X Close

Is The Guardian sowing disinformation? From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers

(Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images)


December 9, 2022   7 mins

When you look at the state of some ostensibly progressive media organisations these days, it’s hard to understand how their more talented employees find the energy to get up in the morning. Imagine starting your career inspired by visions of Woodward and Bernstein and Pulitzer Prizes, and ending up having to capitulate to a rapist’s preferred pronouns.

Imagine having your painstaking investigative work on the cost-of-living crisis or the Ukrainian war sit alongside a piece called “How I freed myself from inherited gender roles and stopped feeling unworthy of my own womanhood”, written by someone called Jeremy. Or imagine opining critically about the role of “disinformation” in a publication which also accuses mainstream media outlets of using a “technique employed in Nazi Germany to silence trans people”. The brave souls enduring these indignities at the hands of their colleagues are the real journalist heroes. Truly, it must be a slog.

Earlier this week, former Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman gave a revealing interview to Woman’s Hour about her time at the paper, describing it as an initially happy marriage but one in which her partner eventually became a “conspiracy theorist”. A few years ago, while Freeman was away on a work trip, representatives from lobbyist organisation All About Trans — who had a close working relationship with Mermaids at the time — were brought in to talk about “how trans people should be discussed in the media”. In the course of their intervention (the chummy flavour of which presumably can be gauged from this piece about the same group lobbying the BBC Newsnight team in 2016), two relatively innocuous pieces of Freeman’s were presented to her colleagues as examples of transphobia, she said.

From then on, her viewpoint was dismissed by colleagues as “mean”. Editors would repeatedly refuse pitches from her about Mermaids or J.K. Rowling on the flimsiest of excuses, while continuing to publish gushing pieces about child transition. At one point, she said, senior management told her that only journalists with relevant specialities, who also happened to be male, could write about the politics of gender. Books by gender-critical authors were uniformly passed over for review, and only a single interview with one such author made it onto the page (that is, with me — albeit in the education and not the main section, and with a lot of anxiety on the part of the section editor as I recall). Meanwhile, as befits a good and obedient Stonewall Diversity Champion, trans memoir after memoir was puffed in the paper, approved mantras were intoned, and stories of wrong bodies and wrongthink abounded.

Though Guardian management were not prepared to send a representative to discuss the matter, in a prepared response read out by interviewer Emma Barnett a spokesperson explained, as if talking very slowly to toddlers, or to Russian citizens during the Soviet period: “All writers work with their editors to decide the topics on which they write. This is a completely standard practice across the media. That is not censorship. It is editing”. It is perhaps hard to understand how such a venerable and supposedly sophisticated publication could have reached this level of audience infantilisation. It’s almost as if they think their readers are idiots.

Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too. One reason why someone might talk to a group of people as if they were stupid is inadvertent: namely, if the person is himself an idiot and simply trying to describe the world as he sincerely sees it. Into this category would seem to fall some of the gender lobbyists generally benighting our institutions and instructing newspapers what to write. Recent court cases in which they have appeared as witnesses have afforded ample opportunity to scrutinise the extent of their knowledge of biology, ethics, and childhood development. Pearls of wisdom offered include: “describing any particular transwoman as male is inherently transphobic and abusive, unless that trans person as an individual has asked you to do so” (Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall Head of Trans Inclusion), and “I am not clear that children come out of the womb with a sex, to be honest” (Dr Belinda Bell, Chair of Mermaids trustees).

As it happens, I once met the founder of All About Trans, the transactivist body named by Freeman as involved in lobbying the Guardian. Nathalie McDermott, not herself trans, met me for coffee in a hotel near the BBC in January 2019. Our companions were fellow gender-sceptic Graham Linehan and transwoman Ayla Holdom, a patron of Mermaids and consultant for All About Trans. The meeting was initiated by McDermott, who seemed convinced that if only we sceptics could meet the eminently likeable and reasonable Holdom, we would seamlessly extrapolate outwards to anyone else who identifies as a woman for whatever reason, and our strong doubts about things like putting males in women’s prisons or women’s sporting competitions might be quashed.

McDermott also pleaded with us that, if only we would meet some “trans kids”, we would see how “happy” they were and therefore stop worrying about the fact some are being sterilised and having body parts chopped off before they can properly understand what is happening to them. I have no doubt this is genuinely how McDermott saw things: that the fact a minor is happy, right now, is somehow a reliable indicator of her well-being in future years. And when we pressed her on the idea that latent homophobia might be behind some parents’ preference for interpreting their feminine boys as girls, or masculine girls as boys, she attempted to reassure us that she had never ever seen this — as if, again, this was something an outsider could tell from relatively superficial observation.

As I say, some people have cognitive blind spots, however well-meaning. But this can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake. Most of them easily grasp such basic points as: personal anecdote isn’t strong evidence; most violence against women is carried out by males; children aren’t able to consent in the way that adults do; there’s societal pressure on young lesbians and gays to be more conforming to norms for their sex. Indeed, if they didn’t grasp this standard progressive fare, they wouldn’t have got jobs at the Guardian in the first place.

Rather than being an idiot himself, a second reason why a writer might treat his audience as idiots is because he suspects that some of them are. And indeed, it seems to me that at the root of Guardian doublethink on trans issues lies some degree of contempt for readers’ intelligence. Moral sophisticates as they are bound to try to be, it seems likely that many of those pushing for an “inclusive” editorial line on trans issues, to the exclusion of other viewpoints, would admit in private that they at least understood gender-critical reservations. Yet it appears that they won’t allow untrammelled voice to be given to those reservations because they fear that if they did, stupid people might be influenced to do bad things because of it. Some degree of technocratic smuggery seems implicit here, and, ironically, probably a class element too. As a highly-educated person with wider expertise and a sounder moral compass than many of your readers, you think it’s part of your job to anticipate the highly emotive and irrational ways in which ignorant people might react to certain bits of information, should they read them, and then adjust the information accordingly.

Nor is this impulse to micro-manage other people’s minds solely reserved for the Guardian’s coverage of transactivism. In a recent piece laced with finger-wagging about Kanye West, no room could be left for readers to decide for themselves what the interplay might be between West’s antisemitic tirades and his bipolar manic episodes. Instead, its author primly informed readers that: “Medical experts have underscored that mental health struggles and bigotry are separate problems.” A few days earlier, a piece by a different Guardian journalist included a near-identical phrase: “medical experts and advocates warn that his bigotry and mental health struggles are separate problems.” Good old “medical experts” — speaking with one voice, particularly skilled at diagnosing bigotry by looking at a person’s tonsils, and always on hand to back up a flailing author who is trying to stop presumed idiots from getting the wrong end of the stick.

It is true that we live in a time of proliferating misunderstandings and disinformation, and that the internet is largely the culprit. Most interlocutors online are strangers, about which we can tell practically nothing about their credibility or expertise. Authorial intentions are hard to gauge, tone and nuance tend to go missing, and reduced character limits and attention spans make matters worse. But this is all the more reason for broadsheets with large readerships to explore a complete range of viewpoints on controversial matters, relatively unfettered and at length.

And in practice, Guardian readers should be more than able to handle exposure to unorthodox positions, and to make up their minds about them without heavy-handed mental steering. According to its own website, the paper’s audience is skewed towards the social grade of “AB” — i.e. “higher and intermediate managerial, administrative, professional occupations”. Yet at least some of these readers seem not to mind the fact they are frequently treated like foolish children, and even to positively like it. Survey after survey seems to indicate that the paper occupies a uniquely “trusted” position in UK public life. I can only conclude this is because, alongside its editors and journalists, many readers agree with editors that it’s part of the moral mission of the Guardian to avoid inflaming weak-minded people. Though of course, they probably don’t think this applies to themselves.

In 2017, editor Katharine Viner wrote rousingly that one of the core values of the Guardian is “building hope”. In service of this aim, she wrote, “the Guardian will embrace as wide a range of progressive perspectives as possible. We will support policies and ideas, but we will not give uncritical backing to parties or individuals. We will also engage with and publish voices from the right. In an age of tumultuous change, nobody has a monopoly on good ideas.” Despite the overtly moralised aim here, there are still intimations of intellectual openness, at least in theory. Yet in practice, under Viner’s editorship there has been an obvious straitening of perspective, responding to the Left’s growing fear of populism by becoming ever more nannying in outlook, and becoming far too keen to give some readers what they want other readers to hear. When it comes to sowing disinformation, at least by omission the Guardian is now emphatically part of the problem and not part of the solution. Historically so fond of moral missions, it should perhaps get itself a new one, and start trusting readers to be able to think for themselves.


Kathleen Stock is an UnHerd columnist and a co-director of The Lesbian Project.
Docstockk

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

239 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zak Orn
Zak Orn
1 year ago

To be fair, any reader who still takes the guardian seriously probably IS an idiot. I occasionally still frequent it out of curiosity but it’s always the same, incredibly overprivileged authors who are desperate to paint themselves as victims (or heroes) with stories that are completely detached from reality and the comment section is no better. It’s truly a pathetic sight to behold.

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I was banned by the Guardian so many times they finally wore me out and I gave up commenting – although really because they stopped allowing comments on 99% of the stories because it was increasingly hard to get the outcome they wished. (and I must say I was respectful, and always used, quotes, C and P from good sources, or links to show this was not my opinion, but a proper study, anytime appropriate, and never trolled)

But – the writer here, being a Philosophy professor by trade may not know much of the world fringe, like us anti-vaxers do. The big thing now is to be against all Covid response and the vax – and one of the main names is Matis Desmet, who has the third reason, and the best reason, that Guardian Lies every story, and the readers take it as truth – ‘‘Mass Formation” (psychosis is sometimes added)

Mass Formation gave us a explanation for all the most famous heinous times citizens just went crazy with a charismatic leader and did things like cause WWII. Like how the very good German people, Twice 20+ years, suddenly went crazy and to a war of conquest and slaughter. Mass Formation – all covid was Mass Formation, and also a crime against humanity. It is in his book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’. It is exactly what has taken the Guardian readers, crazy stuff. As Matias says – it makes no difference if the cause makes no sense, or is obviously lies – none at all, once the Formation has arisen

”The world is in the grips of mass formation―a dangerous, collective type of hypnosis―as we bear witness to loneliness, free-floating anxiety, and fear giving way to censorship, loss of privacy, and surrendered freedoms. It is all spurred by a singular, focused crisis narrative that forbids dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.
Desmet’s work on mass formation theory was brought to the world’s attention on The Joe Rogan Experience and in major alternative news outlets around the globe. Read this book to get beyond the sound bites!
Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation―from the Jacobins to the Na* is and Stalinists―as technology advances.”

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Totalitarianism-Mattias-Desmet/dp/1645021726/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1670559284&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-1+

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

I had an identical experience at the Guardian.

I too went out of my way to adhere to community guidelines but still, without fail, my account was disabled each and every time within 3 months.

My conclusion was that in such an environment – where the groupthink is so strong – any dissent typically results in an hysterical response from the radicalised readership, so a comment that doesn’t toe the line or actively challenges prevailing persectives *always* provokes people. Myself and others that lend a different point of view can therefore always be accused of trolling and booted off.

The funiest thing though is that historically, the disabling of my account always follows very well upticked remarks that are then deleted post hoc; a spiteful punishment no doubt from the moderators who are tired of having to read things they don’t like or scared of others reading them.

AL Crowe
AL Crowe
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

I got banned from commenting on the Guardian for the first time more than three years ago. I believe the combination of my disagreement with their writers (always expressed politely) and the number of upvotes I was receiving was the reason for my first account being disabled, as I somehow represented a threat to their groupthink.

My subsequent accounts got deleted after only a handful of months until I too simply gave up and went over to the Daily Mail instead (I had similar issues with the Independent’s comment sections, and the Mail seems to actively desire bickering within their comments sections, so offers a far less censorious space so long as you ignore the sidebar of shame and the excess of stories on royals and celebrities).

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AL Crowe

Of course- it was your extraordinary popularity that got you banned. That’ll definitely be it.
Personal delusion aside, I’ve been banned twice from Cif, and I’m an evil Lefty. It is indeed very easy to get moderated there- being ‘off-topic’, mild abuse, excessive sarcasm are all disallowed, excessively so. As is scientific disinformation, a fact that drives ‘The planet is getting cooler’ and ‘vaccines are chips implanted by Bill Gates’ types hysterical.
But its a self-serving myth that dissenting voices per se are banned. For example, the comments below two recent articles about Just Stop Oil were around three to one in favour of driving SUVs over the vile, “middle class” bodies of these desicable “virtue-signallers”- hardly the Guardian line.
Sorry to interrupt the free-flowing of the mutual narrative here, but there you go.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was banned merely for linking a scientific peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of sexual reassignment surgery. The problem with the Guardian is that it presents its opinion pieces as inarguable facts. I disagree with many of your lop-sided comments here but I wouldn’t want to see you banned.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What is Ci f?

Richard Irons
Richard Irons
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Comment is free. It’s the Guarniads umbrella term for all comment, both journalist and reader.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Irons

No , the Grauniad does not believe in freedom of speech and expression . I’ve know the paper for many decades and it was not too bad once but for years now it has gone full on Marxist .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Irons

No , the Grauniad does not believe in freedom of speech and expression . I’ve know the paper for many decades and it was not too bad once but for years now it has gone full on Marxist .

Richard Irons
Richard Irons
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Comment is free. It’s the Guarniads umbrella term for all comment, both journalist and reader.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Let’s try the Nuffield report on why people voted for Brexit. The one that also noted that people who voted remain had failed to understand peoples reasons for voting leave.
Presumably you would consider that scientific misinformation?

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Demonstrably untrue . The Guardian doesnt allow comments from anyone on much of its output.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was banned merely for linking a scientific peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of sexual reassignment surgery. The problem with the Guardian is that it presents its opinion pieces as inarguable facts. I disagree with many of your lop-sided comments here but I wouldn’t want to see you banned.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What is Ci f?

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Let’s try the Nuffield report on why people voted for Brexit. The one that also noted that people who voted remain had failed to understand peoples reasons for voting leave.
Presumably you would consider that scientific misinformation?

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Demonstrably untrue . The Guardian doesnt allow comments from anyone on much of its output.

Richard Webster
Richard Webster
1 year ago
Reply to  AL Crowe

You’ve obviously found your “intellectual”home.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AL Crowe

Of course- it was your extraordinary popularity that got you banned. That’ll definitely be it.
Personal delusion aside, I’ve been banned twice from Cif, and I’m an evil Lefty. It is indeed very easy to get moderated there- being ‘off-topic’, mild abuse, excessive sarcasm are all disallowed, excessively so. As is scientific disinformation, a fact that drives ‘The planet is getting cooler’ and ‘vaccines are chips implanted by Bill Gates’ types hysterical.
But its a self-serving myth that dissenting voices per se are banned. For example, the comments below two recent articles about Just Stop Oil were around three to one in favour of driving SUVs over the vile, “middle class” bodies of these desicable “virtue-signallers”- hardly the Guardian line.
Sorry to interrupt the free-flowing of the mutual narrative here, but there you go.

Richard Webster
Richard Webster
1 year ago
Reply to  AL Crowe

You’ve obviously found your “intellectual”home.

AL Crowe
AL Crowe
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

I got banned from commenting on the Guardian for the first time more than three years ago. I believe the combination of my disagreement with their writers (always expressed politely) and the number of upvotes I was receiving was the reason for my first account being disabled, as I somehow represented a threat to their groupthink.

My subsequent accounts got deleted after only a handful of months until I too simply gave up and went over to the Daily Mail instead (I had similar issues with the Independent’s comment sections, and the Mail seems to actively desire bickering within their comments sections, so offers a far less censorious space so long as you ignore the sidebar of shame and the excess of stories on royals and celebrities).

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Worth noting, Bill and Melinda have paid the Guardian off.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
And they still have the big yellow banner which claims:
“This kept us fiercely independent, free from shareholders or a billionaire owner.”

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

The Guardian today is all about promoting Marxism and misinformation , sorry , lies about conservatives .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

The Guardian today is all about promoting Marxism and misinformation , sorry , lies about conservatives .

Gol Gulok
Gol Gulok
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Snap! They Banned me from posting. For posting a Comment on a Gushing Article about Hillary Clinton after she effectively stole the DNC Nomination from Bernie Sanders… my post: “Well done Murica… you just put Trump in the Whitehouse!” Haha, admittedly that was a bit cheeky. But, I had very good reasons for posting that comment and indeed was in time proven right. The comment received getting on 300 responses of vile abuse aimed at me. And then banned me… Since Alan Rusbridger left, the Guardian has become insufferable.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Gol Gulok

Well your comment was correct – it did put Trump in the White House. One poll of people who said they would vote Trump said that 37% had serious doubts about him. It was just the other choice was so awful.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The reason that such a large % of folk had grave doubts about him was because almost all of the corrupt media was and still is extreme left and to win anything while fighting against that lot is truly an accomplishment ! And that is why Pres.Trump had such a hard Presidency , the media was telling lies about him right from the beginning , it’s called TDS remember and the lefty media did exactly the same to him in the UK where before the election he was actually a very popular man . They just lied and lied and continue to lie , shamelessly .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The reason that such a large % of folk had grave doubts about him was because almost all of the corrupt media was and still is extreme left and to win anything while fighting against that lot is truly an accomplishment ! And that is why Pres.Trump had such a hard Presidency , the media was telling lies about him right from the beginning , it’s called TDS remember and the lefty media did exactly the same to him in the UK where before the election he was actually a very popular man . They just lied and lied and continue to lie , shamelessly .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Gol Gulok

To be honest Gol I was never very impressed with Rusbridger either .

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Gol Gulok

Well your comment was correct – it did put Trump in the White House. One poll of people who said they would vote Trump said that 37% had serious doubts about him. It was just the other choice was so awful.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Gol Gulok

To be honest Gol I was never very impressed with Rusbridger either .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

I was targetted and banned by them years ago , community guidelines are nonsense and they just allow the young Marxist censors to ban anyone immediately they find they are conservative . We mustn’t be allowed to upset free run at recruiting every teenager into Marxism by filling their heads with lies about conservatives .

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

I had an identical experience at the Guardian.

I too went out of my way to adhere to community guidelines but still, without fail, my account was disabled each and every time within 3 months.

My conclusion was that in such an environment – where the groupthink is so strong – any dissent typically results in an hysterical response from the radicalised readership, so a comment that doesn’t toe the line or actively challenges prevailing persectives *always* provokes people. Myself and others that lend a different point of view can therefore always be accused of trolling and booted off.

The funiest thing though is that historically, the disabling of my account always follows very well upticked remarks that are then deleted post hoc; a spiteful punishment no doubt from the moderators who are tired of having to read things they don’t like or scared of others reading them.

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Worth noting, Bill and Melinda have paid the Guardian off.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
And they still have the big yellow banner which claims:
“This kept us fiercely independent, free from shareholders or a billionaire owner.”

Gol Gulok
Gol Gulok
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Snap! They Banned me from posting. For posting a Comment on a Gushing Article about Hillary Clinton after she effectively stole the DNC Nomination from Bernie Sanders… my post: “Well done Murica… you just put Trump in the Whitehouse!” Haha, admittedly that was a bit cheeky. But, I had very good reasons for posting that comment and indeed was in time proven right. The comment received getting on 300 responses of vile abuse aimed at me. And then banned me… Since Alan Rusbridger left, the Guardian has become insufferable.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

I was targetted and banned by them years ago , community guidelines are nonsense and they just allow the young Marxist censors to ban anyone immediately they find they are conservative . We mustn’t be allowed to upset free run at recruiting every teenager into Marxism by filling their heads with lies about conservatives .

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

Yes, I force myself to read it a couple of times a month. It’s f*****g difficult.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

But hilarious too – they are just so deluded.

Peter Hamilton
Peter Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

I must try this

Peter Hamilton
Peter Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

I must try this

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I just can’t any more.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

But hilarious too – they are just so deluded.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

I just can’t any more.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I go through phases where I comment on Guardian articles on FB…. Something akin to lobbing a hand grenade into the midst from afar, then retreating from the fray completely. Just a bit of fun because they are so stuck in the basket of ideas that they have signed up for and are oh so earnest.
interestingly I did comment yesterday on what I think of Haz and Megs and Netflix and it has been super well received in the main. Gotta think about that one. It looks like the basket of ideas has a tiny bit of fraying at the edges.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

That unexpected response is a bit like the Washington Post to which I subscribe in order to get insights into American progressives – almost always on the woke side but just sometimes you see readers reacting against woke. The readers berated any criticism of the Queen by the WaPo for example.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“..berated any criticism of the Queen..”
So being ‘unwoke’ involves free opinions about the monarchy being unacceptable and not allowed?
Are we still complaining about the `Guardian being closed-minded and intolerant? Help me out here…

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I agree you need help. The readers disagreed with WaPo’s woke position on the monarchy and the Queen. That doesn’t make them closeminded. How is that intolerant? I doubt any of those readers said anything about negative opinions of the monarchy being “unacceptable and not allowed.” Not very clever.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No, it was READERS berating the criticism of the Queen. Very different from the media banning or deleting dissent. Try and keep up feller.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan Trimble

Thanks – maybe I wasn’t clear enough!

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan Trimble

Thanks – maybe I wasn’t clear enough!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I agree you need help. The readers disagreed with WaPo’s woke position on the monarchy and the Queen. That doesn’t make them closeminded. How is that intolerant? I doubt any of those readers said anything about negative opinions of the monarchy being “unacceptable and not allowed.” Not very clever.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No, it was READERS berating the criticism of the Queen. Very different from the media banning or deleting dissent. Try and keep up feller.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian Stewart

“..berated any criticism of the Queen..”
So being ‘unwoke’ involves free opinions about the monarchy being unacceptable and not allowed?
Are we still complaining about the `Guardian being closed-minded and intolerant? Help me out here…

Lesley Keay
Lesley Keay
1 year ago

my husband does much the same.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

…fraying at the edges..”
Not really- given that the official`guardian review of the programme described it as “sick-making”, and not in a good way.

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

That unexpected response is a bit like the Washington Post to which I subscribe in order to get insights into American progressives – almost always on the woke side but just sometimes you see readers reacting against woke. The readers berated any criticism of the Queen by the WaPo for example.

Lesley Keay
Lesley Keay
1 year ago

my husband does much the same.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

…fraying at the edges..”
Not really- given that the official`guardian review of the programme described it as “sick-making”, and not in a good way.

David L
David L
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

Anyone who reads the Guardian is either stupid or evil. Usually both.

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but I’m guessing you are not being 100% serious

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

You’d only know that if you’ve read the Guardian.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

Do you mean “anyone who believes it”? I read it to see what modern national socialists think. We all have some contact with the public sector even if we minimise it. The grauniad is a sacred text to many of them like the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal are to his followers. Their neurolinguistics display the texts’ central tenets. So you can tell the true beleivers from those hanging on for the ride after the Kool Aid wore off. Whilst both are dangerous the latter are not complete automata and some human connection with them is possible. I accept we are all capable of some evil and stupidity sometimes but the “true believers”, whatever their beliefs, always seem to get the high scores.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

Very true David, decades ago it used to be OK but for years now it is an evil propaganda sheet for the Marxists .

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but I’m guessing you are not being 100% serious

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

You’d only know that if you’ve read the Guardian.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

Do you mean “anyone who believes it”? I read it to see what modern national socialists think. We all have some contact with the public sector even if we minimise it. The grauniad is a sacred text to many of them like the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal are to his followers. Their neurolinguistics display the texts’ central tenets. So you can tell the true beleivers from those hanging on for the ride after the Kool Aid wore off. Whilst both are dangerous the latter are not complete automata and some human connection with them is possible. I accept we are all capable of some evil and stupidity sometimes but the “true believers”, whatever their beliefs, always seem to get the high scores.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  David L

Very true David, decades ago it used to be OK but for years now it is an evil propaganda sheet for the Marxists .

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I am increasingly unable to tolerate the Guardian.

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Think of it as a challenge. You rage you loose.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

*lose

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

*lose

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Don’t then , or do you just mean it’s very existence ? I would agree with that if I didn’t believe in freedom of speech .

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Think of it as a challenge. You rage you loose.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Don’t then , or do you just mean it’s very existence ? I would agree with that if I didn’t believe in freedom of speech .

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I see the NYT, the New Yorker, The Boston Globe, LA Times and the New Yorker in much the same way.
Just not worth the time anymore.
Funny, did you watch the Munk Debate on whether the Mainstream Media is to be trusted? The “No” side won by a record margin.
I pay a bundle for Substacks by Taibbi, Weis and others. Probably $300 a year in total. Plus I pay here. Canceled my cable because I wont waste time on CNN, FOX or MSNBC and I get everything else from streaming services. The NYT is always sending me emails offering me cheap subscriptions for like a dollar a week or such. Never once been tempted to sign up.
At some point you have to think that the economics of people bailing on them is gonna smack them in the head and cause them to wake up, but I have my doubts.
THOUGH, I wonder about what is going on at CNN.

jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

I’d be willing to bet they’d find funders in the elite who value the corporate press’s narrative-forming function in that case, if it’s not already happening

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

CNN actually feels like it’s become a bit less woke recently.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Do you believe it ? They came under new ownership but has the boss kept his promise yet , is there any reputation to salvage ?

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Do you believe it ? They came under new ownership but has the boss kept his promise yet , is there any reputation to salvage ?

Edgar Wallner
Edgar Wallner
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

The most interesting thing about the excellent Munk debate was that the prior vote was highly in favour of trusting the media but this was reversed by the post

jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

I’d be willing to bet they’d find funders in the elite who value the corporate press’s narrative-forming function in that case, if it’s not already happening

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

CNN actually feels like it’s become a bit less woke recently.

Edgar Wallner
Edgar Wallner
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

The most interesting thing about the excellent Munk debate was that the prior vote was highly in favour of trusting the media but this was reversed by the post

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

“All the virtue signaling that’s fit to print “

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I was banned by the Guardian so many times they finally wore me out and I gave up commenting – although really because they stopped allowing comments on 99% of the stories because it was increasingly hard to get the outcome they wished. (and I must say I was respectful, and always used, quotes, C and P from good sources, or links to show this was not my opinion, but a proper study, anytime appropriate, and never trolled)

But – the writer here, being a Philosophy professor by trade may not know much of the world fringe, like us anti-vaxers do. The big thing now is to be against all Covid response and the vax – and one of the main names is Matis Desmet, who has the third reason, and the best reason, that Guardian Lies every story, and the readers take it as truth – ‘‘Mass Formation” (psychosis is sometimes added)

Mass Formation gave us a explanation for all the most famous heinous times citizens just went crazy with a charismatic leader and did things like cause WWII. Like how the very good German people, Twice 20+ years, suddenly went crazy and to a war of conquest and slaughter. Mass Formation – all covid was Mass Formation, and also a crime against humanity. It is in his book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’. It is exactly what has taken the Guardian readers, crazy stuff. As Matias says – it makes no difference if the cause makes no sense, or is obviously lies – none at all, once the Formation has arisen

”The world is in the grips of mass formation―a dangerous, collective type of hypnosis―as we bear witness to loneliness, free-floating anxiety, and fear giving way to censorship, loss of privacy, and surrendered freedoms. It is all spurred by a singular, focused crisis narrative that forbids dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.
Desmet’s work on mass formation theory was brought to the world’s attention on The Joe Rogan Experience and in major alternative news outlets around the globe. Read this book to get beyond the sound bites!
Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation―from the Jacobins to the Na* is and Stalinists―as technology advances.”

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Totalitarianism-Mattias-Desmet/dp/1645021726/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1670559284&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-1+

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

Yes, I force myself to read it a couple of times a month. It’s f*****g difficult.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I go through phases where I comment on Guardian articles on FB…. Something akin to lobbing a hand grenade into the midst from afar, then retreating from the fray completely. Just a bit of fun because they are so stuck in the basket of ideas that they have signed up for and are oh so earnest.
interestingly I did comment yesterday on what I think of Haz and Megs and Netflix and it has been super well received in the main. Gotta think about that one. It looks like the basket of ideas has a tiny bit of fraying at the edges.

David L
David L
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

Anyone who reads the Guardian is either stupid or evil. Usually both.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I am increasingly unable to tolerate the Guardian.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

I see the NYT, the New Yorker, The Boston Globe, LA Times and the New Yorker in much the same way.
Just not worth the time anymore.
Funny, did you watch the Munk Debate on whether the Mainstream Media is to be trusted? The “No” side won by a record margin.
I pay a bundle for Substacks by Taibbi, Weis and others. Probably $300 a year in total. Plus I pay here. Canceled my cable because I wont waste time on CNN, FOX or MSNBC and I get everything else from streaming services. The NYT is always sending me emails offering me cheap subscriptions for like a dollar a week or such. Never once been tempted to sign up.
At some point you have to think that the economics of people bailing on them is gonna smack them in the head and cause them to wake up, but I have my doubts.
THOUGH, I wonder about what is going on at CNN.

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

“All the virtue signaling that’s fit to print “

Zak Orn
Zak Orn
1 year ago

To be fair, any reader who still takes the guardian seriously probably IS an idiot. I occasionally still frequent it out of curiosity but it’s always the same, incredibly overprivileged authors who are desperate to paint themselves as victims (or heroes) with stories that are completely detached from reality and the comment section is no better. It’s truly a pathetic sight to behold.

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago

The Guardian is trusted by millions of earnest – but often naive – mildly left-leaning readers who haven’t noticed or understood the ideological transition it has made from being a newspaper on the rational liberal left to a critical social justice theory propaganda rag.

Lennon Ó Náraigh
Lennon Ó Náraigh
1 year ago

For me, “Peak Guardian” was in 2015, with the publication of a story about how George Osborne and his budget ruined some columnist’s Yoga retreat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/george-osborne-ruined-yoga-retreat

John Dee
John Dee
1 year ago

You must admit that a ripple or two in your expensive serenity would be a tad annoying?
I wondered why anyone on a yoga retreat would be accessing the outside world for the duration, so his/her/its own fault, really.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Dee
Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago

Peak? It’s positively Himalyan. These self-regarding, privileged Guardian writers have no shame.

John Dee
John Dee
1 year ago

You must admit that a ripple or two in your expensive serenity would be a tad annoying?
I wondered why anyone on a yoga retreat would be accessing the outside world for the duration, so his/her/its own fault, really.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Dee
Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago

Peak? It’s positively Himalyan. These self-regarding, privileged Guardian writers have no shame.

Mel Shaw
Mel Shaw
1 year ago

I think “millions” might be overdoing it a little.

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

Ha! Ha! Maybe.

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

I notice their online articles being shared a lot by US based people on social media. So they possibly have millions of people glancing at their shallow signalling – but not paying the subs.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

As long as eyeballs hit the screen, they collect $.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

As long as eyeballs hit the screen, they collect $.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

In their own minds maybe !

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

Ha! Ha! Maybe.

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

I notice their online articles being shared a lot by US based people on social media. So they possibly have millions of people glancing at their shallow signalling – but not paying the subs.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Mel Shaw

In their own minds maybe !

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago

Not sure they have millions of readers anymore. Judging by the ever expanding size of the begging letter at the bottom of the website, I’m not sure its even hundreds of thousands now.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

The last time that the Guardian released circulation figures was in 2020 (since then they say that they will no longer be releasing circulation figures). In 2020 it was 0.13M. For comparison The Telegraph was 0.36M, The Times 0.37M, the Financial Times 0.16M, the Daily Mirror 0,45M, the Daily Mail 1.17M.

John Dee
John Dee
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I often avail myself of one of the Graun’s very decent cryptic crosswords, but only visit the ‘news’ bit so I can see those plaintive cries…

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I think you’ve sussed it Andrew .

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

The last time that the Guardian released circulation figures was in 2020 (since then they say that they will no longer be releasing circulation figures). In 2020 it was 0.13M. For comparison The Telegraph was 0.36M, The Times 0.37M, the Financial Times 0.16M, the Daily Mirror 0,45M, the Daily Mail 1.17M.

John Dee
John Dee
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I often avail myself of one of the Graun’s very decent cryptic crosswords, but only visit the ‘news’ bit so I can see those plaintive cries…

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I think you’ve sussed it Andrew .

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

Indeed. Most newspapers used to contain news articles dealing with events along with an editorial that presented the Editor’s opinion about what those events mean to the reader. The Guardian started shading its reporting some time ago, relying on named contributors to strengthen the Editorial opinions.
And now… most newspapers have become more editorial. The Guardian used to assert that ‘Facts are sacred’ but in practice ‘Opinions are cheap and easy’.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

The same thing happened with the NYT. But this has one-sided journalism has been the strategy for several years now. Only cater to your side. There is no honest reporting anymore. Or at least I have not found any that merely report what happened vs. tell me what I should believe happened.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

Mildly left ?

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  paul castle

Yes. The ‘useful idiots’ who accept the Trojan horses.

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago
Reply to  paul castle

Yes. The ‘useful idiots’ who accept the Trojan horses.

Lennon Ó Náraigh
Lennon Ó Náraigh
1 year ago

For me, “Peak Guardian” was in 2015, with the publication of a story about how George Osborne and his budget ruined some columnist’s Yoga retreat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/george-osborne-ruined-yoga-retreat

Mel Shaw
Mel Shaw
1 year ago

I think “millions” might be overdoing it a little.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago

Not sure they have millions of readers anymore. Judging by the ever expanding size of the begging letter at the bottom of the website, I’m not sure its even hundreds of thousands now.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

Indeed. Most newspapers used to contain news articles dealing with events along with an editorial that presented the Editor’s opinion about what those events mean to the reader. The Guardian started shading its reporting some time ago, relying on named contributors to strengthen the Editorial opinions.
And now… most newspapers have become more editorial. The Guardian used to assert that ‘Facts are sacred’ but in practice ‘Opinions are cheap and easy’.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

The same thing happened with the NYT. But this has one-sided journalism has been the strategy for several years now. Only cater to your side. There is no honest reporting anymore. Or at least I have not found any that merely report what happened vs. tell me what I should believe happened.

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

Mildly left ?

Richard Atkinson
Richard Atkinson
1 year ago

The Guardian is trusted by millions of earnest – but often naive – mildly left-leaning readers who haven’t noticed or understood the ideological transition it has made from being a newspaper on the rational liberal left to a critical social justice theory propaganda rag.

Alex Klaushofer
Alex Klaushofer
1 year ago

I stopped reading the Guardian in 2020 having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit. It was partly the idiocy you describe – treating people as idiots makes the treater sound daft too – but more than that it was the sense of there being a line combined with an attitude of overwhelming superiority. For me, the stance on Covid was the last straw, but when I thought about it, the editorial condescension went much further back. One particular example springs to mind: I’d had a piece commissioned on Lebanese refugees in Britain in 2006. It was spiked by Katherine Viner as section editor because their comments didn’t conform to what she’d expected: she clearly had a view of people and events in that part of the world that was entirely at odds with reality, one that was stereotypical and sensationalised for anyone who knew anything about it. Much later, in the Albanian capital of Tirana, I learnt how a Guardian piece aligned with what was the official political narrative – local contacts had offered a wider view that was completely disregarded. So all this to say that the problem with the Guardian is much bigger than the trans issue – it’s about having a ‘correct’ view of the world that must be imposed on readers. It’s ideological detachment from reality par excellence.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“…having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit”
So what is your excuse?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

No idea why you got all those downvotes for your mild tongue-in-cheek comment.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

And no one felt strongly enough to leave a comment.
Also, the Guardian has always beyond the pale.
Those people who are now recanting, well its a bit like saying I used to be into porn but it has all gone a bit too far now.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

And no one felt strongly enough to leave a comment.
Also, the Guardian has always beyond the pale.
Those people who are now recanting, well its a bit like saying I used to be into porn but it has all gone a bit too far now.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

No idea why you got all those downvotes for your mild tongue-in-cheek comment.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“…having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit”
So what is your excuse?

Alex Klaushofer
Alex Klaushofer
1 year ago

I stopped reading the Guardian in 2020 having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit. It was partly the idiocy you describe – treating people as idiots makes the treater sound daft too – but more than that it was the sense of there being a line combined with an attitude of overwhelming superiority. For me, the stance on Covid was the last straw, but when I thought about it, the editorial condescension went much further back. One particular example springs to mind: I’d had a piece commissioned on Lebanese refugees in Britain in 2006. It was spiked by Katherine Viner as section editor because their comments didn’t conform to what she’d expected: she clearly had a view of people and events in that part of the world that was entirely at odds with reality, one that was stereotypical and sensationalised for anyone who knew anything about it. Much later, in the Albanian capital of Tirana, I learnt how a Guardian piece aligned with what was the official political narrative – local contacts had offered a wider view that was completely disregarded. So all this to say that the problem with the Guardian is much bigger than the trans issue – it’s about having a ‘correct’ view of the world that must be imposed on readers. It’s ideological detachment from reality par excellence.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago

My son is a trans man, Kathleen, and I am one of your biggest fans. I think it’s trans people’s internalized self contempt (and the contempt for trans people that the activists are so desperate to hide) that has fueled the insane attacks against you and other GC feminists.
My son is an adult human female with sex dysphoria. There is no cure for this, so he has had to settle for palliative care in the form of medical transition, (which is extremely risky and will probably shorten his life). As his mother, this terrifies me, and I can’t imagine anyone allowing their minor child to go through this.
My son is not represented by the nutjob TRA’s who claim to represent him. He accepts his female sex, and has no interest in erasing female biology from reproduction. He jokes that “you have to really be secure in your masculinity when you have a vagina.”
My son is happy, loved, and self accepting, which I believe is WHY he has no issue with the fact that trans men are trans men, and trans women are trans women.
SEX MATTERS! If it didn’t, why would anyone transition? Why would homosexuality exist?
I despise trans activists for making people like my wonderful son look hysterical and vicious.
I also despise them for the danger they put my son in by denying biological sex: can you imagine the horror of putting a trans man in a men’s prison? Trans men have vaginas, and they are smaller than biological men. It would be an atrocity. But TRA’s are silent on this issue.
Anyway, when those bastards attack you remember there are thousands of people like me cheering you on.
Your courage is inspiring.
Also – I used to read the Guardian religiously and now it isn’t fit to line a bird cage.

Huw Parker
Huw Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

That’s a brave and illuminating post. Great respect to you.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Very insightful and helpful for those struggling to understand the issue.

Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Great post, Penny. Good luck to you and your son.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Kudos for your parenting and love for your child.
My only quibble, and it is a serious one, is the distortion of language, particularly when it comes to proper nouns being no longer labels but classifiers, and pronouns being no longer substitute classifiers of proper nouns, but now common nouns as classifiers.
So as Andy Lewis says, This is not … an exerciser in “chang[ing] what words mean – expand meanings, perhaps contract meanings, reject prior meanings, embrace new ones.” This is an exercise in changing language so that we can avoid meanings and privilege wishes.
https://medium.com/@lecanardnoir/the-humpty-dumpty-wonderland-of-transgender-language-e0cbbecedcbc

James Longfield
James Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Total twaddle

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

A biological woman who wishes to live as a man, and feels internally masculine in some sense, is entitled to their feelings and should be treated with dignity. They should not be mocked or mistreated in any way. This is a free society.
But words have meaning. The integrity of language is the basis for every law, and every legal freedom and right, that we are lucky enough to have inherited.
I do not believe that others should feel compelled to say, believe, or pretend that a biological woman “is a man” (or vice versa) based on that person’s subjective experience or claim. A person experiencing gender dysphoria can be respectfully described in numerous ways that do not subvert the meaning of words and concepts that are central to our biological nature as human beings.

Huw Parker
Huw Parker
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

That’s a brave and illuminating post. Great respect to you.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Very insightful and helpful for those struggling to understand the issue.

Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Great post, Penny. Good luck to you and your son.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Kudos for your parenting and love for your child.
My only quibble, and it is a serious one, is the distortion of language, particularly when it comes to proper nouns being no longer labels but classifiers, and pronouns being no longer substitute classifiers of proper nouns, but now common nouns as classifiers.
So as Andy Lewis says, This is not … an exerciser in “chang[ing] what words mean – expand meanings, perhaps contract meanings, reject prior meanings, embrace new ones.” This is an exercise in changing language so that we can avoid meanings and privilege wishes.
https://medium.com/@lecanardnoir/the-humpty-dumpty-wonderland-of-transgender-language-e0cbbecedcbc

James Longfield
James Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

Total twaddle

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  Penny Adrian

A biological woman who wishes to live as a man, and feels internally masculine in some sense, is entitled to their feelings and should be treated with dignity. They should not be mocked or mistreated in any way. This is a free society.
But words have meaning. The integrity of language is the basis for every law, and every legal freedom and right, that we are lucky enough to have inherited.
I do not believe that others should feel compelled to say, believe, or pretend that a biological woman “is a man” (or vice versa) based on that person’s subjective experience or claim. A person experiencing gender dysphoria can be respectfully described in numerous ways that do not subvert the meaning of words and concepts that are central to our biological nature as human beings.

Penny Adrian
Penny Adrian
1 year ago

My son is a trans man, Kathleen, and I am one of your biggest fans. I think it’s trans people’s internalized self contempt (and the contempt for trans people that the activists are so desperate to hide) that has fueled the insane attacks against you and other GC feminists.
My son is an adult human female with sex dysphoria. There is no cure for this, so he has had to settle for palliative care in the form of medical transition, (which is extremely risky and will probably shorten his life). As his mother, this terrifies me, and I can’t imagine anyone allowing their minor child to go through this.
My son is not represented by the nutjob TRA’s who claim to represent him. He accepts his female sex, and has no interest in erasing female biology from reproduction. He jokes that “you have to really be secure in your masculinity when you have a vagina.”
My son is happy, loved, and self accepting, which I believe is WHY he has no issue with the fact that trans men are trans men, and trans women are trans women.
SEX MATTERS! If it didn’t, why would anyone transition? Why would homosexuality exist?
I despise trans activists for making people like my wonderful son look hysterical and vicious.
I also despise them for the danger they put my son in by denying biological sex: can you imagine the horror of putting a trans man in a men’s prison? Trans men have vaginas, and they are smaller than biological men. It would be an atrocity. But TRA’s are silent on this issue.
Anyway, when those bastards attack you remember there are thousands of people like me cheering you on.
Your courage is inspiring.
Also – I used to read the Guardian religiously and now it isn’t fit to line a bird cage.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

Is The Guardian sowing disinformation?
The answer has been ‘yes’ for a long time. The Guardian has always presented its views from a political viewpoint, and sometimes facts have been bent, spindled or mutilated to suit the viewpoint.
What is relatively new is the hectoring tone and suppression of debate. The Guardian may view some of its readership as stupid, some of it as needing encouragement to care about the ‘right things’, and the remainder as willing to march in lock step to a distant Utopia.
I rather suspect that the Guardian likes Authoritarianism and hopes to earn a place in the sun by supporting it.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Here’s a wonderful example of how the Guardian gently guides its readers….

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/knowsley-country-safest-labour-seat-cuts

This article spends a large amount of time telling you how poor Knowsley is. How the schools are terrible. How there’s no A levels taken there. How they are almost 100% white… urrggghhh! How stupid the people are… they even think 25% of people who live in Knowsley are foreigners.. when it’s actually 2%… the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.

Do you get it?? Only white, thick, bigoted poverty-stricken morons vote brexit. People who vote remain have degrees, drink fair trade and buy organic.

Of course, Polly omits the fact that only 51.5% voted leave, with the other 48% voting remain, which closely tracked the national vote, but nevermind all that fact nonsense. Thick white people are dangerous and can’t be trusted to make decisions of national importance. That must be left to the enlightened ones… presumably those employed by the Guardian slush fund.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago

Indeed. “the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.”
However, it’s just as valid to conclude that the least intelligent, most racist, are also the largest labour supporters in the country.
Of course, both conclusions are, or would be, extremely lazy. But then “effort” is not a word I’d use to describe Guardian journalism.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Haha.. that gave me a chuckle! Yes, the Guardian certainly lacks the qualities one would expect of a journalist… honesty, integrity, intelligence, nuance, insightfulness, a degree of self-awareness…. yet for the Guardian… there’s just a barren hectoring wasteland of wokeness.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

And the newspapers that do represent these values are….?

Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

The “Free Press”–used to be “Common Sense with Bari Weiss”. It’s a Substack with 260,000 readers and numerous writers. Give it a try!

Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

The “Free Press”–used to be “Common Sense with Bari Weiss”. It’s a Substack with 260,000 readers and numerous writers. Give it a try!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

And the newspapers that do represent these values are….?

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

Haha.. that gave me a chuckle! Yes, the Guardian certainly lacks the qualities one would expect of a journalist… honesty, integrity, intelligence, nuance, insightfulness, a degree of self-awareness…. yet for the Guardian… there’s just a barren hectoring wasteland of wokeness.

Russell L
Russell L
1 year ago

Polly’s been writing the same article for at least 20 years. I bet that you could take all her weekly articles, chop them in to sentences and run it through a computer and get an AI to auto-generate a Polly’s Weekly Rant that would be indistinguishable from the real thing.

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell L

That is surely what she does…generated by Toynbots perhaps on an automated basis

You have to imagine the Toynbee sour, critical and self righteous facial expression when reading her stuff,,,,,,,come to think of it that applies to most of the Grundida op ed pieces

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell L

McGill students who ran a satire newspaper did this with the main student newspaper’s editorials when I was there about 30 years ago. They entered all the editorials into a database and then had a program parse them into phrases and then auto generated an editorial. The result was fantastically funny even without AI help.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

“Why is the McGill daily?”
Asked the pessimist sourly
Replied the optimist gaily,
“Thank god it isn’t hourly.”

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

“Why is the McGill daily?”
Asked the pessimist sourly
Replied the optimist gaily,
“Thank god it isn’t hourly.”

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell L

That is surely what she does…generated by Toynbots perhaps on an automated basis

You have to imagine the Toynbee sour, critical and self righteous facial expression when reading her stuff,,,,,,,come to think of it that applies to most of the Grundida op ed pieces

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell L

McGill students who ran a satire newspaper did this with the main student newspaper’s editorials when I was there about 30 years ago. They entered all the editorials into a database and then had a program parse them into phrases and then auto generated an editorial. The result was fantastically funny even without AI help.

James Joyce
James Joyce
1 year ago

I was struck by the reference in a recent Guardian review of Peter Kay to “dead-end jobs”. By which the reviewer meant being an usher at Manchester Arena, or anyone working at a petrol station, cinema or shop. He must have felt confident that no such dead-end person could possibly be reading the Guardian.
I don’t think the overtly right-wing press have as much class bias as the Guardian.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Absolutely. The modern left/progressives are vastly more snobbish than the most caricatured upper class Eton educated toff.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  James Joyce

Absolutely. The modern left/progressives are vastly more snobbish than the most caricatured upper class Eton educated toff.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The funny thing is, despite your insistence on some crazed anti-white, anti-working class tirade, almost the entire article is about Conservative government financial cuts to schools and infrastructure.
How you get from that to your personal inner shouty voices about evil Lefties hating poor white people I don’t really know.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago

Indeed. “the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.”
However, it’s just as valid to conclude that the least intelligent, most racist, are also the largest labour supporters in the country.
Of course, both conclusions are, or would be, extremely lazy. But then “effort” is not a word I’d use to describe Guardian journalism.

Russell L
Russell L
1 year ago

Polly’s been writing the same article for at least 20 years. I bet that you could take all her weekly articles, chop them in to sentences and run it through a computer and get an AI to auto-generate a Polly’s Weekly Rant that would be indistinguishable from the real thing.

James Joyce
James Joyce
1 year ago

I was struck by the reference in a recent Guardian review of Peter Kay to “dead-end jobs”. By which the reviewer meant being an usher at Manchester Arena, or anyone working at a petrol station, cinema or shop. He must have felt confident that no such dead-end person could possibly be reading the Guardian.
I don’t think the overtly right-wing press have as much class bias as the Guardian.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The funny thing is, despite your insistence on some crazed anti-white, anti-working class tirade, almost the entire article is about Conservative government financial cuts to schools and infrastructure.
How you get from that to your personal inner shouty voices about evil Lefties hating poor white people I don’t really know.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

This doesn’t apply solely to the Guardian. Many organizations are going this way: schools, universities, publishers, social media, governmental bodies, scientific societies, activist groups, toy and gaming companies, academic journals, law firms, the military, movie studios etc, etc. They’re busy creating a false morality system to replace inconvenient and obstinate Christianity and other Western values, hence the anti-white and anti-Western rhetoric we are often subjected to.
Wokeism, for lack of a better word, has been the perfect tool with which to browbeat and demoralize the masses. It’s basically institutional bullying at a monstrous level. All are engaging in it in the hopes of becoming a major power broker in the Neo-feudal system they envision for us.
We need to monitor all the institutions and individuals involved in this cultural-putsch and hold them accountable for the role they’ve played in trying to ‘colonize’ us.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

The last generation of “journalists” didn’t take up the trade for anything other than changing the world. You don’t change the world by merely reporting on stories, but creating them.

Fletcher Christian
Fletcher Christian
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Here’s a wonderful example of how the Guardian gently guides its readers….

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/knowsley-country-safest-labour-seat-cuts

This article spends a large amount of time telling you how poor Knowsley is. How the schools are terrible. How there’s no A levels taken there. How they are almost 100% white… urrggghhh! How stupid the people are… they even think 25% of people who live in Knowsley are foreigners.. when it’s actually 2%… the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.

Do you get it?? Only white, thick, bigoted poverty-stricken morons vote brexit. People who vote remain have degrees, drink fair trade and buy organic.

Of course, Polly omits the fact that only 51.5% voted leave, with the other 48% voting remain, which closely tracked the national vote, but nevermind all that fact nonsense. Thick white people are dangerous and can’t be trusted to make decisions of national importance. That must be left to the enlightened ones… presumably those employed by the Guardian slush fund.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

This doesn’t apply solely to the Guardian. Many organizations are going this way: schools, universities, publishers, social media, governmental bodies, scientific societies, activist groups, toy and gaming companies, academic journals, law firms, the military, movie studios etc, etc. They’re busy creating a false morality system to replace inconvenient and obstinate Christianity and other Western values, hence the anti-white and anti-Western rhetoric we are often subjected to.
Wokeism, for lack of a better word, has been the perfect tool with which to browbeat and demoralize the masses. It’s basically institutional bullying at a monstrous level. All are engaging in it in the hopes of becoming a major power broker in the Neo-feudal system they envision for us.
We need to monitor all the institutions and individuals involved in this cultural-putsch and hold them accountable for the role they’ve played in trying to ‘colonize’ us.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

The last generation of “journalists” didn’t take up the trade for anything other than changing the world. You don’t change the world by merely reporting on stories, but creating them.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

Is The Guardian sowing disinformation?
The answer has been ‘yes’ for a long time. The Guardian has always presented its views from a political viewpoint, and sometimes facts have been bent, spindled or mutilated to suit the viewpoint.
What is relatively new is the hectoring tone and suppression of debate. The Guardian may view some of its readership as stupid, some of it as needing encouragement to care about the ‘right things’, and the remainder as willing to march in lock step to a distant Utopia.
I rather suspect that the Guardian likes Authoritarianism and hopes to earn a place in the sun by supporting it.

Ben J
Ben J
1 year ago

I have long considered Guardian readers idiots and the rag itself risible (or a clever parody). I am pleased very clever people of a left-wing persuasion like Professor Stock have finally worked it out too.

Ben J
Ben J
1 year ago

I have long considered Guardian readers idiots and the rag itself risible (or a clever parody). I am pleased very clever people of a left-wing persuasion like Professor Stock have finally worked it out too.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Over the past twenty years this country has witnessed the largest upward transfer of wealth in its history. Metropolitan Guardian readers have been among the main beneficiaries of the housing bonanza and the collapse in real wages. Why would they not want to change the subject?

We should never forget that it was a middle class Labour government that changed the way that RPI is calculated in order to conceal from its owner voters just how damaging it’s policies had been for them.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I don’t recall the change in RPI except when it was replaced by CPI and, although this was for reasonable reasons, it does, even more than RPI overlook house price inflation.

Indeed you are right there has been a shift in wealth to the laptop classes, an unwarranted and unfair shift.

I say this and I regard myself as being on the right for economics. I think for decades, our governments have protected some I the guise of protecting the poor.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I don’t recall the change in RPI except when it was replaced by CPI and, although this was for reasonable reasons, it does, even more than RPI overlook house price inflation.

Indeed you are right there has been a shift in wealth to the laptop classes, an unwarranted and unfair shift.

I say this and I regard myself as being on the right for economics. I think for decades, our governments have protected some I the guise of protecting the poor.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Over the past twenty years this country has witnessed the largest upward transfer of wealth in its history. Metropolitan Guardian readers have been among the main beneficiaries of the housing bonanza and the collapse in real wages. Why would they not want to change the subject?

We should never forget that it was a middle class Labour government that changed the way that RPI is calculated in order to conceal from its owner voters just how damaging it’s policies had been for them.

Huw Parker
Huw Parker
1 year ago

The newspaper business is particularly difficult right now. Give it five years, and I suspect the Guardian / Observer will no longer be around. There was a time I would have regarded this as a small tragedy, but not any more. There is precious little to hang on to now. Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman saw the writing on the wall, and have moved on to new pastures, wherein exercising their critical faculties is less likely to be censored as ‘unkindness’. I dare say a few more – Sonia Sodha most obvious among them – will follow suit before the end. Which leaves Owen Jones and his crew of gender identity misogynists, to whom I say: good riddance – the end can’t come soon enough.

Huw Parker
Huw Parker
1 year ago

The newspaper business is particularly difficult right now. Give it five years, and I suspect the Guardian / Observer will no longer be around. There was a time I would have regarded this as a small tragedy, but not any more. There is precious little to hang on to now. Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman saw the writing on the wall, and have moved on to new pastures, wherein exercising their critical faculties is less likely to be censored as ‘unkindness’. I dare say a few more – Sonia Sodha most obvious among them – will follow suit before the end. Which leaves Owen Jones and his crew of gender identity misogynists, to whom I say: good riddance – the end can’t come soon enough.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

Seems to me that the media generally and papers like The Guardian in particular have concluded that their job is NOT to inform but to indoctrinate.
They no longer see themselves as providing information the public needs or wants but rather they see themselves as advocates for their own version of “right think”.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

Seems to me that the media generally and papers like The Guardian in particular have concluded that their job is NOT to inform but to indoctrinate.
They no longer see themselves as providing information the public needs or wants but rather they see themselves as advocates for their own version of “right think”.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

The begging bit under the Guardian’s on line articles refers to their fearless journalism.
Nothing fearless about it any more. Its terrified of the trans lobby and never dares print anything even handed or truthful about trans issues..
C.P. Snow would be turning in his grave at this Guardian policy of destroying women’s rights.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

The begging bit under the Guardian’s on line articles refers to their fearless journalism.
Nothing fearless about it any more. Its terrified of the trans lobby and never dares print anything even handed or truthful about trans issues..
C.P. Snow would be turning in his grave at this Guardian policy of destroying women’s rights.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

The really worrying thing is that The Guardian is the most read paper in Academia. Academics are teaching this unbalanced stuff to students.

Ruari McCallion
Ruari McCallion
1 year ago

“unbalanced stuff”

You spelled “sh*t” wrong.

Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago

I use the more factual articles in teaching (ones on income inequality, housing, the NHS etc.) but always advise my students to critically interrogate everything they read and to be especially mindful of editorial political positions (in fact, a student recently asked me what I thought of the Guardian and I told her it publishes some useful pieces but has a ‘sanctimonious’ air that I find irritating).

Ruari McCallion
Ruari McCallion
1 year ago

“unbalanced stuff”

You spelled “sh*t” wrong.

Clara B
Clara B
1 year ago

I use the more factual articles in teaching (ones on income inequality, housing, the NHS etc.) but always advise my students to critically interrogate everything they read and to be especially mindful of editorial political positions (in fact, a student recently asked me what I thought of the Guardian and I told her it publishes some useful pieces but has a ‘sanctimonious’ air that I find irritating).

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

The really worrying thing is that The Guardian is the most read paper in Academia. Academics are teaching this unbalanced stuff to students.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

it appears that they won’t allow untrammelled voice to be given to [gender-critical] reservations because they fear that if they did, stupid people might be influenced to do bad things because of it.

Exactly; this is classic, authoritarian ‘bigotry of low expectations’. See also Jacinda Ardern’s chilling “We will continue to be your single source of truth”, and the more recent “We own the science” declaration by the UN’s Melissa Fleming at the WEF.

cara williams
cara williams
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

am here in new zealand and what has happened here in terms of human rights is terrible. the guardian is a shameful rag. i read it, like our nz press, to keep an eye on what the enemy is thinking.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  cara williams

I’m here too. What rights have I lost? Specifics, please. Vaccination was not forced, you could opt out. It’s just that employers were not prepared to then put other workers at risk because of your personal opinions. Still have freedom to vote, move, associate, and speak. So, specifics please: what rights have I lost?

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

You were locked down and in like an animal… just for starters.

:_
:_
1 year ago

Please, do continue to explain to me how it was in my country.

:_
:_
1 year ago

Please, do continue to explain to me how it was in my country.

David George
David George
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I’m here as well :_ Sorry, the totalitarian direction is clear.
Freedom to vote? The government removed our right to petition for referenda on the basis for local authority voting.
Covid vaccination does not reduce transmissibility, Pfizzer didn’t claim it did and never tested for that. That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. Many of those people are still barred from working despite supreme court decisions that this was an unjustified assault on our human rights.
Freedom to speak? In the works is anti free speech legislation. The proposed restrictions may have been dialled back (for now) but the intention is clear; this government wants to control what you think and say with the criminalisation of speech and the development of their totalitarian “disinformation” projects.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  David George

“That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. ”

That’s just the government refusing to mandate the decisions of private businesses and medical experts. Who saw a risk to their business and staff and patients and acted within their rights.. without government interference. The other points you make I am not aware of, but we can still initiate citizen’s referenda. And given that Labour looks guaranteed to lose the next election, their sinister plan to hold on to power at all costs seems to have run into the old problem of “Democracy”.

Mostly what I see is people whining about the loss of their “right” to make people listen to their crazy conspiracy theories, and their “right” to not be humiliated in public by actual experts. Neither of these things are rights.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  David George

“That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. ”

That’s just the government refusing to mandate the decisions of private businesses and medical experts. Who saw a risk to their business and staff and patients and acted within their rights.. without government interference. The other points you make I am not aware of, but we can still initiate citizen’s referenda. And given that Labour looks guaranteed to lose the next election, their sinister plan to hold on to power at all costs seems to have run into the old problem of “Democracy”.

Mostly what I see is people whining about the loss of their “right” to make people listen to their crazy conspiracy theories, and their “right” to not be humiliated in public by actual experts. Neither of these things are rights.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I don’t know why your questions were down voted. Surely answering them would stimulate dialogue and put information out there for consideration?

:_
:_
1 year ago

Well, I had a few comments on this piece.. which I largely agree with, BTW, big fan of Doc Stock…. but they appear to have been deleted. Oh, the irony.
Edit: actually, the comments are there, I just missed them. Apologies Unherd.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
:_
:_
1 year ago

Well, I had a few comments on this piece.. which I largely agree with, BTW, big fan of Doc Stock…. but they appear to have been deleted. Oh, the irony.
Edit: actually, the comments are there, I just missed them. Apologies Unherd.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Wait I see one of the disconnects here – You didn’t get the update. Turns out the vaccines don’t prevent transmission and everyone is going to be exposed to COVID no matter what their work colleagues do. This was clear from the data by early to mid 2021. It has since been admitted by Dr Fauci and every other public health official.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

You were locked down and in like an animal… just for starters.

David George
David George
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I’m here as well :_ Sorry, the totalitarian direction is clear.
Freedom to vote? The government removed our right to petition for referenda on the basis for local authority voting.
Covid vaccination does not reduce transmissibility, Pfizzer didn’t claim it did and never tested for that. That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. Many of those people are still barred from working despite supreme court decisions that this was an unjustified assault on our human rights.
Freedom to speak? In the works is anti free speech legislation. The proposed restrictions may have been dialled back (for now) but the intention is clear; this government wants to control what you think and say with the criminalisation of speech and the development of their totalitarian “disinformation” projects.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I don’t know why your questions were down voted. Surely answering them would stimulate dialogue and put information out there for consideration?

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Wait I see one of the disconnects here – You didn’t get the update. Turns out the vaccines don’t prevent transmission and everyone is going to be exposed to COVID no matter what their work colleagues do. This was clear from the data by early to mid 2021. It has since been admitted by Dr Fauci and every other public health official.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  cara williams

I’m here too. What rights have I lost? Specifics, please. Vaccination was not forced, you could opt out. It’s just that employers were not prepared to then put other workers at risk because of your personal opinions. Still have freedom to vote, move, associate, and speak. So, specifics please: what rights have I lost?

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

Yeah, kiwi and biologist here. The ardern quote is true but out of context. The context was covid, that’s the “information” she was talking about, and at the time there really was a surge of absolutely batshit information going around that, if believed by enough people, could have caused our health system to collapse. I did not vote for her, reasonable people can have reasonable reasons why they don’t like her, but anyone who thinks she has done a bad job overall is massively overdoing it.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Similarly your comment. I am very surprised you have been downvoted for merely posting your observations.

:_
:_
1 year ago

I was surprised too, but I’m beginning to understand that my sub to Unherd was a mistake, because the site suffers from the same problems it claims to oppose.

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

The downvotes just mean that more people disagree with your opinions than agree with them. Nobody here is suggesting you shouldn’t have or express your opinions. In fact, most are probably very interested in hearing about the situation in NZ from your perspective. Facts and specific concrete details are generally preferred over opinions, but both are welcome. People might disagree with you, that’s all.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

The downvotes just mean that more people disagree with your opinions than agree with them. Nobody here is suggesting you shouldn’t have or express your opinions. In fact, most are probably very interested in hearing about the situation in NZ from your perspective. Facts and specific concrete details are generally preferred over opinions, but both are welcome. People might disagree with you, that’s all.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anthony Michaels
:_
:_
1 year ago

I was surprised too, but I’m beginning to understand that my sub to Unherd was a mistake, because the site suffers from the same problems it claims to oppose.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Similarly your comment. I am very surprised you have been downvoted for merely posting your observations.

cara williams
cara williams
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

am here in new zealand and what has happened here in terms of human rights is terrible. the guardian is a shameful rag. i read it, like our nz press, to keep an eye on what the enemy is thinking.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

Yeah, kiwi and biologist here. The ardern quote is true but out of context. The context was covid, that’s the “information” she was talking about, and at the time there really was a surge of absolutely batshit information going around that, if believed by enough people, could have caused our health system to collapse. I did not vote for her, reasonable people can have reasonable reasons why they don’t like her, but anyone who thinks she has done a bad job overall is massively overdoing it.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

it appears that they won’t allow untrammelled voice to be given to [gender-critical] reservations because they fear that if they did, stupid people might be influenced to do bad things because of it.

Exactly; this is classic, authoritarian ‘bigotry of low expectations’. See also Jacinda Ardern’s chilling “We will continue to be your single source of truth”, and the more recent “We own the science” declaration by the UN’s Melissa Fleming at the WEF.

Jack Tarr
Jack Tarr
1 year ago

I don’t normally read the Guardian, so perhaps someone who does could reply to this – has there been any article about the Guardian’s links to the slave trade, and support for the Confederate side in the American Civil War? I believe a report into this was commissioned some time ago, by the paper. Presumably this report has been published in the Guardian.

Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

They have remarkably few ‘Struggle Sessions’ where this sort of thing should be brought out and they all self accuse, and self flagellate, and denounce themselves.

If Maoist Commies they would do this a lot – but my theory is they are Stalinist Commies, and so they do it to everyone but themselves. (I mean they almost worshiped Hobsbawn)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Ah Hobsbawm, perhaps the most revolting piece of academic lickspittle ever to grace these shores!

An immigrant as I recall, bitter and twisted with the cancer of Marxism like so many of his ilk, such as the Ralph Miliband and Harold Laski.

Thank you for reminding me how the Guardian idolised him!

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago

You appear from what you wrote to be an angry antisemite. Hopefully that’s not the case?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

Pure coincidence, and I just cannot recall all the myriad of ‘home grown’ cretins!
Perhaps you can help me out?

Well Mr H you have had 5 hours plus to reply.
Sadly I now surmise that you are one of those wretched ‘vanity shriekers’ who so infest this planet.
Be gone with you!

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

So the “an immigrant I recall” ,”like so many of his ilk, such as (two other jews)” was what, in terms of intelligent political insight?
Obviously not a ranting anti-Semite at all.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You must be yet another Marxist apologist!
These seem to be quite a few of you around these days.
Try reading reading a few books, it may make you understand the enormity of your error.
I live in hope if NOT expectation!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You must be yet another Marxist apologist!
These seem to be quite a few of you around these days.
Try reading reading a few books, it may make you understand the enormity of your error.
I live in hope if NOT expectation!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

So the “an immigrant I recall” ,”like so many of his ilk, such as (two other jews)” was what, in terms of intelligent political insight?
Obviously not a ranting anti-Semite at all.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

Ah, the famous racist dog-whistles that only anti-racists are able to hear.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

Pure coincidence, and I just cannot recall all the myriad of ‘home grown’ cretins!
Perhaps you can help me out?

Well Mr H you have had 5 hours plus to reply.
Sadly I now surmise that you are one of those wretched ‘vanity shriekers’ who so infest this planet.
Be gone with you!

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Douglas H

Ah, the famous racist dog-whistles that only anti-racists are able to hear.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

Ralphy.
An immigrant who loathed this country an should never have been allowed across the threshold. An immigrant who managed to take advantage of what this country had to offer and enrich himself and featherbed his progeny into positions of privilege by mean of his status as Marxist royalty while making no secret of distain for this country, its traditions and its people … that Ralphy?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes indeed that RALPHY Sir!

However I seem to have inadvertently upset one Mr Douglas H by including him in my very brief list of Marxist horrors.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes indeed that RALPHY Sir!

However I seem to have inadvertently upset one Mr Douglas H by including him in my very brief list of Marxist horrors.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

If the nu britn MoD have their way we will soon have a Republican Palace with 5 regiments of the Brigade of Guardians outside, presenting arms with syringes, dressed in hooodies, plimsolls and tracksuit bottoms, all holding hands and dancing to a band playing tribal music, and singing songs about zero carbon….

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago

You appear from what you wrote to be an angry antisemite. Hopefully that’s not the case?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

Ralphy.
An immigrant who loathed this country an should never have been allowed across the threshold. An immigrant who managed to take advantage of what this country had to offer and enrich himself and featherbed his progeny into positions of privilege by mean of his status as Marxist royalty while making no secret of distain for this country, its traditions and its people … that Ralphy?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

If the nu britn MoD have their way we will soon have a Republican Palace with 5 regiments of the Brigade of Guardians outside, presenting arms with syringes, dressed in hooodies, plimsolls and tracksuit bottoms, all holding hands and dancing to a band playing tribal music, and singing songs about zero carbon….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonas Moze

Ah Hobsbawm, perhaps the most revolting piece of academic lickspittle ever to grace these shores!

An immigrant as I recall, bitter and twisted with the cancer of Marxism like so many of his ilk, such as the Ralph Miliband and Harold Laski.

Thank you for reminding me how the Guardian idolised him!

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

Sorry, is this supposed to be news? The Guardian disappeared over the event horizon years ago.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

Suppose for a minute they actually give a s*** when people like us call them out (they don’t) and they do publish it, then what? They aren’t going to shut up and go away, they’d probably become worse. This tactic doesn’t score the point you think it does. It’s so frustrating to people STILL treating this like a game with gentleman’s rules where you keep expecting the other team to walk when they’re caught on an edge. They need to be rounded on and thrown off the pitch. They’ve been hypocrites for over a century, how about we go after their dodgy foreign funding without which they’d be bankrupt.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Jonas Moze
Jonas Moze
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

They have remarkably few ‘Struggle Sessions’ where this sort of thing should be brought out and they all self accuse, and self flagellate, and denounce themselves.

If Maoist Commies they would do this a lot – but my theory is they are Stalinist Commies, and so they do it to everyone but themselves. (I mean they almost worshiped Hobsbawn)

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

Sorry, is this supposed to be news? The Guardian disappeared over the event horizon years ago.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Tarr

Suppose for a minute they actually give a s*** when people like us call them out (they don’t) and they do publish it, then what? They aren’t going to shut up and go away, they’d probably become worse. This tactic doesn’t score the point you think it does. It’s so frustrating to people STILL treating this like a game with gentleman’s rules where you keep expecting the other team to walk when they’re caught on an edge. They need to be rounded on and thrown off the pitch. They’ve been hypocrites for over a century, how about we go after their dodgy foreign funding without which they’d be bankrupt.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Jack Tarr
Jack Tarr
1 year ago

I don’t normally read the Guardian, so perhaps someone who does could reply to this – has there been any article about the Guardian’s links to the slave trade, and support for the Confederate side in the American Civil War? I believe a report into this was commissioned some time ago, by the paper. Presumably this report has been published in the Guardian.

Sevo Slade
Sevo Slade
1 year ago

I use news aggregation sites that pull stories from a variety of publications. Every time I see a headline that seems at odds with what is probable, realistic or manifestly true, it comes – without fail – from The Guardian. It is by now merely a megaphone of woke dogma, nakedly twisting any fact or event to fit politically correct ideology. I would hesitate to call anyone who works there a journalist.

Sevo Slade
Sevo Slade
1 year ago

I use news aggregation sites that pull stories from a variety of publications. Every time I see a headline that seems at odds with what is probable, realistic or manifestly true, it comes – without fail – from The Guardian. It is by now merely a megaphone of woke dogma, nakedly twisting any fact or event to fit politically correct ideology. I would hesitate to call anyone who works there a journalist.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

Despite being, to most people’s views, right wing I used to read the Guardian for a left wing angle and, in particular, to support its critical investigative journalism such as Snowden.
Now it is purely an indoctrination rag with almost no news or reporting at all. Does not even report large demonstrations in London if they don’t like the cause (eg anti lockdown).
I am still, just, managing to take the Guardian Weekly but not for long I expect. The problem seemed to start when Viner took over but suspect the paper is now so rotten that even the best new editor would fail.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

Despite being, to most people’s views, right wing I used to read the Guardian for a left wing angle and, in particular, to support its critical investigative journalism such as Snowden.
Now it is purely an indoctrination rag with almost no news or reporting at all. Does not even report large demonstrations in London if they don’t like the cause (eg anti lockdown).
I am still, just, managing to take the Guardian Weekly but not for long I expect. The problem seemed to start when Viner took over but suspect the paper is now so rotten that even the best new editor would fail.

Susan Ross
Susan Ross
1 year ago

I stopped reading it after their ‘coverage’ of Cologne New Years Eve, including Gaby Hinsliff’s disgusting victim-blaming

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

Me too. That was a truly disgusting episode.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

Do you have a link to that ? I fancy developing a rage migraine

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan Trimble

Forget that I found it and wish I hadn’t.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan Trimble

Forget that I found it and wish I hadn’t.

David L
David L
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

I remember the Guardian smearing victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs as Islamaphobes.

Simon Neale
Simon Neale
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

Me too. That was a truly disgusting episode.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

Do you have a link to that ? I fancy developing a rage migraine

David L
David L
1 year ago
Reply to  Susan Ross

I remember the Guardian smearing victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs as Islamaphobes.

Susan Ross
Susan Ross
1 year ago

I stopped reading it after their ‘coverage’ of Cologne New Years Eve, including Gaby Hinsliff’s disgusting victim-blaming

Peter Hollander
Peter Hollander
1 year ago

Asking Guardian readers if their rag is a most trusted source of news is bound to get a positive answer. People who distrust the Guardian and BBC as trustworthy sources of news don’t read the Guardian nor listen to or watch BBC news. The party line among those who have been indoctrinated by Stonewall and other trans-activists is accepted by both the Guardian and BBC. No amount of biology, psychology or testaments from any one pointing out that it is delusional, dangerous and disingenuous for many young people unable to make adult decisions, is going to be accepted as anything other than transphobia.
Transphobia is fear of trans people – i.e. men dressing up as women and women pretending to be men, many of whom have severe psychological problems which gives rise to their desire to impose their opinions on others with abuse being given whenever they encounter opposition to their absurd unscientific beliefs. Too many clever but very unwise people are going along with this nonsense which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see has dismantled all that feminists sought to achieve over 100 years in less than a decade. However since feminists wanted to end male only spaces, which they have achieved, it seems men in dresses have returned the compliment by invading women only spaces.
Received unscientific assertions by the trans lobby are on par with the received unscientific assertions in other areas of life: none stand up to scrutiny and when challenged abuse is hurled at challengers who need to be silenced lest the emperor’s lack of clothing be exposed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Hollander
Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago

About male spaces–I remember being nearly alone in my unease when female sportscasters were first allowed in men’s locker rooms. But, “Feminism!!”, I guess.

Laura Kelly
Laura Kelly
1 year ago

About male spaces–I remember being nearly alone in my unease when female sportscasters were first allowed in men’s locker rooms. But, “Feminism!!”, I guess.

Peter Hollander
Peter Hollander
1 year ago

Asking Guardian readers if their rag is a most trusted source of news is bound to get a positive answer. People who distrust the Guardian and BBC as trustworthy sources of news don’t read the Guardian nor listen to or watch BBC news. The party line among those who have been indoctrinated by Stonewall and other trans-activists is accepted by both the Guardian and BBC. No amount of biology, psychology or testaments from any one pointing out that it is delusional, dangerous and disingenuous for many young people unable to make adult decisions, is going to be accepted as anything other than transphobia.
Transphobia is fear of trans people – i.e. men dressing up as women and women pretending to be men, many of whom have severe psychological problems which gives rise to their desire to impose their opinions on others with abuse being given whenever they encounter opposition to their absurd unscientific beliefs. Too many clever but very unwise people are going along with this nonsense which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see has dismantled all that feminists sought to achieve over 100 years in less than a decade. However since feminists wanted to end male only spaces, which they have achieved, it seems men in dresses have returned the compliment by invading women only spaces.
Received unscientific assertions by the trans lobby are on par with the received unscientific assertions in other areas of life: none stand up to scrutiny and when challenged abuse is hurled at challengers who need to be silenced lest the emperor’s lack of clothing be exposed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Peter Hollander
Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

In the new class structure of Britain, those who occupy the highest strata legitimise their presence there by a presumed greater morality that comes from superior education and social connections. When they parrot the woke position of the day they are not only virtue signaling, but also class signaling.

This is why Stock must point out that their views possibly reflect their own idiocy. But Guardian writers are likely not idiots any more than their readers. They are repeating the cant of the Progressive Class, by which they recognise one another, in much the same way as the religious do, or the Soviet Communist Party members once did – and indeed CCP members still do.

They feel their power as all elites do, and are not bothered by their own inconsistencies or hypocrisies, confident in the knowledge that those of their ilk dominate media, academia and the civil service. This also explains why they succumb to mob action on social media; it is a way of reaffirming their class superiority to themselves and others.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

In the new class structure of Britain, those who occupy the highest strata legitimise their presence there by a presumed greater morality that comes from superior education and social connections. When they parrot the woke position of the day they are not only virtue signaling, but also class signaling.

This is why Stock must point out that their views possibly reflect their own idiocy. But Guardian writers are likely not idiots any more than their readers. They are repeating the cant of the Progressive Class, by which they recognise one another, in much the same way as the religious do, or the Soviet Communist Party members once did – and indeed CCP members still do.

They feel their power as all elites do, and are not bothered by their own inconsistencies or hypocrisies, confident in the knowledge that those of their ilk dominate media, academia and the civil service. This also explains why they succumb to mob action on social media; it is a way of reaffirming their class superiority to themselves and others.

Richard Abbot
Richard Abbot
1 year ago

I noticed this as far back as 2005. It is an absurd publication, of that there is little doubt.
But why?
Was it once good and noble and fair and true?
Nah.
It is the crucible of Leftism, and one more time for the hard of hearing, LEFTISM IS THE PROBLEM.
We can see the inevitable degeneration that occurs whenever Leftism is adopted as the primary lens. We see it in the NY Times. Vanity Fair. Channel 4 and many, many others. Leftism is incapable of remaining balanced or thoughtful or nuanced. It exists only as an emotional vent for people who don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – themselves or the world. The Guardian has simply become an exemplar of this, it’s global popularity a sad indictment of the degree to which emotion now rules everything.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

I agree, and therefore regard it as anti-intellectual. They’re incapable of understanding how and why that label fits.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

I disagree. Aat one time The Guardian was a decent left-wing paper (all papers have a political slant), I used to get it regularly in the 80s and 90s, I didn’t always agree with it, but it did, more often than not, present more than one view point, even though it would say that the more right-wing view was wrong, giving reasons for that conclusion. It was in the ’00s that things changed and I stopped buying the paper, it became more strident and one-sided, without even bothering to acknowledge that there was another view.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Agreed. It was more balanced and worth reading in the mid 90s. It’s just so partisan now. No point reading a paper if you know in advance exactly what it will say. The Times is much the same in that respect, ditto the FT. Not extreme, but pushing an extremely “narrow band” world view. Rather than reporting news and tolerating diverse opinions.
It’s not only the Guardian that’s gone downhill here. It’s just more partisan and obvious.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Agreed. It was more balanced and worth reading in the mid 90s. It’s just so partisan now. No point reading a paper if you know in advance exactly what it will say. The Times is much the same in that respect, ditto the FT. Not extreme, but pushing an extremely “narrow band” world view. Rather than reporting news and tolerating diverse opinions.
It’s not only the Guardian that’s gone downhill here. It’s just more partisan and obvious.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

I agree, and therefore regard it as anti-intellectual. They’re incapable of understanding how and why that label fits.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

I disagree. Aat one time The Guardian was a decent left-wing paper (all papers have a political slant), I used to get it regularly in the 80s and 90s, I didn’t always agree with it, but it did, more often than not, present more than one view point, even though it would say that the more right-wing view was wrong, giving reasons for that conclusion. It was in the ’00s that things changed and I stopped buying the paper, it became more strident and one-sided, without even bothering to acknowledge that there was another view.

Richard Abbot
Richard Abbot
1 year ago

I noticed this as far back as 2005. It is an absurd publication, of that there is little doubt.
But why?
Was it once good and noble and fair and true?
Nah.
It is the crucible of Leftism, and one more time for the hard of hearing, LEFTISM IS THE PROBLEM.
We can see the inevitable degeneration that occurs whenever Leftism is adopted as the primary lens. We see it in the NY Times. Vanity Fair. Channel 4 and many, many others. Leftism is incapable of remaining balanced or thoughtful or nuanced. It exists only as an emotional vent for people who don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – themselves or the world. The Guardian has simply become an exemplar of this, it’s global popularity a sad indictment of the degree to which emotion now rules everything.

James Joyce
James Joyce
1 year ago

A lot of readers give up on the Guardian because of the incessant finger-wagging.
And the fingers being so wagged are usually attached to economically privileged people.
It’s not the right way to set out information or opinion.

James Joyce
James Joyce
1 year ago

A lot of readers give up on the Guardian because of the incessant finger-wagging.
And the fingers being so wagged are usually attached to economically privileged people.
It’s not the right way to set out information or opinion.

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago

The Guardian has been a joke for quite some time now. Whenever they have comments open on an article claiming that gender is a social construct, that we teach boys and girls to be the way they are I would post a link to this article https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/, showing that monkeys exhibit preferences for toys based on their biological sex. Always got deleted and my account eventually banned.

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

Welcome to the Legion of the Damned…wear your “banned” badge with honour
I wish there were an archive of “banned by the Guardian” comments we could access….FOI request maybe??

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Colin K

Welcome to the Legion of the Damned…wear your “banned” badge with honour
I wish there were an archive of “banned by the Guardian” comments we could access….FOI request maybe??

Colin K
Colin K
1 year ago

The Guardian has been a joke for quite some time now. Whenever they have comments open on an article claiming that gender is a social construct, that we teach boys and girls to be the way they are I would post a link to this article https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/, showing that monkeys exhibit preferences for toys based on their biological sex. Always got deleted and my account eventually banned.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago

Follow the money. In today’s media landscape newspapers make their money from subscriptions not advertising. This a has been widely reported. It isn’t about intelligence it is about giving people what they want. Liberal readers want to hear confirmation of their beliefs. They want to hear how right and good they are and how wrong and bad the other side is. And of course, the same is true for conservative publications. The anti-woke, me included, never tire of reading about how dumb wokism is. But both sides in the woke wars calling each other idiots is tiresome and doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the people dividing us lots of money.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago

Follow the money. In today’s media landscape newspapers make their money from subscriptions not advertising. This a has been widely reported. It isn’t about intelligence it is about giving people what they want. Liberal readers want to hear confirmation of their beliefs. They want to hear how right and good they are and how wrong and bad the other side is. And of course, the same is true for conservative publications. The anti-woke, me included, never tire of reading about how dumb wokism is. But both sides in the woke wars calling each other idiots is tiresome and doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the people dividing us lots of money.

David L
David L
1 year ago

The Guardian and its bigoted trustafarian readers regard themselves as a master race. Entitled to Lord it over, and fleece the rest of us untermenshen.

David L
David L
1 year ago

The Guardian and its bigoted trustafarian readers regard themselves as a master race. Entitled to Lord it over, and fleece the rest of us untermenshen.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
1 year ago

Who has decided that sticking to the biological facts on sex must now be described in a manner suggesting such a position is an ideogical one? Time to stop using ‘gender critical’ to describe ourselves. How about ‘gender factual’?

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
1 year ago

Who has decided that sticking to the biological facts on sex must now be described in a manner suggesting such a position is an ideogical one? Time to stop using ‘gender critical’ to describe ourselves. How about ‘gender factual’?

Julian Townsend
Julian Townsend
1 year ago

The writer focuses on trans issues, but her points have wider relevance. (Consider the Grauniad’s coverage of the Ukraine war.)
The Guardian used, despite its uninspired politics, to be a serious paper. I bought it every day for maybe thirty years.
What happened?
1. A visit from MI5 following their publication of material from Wikileaks, since when the paper has faithfully parrroted whatever the MI5 line is, witness their lack of support for Assange which extends to accusing him of endangering people by leaking when it was in fact a Graun journalist who disclosed material Assange asked him to keep secret. The fact that he has been allowed to get away with this while Assange stays in jail, speaks volumes of the new relationship with the security state.
2. A boardroom coup following the near-bankruptcy of the Scott Trust.. A load of hedge-funders and American financial wizards installed as directors, and Viner appointed editor.
3. The Graun’s free online news service has been a success in the USA, where it is widely used by the chattering classes. Business dictates that the Graun reflects US “progressive” values. Therefore, transwomen are women and anyone who says they are not is a “bigot”, including regulars Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore; Ukraine is a righteous, brave little democracy being menaced by the Evil Empire, and so on. This is what Americans, especially the ones with money to buy the things advertised, want to hear.
Sad, but it’s the way of the world. He who pays the piper….

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Ukraine IS being menaced — actually invaded and warred upon — by an evil Emperor.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Ukraine IS being menaced — actually invaded and warred upon — by an evil Emperor.

Julian Townsend
Julian Townsend
1 year ago

The writer focuses on trans issues, but her points have wider relevance. (Consider the Grauniad’s coverage of the Ukraine war.)
The Guardian used, despite its uninspired politics, to be a serious paper. I bought it every day for maybe thirty years.
What happened?
1. A visit from MI5 following their publication of material from Wikileaks, since when the paper has faithfully parrroted whatever the MI5 line is, witness their lack of support for Assange which extends to accusing him of endangering people by leaking when it was in fact a Graun journalist who disclosed material Assange asked him to keep secret. The fact that he has been allowed to get away with this while Assange stays in jail, speaks volumes of the new relationship with the security state.
2. A boardroom coup following the near-bankruptcy of the Scott Trust.. A load of hedge-funders and American financial wizards installed as directors, and Viner appointed editor.
3. The Graun’s free online news service has been a success in the USA, where it is widely used by the chattering classes. Business dictates that the Graun reflects US “progressive” values. Therefore, transwomen are women and anyone who says they are not is a “bigot”, including regulars Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore; Ukraine is a righteous, brave little democracy being menaced by the Evil Empire, and so on. This is what Americans, especially the ones with money to buy the things advertised, want to hear.
Sad, but it’s the way of the world. He who pays the piper….

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

What? The Guardian disrespects it’s readers? As usual the media is late with the news.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s not intended as “news”, rather a detailed exposé of the internal machinations at the Guardian, referencing events from several years ago. I found it insightful. And, are “the media” usually late with the news?

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

It’s not intended as “news”, rather a detailed exposé of the internal machinations at the Guardian, referencing events from several years ago. I found it insightful. And, are “the media” usually late with the news?

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago

What? The Guardian disrespects it’s readers? As usual the media is late with the news.

John Dewhirst
John Dewhirst
1 year ago

Interesting how the MSM has responded to online competition in the desperate attempt to remain viable. The fact that the FT has resorted to imitating the Guardian is a sign of the times.

John Dewhirst
John Dewhirst
1 year ago

Interesting how the MSM has responded to online competition in the desperate attempt to remain viable. The fact that the FT has resorted to imitating the Guardian is a sign of the times.

John Roseveare
John Roseveare
1 year ago

Thanks again to the cowardly academic bureaucrats who have, in Kathleen Stock, inadvertently given us someone with a proper talent for commentary.
The Guardian seemed to give up being a newspaper a few years ago. Where once it had journalists investigating news stories, it now appears to have handed much of its content over to lifestyle tips and a brand of increasingly narrow political opinion. (Perhaps readers should have seen the writing on the wall when comedians and other celebrities were given whole pages to describe just how much they cared.)
Last weekend the FT columnist Janan Ganesh reiterated a point he’s been making for a while: ‘People do not work out their beliefs and then join the corresponding tribe. They join a tribe and infer their beliefs from it.’ Sadly, The Guardian allowed itself to become the house journal for a political tribe who’s members appear not to care their leaders might be losing the plot. That may simply be because holding ‘correct’ beliefs is a lifestyle choice they can afford, as some Unherd readers are suggesting. But if Kathleen Stock’s investigations are accurate, the Directors of the Scott Trust need to take a long hard look at their values and responsibilities. Our democracy needs ‘fearless journalism’. The Trustees won’t deliver that if they allow the kind of lobbying by political groups Kathleen Stock has described here.

John Roseveare
John Roseveare
1 year ago

Thanks again to the cowardly academic bureaucrats who have, in Kathleen Stock, inadvertently given us someone with a proper talent for commentary.
The Guardian seemed to give up being a newspaper a few years ago. Where once it had journalists investigating news stories, it now appears to have handed much of its content over to lifestyle tips and a brand of increasingly narrow political opinion. (Perhaps readers should have seen the writing on the wall when comedians and other celebrities were given whole pages to describe just how much they cared.)
Last weekend the FT columnist Janan Ganesh reiterated a point he’s been making for a while: ‘People do not work out their beliefs and then join the corresponding tribe. They join a tribe and infer their beliefs from it.’ Sadly, The Guardian allowed itself to become the house journal for a political tribe who’s members appear not to care their leaders might be losing the plot. That may simply be because holding ‘correct’ beliefs is a lifestyle choice they can afford, as some Unherd readers are suggesting. But if Kathleen Stock’s investigations are accurate, the Directors of the Scott Trust need to take a long hard look at their values and responsibilities. Our democracy needs ‘fearless journalism’. The Trustees won’t deliver that if they allow the kind of lobbying by political groups Kathleen Stock has described here.

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 year ago

As as American who read the Guardian as often as possible, it is nothing but a pathetic rag whose owners, publishers, editors, and writers sold out their integrity and soul a long, long time ago for a few shekels Just like my beloved Washington Post after Bezos took over.
Propaganda organs to further their political and business objectives. Sad and tragic.

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 year ago

As as American who read the Guardian as often as possible, it is nothing but a pathetic rag whose owners, publishers, editors, and writers sold out their integrity and soul a long, long time ago for a few shekels Just like my beloved Washington Post after Bezos took over.
Propaganda organs to further their political and business objectives. Sad and tragic.

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago

Thank you for this
I am also a proud carrier of my “banned by the Guardian” status
My crime was to complain about the vacuity of the “Tim Dowling” column
Any paper that can pay for that and publish an article on piss by Adrian Chiles ( Mr Viner) and then beg for charity contributions must indeed have a heavy sense of irony
(See Stewart Lee on You Tube if you can tolerate the ads for a hilarious urinary related description of Chiles by the way)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfHWtq14inc
I don’t inhabit the world in which the Guardianistas would have us believe exists outside what must be their vanishingly small “Self Confirmatory and Congratulatory Bubble”
The key is, of course, to read it for its comedy value…..Toynbee, Jones, Monbiot,Cosslett ..true comedy gold, surely no-one outside the bubble takes them seriously
Mind you it is a wonderful resource for Vegan recipes and I enjoy Jay Rayners rants and regional recommendations when he gets out of London ( trains permitting of course) …Not trans BTW, this is Unherd not Garundia

Oh yes and why all the Australian content in a UK paper??…I don’t need advice on the best Aussie tomato ketchup brand thanks
Great posts by Roger Bond and Douglas McNeish below, much more articulate than my offering
SATURDAY MORNING…..
Just as an example…this is Dowling’s byline for today….I dread what is to come from Chiles later
“I trip over a bird feeder lying in the blackness. And as soon as I regain my balance, I step on a rake”

Last edited 1 year ago by CHRIS MCWILLIAM
Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Maybe someone should start issuing “Banned by the Guardian” teeshirts.

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago

“BUNNED BY THE GARUDNIA”
To be worn with pride and honour

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago

“BUNNED BY THE GARUDNIA”
To be worn with pride and honour

Janet G
Janet G
1 year ago

I sometimes do a shuffle between The Guardian UK, TG Australia and TG US. It is interesting to see how much is common to all three.
In Australia we have one or two Guardian journalists who are well-respected and very popular amongst mildly left-wing members of the public. I wonder how they (the journalists, that is) maintain their Guardian jobs and still manage to prove that they are astute thinkers when it comes to issues the Guardian does not censor.
As a reader I sometimes write comments on articles and have discovered that if you want to say anything at all critical of the “LGBTQI” madness you have to be sneaky indeed, otherwise you will be deleted for sure (I write as an L who wants out of the acronym).

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Maybe someone should start issuing “Banned by the Guardian” teeshirts.

Janet G
Janet G
1 year ago

I sometimes do a shuffle between The Guardian UK, TG Australia and TG US. It is interesting to see how much is common to all three.
In Australia we have one or two Guardian journalists who are well-respected and very popular amongst mildly left-wing members of the public. I wonder how they (the journalists, that is) maintain their Guardian jobs and still manage to prove that they are astute thinkers when it comes to issues the Guardian does not censor.
As a reader I sometimes write comments on articles and have discovered that if you want to say anything at all critical of the “LGBTQI” madness you have to be sneaky indeed, otherwise you will be deleted for sure (I write as an L who wants out of the acronym).

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago

Thank you for this
I am also a proud carrier of my “banned by the Guardian” status
My crime was to complain about the vacuity of the “Tim Dowling” column
Any paper that can pay for that and publish an article on piss by Adrian Chiles ( Mr Viner) and then beg for charity contributions must indeed have a heavy sense of irony
(See Stewart Lee on You Tube if you can tolerate the ads for a hilarious urinary related description of Chiles by the way)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfHWtq14inc
I don’t inhabit the world in which the Guardianistas would have us believe exists outside what must be their vanishingly small “Self Confirmatory and Congratulatory Bubble”
The key is, of course, to read it for its comedy value…..Toynbee, Jones, Monbiot,Cosslett ..true comedy gold, surely no-one outside the bubble takes them seriously
Mind you it is a wonderful resource for Vegan recipes and I enjoy Jay Rayners rants and regional recommendations when he gets out of London ( trains permitting of course) …Not trans BTW, this is Unherd not Garundia

Oh yes and why all the Australian content in a UK paper??…I don’t need advice on the best Aussie tomato ketchup brand thanks
Great posts by Roger Bond and Douglas McNeish below, much more articulate than my offering
SATURDAY MORNING…..
Just as an example…this is Dowling’s byline for today….I dread what is to come from Chiles later
“I trip over a bird feeder lying in the blackness. And as soon as I regain my balance, I step on a rake”

Last edited 1 year ago by CHRIS MCWILLIAM
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Kathleen really hits the nail on the head when she points to ‘fear of populism’ as the driving force behind the media’s abandonment of balanced, critical, many-sided coverage. In America, it actually has a name, Trump Derangement Syndrome, because since 2016, the rhetoric around him became so hyperbolic and frankly apocalyptic that it caused even steadfast independents like myself to lose trust in most media. The explanation, of course, is that fear makes people irrational and leads to irrational decisions. Some groups have legitimate, or at least sympathetic, reasons to fear. Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women, and others have suffered real harm in the past due to unfair laws, prejudice, and discrimination, and they fear losing the progress their various rights movements have secured. In my view, their fear is misplaced, but I nonetheless can see why they are hesitant to put their trust in a movement that embraces pure majoritarianism and fewer restrictions on individual freedoms. The transnational aristocracy, the financiers, bankers, traders, corporations, DAVOS men, lobbyists, etc. who run the current “rules based international order” and/or subsist off it like parasites also fear it, but for less sympathetic reasons. Like any aristocracy at any point in history, they have an instinctual and existential fear of popular uprising, which is basically what populism is. In America, the situation is at it’s absolute worst because America is the only nation that could unilaterally end the age of globalism. In other nations, the threat is less existential but still very present to oligarchs of those nations. The oligarchs will use every available means to undermine populist insurgencies, including manipulating the media outlets they own to attempt to control narratives, corrupting science by funding and then rubber stamping research that backs their policies while ignoring or black balling anything contradictory, and exploiting the reasonable fears of minority groups by focusing on historical grievances to amplify fears of a a return to the ‘bad old days’. For those who understand history, their behavior is sadly predictable. Like the landed nobility of the 19th century, they will embrace increasingly reactionary policies as their world falls apart around them. I would point out that the UK handled that transition better and more peacefully than just about any other European nation. I couldn’t tell you exactly when the monarch became a figurehead to the parliament or the house of lords became irrelevant but it was clearly somewhere in there. I suspect despite its present trials, Britain will weather this storm better than others as well. A timely Brexit suggests as much. I suspect a hundred years from now, the UK will be looked upon as the smart sailor who wisely jumped ship before the violence broke out and the ship caught on fire.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

….and you hadn’t noticed Obama Derangement Syndrome beforehand – you know, about ‘Hussein’ Obama the socialist Kenyan etc? Or Clinton DS (oh my god he got a BJ!; OMG she used a non-govt server; she leads a paedo ring! Yet, of the four, only one tried to overthrow the election and has so many associates criminally charged, or in jail (over 15 now I think?). But yeah MSM boo.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Which publications printed these stories? I just did a perfunctory Google-search and the first three pages are all mainstream news articles that actually denounce these stories as conspiracies rather than promote them.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Tell me more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome. Is this the same fellow who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before spending one day in office?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Which publications printed these stories? I just did a perfunctory Google-search and the first three pages are all mainstream news articles that actually denounce these stories as conspiracies rather than promote them.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Tell me more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome. Is this the same fellow who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before spending one day in office?

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I largely agree with you, except that “pure majoritarianism” and “fewer restrictions on individual freedoms”. are inherently at odds with each other. A pure majority can easily (and have in the past) been responsible for some of the worst repressions of minorities imaginable. A “majority” within the UK voted to exit the European Union – that is, participating in an even larger majority. Here in the U.S. the battle is fought for States rights to prevent the tyranny of the much larger Federal majorities.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

….and you hadn’t noticed Obama Derangement Syndrome beforehand – you know, about ‘Hussein’ Obama the socialist Kenyan etc? Or Clinton DS (oh my god he got a BJ!; OMG she used a non-govt server; she leads a paedo ring! Yet, of the four, only one tried to overthrow the election and has so many associates criminally charged, or in jail (over 15 now I think?). But yeah MSM boo.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I largely agree with you, except that “pure majoritarianism” and “fewer restrictions on individual freedoms”. are inherently at odds with each other. A pure majority can easily (and have in the past) been responsible for some of the worst repressions of minorities imaginable. A “majority” within the UK voted to exit the European Union – that is, participating in an even larger majority. Here in the U.S. the battle is fought for States rights to prevent the tyranny of the much larger Federal majorities.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Kathleen really hits the nail on the head when she points to ‘fear of populism’ as the driving force behind the media’s abandonment of balanced, critical, many-sided coverage. In America, it actually has a name, Trump Derangement Syndrome, because since 2016, the rhetoric around him became so hyperbolic and frankly apocalyptic that it caused even steadfast independents like myself to lose trust in most media. The explanation, of course, is that fear makes people irrational and leads to irrational decisions. Some groups have legitimate, or at least sympathetic, reasons to fear. Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women, and others have suffered real harm in the past due to unfair laws, prejudice, and discrimination, and they fear losing the progress their various rights movements have secured. In my view, their fear is misplaced, but I nonetheless can see why they are hesitant to put their trust in a movement that embraces pure majoritarianism and fewer restrictions on individual freedoms. The transnational aristocracy, the financiers, bankers, traders, corporations, DAVOS men, lobbyists, etc. who run the current “rules based international order” and/or subsist off it like parasites also fear it, but for less sympathetic reasons. Like any aristocracy at any point in history, they have an instinctual and existential fear of popular uprising, which is basically what populism is. In America, the situation is at it’s absolute worst because America is the only nation that could unilaterally end the age of globalism. In other nations, the threat is less existential but still very present to oligarchs of those nations. The oligarchs will use every available means to undermine populist insurgencies, including manipulating the media outlets they own to attempt to control narratives, corrupting science by funding and then rubber stamping research that backs their policies while ignoring or black balling anything contradictory, and exploiting the reasonable fears of minority groups by focusing on historical grievances to amplify fears of a a return to the ‘bad old days’. For those who understand history, their behavior is sadly predictable. Like the landed nobility of the 19th century, they will embrace increasingly reactionary policies as their world falls apart around them. I would point out that the UK handled that transition better and more peacefully than just about any other European nation. I couldn’t tell you exactly when the monarch became a figurehead to the parliament or the house of lords became irrelevant but it was clearly somewhere in there. I suspect despite its present trials, Britain will weather this storm better than others as well. A timely Brexit suggests as much. I suspect a hundred years from now, the UK will be looked upon as the smart sailor who wisely jumped ship before the violence broke out and the ship caught on fire.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Amanda Kay
Amanda Kay
1 year ago

I gave up on the Guardian when it became predominantly full of opinion pieces containing ad hominem attacks and a liberal use of the F word. When you have to resort to such tactics you’ve lost the argument.

Amanda Kay
Amanda Kay
1 year ago

I gave up on the Guardian when it became predominantly full of opinion pieces containing ad hominem attacks and a liberal use of the F word. When you have to resort to such tactics you’ve lost the argument.

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
1 year ago

The Grauniad was well embarked on this direction of travel under Rusbridger; Viner then seems to have pushed it to a point of criticality for hectoring, “right on” byline, or perhaps more aptly, to a cultural event horizon, in that I don’t think its a recoverable situation any more.
Even if you wanted to salvage it as an intelligent, considered journalistic organ, the damage done appears irreversible. Time to walk away: neither readers nor writers will notice, they’re all too busy alternately lecturing one another and congratulating each other for being “on the right side of history”.
It actually depresses me: I really do think it’s healthy to have a variety of viewpoints, but for the press to function in society, that desire must be mutual to journalists and readers both, which is not what’s happening at the Graun.

Richard Parker
Richard Parker
1 year ago

The Grauniad was well embarked on this direction of travel under Rusbridger; Viner then seems to have pushed it to a point of criticality for hectoring, “right on” byline, or perhaps more aptly, to a cultural event horizon, in that I don’t think its a recoverable situation any more.
Even if you wanted to salvage it as an intelligent, considered journalistic organ, the damage done appears irreversible. Time to walk away: neither readers nor writers will notice, they’re all too busy alternately lecturing one another and congratulating each other for being “on the right side of history”.
It actually depresses me: I really do think it’s healthy to have a variety of viewpoints, but for the press to function in society, that desire must be mutual to journalists and readers both, which is not what’s happening at the Graun.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

All newspapers are riddled with trash – just a question of chosing which trash you like to eat.

Seldom
Seldom
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yes, the self-congratulatory tone of the comments is bemusing. Exactly the kind of moral superiority you’d see on peak Guardian.

Seldom
Seldom
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Yes, the self-congratulatory tone of the comments is bemusing. Exactly the kind of moral superiority you’d see on peak Guardian.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago

All newspapers are riddled with trash – just a question of chosing which trash you like to eat.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”

I would say that it is not possible to read the Guardian as if it is a serious newspaper without having already been infantilised. Reading it merely entrenches the infantile mindset of those who really think the world works that way.

“Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too.”

The subsequent possible explanations Prof Stock gives for this can be summarised as either that the person doing the talking is stupid themselves, or that person thinks his/her audience is stupid. We see a lot of this online generally – it’s one of the more depressing race-to-the-bottom aspects of arguing with strangers online – but it tends not to be a behaviour that journalists working for broadsheet newspapers endorse.

However, this is the Guardian we’re talking about here, and this analysis needs to be extended with a further possibility: that the writer actually hopes, rather than fears, that his/her audience may be stupid, and that they are therefore witless enough to actually believe the nonsense that he/she is peddling. I am not sure that this is a “these days” type of argument – maybe it’s always been the case – but there are some extraordinarily stupid and ignorant people in possession of good qualifications and in positions of responsibility.

The examples above are only a tiny slice of this – people qualified as doctors who apparently don’t think sex is physically real etc – idiots like this are scattered everywhere throughout public life and they very obviously have got all the way through a modern education without having absorbed anything axiomatic to the Age of Reason itself. One would think this would be impossible, but it very clearly isn’t.

The point is, though, that if you’re one of these professionally-qualified-but-daft people, you get your political ideas from the Guardian, because it’s the only supposedly respectable news source that won’t intrude on your echo chamber.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”

I would say that it is not possible to read the Guardian as if it is a serious newspaper without having already been infantilised. Reading it merely entrenches the infantile mindset of those who really think the world works that way.

“Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too.”

The subsequent possible explanations Prof Stock gives for this can be summarised as either that the person doing the talking is stupid themselves, or that person thinks his/her audience is stupid. We see a lot of this online generally – it’s one of the more depressing race-to-the-bottom aspects of arguing with strangers online – but it tends not to be a behaviour that journalists working for broadsheet newspapers endorse.

However, this is the Guardian we’re talking about here, and this analysis needs to be extended with a further possibility: that the writer actually hopes, rather than fears, that his/her audience may be stupid, and that they are therefore witless enough to actually believe the nonsense that he/she is peddling. I am not sure that this is a “these days” type of argument – maybe it’s always been the case – but there are some extraordinarily stupid and ignorant people in possession of good qualifications and in positions of responsibility.

The examples above are only a tiny slice of this – people qualified as doctors who apparently don’t think sex is physically real etc – idiots like this are scattered everywhere throughout public life and they very obviously have got all the way through a modern education without having absorbed anything axiomatic to the Age of Reason itself. One would think this would be impossible, but it very clearly isn’t.

The point is, though, that if you’re one of these professionally-qualified-but-daft people, you get your political ideas from the Guardian, because it’s the only supposedly respectable news source that won’t intrude on your echo chamber.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Robin Lumley-Savile
Robin Lumley-Savile
1 year ago

Their one-sided coverage of the Covid 19 debacle was a fine example of propaganda over journalism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lumley-Savile
Robin Lumley-Savile
Robin Lumley-Savile
1 year ago

Their one-sided coverage of the Covid 19 debacle was a fine example of propaganda over journalism.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robin Lumley-Savile
Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago

“This can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”

There’s always a tell in these articles that as far as KS is concerned, recent misunderstandings around her suitability for academic employment simply prove that REAL media-led elite progressivism has never been tried.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

I guess it would be a different tune entirely but for the little contretemps

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

I guess it would be a different tune entirely but for the little contretemps

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago

“This can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”

There’s always a tell in these articles that as far as KS is concerned, recent misunderstandings around her suitability for academic employment simply prove that REAL media-led elite progressivism has never been tried.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The Guardian is a pricelessly valuable media equivalent of a paid snitch, mole, informer or tout that gives an ( ever increasingly less) free society crucial intelligence on what the increasingly powerful, seditious and would be totalitarian National Socialists plans are, not least in relation to their key weapon, the racism, LGBT and Eco trident…

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The Guardian is a pricelessly valuable media equivalent of a paid snitch, mole, informer or tout that gives an ( ever increasingly less) free society crucial intelligence on what the increasingly powerful, seditious and would be totalitarian National Socialists plans are, not least in relation to their key weapon, the racism, LGBT and Eco trident…

Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the systematic oppression that the West began to throw off over a hundred years ago.

Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.

The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Neil Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.

If that isn’t ‘gaslighting’, I don’t know what is?

Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the systematic oppression that the West began to throw off over a hundred years ago.

Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.

The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Neil Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.

If that isn’t ‘gaslighting’, I don’t know what is?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”Could readers of the Guardian be any more the paper is infantilised
” Historically so fond of moral missions,…”
You mean moralising
“…..and start trusting readers to be able to think for themselves”
Well as they take the Guardian they must be inherently incapable of doing so or, put another way, if they could think for themselves they would not be reading the Guardian.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”Could readers of the Guardian be any more the paper is infantilised
” Historically so fond of moral missions,…”
You mean moralising
“…..and start trusting readers to be able to think for themselves”
Well as they take the Guardian they must be inherently incapable of doing so or, put another way, if they could think for themselves they would not be reading the Guardian.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

“But this can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
Leaves me almost speechless that anyone could still even contemplate the possibility in 2022 !
Still, the place appears to be turning into a circular firing squad …

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

“But this can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
Leaves me almost speechless that anyone could still even contemplate the possibility in 2022 !
Still, the place appears to be turning into a circular firing squad …

Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago

The suggestion that writers and editors in The Guardian are supposed to be among the nations’ foremost intellectuals is a new one on me; a marmalade-dropper, to be honest.

Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago

The suggestion that writers and editors in The Guardian are supposed to be among the nations’ foremost intellectuals is a new one on me; a marmalade-dropper, to be honest.

Paul Kensington
Paul Kensington
1 year ago

One columnist sums it up: Polly Toynbee. Smug, condescending, know-all attitude.

Paul Kensington
Paul Kensington
1 year ago

One columnist sums it up: Polly Toynbee. Smug, condescending, know-all attitude.

Johan Grönwall
Johan Grönwall
1 year ago

The Guardians next woke battlefield is Artificial Intelligence. Apperently, AI is making womens boobs bigger! Probably some devious plan by the white patriarchy to retain old gender roles by manipulating code. Pure gold if you like crazy. You just can’t make this shite up.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Johan Grönwall
Johan Grönwall
1 year ago

The Guardians next woke battlefield is Artificial Intelligence. Apperently, AI is making womens boobs bigger! Probably some devious plan by the white patriarchy to retain old gender roles by manipulating code. Pure gold if you like crazy. You just can’t make this shite up.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
1 year ago

Started reading the (Manchester) Guardian around 1958. Stopped seeing the Guardian as my ‘paper of choice’ around 2018.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
1 year ago

Started reading the (Manchester) Guardian around 1958. Stopped seeing the Guardian as my ‘paper of choice’ around 2018.

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago

I comment on the Guardian and usually getaway with not being removed. . Not that the replies are ever supportive but often there are a lot of them ranging from the mildly critical to the outraged. I think the moderators need a few dissenting voices so they let the comments stand.
If anyone thinks that on every single issue there is any possibility of a dissenting voice on the paper then they are deluded. It is a hive of quite exceptional conformity. Simon Jenkins being the sole dissenter some of the time. I suppose that is permissible him being older. Take the current wave of strikes. The G is firmly supportive as it represents the opinions of the classes who are paid for or rely upon the state for a living. That means on every twist and turn of events you can guarantee that the government is entirely in the wrong and the strikers are doing the work of saints. There is not one voice expressing anything nuanced.
Actually I still enjoy reading it as once upon a time it was a really good paper with exceptional writing and I live in hope that one day it will print something that stands comparison. . Thanks for the memory really and it is as well to keep an eye on the wilder fantasies of the progressive class.

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago

I comment on the Guardian and usually getaway with not being removed. . Not that the replies are ever supportive but often there are a lot of them ranging from the mildly critical to the outraged. I think the moderators need a few dissenting voices so they let the comments stand.
If anyone thinks that on every single issue there is any possibility of a dissenting voice on the paper then they are deluded. It is a hive of quite exceptional conformity. Simon Jenkins being the sole dissenter some of the time. I suppose that is permissible him being older. Take the current wave of strikes. The G is firmly supportive as it represents the opinions of the classes who are paid for or rely upon the state for a living. That means on every twist and turn of events you can guarantee that the government is entirely in the wrong and the strikers are doing the work of saints. There is not one voice expressing anything nuanced.
Actually I still enjoy reading it as once upon a time it was a really good paper with exceptional writing and I live in hope that one day it will print something that stands comparison. . Thanks for the memory really and it is as well to keep an eye on the wilder fantasies of the progressive class.

Jessica Woodhouse
Jessica Woodhouse
1 year ago

We have the same problem in the US. Very dangerous to democracy. If journalists stop seeing truth as their job and start engineering outcomes, democracy becomes unsustainable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jessica Woodhouse
Jessica Woodhouse
Jessica Woodhouse
1 year ago

We have the same problem in the US. Very dangerous to democracy. If journalists stop seeing truth as their job and start engineering outcomes, democracy becomes unsustainable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jessica Woodhouse
Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the kind of systematic oppression that the West began (NB. ‘began’) to throw off over a hundred years ago.

Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.

The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Niall Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.

Is this not the very definition of ‘gas-lighting’?

Simon Diggins
Simon Diggins
1 year ago

It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the kind of systematic oppression that the West began (NB. ‘began’) to throw off over a hundred years ago.

Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.

The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Niall Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.

Is this not the very definition of ‘gas-lighting’?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I’m trying to think of British newspaper that DOESN’T both lecture to, and to some degree infantilise, its readers.
Can anyone help? The Mail? The Sun The Telegraph? Anyone?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

As bad as it might seem, British news media is much better than anything found in North America. At least there’s a bit of diversity.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

As bad as it might seem, British news media is much better than anything found in North America. At least there’s a bit of diversity.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I’m trying to think of British newspaper that DOESN’T both lecture to, and to some degree infantilise, its readers.
Can anyone help? The Mail? The Sun The Telegraph? Anyone?

Kevin R
Kevin R
1 year ago

I’m here because I became so exasperated with the Guardian (which I still read, but much more selectively now).

Kevin R
Kevin R
1 year ago

I’m here because I became so exasperated with the Guardian (which I still read, but much more selectively now).

Konstantinos Stavropoulos
Konstantinos Stavropoulos
1 year ago

To make the story short, I dare say, this lady has got “balls”..!

Konstantinos Stavropoulos
Konstantinos Stavropoulos
1 year ago

To make the story short, I dare say, this lady has got “balls”..!

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

…be mindful that the Guardian is “highly trusted” by the vanishingly small number of people who read it. Most of us think it is utter bilge…and the much bigger numbers of people for whom the Mail and the Telegraph are “highly trusted” consider publishing and reading it to be an act of Treason, which should be subjected to swift and condign punishment of a traditional sort…although I think most of them would now draw the line at “drawing and quartering”…

R S Foster
R S Foster
1 year ago

…be mindful that the Guardian is “highly trusted” by the vanishingly small number of people who read it. Most of us think it is utter bilge…and the much bigger numbers of people for whom the Mail and the Telegraph are “highly trusted” consider publishing and reading it to be an act of Treason, which should be subjected to swift and condign punishment of a traditional sort…although I think most of them would now draw the line at “drawing and quartering”…

Michael Friedman
Michael Friedman
1 year ago

So grateful to Ms. Stock for her multidimensional intelligence.

Michael Friedman
Michael Friedman
1 year ago

So grateful to Ms. Stock for her multidimensional intelligence.

David Bullard
David Bullard
1 year ago

Trans women are definitely not women. They are dangerously ill people and in more caring times would have been committed to an asylum along with those who claimed to be God or the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

David Bullard
David Bullard
1 year ago

Trans women are definitely not women. They are dangerously ill people and in more caring times would have been committed to an asylum along with those who claimed to be God or the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Woodward and Bernstein were pumped up kicks in a giant game of Get The Republican and Pulitzers are gold stars for the obeisant, so the state of “journalism” is only a surprise to those who didn’t know it was always a form of prostitution.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

Woodward and Bernstein were pumped up kicks in a giant game of Get The Republican and Pulitzers are gold stars for the obeisant, so the state of “journalism” is only a surprise to those who didn’t know it was always a form of prostitution.

Theo Hopkins
Theo Hopkins
1 year ago

But, may the Good Lord be praised, we still have the Observer on a Sunday. Sonia Sodha(spelling?) and Kenan Malik who respectively write with nuance on the like of gender/transgender and race.

Tim F
Tim F
1 year ago

The answer to the headline is yes.

Tim F
Tim F
1 year ago

The answer to the headline is yes.

Brian Laidd
Brian Laidd
1 year ago

I read the Guardian. It does indeed have many problems, though not as many as the BBC. After the BBC if I switch to Al Jazeera I find it to be an interesting antidote, but the problem is that all news outlets are a problem in their own different ways. There are three biases, the bias of presentation, and the bias of the recipient, from which arises the bias of interpretation. It’s interesting to observe all three at play in this comments section (inference in particular). Personally my aim is (if at all possible) always to be an observer (small ‘o’). I’m really not all that interested in the news, because so much of it is either puerile or vexatious. However I somehow feel I should be, at least to some degree informed on what’s going on in the world even if it is the present obsession with the stultifyingly boring spectacle of ritualised tribal warfare.

I find many of the articles in Unherd to be so over intellectualised as to be unreadable, but this writer’s piece was interesting, although I have little understanding of the specifics of gender issues which seem very complex. But it seemed to me that there were some very relevant issues raised. The problem these days seems to be that contrarian opinion is not allowed and to be avoided, even when it is blindingly obvious that criticism is justified, because of the degree of opprobrium the slightest criticism attracts.

I think it’s fair to say her piece would not have been published in the Grauniad.

Brian Laidd
Brian Laidd
1 year ago

I read the Guardian. It does indeed have many problems, though not as many as the BBC. After the BBC if I switch to Al Jazeera I find it to be an interesting antidote, but the problem is that all news outlets are a problem in their own different ways. There are three biases, the bias of presentation, and the bias of the recipient, from which arises the bias of interpretation. It’s interesting to observe all three at play in this comments section (inference in particular). Personally my aim is (if at all possible) always to be an observer (small ‘o’). I’m really not all that interested in the news, because so much of it is either puerile or vexatious. However I somehow feel I should be, at least to some degree informed on what’s going on in the world even if it is the present obsession with the stultifyingly boring spectacle of ritualised tribal warfare.

I find many of the articles in Unherd to be so over intellectualised as to be unreadable, but this writer’s piece was interesting, although I have little understanding of the specifics of gender issues which seem very complex. But it seemed to me that there were some very relevant issues raised. The problem these days seems to be that contrarian opinion is not allowed and to be avoided, even when it is blindingly obvious that criticism is justified, because of the degree of opprobrium the slightest criticism attracts.

I think it’s fair to say her piece would not have been published in the Grauniad.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago

I am in debt to the the Guardian. I was very pro-EEC (still am), and did not see any harm in the transition into the EU. What could be wrong with ever-tighter integration? And surely everybody using the same money would be rather convenient.
It was Larry Elliot, the Guardian’s long-time economics editor, which ‘woke-me-up’ to the inherent shortfalls in the reasoning behind the Euro.
Elliot’s (unfortunately too infrequent) articles are at loggerheads with much of the opinion on Brexit expressed in the Guardian. I found it rather fun to post concepts taken from his articles in the forums under Brexit opinion articles. Apparently such thoughts could only come from a small minded nationalist zealot.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago

I am in debt to the the Guardian. I was very pro-EEC (still am), and did not see any harm in the transition into the EU. What could be wrong with ever-tighter integration? And surely everybody using the same money would be rather convenient.
It was Larry Elliot, the Guardian’s long-time economics editor, which ‘woke-me-up’ to the inherent shortfalls in the reasoning behind the Euro.
Elliot’s (unfortunately too infrequent) articles are at loggerheads with much of the opinion on Brexit expressed in the Guardian. I found it rather fun to post concepts taken from his articles in the forums under Brexit opinion articles. Apparently such thoughts could only come from a small minded nationalist zealot.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mr Bellisarius
paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

The Guardian used to be fairly so so many years ago but for a long time now it has been a Marxist propaganda and indoctrination rag , really deplorable and full of lies .I believe that the people who finance the “paper” are in the old Soviet bloc somewhere . It is obvious that they hate the west and will do anything and everything to undermine us all . This paper is one of the reasons that so many teachers and youngsters in Britain hate our country and take every opportunity to talk it down .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

The Guardian used to be fairly so so many years ago but for a long time now it has been a Marxist propaganda and indoctrination rag , really deplorable and full of lies .I believe that the people who finance the “paper” are in the old Soviet bloc somewhere . It is obvious that they hate the west and will do anything and everything to undermine us all . This paper is one of the reasons that so many teachers and youngsters in Britain hate our country and take every opportunity to talk it down .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

NO, the Gardian must now be avoided like the plague it is , believe me folks it is toxic to my country and the West .

paul castle
paul castle
1 year ago

NO, the Gardian must now be avoided like the plague it is , believe me folks it is toxic to my country and the West .

John Wilkes
John Wilkes
1 year ago

Believing someone with male biology (musculature and genitalia), male endocrinology (testosterone and PSA) and male genetics (a Y chromosome) to be a woman merely because they say so is on a par with believing that 2 + 2 = 5.
It is important to some people that we believe this, but that does not make it so, and no amount of legislation or bullying will make it so. The Guardian and BBC appear to be treating us in the same way that O’Brien did Winston Smith.
I am not critical of any gender so why refer to me as gender critical, this is more nonsense. I also care not a jot if someone choses to change, dress, name or even physical body through surgery or chemicals. I will happily call them by whatever name or pronoun they wish and treat them with utmost respect as all other people.
However, a person cannot change their biological sex through wishing it so,

John Wilkes
John Wilkes
1 year ago

Believing someone with male biology (musculature and genitalia), male endocrinology (testosterone and PSA) and male genetics (a Y chromosome) to be a woman merely because they say so is on a par with believing that 2 + 2 = 5.
It is important to some people that we believe this, but that does not make it so, and no amount of legislation or bullying will make it so. The Guardian and BBC appear to be treating us in the same way that O’Brien did Winston Smith.
I am not critical of any gender so why refer to me as gender critical, this is more nonsense. I also care not a jot if someone choses to change, dress, name or even physical body through surgery or chemicals. I will happily call them by whatever name or pronoun they wish and treat them with utmost respect as all other people.
However, a person cannot change their biological sex through wishing it so,

Carmen Carmen
Carmen Carmen
1 year ago

Interesting how this article offered an opportunity for just about everyone below to demonize The Guardian. No surprise. Let’s face it, everything is political, for the simple fact that politics is a big umbrella for cultural beliefs and personal identity. I have been reading Unheard articles once in awhile for probably the last 2 years. It hardly ever fails. Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life, and just about every response portraits the same ideology. Needless to say, it would be completely unproductive for me to even attempt to convince others that this is the case and they need to use their judgement instead of instantly jump on the bandwagon. Our judgement is clouded, we cannot use our judgement. Everything is tainted by ideology. The enemy is within us, all of us.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

That’s interesting. I’ve been reading it for about a year and my observation has been that nearly all of the writers it features approach their subjects from a slightly left of center perspective (a few much further left than slightly). So, I imagine, that says something about where you and I sit on the political spectrum, except that in my case it’s not really the left-right spectrum, but more like the RGB 3-dimensional space like they try to represent with color charts. Call it the Left-Right-libertarian (small L) space. So you think most of the writers are “conservative”. From my libertarian perspective they look, as I said, mostly left of center. I’m trying to think of an Unherd article I’ve read which was truly conservative and can’t. Give me an example of one. 

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

No, they are different. The Guardian and other left-wing publications peddle in outright lies and gaslighting to a gullible reader-base while treating those they consider enemies with sneering contempt. While I disagree with some Unherd writers I hardly find that they adopt a staunch conservative viewpoint. In fact, up until a few years ago, much of what is printed here would have been considered pretty much middle-of-the-road.
The problem is is that left-wingism has dominated almost all forms of discourse, so much so, that anything that is critical of it is immediately perceived to be conservative or right-wing.
I do agree with you, however, that ideological thinking is an easy trap to fall into and that we must be wary of pronouncing judgment on others.
However, what I like most about Unherd is that I am able to post comments here that would have gotten me, and indeed have gotten me, banned from platforms such as The Guardian. I also regularly see posts that I disagree with here from readers, but rather than see them banned or censored, I welcome their contributions no matter how wrong-headed I may think them – a courtesy that is never afforded by most left-wing platforms.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

I think you are largely correct about this, but the coverage is much broader than typical publications and there is at least a little diversity of thought.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

“Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life…”

You are mistaken. It is simply your own views are further left than you suppose and consequently you interpret alternative views to your own as being further right than they really are.

Of course I might just be wrong here, but an interesting consequence of that could very well be that the consensus in these comments is still nonetheless broadly correct and which means that right-wing views tend more often to be factually supportable than you would like to admit. What you can’t do here is to dismiss the consensus you perceive on the basis of nothing more than the fact that you obviously still trust the Guardian.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

I think you would find the majority of writers on Unherd would reject the suggestion that they were right wing. Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

“Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.”

Or Liberals mugged by reality, as the saying goes.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

“Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.”

Or Liberals mugged by reality, as the saying goes.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

That’s interesting. I’ve been reading it for about a year and my observation has been that nearly all of the writers it features approach their subjects from a slightly left of center perspective (a few much further left than slightly). So, I imagine, that says something about where you and I sit on the political spectrum, except that in my case it’s not really the left-right spectrum, but more like the RGB 3-dimensional space like they try to represent with color charts. Call it the Left-Right-libertarian (small L) space. So you think most of the writers are “conservative”. From my libertarian perspective they look, as I said, mostly left of center. I’m trying to think of an Unherd article I’ve read which was truly conservative and can’t. Give me an example of one. 

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

No, they are different. The Guardian and other left-wing publications peddle in outright lies and gaslighting to a gullible reader-base while treating those they consider enemies with sneering contempt. While I disagree with some Unherd writers I hardly find that they adopt a staunch conservative viewpoint. In fact, up until a few years ago, much of what is printed here would have been considered pretty much middle-of-the-road.
The problem is is that left-wingism has dominated almost all forms of discourse, so much so, that anything that is critical of it is immediately perceived to be conservative or right-wing.
I do agree with you, however, that ideological thinking is an easy trap to fall into and that we must be wary of pronouncing judgment on others.
However, what I like most about Unherd is that I am able to post comments here that would have gotten me, and indeed have gotten me, banned from platforms such as The Guardian. I also regularly see posts that I disagree with here from readers, but rather than see them banned or censored, I welcome their contributions no matter how wrong-headed I may think them – a courtesy that is never afforded by most left-wing platforms.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

I think you are largely correct about this, but the coverage is much broader than typical publications and there is at least a little diversity of thought.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

“Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life…”

You are mistaken. It is simply your own views are further left than you suppose and consequently you interpret alternative views to your own as being further right than they really are.

Of course I might just be wrong here, but an interesting consequence of that could very well be that the consensus in these comments is still nonetheless broadly correct and which means that right-wing views tend more often to be factually supportable than you would like to admit. What you can’t do here is to dismiss the consensus you perceive on the basis of nothing more than the fact that you obviously still trust the Guardian.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Carmen Carmen

I think you would find the majority of writers on Unherd would reject the suggestion that they were right wing. Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.

Carmen Carmen
Carmen Carmen
1 year ago

Interesting how this article offered an opportunity for just about everyone below to demonize The Guardian. No surprise. Let’s face it, everything is political, for the simple fact that politics is a big umbrella for cultural beliefs and personal identity. I have been reading Unheard articles once in awhile for probably the last 2 years. It hardly ever fails. Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life, and just about every response portraits the same ideology. Needless to say, it would be completely unproductive for me to even attempt to convince others that this is the case and they need to use their judgement instead of instantly jump on the bandwagon. Our judgement is clouded, we cannot use our judgement. Everything is tainted by ideology. The enemy is within us, all of us.

Bromley Man
Bromley Man
1 year ago

If not the Guardian what? Tip, the Sunday Times is a good antidote and I like one of their journalists. Front line reporting should be supported wherever.

Richard Irons
Richard Irons
1 year ago

I read the Guardian occasionally, but mostly the Times. John Crace in the Guardian is excellent, as is Marinna Hyde. I just ignore the trans articles. I migrated across to the Times after several articles slagging off Jordan Peterson in the Guardian. Then almost immediately, Decca Aithenhead in the Times did the same thing! The Guardian focus in an obsessive way about climate change, which is thoroughly depressing, and saturates the paper with helplessness.

Brian Laidd
Brian Laidd
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Irons

I don’t know much about Peterson, but as a non religious person, the comments I’ve seen attributed to him in relation to God, faith and religion in general would seem to indicate an abysmally shallow understanding of the subject. As for changing to the Times? because of criticism of someone? Take it in your stride. 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Laidd
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Irons

I am not a Peterson fan, I know very little about him, but the spectacle of my fellow “progressives” mocking and belittling him when he admitted to some mental health challenges was disgusting and not in any way progressive.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

As a university student, many years ago, The Guardian was my daily newspaper. They even published one of my letters to the editor.
Now I’m older, and I hope wiser, I very occasionally look at their headlines to see what the deluded whack-job crazy loonies are claiming. I don’t recognize it as a sane news source at all.

Last edited 1 year ago by William Shaw
William Cameron
William Cameron
1 year ago

I diligently read the Guardian along with The Times and the Telegraph every day. I do this to ensure I get (one hopes) a balanced view . But sadly that is not my experience.
The Guardian is predictable, and shrill about its view of virtue. I dont think they could report a church garden fete without making it a trans or LGBT ??++issue.
The BBC comes close too. No programme shall reflect the statistical make up of British Society. Why ? Because to do so deprives those seeking virtue .

Roger Bond
Roger Bond
1 year ago

The Guardian – going back to its earliest days as The Manchester Guardian – has never been remotely left in orientation.
They were among the main contributors to the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a wholly racist ideology which completely ignored the long historical presence of Palestinians in Palestine.
I would define the paper and its journalists as poseur-left in orientation, in order to dupe the readership into doublethink.
What really is tragic is that within a capitalist society such as Britain, there is not one single decent mass readership left newspaper.
The Mirror comes closest but is aimed at a reading age of 11 years!

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Bond

If there were a market for that, why did The Independent stop printing in 2016 and go online-only? In a capitalist society, as you put it, the market decides what it wants to buy.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Bond

Seems the “Morning Star” would be better for you.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Bond

If there were a market for that, why did The Independent stop printing in 2016 and go online-only? In a capitalist society, as you put it, the market decides what it wants to buy.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Bond

Seems the “Morning Star” would be better for you.

Roger Bond
Roger Bond
1 year ago

The Guardian – going back to its earliest days as The Manchester Guardian – has never been remotely left in orientation.
They were among the main contributors to the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a wholly racist ideology which completely ignored the long historical presence of Palestinians in Palestine.
I would define the paper and its journalists as poseur-left in orientation, in order to dupe the readership into doublethink.
What really is tragic is that within a capitalist society such as Britain, there is not one single decent mass readership left newspaper.
The Mirror comes closest but is aimed at a reading age of 11 years!

Ben Dhonau
Ben Dhonau
1 year ago

I look through the Guardian sometimes but I also look web-sites like the Mail and Guido Fawkes to try and get a perspective. If you want to try into sewage, figuratively speaking I recommend the latter’s comments sections: they can actually be quite scary. For all their faults I like the BBC and the London Times best.

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Dhonau

scary indeed…..any of the MSM websites are the same but Guido and his followers inhabit a different universe of terror

CHRIS MCWILLIAM
CHRIS MCWILLIAM
1 year ago
Reply to  Ben Dhonau

scary indeed…..any of the MSM websites are the same but Guido and his followers inhabit a different universe of terror

Ben Dhonau
Ben Dhonau
1 year ago

I look through the Guardian sometimes but I also look web-sites like the Mail and Guido Fawkes to try and get a perspective. If you want to try into sewage, figuratively speaking I recommend the latter’s comments sections: they can actually be quite scary. For all their faults I like the BBC and the London Times best.

Miriam Yagud
Miriam Yagud
1 year ago

Thanks Kathleen. An accurate assessment of the gutter journalism that the Guardian has sunk to in recent years. And its not just on the issues of trans activism and feminism. Their journalistic decline is also apparent in their handling (defence of) of Israel’s racist regime, Labour’s progressive agenda under Corbyn, Palestinian struggle for justice and so much more.

Miriam Yagud
Miriam Yagud
1 year ago

Thanks Kathleen. An accurate assessment of the gutter journalism that the Guardian has sunk to in recent years. And its not just on the issues of trans activism and feminism. Their journalistic decline is also apparent in their handling (defence of) of Israel’s racist regime, Labour’s progressive agenda under Corbyn, Palestinian struggle for justice and so much more.

:_
:_
1 year ago

I agree with the article overall, but gee, it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er .. well, I’m sure you can see where I’m heading here. Good article, yes, certain parts of progressivism have been taken over by an insane cult, but I’m not quite ready to write off all progressive thought for all time. I would also add: a cult with bad thinking has taken over parts of the left and now a few people are having their lives ruined. Another cult with bad thinking (“the planet has no limits and it’s a librul conspiracy to say otherwise!!!!”) has taken over parts of the right and now large parts of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable. Perspective, people.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Tell me which parts of the planet will become uninhabitable and when? Because this nonsense isn’t coming from the IPCC.

I remember the good old days when we were told Pacific islands would drown with rising seas, the arctic would be ice free, the Great Barrier Reef would die off, mass starvation, 100 millions of climate refugees.

Geez, now we’re getting serious – the planet will be uninhabitable.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Why would I Google the many studies on peak wet-bulb temperature when you won’t do it for yourself and you won’t read them anyway? And why would you imagine that the comments section is a place for serious scientific discussion? But it doesn’t matter any more. The laws of physics don’t read either the Guardian or Unherd, are not on Twitter, and owe us nothing, not even existence.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I’ve actually heard this one before – the planet will become uninhabitable because it will get so hot and humid our bodies can’t cool down enough through sweating.

And this will make the planet uninhabitable? We won’t be able to adapt through maybe the use of air conditioning? I’m not sure this will be a huge problem here in Canada.

The problem with studies predicting dire outcomes from flooding, or heat waves etc., is they assume we will do nothing to mitigate the impact. Yet humans are incredibly adaptive.

I know my tone is glib and condescending, but we’ve heard this kind of stuff for 35 years. I’ll give you this though – increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

But are they ‘man made’?

Last edited 1 year ago by Lesley van Reenen
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.”
Well, thanks for giving me that, but if that prediction has come true.. and given that we have failed to meet every benchmark for limiting CO2 emissions, doesn’t that mean that the increased heatwaves.. which you admit are happening… will continue to… er.. increase? Why would they not?
And it’s not the only prediction that’s come true. Increased oceanic acidification: O2-free oceanic dead-zones; sea level rise causing coastal erosion and problems for low-lying islands including salination of land; more and stronger hurricanes; more extreme weather events overall. All have come true.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

But are they ‘man made’?

Last edited 1 year ago by Lesley van Reenen
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.”
Well, thanks for giving me that, but if that prediction has come true.. and given that we have failed to meet every benchmark for limiting CO2 emissions, doesn’t that mean that the increased heatwaves.. which you admit are happening… will continue to… er.. increase? Why would they not?
And it’s not the only prediction that’s come true. Increased oceanic acidification: O2-free oceanic dead-zones; sea level rise causing coastal erosion and problems for low-lying islands including salination of land; more and stronger hurricanes; more extreme weather events overall. All have come true.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

He makes the point that your claims are not supported by the body of work that the IPCC itself represents. Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?

The answer is that you don’t, of course.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Nature Geoscience good enough for you? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3
“These results suggest that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.”
As has been pointed out by many experts, the clear implication is that :
1) even limiting to 1.5 degrees means that only “most” of the tropics won’t reach “the limit of human adaptation”.. sucks to be you if you’re not in the “most” part.
2) Past 1.5 degrees… which nobody thinks we’ll meet.. all bets are off.
I see clear reasons for alarm. You aren’t required to.
I never said anything about the IPCC or made any statements of any kind about any IPCC projections or positions, so I don’t know why you’re bringing that into it.

“Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?”

This is the standard trick of creating a set of criteria which I don’t agree with and never agreed to. Please don’t do that.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

“it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er..”
Yes – unfortunately this is a pattern on Unherd – measured, nuanced, centrist articles; reactionary commenters who appear too have misread the authors points & position as being entirely in support of their fairly extreme conservative position.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

“it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er..”
Yes – unfortunately this is a pattern on Unherd – measured, nuanced, centrist articles; reactionary commenters who appear too have misread the authors points & position as being entirely in support of their fairly extreme conservative position.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Nature Geoscience good enough for you? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3
“These results suggest that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.”
As has been pointed out by many experts, the clear implication is that :
1) even limiting to 1.5 degrees means that only “most” of the tropics won’t reach “the limit of human adaptation”.. sucks to be you if you’re not in the “most” part.
2) Past 1.5 degrees… which nobody thinks we’ll meet.. all bets are off.
I see clear reasons for alarm. You aren’t required to.
I never said anything about the IPCC or made any statements of any kind about any IPCC projections or positions, so I don’t know why you’re bringing that into it.

“Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?”

This is the standard trick of creating a set of criteria which I don’t agree with and never agreed to. Please don’t do that.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

I’ve actually heard this one before – the planet will become uninhabitable because it will get so hot and humid our bodies can’t cool down enough through sweating.

And this will make the planet uninhabitable? We won’t be able to adapt through maybe the use of air conditioning? I’m not sure this will be a huge problem here in Canada.

The problem with studies predicting dire outcomes from flooding, or heat waves etc., is they assume we will do nothing to mitigate the impact. Yet humans are incredibly adaptive.

I know my tone is glib and condescending, but we’ve heard this kind of stuff for 35 years. I’ll give you this though – increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

He makes the point that your claims are not supported by the body of work that the IPCC itself represents. Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?

The answer is that you don’t, of course.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Why would I Google the many studies on peak wet-bulb temperature when you won’t do it for yourself and you won’t read them anyway? And why would you imagine that the comments section is a place for serious scientific discussion? But it doesn’t matter any more. The laws of physics don’t read either the Guardian or Unherd, are not on Twitter, and owe us nothing, not even existence.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Tell me which parts of the planet will become uninhabitable and when? Because this nonsense isn’t coming from the IPCC.

I remember the good old days when we were told Pacific islands would drown with rising seas, the arctic would be ice free, the Great Barrier Reef would die off, mass starvation, 100 millions of climate refugees.

Geez, now we’re getting serious – the planet will be uninhabitable.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
:_
:_
1 year ago

I agree with the article overall, but gee, it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er .. well, I’m sure you can see where I’m heading here. Good article, yes, certain parts of progressivism have been taken over by an insane cult, but I’m not quite ready to write off all progressive thought for all time. I would also add: a cult with bad thinking has taken over parts of the left and now a few people are having their lives ruined. Another cult with bad thinking (“the planet has no limits and it’s a librul conspiracy to say otherwise!!!!”) has taken over parts of the right and now large parts of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable. Perspective, people.

Last edited 1 year ago by :_
:_
:_
1 year ago

Oh, dear. Unfortunately what I see in the comments section of Prof. Stocks (usually excellent) articles is a bunch of people who think that because she’s correctly identified a massive hole in left wing thought, this entitles them to:
1) write off all left-wing thought,
2) ignore all the massive holes in right-wing thought and
3) go on, and on, and on, and on about whatever personal conspiracy theory is floating their particular boat.
Sad. Will still follow Doc Stock but I regret my sub to Unherd.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Perhaps you’d be better off in the comfort zone of the Guardian, where you are free to believe anything you like without fear of anyone else holding it up for rational inspection?

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

But.. as this article correctly states.. the Guardian has some real problems. Why would I go back? I’m just not convinced that Unherd is the place to flee to.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

But.. as this article correctly states.. the Guardian has some real problems. Why would I go back? I’m just not convinced that Unherd is the place to flee to.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Perhaps you’d be better off in the comfort zone of the Guardian, where you are free to believe anything you like without fear of anyone else holding it up for rational inspection?

:_
:_
1 year ago

Oh, dear. Unfortunately what I see in the comments section of Prof. Stocks (usually excellent) articles is a bunch of people who think that because she’s correctly identified a massive hole in left wing thought, this entitles them to:
1) write off all left-wing thought,
2) ignore all the massive holes in right-wing thought and
3) go on, and on, and on, and on about whatever personal conspiracy theory is floating their particular boat.
Sad. Will still follow Doc Stock but I regret my sub to Unherd.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

As a new reader, drawn by the promise in the ‘mission’ statement of ‘new thinking’ and not pandering to tired tribal thinking, I’m deeply disappointed by the fact that 85% of the BTL comments are vaccuous right-wing rants that would embarrass Richard Littlejohn in their evidenceless cliches and echo-chamber rabble-rousing,
Oh well, I guess my search continues- this seems little better than Breitbart.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What’s wrong with Breitbart? Asking out of genuine curiosity. I just glanced at it and, while I’m not fond of the general website design, found that the random stories I clicked upon were no better or worse than most other publications.
Also, please do point out any cliches and rabble-rousing comments you come across. I’m probably guilty of that myself at times, but I do welcome intelligent debate and love to be proven wrong about things.
As I mentioned in another post, while Unherd and its commentariat may not be perfect, it does allow for different viewpoints to be heard, in a way which is not often allowed on other publications’ comments section. I’d rather people felt safe to express themselves here no matter how clumsily they do it, than that they feel compelled to be silent or for fear of being censored, scorned, or banned.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You have the rest of the media landscape to enjoy if you want a left-wing echo-chamber.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Agreed. Some of the articles and contributors are ok. That’s about as far as I’d go at this point.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Someone who touts vaccine mandates (especially vaccines that don’t work effectively) is always going to take heat here.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  :_

Someone who touts vaccine mandates (especially vaccines that don’t work effectively) is always going to take heat here.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Actually, Unherd succeeds in its mission statement. The problem here is not Unherd, but you: you appear not to have worked out that the opinions here – either those of the writers or the commentators – aren’t generally right-wing, but varied across the political spectrum.

This is what common-sense looks like: what you’re calling “vaccuous (sic) right-wing rants” are really just a selection of how most adults with a bit of life behind them think the world really works. This is how such people respond to being told that sex is not real and not binary, that men should have the right to women-only spaces by simply asserting an entirely self-declared entitlement to femininity despite having no external resemblance to it, and that children can legitimately be sexually mutilated without parental consent before they are even able to understand what their own adult consent might later comprise. If there is a rant-like quality to some of the comments here, that is quite understandably simply because the propositions in question are not merely wrong but outrageous.

Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s your own problem, not anyone else’s here, and certainly not that of Unherd.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Actually a large percentage of BTL commentators are smart ‘ex-liberals’ who had the independence of thought, intelligence, discernment and nous to move away from media that simply marched towards intolerance, authoritarianism and ‘progressivism’. See how many people here were and are familiar with The Guardian?

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Not even just “ex-” liberals, but also true liberals who saw how illiberal so-called liberals were becoming.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago

Not even just “ex-” liberals, but also true liberals who saw how illiberal so-called liberals were becoming.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

What’s wrong with Breitbart? Asking out of genuine curiosity. I just glanced at it and, while I’m not fond of the general website design, found that the random stories I clicked upon were no better or worse than most other publications.
Also, please do point out any cliches and rabble-rousing comments you come across. I’m probably guilty of that myself at times, but I do welcome intelligent debate and love to be proven wrong about things.
As I mentioned in another post, while Unherd and its commentariat may not be perfect, it does allow for different viewpoints to be heard, in a way which is not often allowed on other publications’ comments section. I’d rather people felt safe to express themselves here no matter how clumsily they do it, than that they feel compelled to be silent or for fear of being censored, scorned, or banned.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You have the rest of the media landscape to enjoy if you want a left-wing echo-chamber.

:_
:_
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Agreed. Some of the articles and contributors are ok. That’s about as far as I’d go at this point.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Actually, Unherd succeeds in its mission statement. The problem here is not Unherd, but you: you appear not to have worked out that the opinions here – either those of the writers or the commentators – aren’t generally right-wing, but varied across the political spectrum.

This is what common-sense looks like: what you’re calling “vaccuous (sic) right-wing rants” are really just a selection of how most adults with a bit of life behind them think the world really works. This is how such people respond to being told that sex is not real and not binary, that men should have the right to women-only spaces by simply asserting an entirely self-declared entitlement to femininity despite having no external resemblance to it, and that children can legitimately be sexually mutilated without parental consent before they are even able to understand what their own adult consent might later comprise. If there is a rant-like quality to some of the comments here, that is quite understandably simply because the propositions in question are not merely wrong but outrageous.

Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s your own problem, not anyone else’s here, and certainly not that of Unherd.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Riordan
Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Actually a large percentage of BTL commentators are smart ‘ex-liberals’ who had the independence of thought, intelligence, discernment and nous to move away from media that simply marched towards intolerance, authoritarianism and ‘progressivism’. See how many people here were and are familiar with The Guardian?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

As a new reader, drawn by the promise in the ‘mission’ statement of ‘new thinking’ and not pandering to tired tribal thinking, I’m deeply disappointed by the fact that 85% of the BTL comments are vaccuous right-wing rants that would embarrass Richard Littlejohn in their evidenceless cliches and echo-chamber rabble-rousing,
Oh well, I guess my search continues- this seems little better than Breitbart.

Philip Benjamin
Philip Benjamin
1 year ago

Ohh my God! This is unreadable…. After slogging through the first half, I gave up. Sorry, not sorry. After working in A&E for years, meeting lots of (mainly) kids and young adults who are secure in their trans identity, able to give detailed accounts of their improved quality of life in their new gender (both ways), I can only regard this piece as on par with something by Jordan Petersen, or Alex Jones. Watch this if you dare: https://youtu.be/GW8Plf_IXGs

:_
:_
1 year ago

I’m sorry, but nothing is “unreadable”, because ideas don’t jump out of a page and physically attack you. You just didn’t want to read them because you think your personal experience with a subset of kids trumps the other subset of kids.. who you don’t meet… who regret what they have done.
I’m a progressive, as I suspect you are. Genuine question: are women a marginalised group? And is it progressive to redefine a marginalised group without the consent of that marginalised group? Especially when that redefinition has major consequences in life and law? Do women have the right to say no, to exclude, to not be accomodating and compliant? Another question: is it progressive to create a situation where LGB kids are being told.. in large numbers.. that there’s something wrong with them? In 2022?
This isn’t progressive.

:_
:_
1 year ago

I’m sorry, but nothing is “unreadable”, because ideas don’t jump out of a page and physically attack you. You just didn’t want to read them because you think your personal experience with a subset of kids trumps the other subset of kids.. who you don’t meet… who regret what they have done.
I’m a progressive, as I suspect you are. Genuine question: are women a marginalised group? And is it progressive to redefine a marginalised group without the consent of that marginalised group? Especially when that redefinition has major consequences in life and law? Do women have the right to say no, to exclude, to not be accomodating and compliant? Another question: is it progressive to create a situation where LGB kids are being told.. in large numbers.. that there’s something wrong with them? In 2022?
This isn’t progressive.

Philip Benjamin
Philip Benjamin
1 year ago

Ohh my God! This is unreadable…. After slogging through the first half, I gave up. Sorry, not sorry. After working in A&E for years, meeting lots of (mainly) kids and young adults who are secure in their trans identity, able to give detailed accounts of their improved quality of life in their new gender (both ways), I can only regard this piece as on par with something by Jordan Petersen, or Alex Jones. Watch this if you dare: https://youtu.be/GW8Plf_IXGs