What's the innocuous explanation for first speaking out on Stefan Molyneux's channel? That Damore has only heard of Molyneux, but Molyneux happened to be the first to successfully reach out to Damore?
Or if we assume Damore was the initiator in getting his story out, why would Molyneux be the first contact, as opposed to someone like Cernovich, who has a much bigger audience and has been blogging/tweeting in extensive support of Damore? I suppose Damore believes there's a substantive difference in politics/style/production between Molyneux/Cernvoich/Peterson/etc. But that he knows enough about Molyneux to want to give him priority probably means Damore is not just a causal fan.
I get that Damore doesn't trust nor feel obligated to talk to the left-wing-side of media, e.g. CNN/MSNBC/NYT. But literally anyone at FOX News would be just as sympathetic as Molyneux towards Damore, while having a bigger audience and more mainstream credibility (plus, production values that doesn't make Damore look and sound like a basement Twitch streamer).
(I don't watch Molyneux enough to have a strong opinion about his associations. But given his decent-but-not-huge channel, seems unusual that he'd be Damore's first pick by chance, given Damore's many options).
> That Damore has only heard of Molyneux, but Molyneux happened to be the first to successfully reach out to Damore?
What's wrong with that explanation?
Perhaps Damore, like most of us, doesn't watch any of Molyneux/Cernvoich/Peterson and thus simply accepted an interview from whoever contacted him first.
No, the order is not important. The point that your three replies have carefully avoided is that it was his choice to associate himself with a prominent alt-right misogynist.
You even suggested that he really avoided mainstream sources fearing misrepresentation, which means Molyneux must was his safe space.
And your point is ... that every op ed piece in a newspaper (in this case, 'Julie Bindel is a freelance journalist and political activist, and a founder of Justice for Women') reflects the position of the newspaper as a whole?
Er, why do you put "freelance" in quotes? Being a freelance vs. staff member is not about number of articles you've written, but how and how much you are paid, the benefits you receive, who you report to in the editorial bureaucracy, and your day-to-day obligations to the company.
She seems to write a lot of op-ed type pieces, which are meant to "oppose" the editorial page (in a physical sense, but sometimes in voice/topic). The fact that the freelance editor is OK with working with her, over and over, is not nothing. Just as Bret Stephens being hired as a NYT columnist is not nothing about the NYT's priorities, even as he has no contact or relationship with NYT's news reporters.
My point was that the word freelance suggests someone is independent of the organization, while writing 383 articles for The Guardian suggests otherwise.
Clearly she likes The Guardian and they like her opinion very much.
More significantly, their opinion writers range from left to extreme left.
Again, what is your point? Do you think opinion pieces must be in lock-step with the newspaper as a whole?
All you've shown is that The Guardian publishes pieces from people with views that typically lie on the left (though are not reflective of everyone on the left). Which is, you know, the "left" in "center left".
"center left" != centrist != far left. You claim The Guardian is far left. All you've demonstrated is that they are somewhere on the left, and I (and Wikipedia) claim they are center-left.
"Then Guardian features editor Ian Katz asserted in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper".[120] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix of "right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites, etc," and that the newspaper was "clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive". She also said that "you can be absolutely certain that come the next general election, The Guardian's stance will not be dictated by the editor, still less any foreign proprietor (it helps that there isn't one) but will be the result of vigorous debate within the paper".[121] The paper's comment and opinion pages, though often written by centre-left contributors such as Polly Toynbee, have allowed some space for right-of-centre voices such as Sir Max Hastings and Michael Gove. "
Are you really that oblivious as to what the real far-left looks like?
Typically it applies to someone to the left of social democracy, like a Communist, Trotskyist, democratic socialist, or Maoist.
While https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel describes her as: While focusing on male violence against women, Bindel also writes about gender inequality in general, as well as stalking, religious fundamentalism, lesbian rights, opposition to the sex industry and human trafficking.[8] She refers to herself as a political lesbian feminist.
This is mainstream feminist left, not far-left.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon is further to the left. Here are some of his policies, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Luc_M%C3%A9lenchon#Politi...: He is a proponent of increased labour rights and the expansion of French welfare programmes.[33] Mélenchon has also called for the mass redistribution of wealth to rectify existing socioeconomic inequalities.[33] Domestic policies proposed by Mélenchon include a 100 per cent income tax on all French citizens earning more than 360,000 Euros a year, full state reimbursement for health care costs, a reduction in presidential powers in favour of the legislature, and the easing of immigration laws.[34] Mélenchon supports women's right to abortion and same-sex marriage. He also supports the legalisation of cannabis.[35]
He founded La France Insoumise, a democratic socialist political party. He started as a member of the Internationalist Communist Organisation.
Again, I fail to understand your point. How does this show that The Guardian is a far-left newspaper?
The example from Gove was to point out that your statement that The Guardian "publishes the opinion of people on the left and on the far left" but not from the right is incorrect.
Are you going to update all of the Wikipedia pages from "centre-right" to "far right"? Because it looks like to me that you have no idea of what "far left" really means. Perhaps you think that that anything to the left of the US Democratic Party is "far left"?
Also, most of what you mentioned aren't on the left/right spectrum. There are many leftists who hold completely opposing views.
This, like any argument about the meaning of left and right, is pointless.
Nobody can clearly define what those terms mean anyway. Perhaps we can agree The Guardian is centre-left by UK standards and far-left by American standards.
Like I ask, what Overton window are you looking through?
Answer: the US one, where there's been 80 years of anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda to turn "liberal" and "progressive" into slurs and to keep people from knowing what "the left" really means.
The UK standard in this regard is shared with most of the rest of Europe and the European ex-colonies (South America, Australia, South Africa, etc.) It's the US which is the odd-one-out.
I see. When you are out of irrelevant statements to make, you resort to name calling.
Yes, I think people in Latin America have a better idea of Marxist and socialist principles than those in the US, because it's much closer a part of their politics. They would know that The Guardian is not "far left" because some of them have been part of, or know people who are part of, the far left.
Yes, I think people in the Commonwealth countries have a better idea of what "center-left" means, in the British sense, because of their ties with the UK.
Yes, I think people in South Africa (which is a Commonwealth country) have a better idea of what the far left means. They remember - and I've talked to South Africans about this - how the Communist Party of South Africa was banned during the apartheid era because of its anti-apartheid stance, and the ties between the ANC and SACP.
Yes, I think the people of Mozambique know better than those in the US what a Marxist government is like, given the rule of Samora Machel. The people of Angola also know what it's like to be organized under a Marxist-Leninist one party state. Plus, Cubans sent both military and medical support to those countries.
I could go on, but this is basic history.
While in the US there's been, what, two Socialists in Congress, ever, and Congress refused to seat one of them because he was against the US involvement in the First World War, and prosecuted under the horrid Espionage Act?
And the US had two Red Scares, about the boogie-man pinkos?
And the US passed laws to prevent Communists from being union leaders?
Yeah, no. Proportionally speaking, people in the US don't know what "far left" really means compared to most of the rest of the world.
Edit: Also, earlier you mentioned the views of those "Western Europe." If you think it's presumption that bring up the views of non-Western Europeans, how are you not also presumption for summarizing the views of Western Europe?
I didn't summarize the views of Western Europe. Read it again.
Also, that wasn't name calling. That was a statement of fact, though admittedly provocative. You don't know the viewpoints of hundreds of millions of people and I can't believe you think you do.
I know people in America who think the Republican party is left wing and other people who think the Democratic party is right wing. There are as many views of left/right as there are people.
But let's move on. This discussion has gone on long enough.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engin...