Is Steve Bannon really anti-semitic?

Fox

Thu, Nov 17 2016, 10:49 am

youngishbear wrote:

To me it's the legitimization of hate speech - even ironically - that I object to. And in that he certainly played a role.

I keep asking for specific examples of "hate speech" that you've found in Breitbart articles -- because I just don't see it. I see them making fun of liberals a lot, but that shouldn't qualify as "hate speech" -- although too many people believe it does.

Let's look at two of the headlines that Secretary Clinton used as evidence of the evil that is Breitbart:

Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy: This is an op ed piece referencing studies about health risks connected to oral contraceptives and studies about how men react to women during the hormonal cycles associated with normal ovulation versus suppressed ovulation.

Would You Rather Your Daughter Have Feminism or Cancer: Neither an article nor an op ed piece, this was simply a video stunt to promote a campus lecture by Milo. Students were asked the question by an interviewer and reacted with astonishment and/or confusion. The underlying premise, if you attended the lecture, was that the tenets of third-wave feminism have infected and expanded throughout society to the detriment of healthy relationships between genders.

You can disagree with the interpretation of data in the first example and with the conclusion of the second. But they certainly aren't hate speech. Who is being hated? Oral contraception? Third-wave feminism? Those aren't people. One is an invention; the other, a set of ideas. No violent action is being advocated. No individuals are being threatened in any way. The writer is well known for not having a dog in either fight (though if he keeps coiling himself around @IAmQueenAri that may change); it hardly constitutes personal advice.

So I remain curious as to the location of all this alleged hate speech over which Steve Bannon has presided.

rfeig613

Thu, Nov 17 2016, 10:52 am

Fox wrote:

In the eyes of the left, disagreeing with them is labeled hate speech.

Free market capitalism is hate speech. Heterosexuality is hate speech. Not believing in third wave feminism/the emasculation of men and society is hate speech.

marina

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:05 pm

Quote:

Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy: This is an op ed piece referencing studies about health risks connected to oral contraceptives and studies about how men react to women during the hormonal cycles associated with normal ovulation versus suppressed ovulation.

This article is repulsive, even if he meant it to be funny. It's about as funny as gas chamber jokes.

Not sure? Let me quote you some of it, so you can see for yourself if it's piece about the health risks associated with oral contraceptives:

Quote:

So in other words, your birth control injection will add on pounds that will prevent the injection you really want — of man meat. This, in turn, will lead to depression and excessive ice-cream consumption, which adds on more pounds. Eventually, you’ll find yourself in what medical professionals call “a vicious cycle” but what I call FFAS, or “Female Forever Alone Syndrome.”

Quote:

Do you really want to be labelled a pity lay, betrayed by your whacked-out hormones? No you do not.

Quote:

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU A SLUT

Quote:

BIRTH CONTROL GIVES YOU COTTAGE CHEESE THIGHS
Cellulite is the stuff of nightmares. It’s the ugly, dumpling-like ridges you see on the thighs of overweight women. It’s true some fellows like thick girls these days, but cellulite will slam the brakes on any guy’s lust.

Yeah, can't imagine how anyone would see this as an example of the evil that is breitbart.

JFC. Did you really describe it as a piece decrying health risks and informing us about male reactions to hormonal cycle? And are you really unclear about who is hated in this article? Do you think it's birth control?

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/.....razy/

mommy3b2c

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:11 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

Do you really want to be labelled a pity lay, betrayed by your whacked-out hormones? No you do not.

Quote:

BIRTH CONTROL MAKES YOU A SLUT

Quote:

Yeah, can't imagine how anyone would see this marvelous and informative article about health risks and men's reactions as an example of the evil that is breitbart.

JFC.

You want to ask your question again, Fox? Who is hated in this article? Is that still unclear?

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/.....razy/

The article you quoted sounds disgusting. It doesn't sound like hate speech. There's a difference.

marina

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:26 pm

mommy3b2c wrote:

The article you quoted sounds disgusting. It doesn't sound like hate speech. There's a difference.

hate speech is a specific term, I agree. I said the part about hatred because Fox asked:

Quote:

Who is being hated? Oral contraception? Third-wave feminism? Those aren't people. One is an invention; the other, a set of ideas

The misogyny in this article comes through loud and clear, but hate speech, as I agreed, is somewhat different usually. I do think it's an example of how vile Breitbart authors can be and the kind of articles it allows up on its site. I also am pretty shocked that Fox would describe it as she did- some kind of piece discussing studies about birth control and male reactions to the hormonal cycle. ugh.

Fox

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:31 pm

You may find it repulsive. But repulsiveness is not the same as hate speech.

What amuses me is that with the most minor editing, any of the quotes selected could come directly from the pages of Cosmopolitan or even Redbook. I can't count the number of articles I've read over the years by feminist writers in like-minded publications that proudly promote the fact that easy access to convenient birth control allows women to "take control of their s-xuality" and basically sleep around if that's what they want. Some want to reclaim the word "slut" as a way of apparently proving that it's perfectly okay for women to be promiscuous.

And don't even start about weight gain and cellulite. Sociologists in the future will wonder why we were so obsessed with losing weight and avoiding cellulite to the point that magazines are consumed with the topics.

Apparently when feminists say these things, they're empowering. When a gay man writing for a conservative outlet says them, they're repulsive and akin to joking about the Holocaust.

Even if you think that the opinions or conclusions are wrong (e.g., that women don't want to attract mates and don't mind a little cellulite), where's the hate speech?

marina

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:37 pm

Fox wrote:

If you find an article as disgusting as this in Cosmo or Redbook, you let me know, k? And then I will immediately start using Cosmo and Redbook for my legitimate news sources for this presidency, yes I will.

There is nothing in this article that is even remotely acceptable, and I find your defense of it abhorrent. Same to me as someone defending vile antisemitic tropes by saying, well, hey, there actually ARE a lot of Jews in government and the media.

Fox

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:38 pm

marina wrote:

The misogyny doesn't come through loud and clear to me. On the contrary, I'm thrilled that someone, somewhere seems to feel that women can and should strive to be better than men's basest instincts.

The underlying perspective is that women are more valuable to society when they're not trying to be ersatz men, with all the failings of men.

Obviously it's not a "discussion" about various studies. It's a provocative piece designed to challenge people's assumptions that oral contraceptives are a no-brainer, and various studies are linked to support that challenge.

marina

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 2:44 pm

Fox wrote:

So you're actually taking it seriously, then. Not as sarcasm? And you're still defending it? Okay.

Let's move forward then. Imagine all the women on this website who take the pill. Many of them are conservative and use contraception simply because there's no other way to save their sanity.

Do you for a moment think that anyone will read this vileness and say to herself : OH MY I BEST GET OFF THE PILL LEST I BE A FAT SLUT WHO CAN'T GET SOME MAN MEAT WITHOUT BEING A PITY LAY?

Or do you think it's more likely that the women on this site shudder in disgust at the article, its author, its links, and hosting website?

Is this a good way of convincing others of your position? Is this provocative piece really a way to encourage women "to be better than men's basest instincts" as you wrote?

Fox

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 3:39 pm

Gracious! This must have really touched a nerve!

marina wrote:

So you're actually taking it seriously, then. Not as sarcasm? And you're still defending it? Okay.

I'm taking it as provocative, ironic hyperbole based on an underlying set of values.

marina wrote:

Let's move forward then. Imagine all the women on this website who take the pill. Many of them are conservative and use contraception simply because there's no other way to save their sanity.

Do you for a moment think that anyone will read this vileness and say to herself : OH MY I BEST GET OFF THE PILL LEST I BE A FAT SLUT WHO CAN'T GET SOME MAN MEAT WITHOUT BEING A PITY LAY?

Or do you think it's more likely that the women on this site shudder in disgust at the article, its author, its links, and hosting website?

This has me ROFL! I cannot imagine any women who rely on Milo for advice about family planning and birth control, let alone their overarching life choices. Nobody reads a piece like this on Breitbart and says, "Oh, my goodness! Here I'd checked with my rav and he'd advised to me to wait a few years to have another kid, but if Milo thinks it's a good idea right now . . . "

I'm not even sure I'd take his advice about what model Louis Vuitton bag to buy.

This was an op-ed piece designed to stimulate big-picture thinking, not be taken as personal advice! Milo's approach to his own family planning issues or lack thereof resulted in his nearly breaking down in tears at a recent speech, so I don't think we can look to him for personal solutions in this area. Though I do like the idea of an earnest little Breitbart intern dashing over to comfort me whenever I get emotional.

Yes, I actually believe that (a) women are happier when married, even though that isn't always possible; that (b) women are generally at their best in roles that involve nurturing; and that (c) the current zeitgeist praises women for being as much like men as possible rather than bearing children and caring for them or engaging in similar nurturing behavior.

For many years, women have been encouraged to behave s-xually like men. Cosmopolitan is blocked by my filter for good and obvious reasons, but here's a quote about Cosmo that appeared in HuffPo:

Carole Mallory wrote:

. . . Helen Gurley Brown, who imbued in her readers and models that we could look s-xy, have a career and stay single for as long as we wished and still have an active relations life — like a man . . .

Well, there's plenty of statistical evidence that this formula has not been very good for women.

marina wrote:

Is this a good way of convincing others of your position? Is this provocative piece really a way to encourage women "to be better than men's basest instincts" as you wrote?

I'm not trying to convince anyone to enjoy Breitbart. I am trying to convince them that I've never seen evidence of anti-Semitism or hate speech in Breitbart. I've seen plenty that would offend various people, but that's not hate speech.

Not every publication has to be enjoyed or appreciated by everyone. I find plenty of repulsive things in most of the glossy Jewish magazines, and I only grudgingly allow my DH to bring in Hamodia. But I don't go nuts every time somebody brings up some wretched article.

Nor do I assume that the entire publication is dishonest or misleading simply because I disagree or find fault with many of the articles or the editorial perspective.

The fact that you or I might disagree -- even violently -- with a publication/website doesn't mean that the content meets the standard of hate speech. And if Breitbart disturbs you, for heaven's sake, don't read it. That's what I did with the Jewish glossies, and I haven't expired from lack of information yet.

chaiz

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 3:42 pm

Fox wrote:

I am not that impressed with the state of chareidi journalism today. But to even compare Hamodia/Mishpacha etc. to Breitbart is really, truly offensive. For some one who says they are contrary to Jewish values I am not sure how you think Breitbart is one that is in sync with Jewish values.

Fox

Mon, Nov 21 2016, 3:52 pm

chaiz wrote:

This is just silly. Let me break it down for you: Jewish glossies and Breitbart are not being compared. What is being compared is that I have a vehement reaction to Jewish glossies while Marina has a vehement reaction to Breitbart. Based on my experience in avoiding the Jewish glossies, I recommended that she not read Breitbart. Problem solved.

As for promoting genuine Jewish values, I'd say they're about even, but that's just my opinion and is based on the stunning lack of Jewish values in the glossies rather than anything to do with Breitbart.

It's fine if you're offended, but it doesn't mean anything. Taking offense isn't an argument or evidence; it's an emotional state.

Fox

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 9:47 am

dancingqueen wrote:

Fox, based on the quoted article here and another very similar one I saw on FB, this Milo guy seems like a real misogynist.

Listen, I don't know Milo personally, so I can only go so far in answering this. I am in periodic contact with people who do know him, and they don't believe he espouses any fill-in-the-blank-ist agendas. I started following him just before he joined Breitbart.

I had planned to change my avatar long ago, but Twitter is still banning, shadow banning, or suspending at least 2-3 conservative posters a week, including people like InstaPundit, while giving the Muslim Brotherhood verified status. YouTube has joined the fun, blocking access to videos by Christina Hoff Sommers and Dennis Prager.

A lot depends on how you define and view mysogyny. On gender politics, Milo is basically repackaging Camille Paglia in a more accessible form with a little Jack Donovan thrown in. If you like Camille Paglia and find the theses she advances in S-xual Personae to be more-or-less compelling, you're unlikely to be offended by Milo's positions. If you don't like Paglia, you're going to hate Milo. Of course, Paglia is regularly called worse names by intellectual heavy-weights, so maybe Milo is getting off easy.

What Milo's op ed pieces have to do with Breitbart's veracity or Bannon's alleged anti-Semitism, I have no idea.

PinkFridge wrote:

From everything 'm hearing, would go to this site for entertainment, not information. If happened to find any genuine, verifiable info, sure, 'd treat it as such but wouldn't expect to find it.

Breitbart has a conservative bias; that's their mission. That said, their original reporting is as solid as anyone else's. In fact The Guardian, a publication as left-wing as you can get and still be considered MSM, attempted to debunk them and failed:

The Guardian on Breitbart

Anyway, we seem to have moved on this week from debating Steve Bannon to arguing over Jeff Sessions and trying to figure out what's going on with Kanye.

The lesson to be learned from this is that there is a new breed of writers, speakers, and thinkers out there who don't care if they're called names. They are not necessarily racists, sexists, etc., but they're not going to put their tails between their legs and slink away simply because someone said they were. Saying to someone, "I'm offended by your sexism" is no longer enough to make the accusation stick; you have to provide factual evidence of sexist acts. A lot of people in the U.S. think this is a good development.

Amarante

Tue, Nov 22 2016, 9:49 am

Fox wrote:

The issue is that people seem to rely on Breitbart as a legitimate news source and not one that has an altright point of view.

I really take tremendous issue with fake comparisons of respectable media outlets such as the Washington Post, NY Times, La Times, NBC, CBS, newspapers of other major cities, major mainstream magazines and sites such as Breitbart in terms of accuracy and legitimacy.

I am not sure why Fox is so hellbent on defending a site that is frequented by members of the White Supremacy movements; anti-Semites, misogynists and other deplorable people. They must be getting some satisfaction from the point of view which supports their views.

Alternately you have stated that it is satiric and also represents a legitimate "different" point of view. The Onion and SNL are satiric and no one cites ANY article on them as legitimate. Likewise, no one uses Pravda articles or The Russian Times as legitimate news sites.