Rod Liddle: I’m identifying as a young, black, trans chihuahua, and the truth can go whistle

No doubt. The investigation of the behaviour and views of anyone can be the start of much self examination if they come to the same conclusion as you do about a topic.

The thought process that ends at "This person is nasty, so I cannot agree with them, even if they are correct" is not going move beyond a very narrow view of anything at all.

Einstein was an odious twat, treated his wives terrible, claimed their work and took credit for it. Do we all think the theory of relativity is wrong now as a result of hearing more about this Jez? I expect you do.....

I don’t think RL is standing up for women’s rights is he? I think he’s highlighting absurdity

If I found myself in agreement with an odious, nasty gobshite I wouldn't automatically assume the gobshite was right.

I would start to question whether I could be wrong.

The feminist forum is no place to crow over his words to be honest.

So now it's "crow" about his words. What does that mean?

Or, he will be recognized as a mostly nasty gobshite who very, very occasionally said some things which were right.

God, how do some people cope in a world that isn't entirely made up of Lego people?

Hmmm.

Let's imagine we look back on the article the OP shared in 15 years time.

Either Rod Liddle will be seen as trailblazer for women's right in his vitriolic missive against transgender individuals.

Or he will be seen as an outrageous transphobe whose antiquated views do not keep up with the times.

Given his form for not keeping up with the times on equality, sexism and child abuse I suspect the latter.

Prepared to come back and eat my hat if not.

The child abuse images opinion this cretin holds means I cannot click on any article of his, he is odious, whether he may be right or not is irrelevant to me. The feminist forum is no place to crow over his words to be honest.

Helen Staniland is also contributing useful commentary; in response to Matt Lodder's uninformed interventions and self-assured virtue-broadcast and faux concern for others whom Lodder deems less aware of their status as useful idiots:

Matt Lodder wrote: You'd think sharing gender politics with Rod Liddle and Jordan Peterson would give people pause, but here we are.

Helen S responded: You'd think sharing them with David Challenor would give people pause before tweeting something so ridiculous as damning by association.

twitter.com/helenstaniland/status/1061666161325170688

Like the Guardian journalists, Lodder genuinely had no understanding of the swamp into which he waded.

Classifying people as:

1. Goodies we are aligned with and believe in and support everything g they exever said ever and we are chums
2. Baddies who said a bad thing and are awful people and everything they ever say ever is a lie

Is a bad idea. Some fairly repellent people are right about some stuff and some brilliant people are wrong about other stuff.

In the real world, people take an argument as it is and tend to realise that agreeing with one thing someone says doesn’t make you a staunch ally and believer in everything they say.

I loathe Rod Liddle and I loathe Tatchell. Liddle’s opinion on this is right though. He’s still an odious man.

As always, when these ‘shut up women’ threads arise I will say that a key characteristic of cluster B disorders is this kind of thinking.

Didn't Gandhi manage to simultaneously sleep with young girls whilst not sleeping with them? Complex!

Re DMs tweet upthread btw, while I agree with the general premise, no I wouldn't retweet because DM is trying to insert DMself into the narrative as an "oppressed woman". Colonisation generally isn't a good look.

Exactly.

That vampire castle post is brilliant, I hadn't had chance to read it before. No doubt some W 'purist' will be along to point out that the author has done something I'm unaware of though...

Re DMs tweet upthread btw, while I agree with the general premise, no I wouldn't retweet because DM is trying to insert DMself into the narrative as an "oppressed woman". Colonisation generally isn't a good look.

If the tweet had been about GNC males being at risk at night, I would have no cause to disagree at all, despite having largely negative views of DM.

This is a needed thread. I am, frankly, quite astonished at the recent trend of people unwilling to engage critically with what they are reading, and to instead display (quite terrifying) tribal behaviour. It seems even more bizarre to read it on a feminist board, where presumably one has to think about the issues impacting women and have some ability to be able to think about why they exist to be able to determine what we should be fighting for.

Three things:

1. This is precisely why LAWS was formed. Let’s hear some different opinions so we may, as individuals, make up our minds about issues that impact us. Engage brains!
2. If one refused to have anything to do with anything said or written by a person simply because they said/wrote/did something one disagreed with once then what an incredibly sheltered life one would lead. Barely any literature could be read for a start, and presumably one would have no friends. How on earth can a person learn if they are not willing to engage with things they do not agree with?
3. OP - your twitter account sounds fab. I’d like to follow you (and find some of aforementioned TRAs to follow) if you’d be so kind as to DM me your handle.

As an aside, the article posted was great. I know nothing about the author and I don’t see wtf that matters. I’m not going to research every action a person has performed before I engage with the piece in front of me.

Speaking of Ws. I have thought occasionally of what our frothing Doctor would look like dressed in a red & white stripy jumper & bobble hat.

none of us are suggesting we form an alliance with Rod Liddle or ask him to join our organisations or speak at our meetings.

Indeed - the W in LAWS would emphatically stand for something other than Women. In some places, that word would be Wazzock - in others, it might well be something else...

The important thing, surely, is that none of us are suggesting we form an alliance with Rod Liddle or ask him to join our organisations or speak at our meetings. We're just saying that this one article he wrote on this one topic was a good one. Which it was.

Good article. He's nailing the absurdity beautifully.

I think Rod Liddle is a great writer. I love his 'I don't give a shit' attitude.

He makes me laugh out loud and occasionally rage at his outrageousness.
I like that.

I'm going to have a read of that arran and then I will sing along to some Bonnie - I freakin' LOVE Total Eclipse Of The Heart, it's a stone cold guilty pleasure classic.

terryleather wrote: One needs to remember that the terminally woke who sanctimoniously "identify as right" must spend their time tirelessly lecturing everyone else for wrong think otherwise what's the point of them?

And we're back to Mark Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle - parts of which feel on-point on this issue.

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/mark-fisher/exiting-vampire-castle

And, tho' @LadyPrincesexual is a devotee of Prince (can't reproduce the symbol), I instinctively feel that she's open to her very own anthem, if delivered in raucous Bonnie style.

I can just imagine the scenes at TRAHQ.

"Some bloke has written an article that we don't like, Tiffany. What shall we do?"

"Can we blame it on Julie Bindel?"

"Well, she was nothing to do with it".

"That's never stopped us in the past. Try to pin the blame on Bindel anyway and then blame Mumsnet if all else fails. The only thing we can't do is blame the bloke responsible. Over and out".

Something to bear in mind before sharing his work.

You've made your point. We have all borne it in mind. Now stop derailing the thread and move on. If you have an actual point to make about the content of the article, by all means make it.

Many posters may not have realised what a vile journalist Rod Liddle is. Well hopefully now they know.

I’m quite aware of who he is, thanks. His views on this particular issue, however, happen to be shared by 80% of the population, as well as mostly standing up to critical scrutiny. So I’ll carry on discussing them, irrespective of your permission. I’m pretty sure I won’t catch some of his other views by touching this one.

No OP, if you have shared a lovely article by Hitler about his love of dogs I would have said 'hold on a minute, do you realise who this guy is? Do you know what he stands for?'

Barking.