Things Fell Apart R4 9am 6/2/24

[TeenDivided]

I only caught a bit about this, but the bit I caught seemed to be about TQ+ groups 'infiltrating' Florida schools.

Here's how it went:

There was a mass shooting in an LGBT+ nightclub called Pulse in Florida. Even by the standards of mass shootings in the US, it was particularly terrible.

Around the same time, gender identity ideology arrived in US schools. Affirmination only, that kind of thing.

It was justifiable to indoctrinate kids in schools with gender identity ideology because doing this will help to prevent further atrocities against LGBT+ people.

The things the Right are saying show how are wrong they are, and need to be disregarded, because they've lost their minds over the myth that in some schools kids as furries are using cat litter boxes.

Talk about one-sided (though I was crashing round cleaning so missed a middle chunk)! I was even more confused because the presenter sounded like Joe Lycett. I wish I hadn't bothered to turn the radio up.

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that all the (Florida?) schools have a bucket of cat litter in case the school goes into lockdown and the kids need the loo.

It was very "I don't know anything/one like this, so it doesn't happen!".

What was noticeable to me was that while it started discussing the craze in school age kids for identifying as NB or the other sex (the meat of the problem) it fairly quickly moved in to kids identifying as cats and cat lit trays at school which could be largely debunked. The LGBT activist was portrayed sympathetically because his activism stemmed from a homophobic shooting attack. On the plus side, it did cover the craze for young people to identify as LGBT and schools affirming behind parents’ backs and demonising parents. The LGBT activist was complaining that Gcs/the media are presenting trans people as predators (they didn’t cover predators claiming to be trans to take advantage of loopholes).

The pail with litter in the classroom (in case of shooter lockdown) made sense, but what a sad state of affairs.

Ronson is deliberately disingenuous. I find it very depressing to listen to 30 minutes of someone twisting the facts. Plus, I hate is voice.

Fuckssake, I'm 3/4 way through, it's a mess

The issue underlying all of it is that the T is added to the LGB

It was that gonk Jon Ronson.

I thought this was pretty good, actually. Ronson was sympathetic to both ‘sides’ without accepting everything they said uncritically.

I certainly didn’t come away thinking his message was that homophobic attacks justify the type of influence over schools that was at the heart of this case. More that being about how people can go too far despite having good intentions..

Oooh so sneaky.

Massive diversion and deflection of the initial key issues that January raised, onto cat litter and furries; the "cat litters" are actually buckets incase of school shootings and emergency lockdowns. Which is where the episode starts, with a shooting in a gay club.

There's a tiny line around 25 mins about "she wasn't crazy to be concerned about influence within her child's friendships groups...BUT she's an activist who uses escalatory language etc ..."

He gives the example of the lgbtq activist language ("trans people are being smeared as contagious") but it's very quickly covered up with 'look at how these right wingers exaggerate and make up lies.'

Yes, Ronson didn't himself say that "homophobic attacks justify the type of influence over schools". He let someone say this, didn't engage with it at all, and left it woven into the narrative he was presenting.

He's a dishonest weasel.

That’s not what I took from it at all. He made the point that both of the interviewees were activists who overstated their cases.

I wasn’t expecting it based on things I’d heard about Ronson on this subject, but I was pleasantly surprised at how even-handed it was. Based on other episodes I’ve heard, I don’t think he’s in the business of coming down on one side or the other.

It's the way he's laid down the pattern of clips and interviews. It biases the cognitive flow.

I had to listen to the part where he talks about activists escalating with language (25 mins) several times to clarify what he was saying. And it's the way he's positioned the clips, it's in favour of the lgbtq activist

The LGBT activist was portrayed sympathetically because his activism stemmed from a homophobic shooting attack.

Yes, Ronson didn't himself say that "homophobic attacks justify the type of influence over schools". He let someone say this, didn't engage with it at all, and left it woven into the narrative he was presenting.

So I guess he didn't point out that the narrative about that attack is false?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-enduring-false-narrative-about

Along with my then-colleague Murtaza Hussain, I extensively reported on the Salman trial and compiled all the evidence that emerged during it that proved anti-LGBT hatred was not part of Mateen's motive. But it was not just us: virtually every journalist who covered that trial, including several who began believing or at least suspecting that this was an anti-gay hate crime, definitively concluded that this was false. Reporter Melissa Jeltsen covered that trial for The Huffington Post and — writing under the headline “Everyone Got The Pulse Massacre Story Completely Wrong” — explained [...]

No matter how noble the intent, journalism — and activism — becomes corrupted if it knowingly supports falsehoods. That the PULSE massacre was an act of anti-LGBT hatred is a fiction. Unless you are a neocon, there is no such thing as a "noble lie.” It is way past time for politicians and activist groups to stop disseminating this one.

I think we were listening to a different programme theantigardener
And, yes, dishonest weasel sums him up to a T

He always seems to conveniently miss out the most important information, doesn't he?

I binge listened the series and that was interesting.

I like the way he lets people tell their stories. I like the way he includes diverse viewpoints and events I would never otherwise have heard of.

I dislike the way he pretends to have no bias. I dislike the way everything is made to fit his culture wars narrative. I think if he were genuinely non-partisan he would want to dig further into the issue of schools practising "social transition" on children. I think he avoids it out of fear.

Why can't he investigate that if people are worried about a growing hatred of LGBT+ people, then for reasons we all struggle to understand, part of the solution is to indoctrinate kids into gender identity ideology, and affirm them when they say the want to "change sex"?

Yes, I think we did, and there’s probably nothing more for me to add to this thread! I will listen again with these comments in mind, though.

I consider myself GC and think the influence of gender identity activists is often dangerous and stupid. However, I do think that in this case JR was at least starting to cover a legitimate issue (concerns about GI influence in schools) which some may not be aware of, while protecting himself by then looking at the cat identity claims. He also could be said to have covered why some LGBT activists can be a bit blinkered. His schtick generally seems to be letting people speak without much overt analysis. It seems to me that the days of brushing all this GI stuff under the carpet altogether because of the “right side of history” are over, that there are concerns which justify an airing etc. If JR and others cover this it is obviously a good thing. The cat thing was a two minute wonder over here, concerns about GI in schools not so much.

I've found this series really interesting and quite balanced in the past, though 8 don't always agree with him. He goes to places that are painful and extreme that other journalists don't even try to do imo. Will definitely listen to this one.

Some of what he adds in is really relevant.

But every single time it's what he doesn't say, specifically around lgbt stuff. And it's often hugely relevant. And he takes the story off in another direction.

That episode he did last time about the lesbian festival which completely omitted a horrific murder of a lesbian couple (and their son?) by one of the transwomen who'd complained about the festival excluding men was unforgivable.

If I had to summarise my irritation with his approach is that he's in the business of narrative creation while masquerading as being investigative. With there being a lot of scope for him to form his narratives from his biases.

I think that hits the spot for too. With the difference being that it doesn't irritate me. The music does though.

If I had to summarise my irritation with his approach is that he's in the business of narrative creation while masquerading as being investigative. With there being a lot of scope for him to form his narratives from his biases.
this. Plus I hate his voice.