Fascists must be shunned, isolated, alienated, ostracized and brow-beaten into hiding. They should not be interviewed for their opinions or views. Their opinions and views are monotonous; there's no need to inquire about what we already know, especially when we know they're always prone to deceit.
But isn’t sophistry what conservatives depend on for majority of their arguments? Something like nuanced discussion and empirical data not taken out of context… doesn’t seem like their cup of tea.
I haven’t seen the entire interview, but of the 30 minutes I did see the only person that retreated to sophistry was Raichik; especially when pressed to answer for her political alignment with those who espouse replacement theory nonsense.
Who didn't already know this? There's an argument to be made about people not knowing who Raichik is, but anyone who knew her, already knows what she is and either likes or hates her for that.
I'm begging you to read my comment. I know people don't know who she is, but an interview is only necessary if the intent is to show people who she "really" is to people who are being tricked. An article about her purely through other means of Journalism would've been just fine in this case.
normal people who do not have an online presence do not know of her, even if they vaguely know about the libs of tiktok account being a thing. this was helpful to less online people to be exposed to what a vile dipshit this woman is.
*slaps self in head for wading in when I said I wouldn’t* ben I think the salient divide is between whether you think those people who feel she came off poorly will immediately revert to propagating her next target, or whether those people could be sincerely swayed from doing so by a bad interview
I mean, I think the response to this by even her own fellow grifters has proven the interview's utility. There is nuance and a lot of academic reading in how to do this beat while mitigating harm and I've been at it for literally a decade now. I think this was mastery of the form, to be honest.
not in any way arguing your pedigree on it, my take is the fellow grifters, being grifters, have the memory of a goldfish; any reflection they have on her today will vanish tomorrow the instant promoting her targets becomes the trendy soup du jour. which I firmly believe is how that ecosystem runs
Sadly, I predict that this massive amplification of her reach will ultimately win her 10 new followers for every adherent who sees the light and steps away. If any of them are capable of that. The article might be a good idea if done right, but the interview is already a huge net positive for LoTT.
I'm so old I forced a bunch of executives where I work to read this thing six years ago. I have no idea if they did, and signs point to probably not, but there is lots of literature on risks of amplification vs. reporting and I think she abided by best practices. https://datasociety.net/library/oxygen-of-amplification/
Ignoring it just does not work. Being cutesy with these people and letting them just run roughshod on you is the real problem, how we got here. Most people have no idea who Chaya is. They simply don't watch the news. They get her content downstream. Normal people need to know she is an empty suit.
Spot on! The "don't give them a platform!" reaction from so many people is justified by seeing so many institutions just blindly allowing the fascist/bigot to spew their hate without the needed pushback, but Taylor isn't giving them a platform here. This is a real interview.
This looks like a great resource. One that I think would be useful for journalists covering practically every topic/beat right now, esp. politics/government. We’re in an era of rampant bullshit, disinfo, propaganda, & extremism, & that guide looks to have great pointers on how to cover it all.
sure except for the fact that they’re all going to make thousands of dollars posting out of context clips to their followers. they are already doing this on their monetized channels. i’m sure they’ll be so owned while cashing their checks.
That's... not at all what I'm seeing anywhere. I think maybe Ian Miles Wrong did that, but that is not the prevailing takeaway on the internet today. Her defenders are embarrassed and she has not tweeted today, which is basically impossible for her, physically.
You can’t withhold ammunition from the ammunition factory.
If Taylor had declined an interview when offered, that, too, would be spun to “Leftists Afraid to Even Interview; [some paraphrase of RedeVerbot propaganda]” at some point.
The audience of this interview isn’t that audience.
Additionally, I’d color Hanania’s positive reaction to Lorentz’ interview with the fact that he’s been trying to repaint himself as a “reasonable” bigot
I think we imagine that everyone has an opinion or knowledge of this issue, and maybe on Twitter and BS that's true. But there's a vast army of normies out there that have never heard of her, and that who this is for. Richard fucking Hanania isn't changing his mind, but that was never the idea.
I think that could be because of the overly large percentage of people here who have actually had to deal with the violence of fascists in person, and what works and what doesn’t in stemming that violence.
Just a thought, and I think one worth considering.
The issue we have a problem with isn't actually the interview, it's the people who have been empowered by her being platformed. We'd be frustrated if anybody interviewed her
My question, too, is how do people think the media should cover Bethany Mandel running for that BOE seat? She's listed as a Dem, but largely has the same views as Raichik on everything, especially the hate towards the trans community. People need to know.
I don't think that post-Trump it is unreasonable to think that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" or spreading her message so people can see how extreme she is won't work. It didn't stop Trump. People dunking on how dumb she comes across are still talking about her and spreading her message
The problem wasn’t covering Trump. The problem was HOW we covered Trump. It turns out that running nonstop headlines quoting him is actually not responsible journalism.
Exactly. Palin embarrassed herself on “what newspapers do you read?”, the softest of softballs, but Trump didn’t even get that mild pressure. The host of TV’s The Apprentice claimed to know more about ISIS than the generals, and the media had zero follow-up questions.
I don't think anyone here thinks she didn't come off like a total fucking dumbass, it just seems to be the opinion here that that doesn't matter to anything in the slightest.
I also don't know what this screenshot is supposed to prove, this dickhead says "even when conservatives are right" so it's pretty clear he's not questioning the foundations of his beliefs because Chaya Raichik got caught looking like a fucking idiot.
That may be, but this shouldn’t be about who the interviewer was. The issue is the strategy itself. It assumes there will be a rational response. That’s not how this works. Not anymore.
Probably because being stupid or coming across as such isn't detrimental to her marketing mix.
Does anyone think she has lost any fans or supporters? That her next target won't suffer any more than her past targets? That this has cost her in any material way?
So how do you feel about the media platforming Andy Ngo and one of the unforeseen (for the media) consequences of that being more people like him, say Chaya Raichik, getting in on the action when they realized how easy it was to juke this format for the right?
This site needs to reflexively attack Lorenz because she isn't our kind of high strung victim of hate campaigns or something. Lot of didn't watch the interview energy.
It’s almost like an echo chamber of extremely-online “leftists” isn’t the best place to gauge how the general public will react to something 🤷🏻♂️It’s a good reminder that I need to spend less time on here.
My rule of thumb is that the median voter is my Boomer mom in Pittsburgh, and my Boomer mom in Pittsburgh isn't on Twitter and had no idea there was a stochastic terrorist getting people to threaten to blow up elementary schools.
Yup, most people my age just think TikTok is an annoying video app for kids but they’re awful tired of dead eyed Kapo freaks trying to take over their school board due to freak opinions on gender
Not sure quite how, but that ringside commentary feels like it advances my theory that many many people cocooned themselves inside nutshells and announced themselves kings of infinite space over the past decade.
Seeing the discourse on here, today has been quite unsettling. Frankly, realizing people don’t understand at all how this works and the way that this is actually undermining the power she is accrued through softball media and other things it’s gonna really get bad for her Now
this isn’t going to shift national level politics in the way many people want or need but it sure may help to undermine some of the perceived power these people have vs what they actually are. It also goes to show they these people are deeply vapid losers who represent a small minority of the pop.
she's still doing damage though. how does she have a position of "influence" in a place like okc when she doesn't even live there. someone will pick up where she left off
That’s absolutely a valid point. And she’s clearly doing damage in Oklahoma.
But, she’s a tool for Ryan Walter’s political ambitions. If she didn’t have her Twitter presence, he would’ve named Matt Walsh or someone else grossly unqualified.
it seems like the majority of the trans community is not happy about the article and i find ascribing that outrage to be ignorance of fascism pretty condescending at best
Different audiences for different things. The proposition seems to be that the interview is meant for people who *don't already know* the subject is a dangerous, incoherent clown.
It may also be that persuading the normie population is an essential step in properly handling these monsters.
that it’s a recruitment tool for fascists is established.that raichik took the interview at all is evidence she views it that way. for that to be outweighed, the hope is enough liberals decide trans genocide is wrong after 4+ years of its progression? it’s a huge risk & not a cis person’s to make.
All fair points and I don't disagree. I don't feel like I know 100% the only correct answer on this myself.
Ignoring them doesn't work; neo-nazi media promotes them anyway. But if this makes the terrorist a laughingstock because of her rambling, incoherent bigotry, I think/hope that *will* help.
maybe, although it'd be the first time of which i'm aware. it does however firmly assert that trans existence is something to be debated, with overt fascists no less, and i'm really having a tough time seeing how the harm isn't going to outweigh the good.
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you presumably want your kids to have a decent education. We might know she isn't remotely qualified for the position she was put in but she gave everyone else an hour-long informercial proving that point.
I'm not sure what side I come down on (I've seen pretty good arguments made both ways) and since I'm neither trans nor a journalist my opinion isn't that important,
BUT
I fervently believe in my heart of hearts that all this ~~~discourse~~~ is making us actively more stupid.
The only reason I have any say this is because I’m an academic, whose specialty is the far right with a specific interest on misinformation, disinformation and violence.
Comments
"Wow, Chaya sounds so stupid here, she almost makes killing trans kids come off wrong."
Raichik was just exposed as a lazy bigot.
Who didn't already know this? There's an argument to be made about people not knowing who Raichik is, but anyone who knew her, already knows what she is and either likes or hates her for that.
I would think that was exactly the intent of the interview
The only way an interview makes more sense is if she has a veneer of respectability that you want to pull away, which is not the case here.
An article (that doesn’t both sides) would be stronger.
Many articles. Just exposing her.
History shows these types of tactics don’t work. Decades now, and here we are.
And I don't think its directed at the other grifters, it is to show the people who don't know who libs of tiktok are how terrible she is.
And yeah it is crazy there people who don't know exactly who she is.
https://datasociety.net/library/oxygen-of-amplification/
Hardly damaging.
If Taylor had declined an interview when offered, that, too, would be spun to “Leftists Afraid to Even Interview; [some paraphrase of RedeVerbot propaganda]” at some point.
The audience of this interview isn’t that audience.
Just a thought, and I think one worth considering.
Does anyone think she has lost any fans or supporters? That her next target won't suffer any more than her past targets? That this has cost her in any material way?
https://socialblade.com/twitter/user/libsoftiktok
Yeah that's not massive, but she's not losing anyone.
https://bsky.app/profile/miriam.lol/post/3km76abbint2t
https://bsky.app/profile/colindickey.com/post/3km72uyt6kj2s
Hopefully, the people who do those law-making things will realize how much of a terrorist she is and does something.
But I’m not holding my breath for Merrick Garland to do his job.
She’s not getting a Daily Wire show. Maybe MyPillow Guy would platform her.
But, she’s a tool for Ryan Walter’s political ambitions. If she didn’t have her Twitter presence, he would’ve named Matt Walsh or someone else grossly unqualified.
this is marketing. may not be the intent, but this is how this society operates
I'm all for hostile interviews that show she's an idiot
It may also be that persuading the normie population is an essential step in properly handling these monsters.
Ignoring them doesn't work; neo-nazi media promotes them anyway. But if this makes the terrorist a laughingstock because of her rambling, incoherent bigotry, I think/hope that *will* help.
BUT
I fervently believe in my heart of hearts that all this ~~~discourse~~~ is making us actively more stupid.
I certainly can't see this backfiring.