What is Riley Gaines hiding? We investigated…

[Brewdug]

This podcast appeared in my feed today via an affiliated show… I know it is naive but it’s still hard to believe how blinkered - and unbearably smug the US liberal wing is on this. This is rubbish ( from the ‘Center for Investigative Reporting’, which I now wouldn’t trust to tell me if it was raining), but still enlightening… wondered if anyone else had heard it.

A six month dig to discredit Gaines - we’re not supposed to notice that everyone they’re trying to gotcha in this won’t dignify any of it - that finds her hiding (spoiler alert) nothing?

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/reveal/id886009669?i=1000738472306

Relevant: look up news about Dan Bongino just today. He admitted he was paid for his opinions.

You asked why I mentioned Marxism. I explained why.

Deputy Director of the FBI, political commentator and radio host - of course he gets paid for his opinions. In other news, the Pope is Catholic and bears have been known to s**t in the woods.

How do you think things or particular statements go viral to begin with?

#saggyboobsmatter went viral because a fashion commentator posted about it and it resonated with women. #metoo went viral because women are sick of men sexually harassing us.

You keep saying that Gaines is a "shill", someone paid to parrot what she's told to. You deny that AOC does the same. It's AOC who literally works for a political party in the House and is told how to vote in the House by a Congressional Whip. Yet you don't see the hypocrisy in being OK with one woman provably taking money to literally vote on legislation the right way whilst the other might (where's the proof?) take money to say stuff you don't like.

You don't like Gaines because she's Team R instead of Team D, and that's the heart of it.

Do you.understand that AOC is elected and Gaines is not? Riley has guest spots on Fox News. Do you think she does that for free? When she just happens to tweet the exact same thing every other right-wing pundit is tweeting, do you think that is just coincidence? News for you: it isn’t coincidence. I’m honestly having trouble believing you’re denying this, particularly as the Left does the same thing with their own pundits, just on a somewhat smaller scale.

He said that before he became Deputy Director of the FBI, he was paid for his opinions (ie. he isn’t now).

The fact that you truly believe a private citizen - not even a politician, is 'told' what to tweet makes you sound batshit ridiculous.

I have, which is why I pointed out that your replies are nonsensical, ridiculous and politically blinkered and biased. We get it. You hate Republicans and think women who support the Republican party are 'told' what to post. You make assertions that you would never make about Democratic women.

Again, how does doing some interview mean she is told what to post on twitter and when. Explain that.

It is very misogynistic to think women are unable to form their own opinions.

Again, your comprehension isn’t that great as I have mentioned both sides. I think you’re being quite naive here to think this doesn’t happen. (For the record, obviously not all women who support the Republican Party are told what to post - only the paid pundits with an audience reach are.)

Think about for a moment. For example, Republicans on any given day might have a list of 2 high priority issues and 4 lower priority ones that require some kind of messaging to the public. The GOP sends this list to their pundits with the images and suggested wording. Messaging goes out and because these pundits do have audience reach and are interested inter-connected, they go viral.

This has been standard since at least 2015 for political parties across the world, but particularly the US. I’m unsure why it’s such a surprise to you.

Apologies for the random ‘interested’ in that post!

All of this Chomskyite-Pilgerite conspiratology doesn't get us very far.

Do political parties do messaging? Of course they do. Do they manipulate the media where they have the opportunity to do so? We need only look at big names in American media like Dave Weigel or Ezra Klein, who are nominally "journalists" but in practice Democratic Party operatives whose job is communicate what the Democrats want us to think.

Riley Gaines getting the occasional talking head spot on Fox, overwhelmingly to talk about her core issue of women's sports, is not the same.

Nor does it follow that the party tells her what to tweet, on what issue, and when. That's rather a big claim, and it rests on an assumption that she doesn't have any thoughts of her own, but just does what she's told.

And all the throat-clearing about "I don't have an issue with her stance on women's sports" sits oddly with this massive attempt to deligitimise whatever Gaines says, and puff up Cortez who has been outspoken in her support for including men in women's sports.

and puff up Cortez who has been outspoken in her support for including men in women's sports.

And outspoken in her support of men in women’s everything.

And outspoken in her support of sterilising children.

Do you not see that AOC has a shittonne more power than Gaines does, because she is elected to Congress? Gaines possibly takes money to tweet and speak on Fox News, where she'll be preaching to the choir. People can switch channel and they can ignore her tweets. AOC provably takes a HoR salary to vote on federal law and policy, which 100% of Americans must comply with.

Citizens have the right to criticise elected representatives. Even if we pretend for the moment that you've produced bank statements or whathaveyou to prove that Gaines is employed by the GOP, political parties have the right to employ campaigners. I don't see why you are trying to tear into Gaines here.

I get mailings from LGB Alliance, along with thousands of other people. If I had a Twitter, I might choose to tweet about what I saw in the latest mailing. Others amongst the thousands might also do that if something big came up. It would look to all the world like LGBA have paid shills. They don't, they just have supporters.

Isn’t it amazing how such an unpopular party as the Republicans must be to only have support from those who have been paid to support it, still managed to scrape enough votes together to get majorities in senate and house and a republican president?

No - that’s retweeting, particularly if you don’t an audience reach or any known influence. That applies to 98% of Twitter.

It's not retweeting if I compose the tweet de novo based on the email I've read.

Is your argument that Gaines shouldn't be allowed to tweet political opinions because she has a high follower count?

Isn’t it amazing how you obviously don’t care enough to understand a word I’ve written? Where did I say “only have support from those who have been paid to support them”? Please quote.

No. She was targeted, in part, by the GOP due to high follower count and the image she presents: all American young woman, blonde, Caucasian, Christian, newly married, location (Tennessee), controversy already hatched.

I’m uncomfortable with pundits like her on both sides influencing public opinion on political subjects they know little about because they’re told to and remunerated for. It’s the ultimate Oz behind the curtain - and we don’t really know who Oz is.

O Lord. I thought I detected a conspiracist tone, but we really are getting the full Chomsky.

Oh, ta. I was waiting for someone to discredit me like that. Appreciate 👏

On the other hand, you could consider it before simply dismissing it. You obviously know there are deep pockets behind much of this, yes? Start there. It’s not even a conspiracy. It’s well-known. As to not knowing how the internet works - I despair.

I know I am a bit late, but this:

"The context on this thread is whether Riley Gaines is a genuine supporter of women's rights not the ethics of single sex spaces. There are plenty of threads for that".

Is a load of rubbish. That is not the context. The context is someone trying to paint Riley as not living up to some standard of "supporting women's rights", only in order to discredit her on a very specific topic.

If I am advocating for street dogs, the merits of my activities and arguments has nothing to do with my wider stance on animal rights.

Whether or not Gaines supports women's rights sufficiently much according to some criteria, has no bearing on the topic of single sex spaces. One massive piece of whataboutism.

If you've actually got a case, set it out. But it seems to me you'd rather spend dozens of posts, day after day, snarking opaquely about our poor reading comprehension and our muggle failure to grasp the DEEP KNOWLEDGE to which you are privy.