Obviously there's anti-Semitism on/in the grassroots left, as there is in every political demographic.
Here's the return question. Is there a difference between the following two statements in your view?
"There is misogyny among the right wing";
"The right wing is misogynist".
Of course there's a difference, but this is a massive red herring. But to go by that step by step:
-There's a difference between the two statements.
-I noticed you said "right wing" not "far right," which would be the better equivalent to what was actually being discussed (and I would say the far right
is mysogonist, among numerous other things)
-If I
did say the far right is X, would you be going down the same path of "not all X?", or is it just when it affects you personally?
-Going down the same path is still a waste of time, since the article itself says "not all X."
Absolutely hilarious. It's "asinine" to dispute something patently false if it happens to link to something else that's true? We just have to let it by? No, nuts to that. You make a false claim, expect it to be disputed.
Right. You've disputed the so-called false claim, and ignored the claim it was actually making.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not "outraged that the article says anything negative about the left". And the specific article I'm criticising for one-sidedness does not contain anything devoted to the other side. Engage with my actual position; don't twist it into something I don't recognise and then react to that.
I have been engaging with your position, it's all over the place. You seem to simultaniously be talking about the Substack and Medium articles. So as to both:
-I cannot say anything else about the Medium article at this point, your entire position seems to be that entire segments of it don't exist
-If you're talking about the Substack article, again, see the idea of false balance. I don't buy the argument you're making in that:
1: The actual instances that were described don't have an equivalent on the far right at this point in time.
2: That's not how this works. I've already listed out why this doesn't work, so I'll give the abbreviated version. If I'm covering Problem A, I am not obliged to cover Problem B. If I am writing an article on why fascism is terrible, it's not an argument to say "what about communism?" In I'm writing about the alt-right, I am not obliged to cover the far-left (woke left/illiberal left/whatever). And actually be honest with yourself - if the far-right was the subject of the article, would you be asking for balance? I suspect not, because a) they're not your 'team,' and b) most of the time the far-right
is the bigger issue.
3: You might have a claim for bias if there were a series of articles focusing on one particular thing and ignoring the equivalent (top of my head, Al Jazeera regularly covers Muslim persecution in India, but has nothing to say how non-Muslims are treated in Pakistan), but this wasn't a series of articles, it was one single article. And most of your response to it has been 'but what about the right?"
Poisoning the well. I never, ever condoned burning embassies. You lied.
First, I said equivocated. Second:
Cowards. Freedoms come with responsibilities, and any freedom used without sufficient responsibility is destined to be curtailed.
forums.escapistmagazine.com
This is your first post on the subject. I had to go back and find where it started, and it's certainly distressing to see how many people equivocated on what should have been a simple matter, but alas, that's the world we live in.
