DiscussionWould you be fine with a Fox News interview about this website?

submitted by CancelPowerSuper Bi Male from self.LGBDropTheT

Would you vote for it like what happened with r/antiwork? Yes or no? Would it be positive or would it be negative for our cause?

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

No: you can lay your money on them trying to make us look bad. Given that they are highly trained in manipulating people to divulge information or otherwise provide fodder for bad optics, and most lay people are not trained very well in media relations, I would say it's a highly risky endeavor.

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it's very risky because Fox News is a right-wing outlet but very rewarding if successful, many people still don't know that LGB and the gender cult aren't the same things. An interview on TV would be very helpful in spreading the awareness that being same-sex attracted /= being trans or making up genders.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

tucker knows

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a fair point, but I'd make sure that the interviewee is trained in media relations.

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Definitely, nobody wants what happened with r/antiwork and Doreen to happen here.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Given that they are highly trained in manipulating people to divulge information or otherwise provide fodder for bad optics

maddow, lemon, people like that on the left would be the ones doing that to us as they (cnn, msnbc) are very pro T narrative.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

manipulating people to divulge information or otherwise provide fodder for bad optics

The right does it too. I think that even in the absolute best scenario, Fox would only use us as tokens to push their agenda, and would barely give any airtime to real LGB issues. At best. More likely scenario: "See, look at all the damage the gays caused! The slippery slope we predicted was right! It's gay people's fault there are all these detransitioning children! Degeneracy! What is this country coming to!" Etc.

They still have a core supporter base that is very homophobic, even if many more people on the right today support gay marriage than in the past.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that though the right may be anti-T, it is not necessarily pro-LGB. Some right-wingers would love LGB to be tarnished with the sins of T (not all, especially those of us who identify as center-right).

[–]chazzstrong 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

All publicity is good publicity. That said, who here watches FOX?

But for real, the more right-leaning conservatives learn that LGB people are VERY firmly against the trans craze the better. I see so many still conflating the two, and I try ( I really do ) to make them understand the divide but it seems all too easy for them to just scoff, call me a 'faggot' and say something about Jeebus or Hell.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t see a problem with it it. I don’t particularly watch Fox News except when I’m watching livestreams of Tucker Carlson, whom I sort of respect. In fact, he’s one of the few news anchors I can respect, which says more about the media in general than Tucker. That being said, he’s probably the only anchor on Fox News whom I can respect. Also, Fox News is/was owned by Rupert Murdoch, and Murdoch played a big role in corrupting conservative and right wing movements and organisations across the Anglosphere.

Nonetheless, I think us going on Fox News would be a good thing. Tulsi Gabbard goes on it and she’s still left wing. Regardless of your opinions or ideology, it’s good to talk to people with different ideologies or opinions. Now if only there was somebody on CNN who would talk to us.

[–]GenderSpecial 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As a pro, there’s a chance that it might make it a little bit more acceptable for LGB people to be more openly gender critical. I think the potential benefits are limited though.

Otherwise, there’s massive risk involved. For example there’s the risk that we’d get an idiot on TV, or someone with more extreme views than most of us getting on TV, which could paint the movement in a negative light.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

or someone with more extreme views than most of us getting on TV, which could paint the movement in a negative light.

Yupppppp, I think it'd be VERY easy for our movement to be misrepresented. For example, one of the stances this sub has is not endorsing any particular ideology... but many ideological groups (trans activists are just one, radfems are another) would probably leap at the chance to claim that our struggles as a minority group are "proof" supporting their ideology's claims. And then misrepresent DTT as being a part of that ideology.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

From a sub subscriber standpoint, the number here would probably grow by 100x purely from the exposure. I would like there to be an opportunity to skip countless conversations and wholesale clear up for the more open-minded conservatives what the difference is between gender identity and sexual orientation; And the difference is between sexual orientation and your random paraphilias. Those are the two most important things to get across to other people.

They call it many things("The Acronym", "Rainbow Folk", "The Gays", "Alphabet Soup"), but it's just one big amorphous blob to them. They barely distinguish or understand and that's the problem(and truth be told a lot of liberals are like that as well which is why we have our current problem). Not that any attempt to explain the situation to the masses would necessarily be successful or even ever happen to begin with, but if it DID take place the network would of course do their oh so predictable news spin on it to suit their agenda and that's what you gotta watch out for. No easy way to get around that inevitability. The interviewee(s) will have to be on the ball at all times and sharp as a tack.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh god no.

None of us are trained in media/public relations, and none of us have the slightest bit of desire to no longer be anonymous.

Plus, American media is basically propaganda machines these days, whether choosing the left or the right. It's very difficult to find neutral ground, if that even exists, and it would be negative optics to be represented by Fox News. It would also be poorly received by people who already hate us - they would see it as "evidence" that we're the alt-right psy-op organization they already believe we are.

If we were an established charity or something like LGB Alliance, perhaps, but even then it would take very specific people to do the interview and not get run over. Us mods (and all of you) would also have to be prepared for an explosion of activity, which we're not.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely agree with your comment, couldn't have said it better.

Especially this, I think some people on this thread are forgetting/not noticing this point:

It would also be poorly received by people who already hate us - they would see it as "evidence" that we're the alt-right psy-op organization they already believe we are.

Us mods (and all of you) would also have to be prepared for an explosion of activity, which we're not.

Good point. Thanks for modding :)

[–]CancelPowerSuper Bi Male[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

None of us are trained in media/public relations, and none of us have the slightest bit of desire to no longer be anonymous.

That's fair. Well, the first part is manageable I think, I'm pretty sure we can figure out somebody who knows how to deal with these things, the second part though is a great point. I totally forgot about the risk and danger of losing our anonymous status to talk about a controversial topic on air, whoever's going to be interviewed will face severe consequences unless they are ready for it I'm sure.

At the end of the day, it's all a hypothetical situation. I highly doubt any interview will happen with this site since it's not nearly popular enough (r/antwork, as an example, had 1.8 million subscribers and was the fastest growing subreddit) It was just fun to know people's opinions on it.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We discussed it back when we first got banned from Reddit, and all of us (mods I mean) agreed that we weren't willing to do any interviews. Even if we talked to someone friendly like Benjamin Boyce, it would have to be on the condition of no webcam and a voice scrambler or a narrator speaking for us. Some of us have a lot to lose, and it wasn't worth the risk.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kellie jay was just talking about Tucker Carlson, she is on there tonight:

https://youtu.be/ERAFdf0TV7k?t=475

She knows he is just a tool to get her message out, to anyone left or right who will fight against gender ideology. She doesn't care about his politics. you can watch from the beginning how she feels about "wingers" She's on tucker tonight as well.

What happened with anti work, is that anti work was anti capitalist and fox is pro capitalist, plus the guy from antiwork was pretty much a caricature, which is what fox wanted to see. They are against what antiwork stands for, so of course they would try to make them look bad.

But we are they type fox loves, people who should be mindless lefties, criticizing the left instead. Criticizing gender Ideology. Actual LGB who are against what is being done to their kids in school, etc. Some one who is a good speaker could represent us I think. They would present us in a good light for the simple fact we share their opinion, on this issue at least.

You would have more of a chance of a negative reaction if you went on cnn or msnbc.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. I don’t think it would help our cause at all and at best I think it would threaten the peace of the oasis here by attracting unwanted attention. An organization like LGB Alliance maybe in the future with the right person on the right program under the right circumstances. But not this place.

[–]MyLongestJourney 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. I have watched similar interviews by "Satan himself" aka Tucker Carlson.He had lesbians and feminist women hounded by the TQ mafia in his show and also detransioners and he handled the topic very sensibly. In no way did he make those women look bad as some user on this topic believes he would.And I can not stress this enough. It is very important to point out to the common man and woman,that we LGBs do not share the same views with the TRAs.Especially as the ""progressive" media refuse to give us a voice.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Disturbingly I have also seen him handle such an interview recently in a way that made me think, "Is this the same Tucker Carlson who is a disgrace to the human race, or does he have a twin?"

Which confusion just leads me to be even less willing to trust him or Fox.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with everyone saying "no" or "hell no" and that includes those who have, like me, seen Tucker Carlson handle a recent interview with someone anti-TRA with startling decency.

That just feels like another red flag and somehow, a form of gaslighting. Dude can switch it on and off as needed.

So we'd be sticking our head in the lion's mouth and praying. Not a good plan. Plus if we got a huge influx of people here then we'd just risk burning down what we've built so carefully.