Harry miller arrested

And for that matter, this is a pretty simple satire, it's not that complex. If that is too much we are in trouble in terms of social discourse.

We are very definitely in trouble.

Interesting that throwing the term "feminazi" around seems on the whole, acceptable.

Yes, good point. It's so commonplace, that it slipped my mind.

It's just about women's rights, though, so not in the least bit offensive, right?

In Robert Altermeyer's book on the authoritarian personality I'm pretty sure he said that overly literal thinking is very characteristic of the authoritarian mind.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-altemeyer-the-authoritarians?v=1617796298

The book's available online for free so I just Ctrl-F'd "literal" to see if I remembered that right. I don't think I did. He does talk a lot about how right wing authoritarians interpret the Bible literally instead of figuratively and it's fun to think about that in relation to the TRA interpretation of the sacred Tumblr canon.

But I think what I was thinking of was what he'd written about the failures of logic in the authoritarian personality. At risk of derailing (well at least the thread is about authoritarianism!) I decided to C&P this passage because I'd be fascinated to see the same test applied to modern left wing authoritarians.

[Authoritarians] particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.

Sharks live in the sea..

Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters—especially on a reasoning test.

Deductive logic aside, authoritarians also have trouble deciding whether empirical evidence proves, or does not prove, something. They will often think some thoroughly ambiguous fact verifies something they already believe in.

I recommend the book despite its datedness - as I was skimming through it I kept finding more and more parts that are relevant to the current situation!

"If people can't comprehend how satire works, I am not sure where that leaves us."

Um...but actual satirists, i.e. people who made a living writing it, have said it's very hard to do now.

I have been caught out in real life a few times by thinking people were joking when they were serious. This can be anything from people thinking I'm not allowed to hold certain views due to my skin colour, to people being angry that some categories of sport aren't inclusive enough.

I have complete sympathy for anyone who can't distinguish satire!

It's oddly literalistic. It reminds me of an odd sort of iconoclasm. Some confusion about dealing with images and their meaning.

In Robert Altermeyer's book on the authoritarian personality I'm pretty sure he said that overly literal thinking is very characteristic of the authoritarian mind.

Mind you, he also said he didn't think there was such a thing as left-wing authoritarianism! It was written during the GW Bush presidency. I wonder if he's had cause to revise his opinions since.

If people can't comprehend how satire works, I am not sure where that leaves us.

It is becoming common, among the younger generation, they don't seem to be able to understand for example comedy sketches that satirize particular points of view.

It's oddly literalistic. It reminds me of an odd sort of iconoclasm. Some confusion about dealing with images and their meaning.

I don't think the answer is agreeing that dealing with complex meaning relating to images is wrong. And for that matter, this is a pretty simple satire, it's not that complex. If that is too much we are in trouble in terms of social discourse.

This bit supposedly says what happens but it's written weirdly and passively so I can't quite tell what's been left out

It seems like you're missing the point! "What happened" is not that someone posted a meme. That happens all the time. What happened is that someone was arrested for posting a meme and the police broke a bunch of rules to do it and then just for funsies arrested the person who told them they were breaking the rules. Right after the High Court judgement which told them to stop acting like the Stasi policing people's speech. It's rather a big deal.

I presume Miller was involved because this is precisely his wheelhouse and he was asked to get involved?

I don't think there's anything "left out" of the paragraph you quoted. It seems like a very thorough explanation.

What that poster is trying to do, LaughingPriest is to try and take things that may have been said in a nuanced conversation, removing the context, and amping the statement up a bit.

So for example while I have never seen anyone say teens can't be gay, they've certainly said that teen sexuality is often pretty unformed, especially in the under 16s. Or that 11 and 12 and maybe 13 year olds declaring their sexuality at school tends to be mainly about the influence of clubs or learning modules, which is why you get these large numbers of 11 year olds identifying as lesbians or asexual.

Usually their point is that there really isn't a need for adults to be pushing kids, even indirectly, to put a label on their sexual identity at that age.

There are always people who seem to take the Oprah view that anyone who thinks they might be anything other than heterosexual at 11 always knows exactly what they are talking about and denying it is akin to saying that being gay is caused by grooming.

Posts like that also like to lazily assume that anything on "the right" is obviously crazy and evil, even people like Joe Rogan who were actually Democrats until quite recently. And obviously they are only white men, as well.

It's mud slinging, hoping something will stick.

It is a rather recurring point that crops up on here - instead of arguing the issues, posts get muddled into 'what MN FWR is like'. So that makes me a bit inclined to believe that you're not being entirely genuine. Whatever - you know if you're being dishonest, and if you are, you could ask yourself why.

It's possible that it's an attempt to demonstrate the differences between echo chambers and epistemic bubbles.

blog.ayjay.org/a-useful-distinction/

However, if it were, then the people who perceive themselves as disruptive forces that are potentially beneficial for what they bring to a discussion, should be prepared to offer verifiable evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Anyone who doesn't consider that contocted flag to be anything but repulsive is no ally for women or humankind in general. Think what you like about TRAs, it doesn't compare to genocide.

Dark day for mumsnet.

//:

I disagree. You can absolutely find it abhorrent and stand for free speech, even in these cases.

Interesting that throwing the term "feminazi" around seems on the whole, acceptable.

but you do understand that we aren't 'defending' a swastika being used

Many, many people will not understand this, no.
Like the 'gay cake' case that everyone seems to think was a bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay couple.

That's why I find these swastika antics so dickish.

I don't think it's particularly funny. Lawrence fox is someone I find unpleasant, objectionable and irritating. Harry seems like the kind of man I dread dealing with in my professional capacity and would swerve where possible.

but you do understand that we aren't 'defending' a swastika being used we are defending the right of people to be (in my opinion) unpleasant, objectionable and irritating without getting arrested for having those views.

Because who defines what is objectionable? Or irritating? Or unpleasant?

///

exwhyzed nails it

That transactivism is trying to turn gay kids into straight kids by claiming they're the opposite sex.
Well yes, and often sterilising them. That is one of the things I find most alarming.

It's absolute bollocks, isn't it. In fact, it's the opposite. That transactivism is trying to turn gay kids into straight kids by claiming they're the opposite sex.

Cheers - so someone posted a disgusting swastika/Pride flag thing and the police totally fucked up about it?

This bit supposedly says what happens but it's written weirdly and passively so I can't quite tell what's been left out:

"They are here to investigate the image of a trans flag reimagined as a swastika and posted in a debating forum on social media. The homeowner, or suspect, is not the originator of the offending image — it’s been reposted thousands of times and even made an appearance on GB News — but this small detail does not trouble the officers." Why is HM involved?

But it's obvious which bit will get the headlines. I'm not massively impressed.

Joyce's own rebuttal to the allegations is here:
www.thehelenjoyce.com/a-wild-ride/

there has been a huge push by forces on the far right to exploit GC views in order to push a right wing agenda. I've seen lots of threads here that were overtly homophobic (claiming that teenagers can't be gay and that people are only gay if they've been groomed into it), threads attacking anything perceived as even slightly "woke" (like being against racism) as being aligned with trans rights and therefore bad, and lots of threads and posts advocating that we should support right wing men like Jordan Peterson or right wing politicians, even Donald Trump on the grounds "they know what a woman is!" Yes they know what a woman is so they know who to abuse and oppress. I won't tolerate the right exploiting our as women genuine concerns about the TRA to promote rapists and violent men who hate women and want to ban reproductive rights. It's horrifying. Men on the far right are not "GC", they are not pro-women, they just hate trans people and they hate natal women just as much.

I agree with this - apart from 'lots of threads advocating' support for Donald Trump etc. Maybe the odd post makes reference to it but if so there is strong debate around it.

The rest of your post I find baffling - I'm on these boards daily and there's nothing like that about gay people (maybe on AIBU? Homophobia does get called out fairly regularly when it appears). Are you thinking of other forums? Genuinely, I haven't seen it here.

And I've also read the Helen Joyce book - I really can't recall any ranting about Jewish billionaires.
See! People can agree with someone on one point and think they are totally incorrect about other points.

It is a rather recurring point that crops up on here - instead of arguing the issues, posts get muddled into 'what MN FWR is like'. So that makes me a bit inclined to believe that you're not being entirely genuine. Whatever - you know if you're being dishonest, and if you are, you could ask yourself why.

The passage is on pages 221-4 in the Kindle edition. 1) She doesn't rant anywhere in the book, it's all thoughtfully and carefully written. 2) She doesn't mention the religion of the people concerned. 3) Of the three individuals, it is unclear whether one of them even is/identifies as Jewish in any case.

Previous discussions of the usual unevidenced calumnies around Helen Joyce's book.

Use MN's 'advanced search' or enter this string into your preferred search engine—it should be obvious that you can tweak the search for variations on it: site:mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights helen joyce anti-semitic

Sorry, I'm trying to catch up but it's hard to see what has happened and posts have been deleted... can someone explain clearly?

thecritic.co.uk/the-facebook-police/

I'm disappointed that the TRAs are being given so much ammo on a plate.

I do not think it's the TRAs who've been given ammo by any means. This is bigger than petty Twitter arguments.

Jemima

Are you able to explain what part of HJs book is ranting about Jewish people?

It appears you have made a serious allegation but have failed to provide evidence.

Sorry, I'm trying to catch up but it's hard to see what has happened and posts have been deleted... can someone explain clearly?

Lawrence Fox is repulsive.

I don't think playing 'clever' games with swastika flags is ever going to be productive and it seems like this is what people are fighting for the right to do. I'm disappointed that the TRAs are being given so much ammo on a plate. But I'll reserve judgement until I know what's happened.

This started some time ago, before gender ideology came to the fore.

About 15 years ago I was living in a smallish agricultural town in Canada, and the local Pride group wanted to fly the Pride flag at city hall on Pride day (it was a day at that time.)

The mayor and council refused, because the town regulations said that only municipal/provincial/national flags could be flown, which represented all citizens.

The Pride group accused the mayor of homophobia, raked him over the coals for his church membership, and in the end had the rule changed. While there were plenty of people who thought the town rule made sense, the progressive left was very much of the view that it was not only ok to fly flags that only represented some citizens, it was not ok not to.

Yes, do tell. Joyce doesn't do ranting.

I, too, would like to see the threads where regular posters claim that teenagers cannot be gay and that people can only be gay if groomed.

Please link some of these up.