June 29, 2023 - 7:00am
This week, Breitbart published an article slamming Right-wing journalist and vocal Ron DeSantis supporter Pedro Gonzalez for sending “racist” and “antisemitic” private and group chat messages.
The messages range from the obviously irreverent, such as: “Is Zuc [Mark Zuckerberg] trying to redpill me on the JQ [Jewish Question]?” to more serious ones, like, “My point is, the antisemitism stuff has gone too far […] I think Holocaust Denial is, in part, a rejection of the myth that Americans need to feel some guilt or responsibility to act because of that event. I don’t deny that Jews were killed by the Nazis, but that Americans should feel any sort of guilt or responsibility for that event.” (Breitbart framed the latter comment as “Holocaust denialism” — a serious charge.)
While some Right-wing media personalities, such as Jonah Goldberg and Douglas Murray, have shared the story, what has emerged to readers as more disturbing than the content of Gonzalez’s messages is the cynical behaviour behind leaking these screenshots. Essentially, why were these messages offensive enough to screenshot and archive, but not so appalling that the leaker remained friendly with Gonzalez privately, and in a group chat, for the two-year period over which they were sent? It’s almost as if this person was less appalled by Gonzalez’s opinions and more determined to destroy his public image.
What happened to Gonzalez calls to mind a bizarre incident from 2020 when a student at Heritage High School in Virginia posted a four-year-old video of his classmate, Mimi Groves, using a racial slur upon her acceptance to the University of Tennessee. The video resulted in a widespread backlash against Groves, culminating in her removal from the University’s cheerleading team and her withdrawal from the university. But while most people agreed that using a racial slur was wrong, many wondered why her classmate decided to save the video and publish it years later. Was her classmate as “shocked” as he claimed, or was this the act of a petty, vindictive rival?
In 2020, some on the Right concluded that such behaviour was just a Leftist tactic, and worse, that it had become accepted by the mainstream. Groves wasn’t the first person to be tried in the court of public opinion in this way, and she won’t be the last. But as the incident with Gonzalez shows, this isn’t just a Left-wing phenomenon. It’s a digital one.
UnHerd’s Mary Harrington has theorised that this is because we live an increasingly disembodied existence. Where disputes may have once been settled in person, they have since been replaced by online snipes like these. There are no physical, or even meaningful, in-person social outlets to vent our rage, and so we’re all forced into the role of virtual town gossip.
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*ahem* Jonah Goldberg is no conservative.
*ahem* Jonah Goldberg is no conservative.
As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
Gradually you began to hate them
Gradually you began to hate them
BB’s problem is that masses of its huge commenter community think that Gonzalez is right, both through their btl posts or upvotes for grossly antisemitic comments btl. I followed this closely for several years until I withdrew for my own sanity. The irony is that the site that hosts them has Jewish founders and CEO.
As someone who actually clicks the links on the article it is clear that the guy is antisemitic and racist. The article deliberately pulls the most egregious racist elements of the texts. Poor journalism. Take note Unherd.
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
Apples and oranges. I taught high school for a while, and there was a long period where white high school students sang along to every word of a rap song. It was hard to determine, from the New York Times article, whether the girl was innocently, singing along or being defiant and breaking a taboo. It struck me as the former, and her punishment did not seem to fit the crime.
I don’t see how anybody expects anything they exchange in a so-called private forum to remain private in this day and age. There are just too many examples that have demonstrated that it isn’t so. Remember JournoList? If Ezra Klein really expected for the rest of the world not to discover how genuinely boring he and his reporter friends are, that strikes me as truly native. We know that the North Koreans can hack into the exchanges of studio executives, whining about starlets. There’s always a huge difference between what should, and what is.
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
Breitbart is a big Trump supporter – that is why.
Spot on. That’s exactly why Breitbart’s doing this. Looks like they’re getting the supporters they deserve. Dismal site.
Spot on. That’s exactly why Breitbart’s doing this. Looks like they’re getting the supporters they deserve. Dismal site.
Breitbart is a big Trump supporter – that is why.
I am not quite sure who Breitbart is trying to pander to by attacking right wing figures. Did they just assume some Guardian readers might convert and begin subscribing? The contents of two years of group chat taken out of any context are just not particularly interesting to me.
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
Hmm… the boundaries between private and public conversations. Whilst we all understand the need for privacy, should our public persona differ to such a degree from our private ‘self’ that the public one becomes actual deception?
Of course we may express ourselves more candidly among (those we think are our) friends, but that can’t include expressing views that differ from our public discourse. That’s a difference in kind, not in tone.
What online media provides is a major “looking glass” effect regarding the ‘self’. It may well be that internet natives are unable to distinguish any difference between the two; their ‘selves’ exist online. That would possibly explain the seemingly greater prevalence of mental unwellness, as no inner resources become sufficiently developed to cope with the obvious hurdles that life puts in all our paths.
More profoundly perhaps, in what sense does the ‘self’ exist, except through external discourse? These relatively trivial online examples which segue into ‘real life’ pose the possibility of the ‘self’ becoming indistinct for future generations. It’s a form of evolution, of non-biological origin but with consequences just as vital. It’s always been possible to lead a life of deception, and self-deception: we can now watch it happening.
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
I think there is a big difference between Gonzales and Groves. Gonzalez is an adult who works in the media, and he should know better. Nothing you say online is private. Groves was a kid when she made the comment. Kids say stupid things all the time – they’re kids.
However, I do agree that publishing the Gonzales comments is cheap, spiteful and immature. If he actually said something truly anti-Semitic, it might be more acceptable. This looks more like a smear job.
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney
I have remained a believer in avoiding pseudonyms an avatars. Providing one’s name when posting one’s opinions promotes accountability, which often requires courage.
Penny Noland Gaffney