Talk:Jacobin (magazine)

On Castillo

@Plutocow, here are some good examples.

• In this video, he talks about gender ideology.
• Being pro-life is not what I'd call authoritarianism since most of Latam is still in the middle ages when it comes to abortion, but being against same-sex marriage and supporting death penalty is something else.
• on his proposals during the campaign he also praised Fidel and Raúl Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. GeeJayK (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I might be wrong since Spanish isn't my first language, but I don't see any mentions of the Castros, Ortega, Chavez, or Maduro in the PDF you linked, now any mentions of Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua for that matter. Yeah, he's definitely a social conservative but using "authoritarian" alongside examples like Lenin and Castro suggests being anti-democratic rather than just being a social conservative, especially since democracy is mentioned in that section. If you want to add that back, I would at least clarify that. Plutocow (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say social conservatism, while awful, is not necessarily Authoritarianism per se. Even rhetoric praising authoritarian figures, while also awful, is just that-rhetoric. It takes consistent political action of the sort that undermines democratic mores to make someone an authoritarian and that's not what your evidence really shows. I would certainly oppose including him in a list alongside Castro and Maduro.-Flandres (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) You're right about the PDF. Here is a right link. I personally consider some socially conservative positions like gender ideology and opposition to same-sex marriage to be inherently authoritarian. I also think most of his economic policies are inherently authoritarian, but I don't feel like adding it to the article since Jacobin is not being hypocritical while supporting them, and most of RW probably would disagree with me on this particular matter, so whatever. Maybe I'll add him and clarify it later, I don't have time right now. GeeJayK (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Last edits by Tuxer

I'm kinda inclined to revert them. First because it's worded in a strange way ("part of its staff is apparently loves"). Second because, well, if you support dictatorships, your opinion on democracy can't be that strong. Thoughts? GeeJayK (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not the one to add that section, I just rewrote it so I don't care. Also a sidenote, just because specific individuals take a particular stance, it does not mean that the institution takes that stance as well. In example, the Democratic party supports raising the minimum wage but that doesn't mean this stance is rendered invalid just because a few members vote against when it comes to the Senate floor.Tuxer (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tuxer Nevermind, Cosmik already rewrote the sentence. That being said, since the second part of the paragraph downright contradicts the first one I still think we should at least question their commitment to democracy. GeeJayK (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"publishing fluff pieces on Carlson"

Is this actually supported by the reference? I took a glance at it and the article quickly condemns him but also wants to discuss his rhetoric tactics and why they persuade. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)