The repugnant blob of mens rights activists, MAGA influencers, manosphere podcasters, and fascists that get their micropayments from X’s dwindling Verified user ad revenue program are not just demonizing the women who have come out in support of Clancy — though, they are certainly doing that — but are also yanking any old video off TikTok they can find of women talking about postpartum depression or the pressures of motherhood and inciting an unimaginable amount of harassment against the original poster.
None.
This is literally as fucking stupid as idiots declaring “antifa” as a organized terrorist organization.
Theres nothing “organized” about it.
Tell me, who the fuck is the president of that collective? Do the have meetings and memberships?
No? Then they arent a fucking collective. That goes for dumbass incels just as much as antifascist protesters.
Its literally the same stupid generalizing, stop letting yourself get so easily baited into getting polarized, jesus christ.
I get your point, but I think you’re misunderstanding the author’s intention. He’s not trying to build a legal case for prosecution and shared responsibility; he’s arguing that political actors (especially on the right) work to exploit social grievances across networks to build coalitions. And, if we look at the last decade, there’s PLENTY of examples:
So it’s not a question of “Are all these groups coordinating together?” They’re not, and the author doesn’t claim they are. And also, that’s not really how political coordination works anymore. (Although, group chats among wealthy & influential right wingers are very real)
It works much more like, "Do all these groups understand themselves to be pursuing somewhat similar goals, and do they avoid intergroup warfare, and do political actors exploit their grievances and rally them around a single cause (like, say, anti-trans issues)?
And the answer is very much yes.
This entire paragraph, grammatically, refers to these individuals as a whole as “the repugnant blob”
Its the first 3 words.
You cant sidestep the fact this is both:
Using inflammatory, derogatory, and unprofessional phrasing to purposely push on emotions as a way to sway the reader. I dont give a shit if the target are people I dislike, Ad Hominem is not good journalism. Its gross
Grammatically frames all these individuals as a collective, sweepingly treating them as a whole. Thats also not okay
I dont give a shit if the writer is talking about something roughly I sort of agree with, Im still going to call out shitty tactics for being shitty.
The article is gross and written like a teens Tumblr post. Fuck off with the sweeping generalizations and inflammatory attempts at polarization.
I would be very impressed if this engaged with the arguments I made in the above comment, but it just ignores them entirely