The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Great questions, DJ Archived Message

    Posted by margo on February 1, 2019, 9:18 am, in reply to "Re: Thx. She always hits it square on the head. nm"

    Good one from Caitlin: thanks for posting, ceemac.

    One always learns a huge amount by noting *who* the Guardian and other monopoly liberal-left media like/promote ... and who they *don't*. Those they don't like are either utterly ignored. Or, their words are reported, but framed in very specific ways, often involving association fallacies.

    Instead of reductio ad Hitlerum (attempt to invalidate someone's position by linking it - however tenaciously - to that of Hitler or the Nazis), it's reductio ad Putin/Assad - seeing as they are the vilified figures du jour, the stand-ins for Pure Evil.

    Johnstone explains it perfectly here:
    Previous Message


    TWEET from WaPo's Josh Rogin: “Again, @TulsiGabbard shares the same foreign policy position as Russia and the Assad regime,” Rogin tweeted in response to Gabbard’s statement. “It’s probably just a coincidence. #TusiAssad2020”


    Rogin’s post is obnoxious and idiotic for a whole host of reasons, among them the fact that Trump is consistently painted as a Kremlin stooge by pundits like Rogin, yet opposing Trump is somehow being depicted as Kremlin servitude.

    But the reason his tweet deserves an article of its own today is because the argument he is using is one you see recurring over and over again in the psychotic, pants-on-head, screaming-at-traffic stupid salad that is collectively referred to as Russiagate.

    Another way to write Rogin’s tweet would be as follows:

    “Hmmm, you think the US should refrain from destroying countries all around the world?
    You know who else thinks that? The Kremlin!
    Hmmm, it’s very interesting that you and the Kremlin share that same view all the time, hmmmm, hmmmmmmm,
    hmmmmmmmmmmm probably just a coincidence though!    ”

    You see this obnoxious McCarthyite talking point regurgitated over and over and over again by people eager to paint anyone who objects to US interventionism and the political establishment responsible for it as Russian agents, and it’s about as moronic an argument as any you’ll ever see."


    On the other point, DJ:

    DJ: The Guardian seems to dislike Tulsi Gabbard as much as it dislikes the leader of the American Green Party, Jill Stein,
    despite both of them ticking all of the liberal and 'feminist' boxes. What is it about these women that puts the Guardian off,
    as, arguably they are closer politically to what a most Guardian readers think than the female leaders the Guardian actually promotes?
    Is it, and I'm guessing here, because there's too much 'class' in what they say and not enough stuff about 'identity'
    and 'gender' politics? Or is it because they aren't militaristic enough for the archair crusaders at the Guardian?

    You make good points there, DJ. Most millenial and professional female readers of The G would probably find much to like in Stein and Gabbard. Professional women, upstanding, cool Americans, mediators, ballsy, photogenic, middle class, feminist etcetera. So the "fit" should be good and it almost seems The Guardian and Observer are missing a chance to run great interviews with Stein and Gabbard - the type of longer-read interviews that the Guardian is so good at doing with some women and women politicians.

    My answer to your question (not militaristic enough) is "yes".

    To your other question "too much class in what they say rather than gender or identity", that's a possible yes. Stein and Gabbard tend to cut to the chase - they don't pad their speeches or check themselves to make sure they're checking all the politically-correct boxes, lest they get shouted down. maybe that's why their statements come across as refreshingly direct.

    If they do start talking more precisely about class, they might come in for ad hominum/association fallacy put-downs in an attempt to shame them and shut them up: with the 'Hitler' in that case being the evil stand-in 'Marx', even if their views aren't properly/purely marxist in content.


    Message Thread: