The extra-parliamentary left & anti-Semitism

[Knotted]

As DLR says Finkelstein is not just using these outlets, he is being used by them. The same as those who presented programs on RT were being used by the Russian state. To argue that any platform is ok so long as it gets your message across is ludicrously shortsighted. Giving cover to the harm that RT, Brand, GBNews or whoever is one factor that needs to be balanced against any extra coverage one obtains.

But there isn't any real harm. He's giving them prestige? Oh come on. He's giving them views, and in that way he's helping them out personally, but not politically. That's pretty sour in the case of Brand, but only because of the allegations.

Engaging with any media is a tactical and strategic question and I don't have a fundamental problem with socialists engaging with liberal or conservative media outlets. But one has to go into it with one's eye's open, and with a need to ask questions like who is the audience you are trying to get your message over to? How is the media going to use you for their interests? Can this be used by political opponents for capital?

I've seen Finkelstein on some of these shows. He doesn't compromise his message in the slightest although that may not be your point. The question is, what is your point? How is this being used by these outlets?

In the case of Brand you have an audience of hardcore tinfoil hat libertarian shits, not some mainstream, or even smallish, media outlet that a significant proportion of the general public watch, or are at least aware of. This is not someone going on GBNews or being interviewed by Piers Morgan, to try are engage with a reasonably sized number of conservative (leaning) viewers, it's a very nasty rabbit hole full of shits that are publicising a series of harmful choices and actions. Shunning conspiracaloon YouTube channels, particularly ones run by abusers, is a pretty obvious political decision.

This is the crux I think. I think that you can argue that Brand's audience have the power to disrupt through the poison of their conspiracy theories and that they shouldn't in any way be encouraged. But this is still so hand wavey - they're being encouraged anyway by the fact that they are Brand's audience. What are the actual consequences of appearing on his show? What is the real harm?

Socialists should be prepared to speak to EVERYBODY. That's a long standing, well established principle. "You can't talk to these people because they're really bad?" Where does that idea even come from? What's the tradition that says that?

 

[Combustible]

That willingness to use (and be used by) any platform says a lot, not much good, about his political direction.

It says that he is focused to the exclusion of almost all else on spreading his message on Palestine. He doesn't seem to engage in much wider strategic thinking beyond that. That may well in itself not be a 'good' political direction, but what I meant is that I don't think it signifies that he has gone down the 'red-brown'/alt right/conspiraloon rabbit hole, even if he has appeared on platforms which promote some of these views.

 

[redsquirrel]

This is the crux I think. I think that you can argue that Brand's audience have the power to disrupt through the poison of their conspiracy theories and that they shouldn't in any way be encouraged. But this is still so hand wavey - they're being encouraged anyway by the fact that they are Brand's audience. What are the actual consequences of appearing on his show? What is the real harm?

Expanding the reach and validity of conspiracloons sites is harmful.
This shit is growing and having a real life effect and Brand and his ilk are trying to use Finkelstein and others to expand the reach of their shit, attracting new viewers (as well as at the more personal level trying to leverage any credit he gets to protect him from the allegations against him).

And to reverse your question, what's the benefit or appearing on Brand? And where does this stop, is appearing on hard core far-right channels to be supported so long as it gets the message out?

Socialists should be prepared to speak to EVERYBODY. That's a long standing, well established principle. "You can't talk to these people because they're really bad?" Where does that idea even come from? What's the tradition that says that?

You're equating talking to people with appearing on any media outlet, those are not the same thing.
Regardless while there may be a time and place for taking to people with (truly) shitty politics, there's also a time and place for no platforming, and denying them opportunities to spread propaganda. physical anti-fascism being a obvious example, making sure antisemitic banners are not welcome on protests being another.

ETA: And giving far too much opportunity for unchallenged communication of the tinfoil hat brigade, in e.g. occupy, is a good example of how this harm has spread and caused problems in the real world.

 

[tim]

But there isn't any real harm. He's giving them prestige? Oh come on. He's giving them views, and in that way he's helping them out personally, but not politically. That's pretty sour in the case of Brand, but only because of the allegations.



Socialists should be prepared to speak to EVERYBODY. That's a long standing, well established principle. "You can't talk to these people because they're really bad?" Where does that idea even come from? What's the tradition that says that?

Should Socialists be willing to support those who promoted conspiracy theories about Jewish millionaires?

 

[Knotted]

Expanding the reach and validity of conspiracloons sites is harmful.
This shit is growing and having a real life effect and Brand and his ilk are trying to use Finkelstein and others to expand the reach of their shit, attracting new viewers (as well as at the more personal level trying to leverage any credit he gets to protect him from the allegations against him).

I don't see any reason to think Brand gets credits or validity from this. I do think you have a point about reach though. Boosting the channel, helping it with respect to the algorithm etc. If it was a permanent feature, then I'd worry.

But then this is also where the advantage is. You're talking to people who are casual or even new watchers of Brand's channel. That's just the way it goes, not everybody watching will be hardcore. People are complex, a whole audience is extremely complex.

In my personal life I know somebody who boycotts Muslim businesses but who is genuinely appalled by what is happening in Gaza.

I know somebody else who thinks David Icke was right about the response to Covid being a conspiracy to abolish cash, but wouldn't pay attention to Icke on anything else.

A lot of people are just politically eclectic, there's all manner of possibilities that arise from talking to people and obviously even greater if it's a bigger audience. What people chance on on eg youtube can have a profound effect.

Finkelstein is mostly informative in what he says. He's very good at showing you the realities of Israel/Palestine and the letting facts speak for themselves. His ethic is anti-conspiracy because there's so much to say without relying on conspiracism.

If we're talking about no platforming Brand, fine. Even then that's not a reason to not appear on his show.

 

[Knotted]

Should Socialists be willing to support those who promoted conspiracy theories about Jewish millionaires?

Is he falling over or something?

 

[tim]

Is he falling over or something?

He fell ages ago.

 

[nino_savatte]

David Miller wins his employment tribunal case in landmark ruling against Bristol University. Let this be a warning to any employer in HE who's adopted and weaponised the deeply flawed IHRA working definition and the Jerusalem Declaration. Let this also be a warning for the likes of Gnasher Jew, the CST and CAA.

Rahman Lowe Secures Landmark Victory in Employment Case for Professor David Miller Against Bristol University

Rahman Lowe Secures Landmark Victory in Employment Law Case for Professor Miller

www.rllaw.co.uk

 

[nino_savatte]

Apropos all this kind of stuff any news on David Miller’s industrial tribunal?

See my post above.