"You are debating logic and facts with frothing bigots with a bone-deep opposition to your entire project. This new right fundamentally doesn’t want 'newsgathering' to happen. They want a chaotic information stream of unverifiable bullshit and context collapse and propaganda.... It’s an ideologically coherent opposition to the liberal precepts of verifiability and transparency, and the holders of those precepts are too invested in them to understand what their enemy is doing. The creep’s account [Libs of TikTok], everyone in the press should understand, is the model for what they will be replaced with.... All I would like my unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends to understand is that they are debating with people that consider them the enemy not just in a partisan sense but in an existential one. The only correct posture to take in response is to make yourself an existential threat to their movement."
Writes Alex Pareene, in "They Know How Journalism Works! They’re Just Against It!/They want someone to knock on your door, too. Not to put you in the newspaper, though" (Substack).
That rant is getting a lot of attention. It's inherently contradictory — a rant against chaos. But I thought you should see that. I guess by Pareene's lights, I'm a creep, because I'm just holding something up, giving it visibility, where it will be seen by people who may feel moved to laugh or attack.
ADDED: The "creep" usage makes me long for simpler days, when Eggagog was endlessly alarmed about THE CREEPS.
पोस्ट्स
११० टिप्पण्या:
Creeps have no rights that we need to respect. And the Left is exclusively empowered to define "creep." That is all the logic ye need or ever shall need.
Paying attention to what leftists say they want to do is inherently creepy.
Bloggingheads guest Aryeh Cohen-Wade explains to Bob why Mickey Kaus should be banned from his weekly interviews. Short version, he voted for Trump so he's just a source of low-brow misinformation.
This is a war of retrenchment by establishment media. Delay, discourage, and intimidate even though going back to central control by a few outlets it not possible. It is an existential threat indeed, but only to those who "controlled the means of production."
It was easy for the hegemonic controllers to preach democracy and hearing all voices when anyone needed million dollar printing presses and million watt TV broadcast towers. They've been caught out in their incoherence because they can't have it both ways. When forced to choose between equality, fairness, and tolerance versus personal gain, they chose personal gain.
At least we know.
All I would like my unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends to understand is that they are debating with people that consider them the enemy
Pretty much the case but "unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends" are like unicorns. If you find one, try to capture it for examination. Most people doubt they exist.
Took me a minute to get my bearings there.
Sounds like Pareene is against everything his own side is doing on industrial scale, but he's for it in specific cases, such as all those directed against everyone he hates. Also, unhinged projection can soothe the worst cases of cognitive dissonance.
But I'm reading in haste, and could have it wrong.
AA: I read the piece. I don't understand how you think you are being called out as a creep. You aren't running something like Libs of Tiktok, which is creepy, whether or not one holds an absolutist position on not trying to find out who's behind it when they are sloppily doing it without using their name. Greenwald taking that absolutist position has led a gay man to in effect side with those engaged in ugly harassment of LGBTQ people. Sure the tiktoks are not anonymous. But they illustrate how social media is a minefield where ordinary people can open themselves up to horrible stuff in an instant.
When I first read the headline to this post, I thought Taylor Lorenz was the "creep" referenced, until I saw "the creep's identity" and realised that, incredibly, this fellow is trying to defend her. Taylor Lorenz is, genuinely, one of the most loathsome journalists working today. It's not like she ever does anything big. There's no Walter Duranty whitewashing genocide in her record. She never does anything but these trivial penny ante stories about social media, but she's consistently pushing such grubby, pathetic stuff, whether it's doxxing an account that shines a bit of sunlight on progressives being awful on TikTok, or trying to spy on random people in online chatrooms to catch them expressing wrongthink. I've noted before that I think the Washington Post is a better, more rigorous newspaper than the New York Times, but I lost some respect for them when I heard that they hired Taylor Lorenz. She's just so awful.
I saw that and thought of the "Committee to Re-elect the President" commonly referred to as CREEP at the time.
The premises behind the rant are nonsensical, but I would like to address the fact that I haven't seen any reasonable argument on why reposting public tik tok videos is wrong. The argument that it is somehow fostering homophobia is nonsense. If that is the case then it is the initial posters who are fostering homophobia. Oh, but TLOTT is exposing the videos to people who might not agree with indoctrinating young children into normalizing trans and homosexual behavior. But, while the left believes that such indoctrination should occur, after all, one of their basic premises is the rejection of hetero-normativity, they know that the majority disagrees. Therefore, it needs to be done in secret so as to "protect" children from their bigoted parents. So, the argument goes back to who has primary authority over the children, their parents or some mal-educated bureaucrats with psychological issues?
The media's purpose is to not tell you what you should know because it might be harmful to democrats. He *literally* thinks you shouldn't be aware of what the tik tok posters are saying, and is willing to call the person shining a light on them the "creep."
How does reposting somebody's public post they intend to have seen by as wide an audience as possible make you a creep?
How is such behavior considered more creepy than the actually Tik Toks she reposts?
The mere fact that a "Journalist" wrote and published something so stupid tells you all you need to know about the state of media today.
Heh, heh! You could never get them to get their heads around the idea, but the Left sounds so much like the Moral Majority did back in the Eighties. So damn certain they were 100% right.
Libs on Tik Tok brings original sources to the masses and the middle-persons are upset. What is the world coming to when people can just see the originals for themselves.
Pareene follows the old Michael Moore formula: You don't need to know what your opponents arguments are. Your opponents are bad people. And because your opponents are bad people, you can say anything you want about them. That is all you need to know.
Just so we are clear. Linking to tiktoks videos of out of their mind liberals, with no comment, no editorializing, just pointing people to the videos that liberals freely created and uploaded....
Is racist/homophobic/trans hate.
Good lord, these people are literally insane.
Trust Me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A318dxT7fl0&ab_channel=ilikebeers
I've been trying to understand how people like Pareene think for decades now,,but especially since 2016 when Trump was elected President. I still don't get it. I usually fall back on the premise that there is something pathological about it, but that doesn't tell the complete story. Anyone have a better explanation?
Readering: "Sure the tiktoks are not anonymous."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Game over. Cue Sad Trombone.
The only thing "creepy" are readerings sick political allies sexualizing children and bragging about it on social media.
Interesting observation: readering has yet to criticize the sexualizing and grooming of young children. He/she/xe only criticizes those noticing the public bragging of these democratical approved groomers.
One really begins to feel one is living in France ca. 1788 these days. . . . .
The use of the word “creep” is pretty funny since Taylor Lorenz is probably the creepiest reporter working in the MSM today. Or if not the creepiest, she’s tied with Andrew Kaczynski.
I would also point out that in her avatar picture she looks about 12 years old.
You know who likes to use pictures making themselves look like a child when they actually aren’t? The kind of people who shampoo my dog and cut his toenails.
All I would like my unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends to understand is that they are debating with people that consider them the enemy not just in a partisan sense but in an existential one. The only correct posture to take in response is to make yourself an existential threat to their movement.
Impressive. Two sentences that literally inform as to everything that is fundamentally broken about today’s journalism.
Tell us you're making shit up without telling us you're making shit up.
"unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends"
zipity: "Just so we are clear. Linking to tiktoks videos of out of their mind liberals, with no comment, no editorializing, just pointing people to the videos that liberals freely created and uploaded....
Is racist/homophobic/trans hate.
Good lord, these people are literally insane."
Precisely.
See readering and Howard.
Cool. The people who gave us the Trump/Russia lies, and who did their worst to suppress Hunter's laptop, who tell us that men can bear children, claim that we're the ones looking to bury real information in trash.
Post-Radiohead aren’t we all creeps now? I mean what the hell am I doing here? I don’t belong here.
Yeah, anonymous 20-somethings hidden in Facebook and Twitter offices, or working at home, are DEFINTELY holding up journalistic standards of "verifiability". Ditto WaPo, NYT and all the other "fact checkers".
SNORT
and
PUKE
"This new right fundamentally doesn’t want 'newsgathering' to happen. They want a chaotic information stream of unverifiable bullshit and context collapse and propaganda.... It’s an ideologically coherent opposition to the liberal precepts of verifiability and transparency, and the holders of those precepts are too invested in them to understand what their enemy is doing."
This guy does not know anything about people on the right. People on the right yearn for newsgathering. We are not afraid of our ideas. We don't need to hide our truth lest it detract from our agenda. The left wants that. We want the idea to be out in the open so we can debate them. Sure there are people on the right who at bit out there, most of the rest of us are not. There are nutters of all types, but the best answer to that is transparency, something the left is afraid of despite this author's nod to liberal precepts. Let him explain how banning information and controlling narrative achieves verifiability and transparency.
It's wrong to judge people by their looks, but in my dictionary, beside the definition of "creep," is a picture of Alex Pareene.
I think I have it figured out. The folks who are opposed to LoTT are afraid that too many idiots who are unable to make up their own minds will see these posts and be brainwashed. It's like Musk taking over Twitter. People will see things and react in the wrong way.
They see themselves as the protectors of right-think. And they'd prefer we just said "thank you" and went on our way.
I was introduced to Libs of TikTok through another site. Seems theres more than a few really whacked out teachers. And they gleefully show how whacked out they are.
I dont WANT to see that stuff, but if I didnt, I wouldnt think it existed. It just seems like everyone wants to out-crazy the next.
Andy Warhol is smiling.
hey, its 420 day.
Hitlers Birthday. The more I hear about that guy the more I think, man, that guy was a real a$$hole. RIP Norm MacDonald
Interesting (to say the least) that AP never uses the name of the "creep," even though, thanks to Taylor Lorenz, it is now officially public knowledge. I wonder why not.
TLOTT, as many, many people, here and elsewhere, have pointed out, just takes short videos that their makers have already made public and distributes them to a much wider audience. (Not w/o commentary, alas -- she generally makes her opinion vividly known in the superscript -- but otherwise unaltered.) In what possible world is that a bad thing, for anyone?
I'm struck by how the liberal/left elite no longer wants a debate or give one Goddamn inch to the people who disagree with them or their agenda. They are just [insert insult label] who must be destroyed/doxxed/eliminated/silenced/censored.
No desire to meet Trump or his supporters half way. Just attack 365/24/7. No desire meet the Canadian Truckers half-way, nopoe. Trudau just declared it Domestic Terrorism and attacked and imprisoned. To applause of the liberal/left.
The man making the rant is projecting (deliberatly) his own attitude onto those who oppose him. Its not the Center-Right that started the doxxing. Its not the center Right that's censoring and deplatforming. THe libs of Tick-Tock are just gathering Tick-Tocks made by Liberals in one place so everyone can see them.
Jan 6th protesters are STILL in prison. STILL awaiting trial. For doing nothing more than tresspassing and tussling with the Police.
How come this guy is on substack? I thought it was a vehicle for right-wingers. Ban!
He sounds like a frothing lunatic, btw.
Readering - I don't have twitter, so the only LOTT posts I see are the ones that are shared on other platforms. Please post some links to examples of her posts that you believe unfairly targets LGBTQ people. Thanks.
People on the Right think people on the Left are dumb. People on the Left think people on the Right are evil. Obviously this doesn't cover all people and their feelings about individual people, but these are the Zeitgeists of the Right and Left broadly speaking. If you think the other side is evil it becomes a lot easier to do things you wouldn't normally do because if you don't you risk evil winning.
So Readering says it is creepy and transphobic to repost stuff liberals say.
Why? Because Readering KNOWS that the stuff liberals say is guaranteed to make people loathe the LGBT fanatics?
I mean, the videos LibsofTikTok posted pretty much come straight out of Sodom, right? "Give us your children, Christian people, so we can rape them!" Straight out of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It's no wonder Readering is desperate to hide those videos. People don't like having LGBT types trying to seduce and bed their kids.... and Readering wants to stop people waking up to that fact.
One wonders just why Readering is so desperate to hide the LGBT grooming agenda.
Linda Banks replied to this article on "Weird Alex" Pareene's Twitter account:
Your aunt Peggy now receives the print edition of The Epoch Times as her main source of news.
Cracked.com carries on:
With headlines like "A New Leninism Is Gripping America," and the columns that declare "We watched the theft of this election take place right before our eyes," and then you start to wonder how many grandmas are being duped.
The Epoch Times tells us that the "CCP virus" [Chinese Communist Party Virus] is a rogue bioweapon that's running rampant through China, but instead of trusting nefarious vaccines try condemning Communism, which has led to miraculous cures.
"Recently, there are several cases of people recovering from the CCP pneumonia miraculously after they condemned the CCP. Some cases can be found in media reports.
In March, three key politicians of the Vox Party, Spain's third largest party, contracted the virus. They are Santiago Abascal, President of Vox, Javier Ortega Smith, Secretary General and the second most prominent position in Vox, and Macarena Olona, member of the Congress of Deputies for Vox.
Amazingly, all three recovered from the CCP pneumonia shortly after they strongly condemned the CCP."
"The only correct posture to take in response is to make yourself an existential threat to their movement."
Sure buddy, but keep in mind that when you "make yourself an existential threat" that the other side has a right to self-defense.
By the way, Alex Pareene was editor in chief of Gawker when it declared bankruptcy, so calling him a loser is accurate. He began his career at Gawker a year after this:
Gawker Stalker
On March 14, 2006, Gawker launched Gawker Stalker Maps, a mashup of the site's Gawker Stalker feature and Google Maps.[76] After this, Gawker Stalker—originally a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York City submitted by Gawker readers—was frequently updated, and the sightings are displayed on a map. The feature sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking. Actor and director George Clooney's representative Stan Rosenfeld described Gawker Stalker as "a dangerous thing". Jessica Coen said that the map is harmless, that Gawker readers are "for the most part, a very educated, well-meaning bunch", and that "if there is someone really intending to do a celebrity harm, there are much better ways to go about doing that than looking at the Gawker Stalker".[1][77]
On April 6, 2007, Emily Gould appeared on an edition of Larry King Live hosted by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel during a panel discussion titled "Paparazzi: Do They Go Too Far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker. Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real stalkers, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death. Kimmel continued to claim a lack of veracity in Gawker's published stories, and the potential for libel it presents. At the end of the exchange Gould said that she didn't "think it was OK" for websites to publish false information, after which Kimmel said she should "check your website then."[78]
Imagine if Libs of Tik Tok didn't just republish liberal tik toks, but also posted on a map where each of the liberals lived. That's what Gawker did and Alex Pareena wanted to work there.
"explains to Bob why Mickey Kaus should"
Oh I knew Aryeh had in for Mickey. He just seethes with hatred, he just can't even with anyone who would vote for Trump - and for atypical reasons at that.
But who can stand to listen to Cohen-Wade? I knew he was leaving BH because of Mickey and good riddance.
I hope Bob doesn't consider any change.
Back when the old Gawker-affiliated blogs had devolved into a weird mixture of celebrity-obsessed clickbait and far-left virtue-signaling, it was this journalist's influence that pushed them even further into wackadoo obscurity. Eventually, I guess all roads lead to ranting on Substack.
IIRC, Alex Pareene is the former editor of Gawker who outed Peter Thiel as gay after Thiel supported Trump.
And who published a video of Hulk Hogan having sex with a friend's wife.
All of which resulted in Thiel funding Hogan to successfully sue Gawker for $140 million and causing it to declare bankruptcy.
As I understand it, Libs of TikTok only retweets already published material. So, who's the creep?
A human with a dick is male.
It’s verifiable. And transparent.
AA: "It's inherently contradictory"
It will take a lot more than that for these people to feel shame for expressing their authoritarian ideas. But you're not wrong.
Alex Pareene, trying to make "journalists" understand how evil are these creeps defending LoTT, says ["journalists"] are debating with people that consider them the enemy[!!]
Woah! This has to be some sort of escalation, an endangerment to the very safety of "journalists," for normal, every day citizens to consider them the enemy. Right? The writings of this beacon of observational prowess are starting to make me feel sympathy for "journalists."
But hold on. Something about that sounds familiar. Rewind the tape...
["journalists" are] too invested in [liberal ideas of verifiability and transparency] to understand what their enemy is doing
Oh. I see. "Journalists" should view as the enemy those every day citizens who disagree with giving said "journalists" the ability to stifle dissenting opinions.
The ole "can dish it out but can't take it" routine. In a post riffing on a Taylor Lorenz controversy, that makes perfect sense.
For something they *claim* is horrible, publicizing LOTT, they sure are spilling a lot of (virtual) ink to publicize the publicizing.
Is this Pareene screed also "journOlism"?
Alex Pareene? The former editor of Gawker?
I guess he would know a lot about creeps.
As best you can, provide a detailed verifiable account of what took place. I'll take it from there. What occurred, not what to think about it. If you can't produce "what took place", try bagging groceries.
Libs of Tiktok, which is creepy, whether or not one holds an absolutist position on not trying to find out who's behind it when they are sloppily doing it without using their name.
Wow, I did not think you were this creepy. The libs uploaded self made videos and she was just helping them expose themselves. Not editing. Not commenting.
It was not helpful to not show an example of what I meant in my previous post, so here tis.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/30/2000-mules-the-background-of-the-2020-election-fraud/#more-226373
It is ironic that a due who selects the nom de plume "Readering" would have so much fucking trouble with reading comprehension. That is a left of center affliction when it is evident in adults. It's the clone of purposely misreading conservatives to bag on them. I have a simple rule: I don't put things on social media that are unfit for public display, because that's what social media is: public.
I don't understand this new concept of public posts being treated as if they are private communications if the *intent* of the person retweeting is to enjoy the humorous content of the post. What's next lefties? Outlawing blooper reels? Prosecuting retweets?
" they are debating with people that consider them the enemy not just in a partisan sense but in an existential one."
He's got that right. If there was a button on my desk I could push ...
I hear “creep” and I think Radiohead. But since we are talking social media, I have to say that the Scala and Kolacny Brothers version from The Social Network is really good. And don’t dismiss Stone Temple Pilots completely different song “Creep.” Love me some STP (RIP Scott Weiland)
What were we talking about?
The beauty of LoTT is that it is Libs in their own words. In a trial, there is nothing else like impeaching a witness with their own words.
He seems to have missed the last 20 years. His bubble must be molto spesso. Impenetrabile.
"That rant is getting a lot of attention."
Yeah, pretty funny. By posting on Substack, the Pareene creature is implicitly admitting that the "journalism" thing he is supposedly defending is falling down dead. He is hoping to carve a nice, juicy steak off the flank before the whole rotting carcass is consumed by maggots. That's why he needs "a lot of attention".
"All I would like my unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends to understand is …"
LOL. Generally speaking, if you feel you have to inform people that you are "unbiased, objective, nonpartisan", you aren't.
Oh, that's rich. I dropped by Pareene's Substack, to see just exactly what flavor of bilge he is sloshing around in. Then I thought I'd help him out a little, but it turns out that "Only paid subscribers can comment on this post". SO, that explains why there are only three comments.
I like the third one; "What book!?!?! "All the President's Men"? "Scoop"? "Dwarf Rapes Nun, Flees in UFO"? Pretty much anything by Molly Ivins IRT the Texas Legislature? Don't leave me hanging, man!"
I hope he didn't have to pay too much to post that. Of course, he can just cancel the payment, and that will probably ding Pareene for a couple bucks.
"Greenwald taking that absolutist position has led a gay man to in effect side with those engaged in ugly harassment of LGBTQ people."
Is criticism harassment? Should the alphabet people be shielded from criticism of their actions simply because of their sexuality? It seems to me that LOTT criticizes them for recruiting children.
The lefty-libs are on the crazy train and heading for the washed-out bridge at full speed.
The crash is going to be glorious to watch.
From a purely legal perspective, the decision is a results-driven disaster. I haver yet to see any legal expert defend the court's "analysis". Why would Biden be happy that a judge has decided to strip the CDC of substantial power going to the heart of its mission just two weeks before the mask mandate was supposed to end?
A site like LOTT may be funny when it has 5000 followers, but becomes terrifying when it's amplified as the biggest thing on the anti-LGBTQ right.
I couldn't remember where I first saw this unpolished turd Pareene, so I googled him.
Oh.
That's right.
Gawker.
Which publication had no peer for unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reportership. Snort.
Yet more classic Progressive projection: accusing the Right of all the things they themselves are doing.
‘This Is On You!’: Woman With Same Name As Doxxed ‘Libs Of TikTok’ Reveals Threats, Blasts WaPo’s Taylor Lorenz
"…a Jewish stay-at-home mother with a popular Instagram account, revealed several disturbing messages she’s received online from angry leftists mixing her up with the woman behind “Libs of TikTok.”
“[Taylor Lorenz] this is ON YOU! You need to clarify that this is not me. People are posting and tweeting my parents’ home address!!!!!! If anything happens to my family it’s on you!”
Well, this is entirely predictable. Did WaPo or Lorenz provide a reason why they thought it necessary to make this woman's identity public? Because I don't see one.
This Pareene drooler is actually the red-clad Pajama Boy of recent or not so recent infamy.
Matt Tiabbi offers the best analysis on this matter. Lead graph:
“The Washington Post, in the person of sobbing wokestress Taylor Lorenz, ran a story the other day about the “Libs of TikTok” account. I said some half-hearted things in defense of it initially. After a second look, I take them all back. If the Columbia Journalism School offered a class called “Dogshit Exposés,” this would be on the prospectus. It may not be first-week material, but it’s in the course.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-washington-posts-libs-of-tiktok?s=w&utm_medium=web
Moping with intent to creep was G Gordon Liddy's preferred name for a made-up charge.
In my endless project of becoming a better person through civil and civilized behavior, I am striving to eliminate name-calling and direct my world-healing efforts towards irony and criticism of ideas and behavior. So, if Joe Biden is a stupid, crass, and perverted hair-sniffer, I leave it to others to call him that.
I shall refrain from calling this Pareene creature a "creep", as he has made liberal use of that empty but pejorative epithet in his screed. Suffice it to say that if we have such a thing as TikTok, and strange people employed by the common schools of our great land make spectacles of themselves through publicly posting short but self-revealing videos regarding their various delusions and mental illnesses, it is hardly amiss for a witty citizen to give these characters--charged with the care of our youngest at a very impressionable stage--the publicity they deserve.
For an absurdly girlish 43 year-old "reporter"* for WaPoo to blub on cable news about the cruelties inflicted on her by online bullies as a result of her noxious "journalism" and then a few weeks later to attempt to do the same thing to the witty citizen shows a staggering lack of self-awareness by the absurdly girlish middle-aged reporter and her enablers.
*Taylor Lorenz's Gen X act--put out as she is well on her way through her fifth decade-- is the most startling thing I have seen since I saw Helen Gurley Brown (then in her 60s) simpering like a schoolgirl on the Today Show.
understand is that they are debating with people that consider them the enemy not just in a partisan sense but in an existential one.
Right back at yam, asshole.
You aren't running something like Libs of Tiktok, which is creepy,
Yes. Your fellow leftist nutcase groomers ARE creepy. Exposing them for being leftist nutcase groomers is not.
And that's why you're upset. We see you. And it ain't pretty.
Does he ever say in what way Lorenz's doxing could be considered ethical? Or newsworthy? What makes one Twitter user's identity newsworthy while another's is not? The LOTT tweets just showed the various rants of TikTokkers, I didn't see any that included the TikTokker's real name or other identifying details. Perhaps they should have, but I bet that would have gotten a quick Twitter ban. Funny how it's okay to dox if you've got the bully power of a major newspaper but not okay if you're an individual.
Two lessons learned for the next social media account that causes ire among the Left - hide your identity better and show no mercy because you won't receive any.
Pareene and Lorenz are known shitbirds. Fuck ‘em.
By attacking LoTT they are ignoring the items she aggregates. If somebody were to create a CoTT (Conservatives of TikTok) and link to every far-right loon who posted a crazy TikTok mainstream conservatives would disavow the loons.
That's where his argument falls to pieces. He doesn't understand that by attacking LoTT's creater he is missing the mark. Perhaps he should disavow the loons she posts, or does he think the TikToks she aggregates are legitimate? Which is worse in his eyes -- the garbage they post or her simply pointing it out?
His piece says more about himself and his relationship to 'creeps' than he realizes.
“ LibsofTikTok was the target of a leftwing "anti-hate" operation run by a former Twitter employee (plot twist!) whose outfit, "the Prototype Fund," is funded by the German Ministry of (wait for it) Education.”- Ace of Spades
So GERMAN government money is being used to harass, dox and endanger Jews. The more things change….
Shorter Readering: no one cares what you say if nobody reads you, but don’t you dare get an audience. If you do, you should be silenced by your betters.
Note to Readering—she isn’t creating content, she is sharing it. If America’s mentally disturbed didn’t create the content, she couldn’t share it. And no one has to read it. Just think of her as the Media Matters of the parents’ rights movement.
Blogger ambisinistral said...
By attacking LoTT they are ignoring the items she aggregates. If somebody were to create a CoTT (Conservatives of TikTok) and link to every far-right loon who posted a crazy TikTok mainstream conservatives would disavow the loons.
That's where his argument falls to pieces. He doesn't understand that by attacking LoTT's creater he is missing the mark. Perhaps he should disavow the loons she posts, or does he think the TikToks she aggregates are legitimate? Which is worse in his eyes -- the garbage they post or her simply pointing it out?
THERE ARE NO ENEMIES TO THE LEFT. The loons are the people who are continuously pushing the party further Left and so degrading Western Civilization and Western governments to more easily replace them with Globalism. Globalism which is the new Communism, it’s the same old Marxist idea of stealing individuals rights and wealth to aggregate it to a select circle of “elites”. For our own good of course. Of course. Funny how leftist popularism always ends in Pol Pot’s killing fields, or Lenin’s, or Mao’s, or Hitler’s. Because if you think Mao was different than Hitler please explain how. Both rabid racists. Both thought their countries should dominate the world. Both used death to try to create their utopias.
More good news for the Althouse Moron Lefties, like readering and Howard: the "left" is so very proud of Taylor Lorenz and her brave and courageous work that Twitter has ALREADY removed Lorenz' s*** tweets and linked articles on LOTT from the archived Wayback Machine!
Lefties airbrushing history?!!
Gee, who didnt see that one coming!
People on the Right think people on the Left are dumb. People on the Left think people on the Right are evil. Obviously this doesn't cover all people and their feelings about individual people, but these are the Zeitgeists of the Right and Left broadly speaking. If you think the other side is evil it becomes a lot easier to do things you wouldn't normally do because if you don't you risk evil winning.
This is true, and I often use the exact argument often. But I want to add two things:
1) Lefties don't believe us when we tell them this. Partly because we're evil, and so of course we would lie to make ourselves look better, and partly because the concept is foreign to them.
2) One of the saddest things for me to watch over the last ten years or so is people on the Right turning to hate and thinking that the Left is evil. Do I think Leftwing actions and policies invariably lead to evil? Pretty much. But most of them are simply willing dupes. Often over-educated but still ignorant, usually incurious and eager to swallow the party line. They're the sheep in Animal Farm.
Readering,
A site like LOTT may be funny when it has 5000 followers, but becomes terrifying when it's amplified as the biggest thing on the anti-LGBTQ right.
Well, quite apart from the fact that it's Taylor Lorenz who did most of the "amplifying," all by her little self, your line still makes no sense. If you want only your friends and fellow travelers to see that cute video you made of yourself saying (as a multiply-pierced, hair-dyed, gender-ambiguous middle school teacher did in one of LOTT's posts recently) telling your students that your parents should go away b/c "I'm your parent now!"), you can email it to them, privately. But if you post it publicly, then it's out of your hands, period.
If you want everyone to see it, LOTT is enabling that! You seem to think that TikTok is a walled-off space where only the goodies can see what you put up.
Blogger jim5301 said...
From a purely legal perspective, the decision is a results-driven disaster. I haver yet to see any legal expert defend the court's "analysis".
I have. You need to get out more or try to read her 59 page opinion. I suspect the big words would stump you.
"You aren't running something like Libs of Tiktok, which is creepy, whether or not one holds an absolutist position on not trying to find out who's behind it when they are sloppily doing it without using their name."
As I understand it, Libs of TikTok posts links to TikTok videos made by other people. Those people meant for those videos to be seen. That those videos reflect badly on the people who made them is not the fault of those who posted the links.
If a group started posting links to TikTok videos of alt-right clowns being their natural selves, I would not blame the posters for the bad image of the alt-right that would generate. I would blame the clowns who originally posted the videos.
It’s an ideologically coherent opposition to the liberal precepts of verifiability and transparency, and the holders of those precepts are too invested in them to understand what their enemy is doing.
50, count them, FIFTY!, former intelligence experts have signed a letter stating that the Hunter Biden laptop story is BS, just nothing by Russian disinformation, so we, the honest upright citizens of the mainstream media, who are not enemies of the people like the evil Republicans are, won't tell you, the people anything about it!
We, the honest upright citizens of the media, in order to fully inform the people of the evil Trump's activities, report without question that he pissed on a bed with Russian hookers! It happened! It's in an unsourced report, but it (or something equally nefarious) HAPPENED! You must believe us! And- he was communicating with Russia through Alpha Bank servers in the Trump building! It's true- we have upright honest sources telling us this!
The FBI doesn't need to release all those January 6th videos to defendants! No transparency needed- They're Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! The videos will just serve to prove it further, so no need to see them. You have our word as honest upright members of the mainstream media!
And that's before we even start covering the covid lies.....
To the surprise of none, Readering cannot support their accusations with any concrete examples. Noted.
Read my comments. I don't defend Wapo and Lorenz for identifying LoTT's creator (although the cat was already out of the bag on social media), and I don't get upset about either of them being attacked. They can defend themselves. But the usual commenters get very upset by my comments, since no one here is commenting in defense of Wapo/Lorenz, and the usual commenters have to attack somebody.
And some don't look at the tiktoks themselves, apparently. Not that I have looked at many; I had never heard of either protagonist until AA posted the other day. But the Twitter and Instagram posts I see are not just reposts; they come with commentary with an anti-LGBTQ spin. And I do stick up for the small fry caught in the amplified glare of those who have decided that "save-the-children" is the newest, best political strategy these days.
Meanwhile the creator of LoTT is the toast of her bubble, as I'm sure Wapo predicted when they ran the piece. Enough precedent.
Readering: "But the usual commenters get very upset by my comments,..."
We are pointing out your entirely predictable transparent lies.
As usual.
But go ahead and pretend its something else, but no one is buying it.
Stick to your tried and true russian collusion lies and avoid branching out to ever more ridiculous lies.
If a group started posting links to TikTok videos of alt-right clowns being their natural selves, I would not blame the posters for the bad image of the alt-right that would generate. I would blame the clowns who originally posted the videos.
The one iron bound rule of the Left is to never suggest that another member of the Left may have done something wrong or distasteful. It wasn't all that long ago that people were saying that Black teenage girls have a right to knife each other, and that it is part of their culture. Why? To avoid making LeBron look bad when he jumped the gun and attacked a cop for saving the life of a Black teenage girl by shooting the one with the knife.
So that can't criticize the idiots making the videos, or even imply that something might be wrong with the videos. Their only response is to attack those drawing attention to the idiots.
"And I do stick up for the small fry caught in the amplified glare of those who have decided that "save-the-children" is the newest, best political strategy these days."
News Flash; readering does not have children. No surprise. The surprise is that readering has parents. They must be so proud!
Libs of TikTok is the answer to, "Oh, give me a break! No one is doing that!"
I don't defend Wapo and Lorenz for identifying LoTT's creator
You're making excuses for them. Not seeing how there's much difference.
It's also noted you're sticking up for the 'small fry' who just happen to be grooming grade-school kids. The fact you think it boils down to politics shows a complete lack of a moral compass.
So carry that shield, Fierce Defender of Sex Offenders. It's not a good look, but I suppose someone has to do it.
A site like LOTT may be funny when it has 5000 followers, but becomes terrifying when it's amplified as the biggest thing on the anti-LGBTQ right.
How many followers of 'a site like LOTT' ought Twitter to allow?
The WaPoo doesn't do news gathering. It does Democrat propaganda. As the Instapundit says, the WaPoo employs "Democrat Operatives with a byline."
They do just what Jeff Bezos wants. Remember that. Limit your Amazon purchases. Try looking elsewhere first.
"Readering said...
A site like LOTT may be funny when it has 5000 followers, but becomes terrifying when it's amplified as the biggest thing on the anti-LGBTQ right."
Do you truly not understand that there's no real "anti-LGBTQ Right", but that there is a strong "we really don't need pink-haired teachers covering mutual masturbation for third-graders Right"?
"A site like LOTT may be funny when it has 5000 followers, but becomes terrifying when it's amplified as the biggest thing on the anti-LGBTQ right."
Now do late-night talkers. And Disney. And most network shows.
mccullough:
You really could have phrased your 2:53pm comment better. Gay men and straight women would know better than I, but I'm pretty sure a human dick is never "transparent", and I really could have done without that image.
Readering, you’re making positive factual claims about the specific content of LOTT posts. Put up or shut up.
So we all agree the videos on LoTT are creepy. Good.
"But the Twitter and Instagram posts I see are not just reposts; they come with commentary with an anti-LGBTQ spin."
So people are showing the videos and giving their opinion on it. It's called free speech, sorry that bothers you.
You need to think of these folks like the klansmen of the old KKK.
They love to shoot off their mouth in the company of their own kind. But they don't want the general public to know about it.
They're just too stupid to realize the rest of the world can easily see them on tiktok.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
The premises behind the rant are nonsensical, but I would like to address the fact that I haven't seen any reasonable argument on why reposting public tik tok videos is wrong.
1: No one on the Left can ever say someone's "too Left". because they reasonably expect that in 3 years they'll get cancelled for having posting such a "regressive" opinion
2: But they're all aware that the people LoTT posts look like lunatics to anyone sane
So, since they can't disassociate themselves from the lunatics, they have to attack the messenger.
3: They find it really irritating to say "no one wants to do that, that law is worthless", then have LoTT post someone bragging about "doing that"
readering said...
And some don't look at the tiktoks themselves, apparently. Not that I have looked at many; I had never heard of either protagonist until AA posted the other day. But the Twitter and Instagram posts I see are not just reposts; they come with commentary with an anti-LGBTQ spin.
You know a solid heuristic for "this person is lying"? its' when the person makes a claim about something posted on the internet, and then doesn't provide a link so you can see for yourself whether or not they've honestly characterized the content.
So, Rendering: Give us a link to the LoTT post with the most "anti-LGBTQ spin commentary" that you've found. Let us judge whether the commentary is actually "anti-LGBTQ", or if it's just "pro-sane".
Because if you can't do that, then clearly your claims are lies
"You are debating logic and facts with frothing bigots with a bone-deep opposition to your entire project"
Yes, we are opposed to employees of public schools abusing their power and position to attempt to screw up children's minds and convince them that they have gender dysphoria, and / or are homosexual, when they in fact are neither
This makes us good human beings
They want a chaotic information stream of unverifiable bullshit and context collapse and propaganda
Oh, you mean like "Trump is colluding with Putin"? That kind of "unverifiable bullshit and context collapse and propaganda"?
No, that's your side
It’s an ideologically coherent opposition to the liberal precepts of verifiability and transparency
Libs of TikTok re-posts people's videos, letting them speak their own words, in their own voice. It is the Platonic ideal of "verifiability and transparency", and you wish to destroy it.
All I would like my unbiased, objective, nonpartisan reporter friends to understand is that they are debating with people that consider them the enemy not just in a partisan sense but in an existential one
Um, Alex, there does not exist a single "reporter" that you are friends with who is "unbiased, objective, nonpartisan". They are all active propagandists for the Left.
And they ARE our existential enemies. Taylor Lorentz trying to get the Libs of TikTok creator killed by some lefty lunatic is just another example of how they are our existential enemies.
"It’s an ideologically coherent opposition to the liberal precepts of verifiability and transparency, and the holders of those precepts are too invested in them to understand what their enemy is doing"
This clown is a member of an institution which unironically likes to refer to itself a the gatekeepers of information.
I don't defend Wapo and Lorenz for identifying LoTT's creator (although the cat was already out of the bag on social media)
So you don't have a problem with "amplification" by a major media site, but you do have a problem with a private citizen doing the same on a much smaller scale.
How brave and righteous you are to stand up for the small-fry WaPo against the big bad lady of LoTT!
Many above have already offered good responses to the piece by Pareene. I have no patience whatsoever left for these fevered caricatures of the political opposition, that we have no interest in facts or logic, that we see the opposition as the Enemy. So far as I can tell, Pareene sees the situation as in a mirror and engages in projection which has been all the rage for at least the last decade.
Contra Readering, I have followed Libs of TikTok for months and have not seen anti-LGBTQIA+ commentary accompanying the reposted videos.
It's extraordinary that a professional writer and editor could say the things Pareene says, seemingly unaware of the internal contradictions. It's as if he believes that contradictions don't matter because he is certain that he possesses the spirit of righteousness. There is a fancy word for that state of mind -- antinomianism. The word originated in religious disputation to describe those Christians who believed that their faith in the essential truth of the Gospel in its totality freed them from required obedience to any law from any temporal source. It applies now more generally to those who believe that their allegiance to some transcendent ideal or goal frees them from logic and conventional morality whenever logic and conventional morality interfere with achievement of the Transcendent Good. You can see why antinomianism is a big problem, and Alex Pareene isn't the only one with the problem.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा