:
4. Only Walsh's allies get the treatment all interviewees expect, with pauses, umming, and trailed thoughts removed (you can watch the camera flicking around different angles to hide the discontinuities), which makes Walsh's opponents look stupid in contrast
5. Walsh's opponents are edited to make them look bad. I'm not sure I've ever seen a documentary interview repeatedly fade in the middle of someone's answer jumping from one part of what they were saying to another without proper context or connection. But that's how Walsh treats interviewees that don't agree with him.

You shouldn't accept that in a documentary. I wouldn't be content if the people I disagreed with were edited in that way, I'd prefer to hear what they've actually got to say. Ultimately though, as you and others here have made clear, it doesn't matter to that the documentary was made in bad faith... because you aren't watching it in good faith. You don't want a documentary, you just want to be proven right.

educate us then

what is a woman?

describe the gender identity that all women share

until you can do that, any reply from you is essentially garbage

Knowing that you think all my posts are garbage regardless of what I write takes a lot of pressure off, honestly.

Lovey, you want to force people to share beliefs you can’t even describe

you’re making a fool of yourself

The maker's audience knows what they believe going into the film, and had entirely closed minds

How on earth can anyone know that? What nonsense.

What pressure? Is someone forcing you to be here?