Have I robustly criticised him? Yes: for hiring the Holocaust denier David Irving, and for chairing a magazine which publishes racism and praises Nazis.
I'm sure @afneil didn't like being criticised for hiring a Holocaust denier, or for chairing a magazine which churns out racism and apologia for Nazis.
But in a democratic society, I have a right to challenge him on that. Yet he defends himself by hiding behind "cancel culture".
This all kicked off after I wrote a column about Andrew Neil in 2018, the point of which was not to "cancel" him, but rather to underline the point that the claim the BBC has a left wing bias is ludicrous. (Which remains the case today). theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The false claim by @afneil, which led to a deluge of abuse including fantasies of violence, still hasn't been withdrawn.
I've never called for him to be sacked, as I said at the time:
Then there's David Satterfield, the diplomat who served Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden, former US Ambassador, former Special Envoy for Humanitarian Issues.
He says Israel has never offered privately alleged or offered evidence of Hamas stealing aid.
According to 110 aid looting incidents recorded by the Israeli army, not one was perpetrated by Hamas.
So what @MrTCHarris is doing here - retweeted by @dpjhodges - is peddling a lie which is being used to justify the mass starvation of a people.
This depraved psycho publicly declared that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children can just go to hell.
This morally warped man called for the death of hundreds of thousands of kids - which is what his statement means in practise - and thinks he has a moral high ground.
He publicly supports the mass murder of innocent civilians.
Yet instead of disappearing into a hole somewhere forever, @DPJHodges has faced no consequences for his support for genocide and feels able to adjudicate on morality.
Fucked up doesn't begin to cover it.
Imagine someone had publicly declared, after thousands of Israeli children had already been killed, in an onslaught that person supported, that Israeli children can just go to hell.
@DPJHodges would interpret that as a call to slaughter kids, and for once he would be right.
Israeli officers and soldiers have revealed they’ve been ordered to deliberately shoot at unarmed Palestinians trying to get aid.
That’s in Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Israel is deliberately massacring civilians it’s deliberately starving.
There are few crimes more depraved.
It’s easy to feel like you’re going mad watching a live streamed genocide for a very obvious reason.
You can see overwhelming evidence that the most depraved crimes are being committed every day, yet you’re treated as a hateful extremist if you say so.
You think that, in a rational and sane world, crimes this extreme, this depraved, this evidence would surely - surely! - trigger an overwhelming, deafening response to stop them, immediately.
Instead you see your politicians and media outlets facilitating these crimes.
What happens to your life if the very act of using a public toilet becomes a source of fear or panic?
Well, it largely means you don't leave your home unless you really have to. You don't go to pubs or bars or cinemas or theatres. Do you even go shopping?
If you *only* consider the question of toilets, and nothing else, Britain has been turned into a hostile environment for trans people.
Britain is now the most hostile country to be trans in Europe, other than Russia or Hungary.
Opposition to Israel’s genocide is a position shared by millions of people.
And yet there are some on this website who want to make it a fringe position, by imposing a purity test which would exclude the vast majority who oppose the genocide.
Even if you oppose the genocide, even if you support a total arms embargo and sweeping sanctions on Israel, the arrest of the entire military and political leadership, the creation of a single state with equal rights for all:
Even then, they will say you’re not pure enough.
There’s always been a small strain on the left, amplified by social media, who are driven primarily by being seen as the most radical person in the room, who think they can prove their radicalism by defining themselves against any leftist with a platform.