Okay, two points:
1) Taylor's assertion that the online right focuses on MSM fuck-ups to attract people to their own sites/viewpoints is correct. She is also correct when she says that the online right focuses on cases like Amber Heard and Jussie Smollett to sow doubt in leftist groups/movements, like MeToo and BLM.
However, these cases the right focuses on are still fuck-ups - whether you want to admit it or not - and as much as the online left bemoans this argument (from what I've seen),
you really aren't helping stop people from flowing to right-leaning sites by making the news coverage of these legitimate fuck-ups, instead of about the people that did the fucking-up, about the people reporting on the case that you aren't.
Why do you think it is, Taylor, that the right focuses on these cases at all? Could it be that when people with large followings misuse one of the left's tools, it makes the tools look bad, thereby making people consider the right's POV in your absence of coverage or an explanation? Maybe if, instead of making the Heard news cycle about the evil Daily Wire running advertisements about your side's fuck-up, you focused on why Heard being a manipulative cunt
doesn't delegitimize the MeToo movement, and took the time to remind the public of the past cases that MeToo helped bring to light, like Weinstein or Schneider? Or instead of frothing at the mouth when Andy Ngo (who does deserve his own, separate criticisms) covers a faked hate crime and whining about the ebil yahtzee right-wing, you talked about the criminally under-reported
actual hate crimes that occur out there.
While it is important to counter opportunistic grifters that use whatever's in the news cycle to their advantage, making the near-entirety of your reporting on a happening about the other people covering the happening forces people to listen to the grifters' coverage.
2) It shouldn't be a surprise that the group of people whose knowledge of Internet history starts at GamerGate believes that the "accountability mob" is a distinctly right-wing, or even an
extremist thing. Apart from anything and everything political, if you make a massive, public fuck-up, and your response is "it wasn't me, and everyone who said it
was me is disingenuous," you will universally receive a near-unending torrent of backlash.
To relate it to Taylor's neck of the woods, imagine if David Dobrick responded like this. What if David highlighted Kat Tenbarge's repeated (over
months) use of "we need to hold LA creators accountable" rhetoric, highlighted her public support of Taylor's horrible Mr. Beast articles, and concluded that the cancelling of him was a targeted, disingenuous move from MSM to attempt a strike against YouTube? Assuming he's correct (and he totally would be btw, I'm not sure we've talked about "JournoGate" ITT yet...
), that doesn't erase the legitimate wrongdoing he was "cancelled" for in the first place. And in the case of Taylor, she has gotten caught in
multiple instances of wrongdoing,
none of which she's received any non-Internet-PR repercussions for, and used this argument almost
every single time.
I am becoming more and more convinced that Taylor has shacked up with the left, in part, to shield herself and her work from criticism by accusing critics of being enemy ideologues.
