Possibly i’m missing something but the deep dive into things like her sister’s wedding feels kind of not necessary unless we’re implying a whole “Jews using connections to do things in media” situation. Why does it matter that the connected family she’s part of are Jewish?
If you want to trace her ideological development, where’s information about relevant stuff like her education? What she majored in, work experience?
If you want to trace her connection to Shapiro, surely we can do that without talking about her grandfather the Rebbe and how her family celebrates milestones? Frankly, nobody feels the need to talk about how other commentators with disgusting views like hers dance at their weddings.
I’m not defending Raichhik, i’m disliking the way its pointing to her Lubavitcher background as at all relevant. Its just serving to other her, and is pretty dog-whistle-y, given this is a piece about media. Like, we could just say “she likely met Shapiro through her dad” without printing shit about her sister’s wedding or her grandfather the Rebbe, right?
The anti-Semitism isn’t the point of the piece. But it’s the takeaway.
It's too show the family history of fundamentalism. Degeneracy seen through her eyes can literally just be men dancing with women. I also wanted to show the family was well established in the community. The sister's wedding is relevant just because that's where the photo of the family came from. There are a few edits I could make to make this clearer, but I'm not a classically trained journalist or creative writing scholar. I don't have an editor or proofreader, I'm just me. This is & has been a one person operation.
Good research. I had no idea the same person was behind Babylon Bee and LOTT, that's my takeaway here.
I don't find the "she referred to herself as a journalist, therefore she is a journalist and loses the right to anonymity" line compelling. In practice, we call people journalists if they work at news outlets. People would be unlikely to refer to i.e. a substack author as a journalist unless they'd previously worked at an news outlet. It's just not a matter of self-ID.
The lines of argument I'm more interested in are regarding actual harm caused. I was shocked to learn how many people she's gotten fired, let alone the Boston Hospital shenanigans.
I agree that she's crossed enough lines to be entitled retaliation, but the point is moot because the doxxing was the best thing to ever happen to LOTT, very literally doubling her follower count over the next weeks. This isn't an unusual phenomenon and has occurred with many blogs, the first other example coming to mind being Slate Star Codex. Taylor Lorenz and co. are journalists and either were aware or were fools not to be aware of what would result.
By your name I imagine that your online presence is devoted to attacking or exposing LOTT. But if you give these people publicity, you are giving them money. It's worth considering whether these sorts of post causes net good in the world, or if it's simply placing an offering at LOTT's feet. History seems to be hinting at the latter here.
Not sure why we should care about this SO MUCH. Taylor Lorenz and Libs of TikTok can take care of themselves pretty sure. The actual issue at hand is whether using people's self-published work to mock them is somehow harmful. A good case could be made that people can learn from their own cringe
Hey 👋🏻 this is amazing. Can you please get in touch with me regarding bringing this story to the Orthodox Jewish community via my podcast? I Dmed you on twitter.
Yeah, no. The *whole point* of the LGBTQ movement is that people should be free to choose their own identity. This story sounds like the opposite of that to me. A parent projecting their own ideas onto their child and making a cage for them is bad whichever way you look at it. And if LoTT was about that, I could understand her. But it isn't & she knows she's fueling outrage and violence against innocent people.
I never said anything was hate speech. I'm just confused why you brought it up. This article mentioned nothing relating to that subject, that's a fact whether you like it or not.
extremely based post, substack's algorithm should show this to more people
Thanks for the read! It's my first time using this platform & I can honestly say that it was very user friendly.
Yo, this was 🔥. Well done!
idk what to call you, mister/mrs/thems chuds, very nice newsler thank you
Possibly i’m missing something but the deep dive into things like her sister’s wedding feels kind of not necessary unless we’re implying a whole “Jews using connections to do things in media” situation. Why does it matter that the connected family she’s part of are Jewish?
If you want to trace her ideological development, where’s information about relevant stuff like her education? What she majored in, work experience?
If you want to trace her connection to Shapiro, surely we can do that without talking about her grandfather the Rebbe and how her family celebrates milestones? Frankly, nobody feels the need to talk about how other commentators with disgusting views like hers dance at their weddings.
I’m not defending Raichhik, i’m disliking the way its pointing to her Lubavitcher background as at all relevant. Its just serving to other her, and is pretty dog-whistle-y, given this is a piece about media. Like, we could just say “she likely met Shapiro through her dad” without printing shit about her sister’s wedding or her grandfather the Rebbe, right?
The anti-Semitism isn’t the point of the piece. But it’s the takeaway.
It's too show the family history of fundamentalism. Degeneracy seen through her eyes can literally just be men dancing with women. I also wanted to show the family was well established in the community. The sister's wedding is relevant just because that's where the photo of the family came from. There are a few edits I could make to make this clearer, but I'm not a classically trained journalist or creative writing scholar. I don't have an editor or proofreader, I'm just me. This is & has been a one person operation.
Good research. I had no idea the same person was behind Babylon Bee and LOTT, that's my takeaway here.
I don't find the "she referred to herself as a journalist, therefore she is a journalist and loses the right to anonymity" line compelling. In practice, we call people journalists if they work at news outlets. People would be unlikely to refer to i.e. a substack author as a journalist unless they'd previously worked at an news outlet. It's just not a matter of self-ID.
The lines of argument I'm more interested in are regarding actual harm caused. I was shocked to learn how many people she's gotten fired, let alone the Boston Hospital shenanigans.
I agree that she's crossed enough lines to be entitled retaliation, but the point is moot because the doxxing was the best thing to ever happen to LOTT, very literally doubling her follower count over the next weeks. This isn't an unusual phenomenon and has occurred with many blogs, the first other example coming to mind being Slate Star Codex. Taylor Lorenz and co. are journalists and either were aware or were fools not to be aware of what would result.
By your name I imagine that your online presence is devoted to attacking or exposing LOTT. But if you give these people publicity, you are giving them money. It's worth considering whether these sorts of post causes net good in the world, or if it's simply placing an offering at LOTT's feet. History seems to be hinting at the latter here.
Not sure why we should care about this SO MUCH. Taylor Lorenz and Libs of TikTok can take care of themselves pretty sure. The actual issue at hand is whether using people's self-published work to mock them is somehow harmful. A good case could be made that people can learn from their own cringe
Hey 👋🏻 this is amazing. Can you please get in touch with me regarding bringing this story to the Orthodox Jewish community via my podcast? I Dmed you on twitter.
Great job with this, thank you c:
Would this be enough information to report her involvement with Jan 6 to the FBI? I know they have a form for that
Very nice work
i love gay men
Thank you for the work you do.
Yeah, no. The *whole point* of the LGBTQ movement is that people should be free to choose their own identity. This story sounds like the opposite of that to me. A parent projecting their own ideas onto their child and making a cage for them is bad whichever way you look at it. And if LoTT was about that, I could understand her. But it isn't & she knows she's fueling outrage and violence against innocent people.
How does this relate to the article? It said nothing about transitioning whatsoever
I never said anything was hate speech. I'm just confused why you brought it up. This article mentioned nothing relating to that subject, that's a fact whether you like it or not.