Triggernometry - changing sides?

'I haven't forgotten how they immediately swallowed what'shisname's arguments in the anti-abortion episode - oh how compelling a man's arguments against abortion were to them!'

Oh gosh yes, they seemed to fully agree with him. I don't think either of them really give a shiny shit about women. If you haven't already, watch their interview with Ann Furedi from BPAS, who puts a staunchly pro-choice argument to them. She was BRILLIANT - really calm, clear, presented info in a really accessible way and it was all very civilised

And yes, the psychopath episode was fantastic

KJK is physically feminine presenting, but she has that air about her of taking no shit from anyone, which would not generally be considered feminine at all.

Just wish I could cultivate some of it myself.

I agree with all previous posters that it would be a mistake to lean on Triggernometry as friends of women per se. They strike me as conservative and pro traditional gender roles (and I don't care about what political parties they might vote for), precisely the type that doesn't like the current gender fad but has no problem with "it's just easier for women to look after children, innit, because biology" gender. They have some interesting guests and conversations, but critical, properly fact-finding journalists they are not, nor particularly insightful or questioning. They are prickly and biased - laddish as you say - behaviour they criticise in others. When the conversations are good it's because of the guests, not them as interviewers. Which is fair enough to a point, it's not their metier. I haven't forgotten how they immediately swallowed what'shisname's arguments in the anti-abortion episode - oh how compelling a man's arguments against abortion were to them! Or the recent interview with Greg Wallis where even the comment section is full of "come on lads, surely you see you're completely falling for this man's victim narrative?"

I appreciate that they give a platform for (some) women to talk, but IMO they only give it because it suits them - either because they want to provoke what they call the "woke"/they've stubbornly decided they believe in free speech and will promote it and this is a free speech thing or because the woman in question somehow affirms a world-view they have.

I enjoyed the psychopath episode, mind.

I get this

I tried to watch the Winston Marshall / Matt Walsh Spectator TV thing linked upthread but couldn't deal with it because

1. it's called Marshall Matters. We really are in 'Youth Hosteling with Kris Akabusi' territory here. It's like Brass Eye never happened

2. Winston Marshall appears to be sporting a man bun

3. I can't deal with listening to someone (matt walsh), who clearly takes it for granted that gay people getting married is morally wrong, gender conformity is morally right and he is the centre of the universe

I know I should be able to listen to people of all stripes. but life is short and the world is full of tiresome men. I don't need to or indeed have to seek them out

I love blocked and reported.

Triggernometry was a confusing listen for me. I know I will be accused of wanting an echo chamber around me, but I really couldn't listen to people like Lawrence Fox. I know I'm unreasonable for wanting to put people in a good/bad box, but I don't understand who they are or where they are coming from. Probably a failure on my part.

I do like Blocked and Reported a lot.

They aren't on the opposite path, they have clearly set out their journey to end all gender woo as they think their part in its downfall is due to them hosting women who actually did something.

Although to be fair the reason that Triggernometry exists is because they were cancelled themselves.

When that double rapist comes out of prison in 4 years I'll expect him to go on tour promoting his part in gender woo woo's collapse as well.

Anything to put themselves on the right side of history. It seems to be a thing that men are really concerned about.

Matt walsh's video on Dylan Mulvany was utterly brutal. And I agree with him.

DM is deliberately provocative and probably did not mind the negative attention at all.

Kk and FF were very critical of MW's approach on twitter and had a row with him about it, and other GCs joined in - Ajah was particularly critical of KK using she her pronouns for DM. I have noticed this myself - I take care not to misgender if I can help it myself, and have had my knuckles wrapped by other GCs who otherwise I very much align with.

Kk and FF did a video on the disagreement.

I think it's a shame for people who broadly acknowledge that this is a dangerous ideology to become so heated amongst ourselves about pronouns. I also think Kk and FF are thoughtful and insightful interviewers. Just watch their interviews with grooming gang survivors - they do, however, had a very laddish sense of humour that may not appeal to all.

But I like it!!!

I may be very dense but I am struggling to understand this.

I do find that KK gets over emotional and carried away. In fairness, whenever I've seen him do this, if he feels he was wrong, he has no issue saying "I was wrong, sorry".

I will have to catch up with the Matt Walsh comments but quite honestly, this stuff is beginning to have so many hidden layers and self-referential content, I'm not sure it will make anything clearer.

but if K and F have suddenly started on the opposite path, it would be a huge shock.

"too" not "to" of course.

Coincidentally, I have just finished watching Winston Marshall's interview with Matt Walsh on The Spectator TV, which went up on YouTube yesterday. Marshall - who is gender critical - challenges Walsh about his reaction to Dylan Mulvaney as being to harsh, cruel, alienating etc. Walsh doesn't attack him back but explains why he responded to Mulvaney in the way he did. Mulvaney of course is a man......

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPdPoSmGYEk

I'm really confused

FF and KK still believe that sex is binary, right? Leaving gender stereotypes out of it?

He was unnecessarily rude, but it was a bit of a storm in a teacup as far as I can see. Certainly not evidence of changing sides, just an example of someone who rejects gender ideology, but not from a feminist or even typically gender critical perspective. This is the exchange I think:

mobile.twitter.com/konstantinkisin/status/1627951882525196289?s=61&t=vrfh73NvYySozkuIkLckQw

Kisin is in many respects a social conservative who thinks that adhering to gender roles leads to better outcomes for men and women. For me he is least interesting when talking about gender. I find much of what he has to say on other matters worth listening to even if I disagree. But on sex and gender there are so many more interesting people to read/listen to.

The way that they know that Dylan is a man, is that if Matt Walsh had said that about a woman, it wouldn't have raised one eyebrow hair.

The fact that they had a pop at him, and he retaliated, and they then had to do another response, shows just how protective they are about other men.

Whilst of course, telling the only female in the conversation to fuck off.

And they posit themselves as the good guys.

They were appealing to their base of 'anything but right wing Christian americans'.

I'm not sure that's correct. They got a furious response from their audience, many of whom were strongly in favour of the Matt Walsh approach.

I thought it was because the Trigger boys criticised Matt Walsh for really laying into Dylan Mulvaney. I think it was a case of ok, Dylan's trans and a grifter but no need to be so cruel because he's just a harmless effeminate person. Aja and a few others didn't like DM because woman face and that's a problem for women. A blocking occurred. I don't think KK or FF have changed sides.

I think these positions are worth thinking about.

But the trigg reaction to walsh wasnt exactly nuanced, either. They were appealing to their base of 'anything but right wing Christian americans'.

The truth is Mulvaney doesnt look or act anything like a woman, its a lie to pretend that he does. If our aim is to stop children thinking that changing sex is possible and passing is likely, we need to stop pretending that Mulvaney looks anything other than a man. Its cruel, but otherwise we are lying to children by pretending we dont see a man manically performing for the camera.

I dont know if the best way is the matt walsh way, or not. But at least hes doing something that attracts attention. If a few kids see, maybe its worth it? I dont really care if adults are upset.

I enjoy Triggernometry for the most part and find many of their guests really interesting but it hasn't escaped my notice that they seem to regard feminism as just another aspect of "woke" - in this they're no different to many of the other male "heterodox" thinkers out there. It's disappointing, but it's not surprising.

I may agree with them on quite a lot of stuff, but they have a blindspot when it comes to women's rights/feminism.

The thing that kicked this off was Triggernometry taking a dim view of Matt Walsh doing a nasty and empty diatribe about Dylan Mulvaney. Their position was that Walsh was cynically throwing red meat to his supporters simply for his own benefit and that it might be better to criticise a figure such as Mulvaney in a way that won't alienate a significant part of the potential audience.

This is actually part of a more general disillusionment Triggernometry are experiencing over the anti-woke. In their view as time is passing the anti-woke are in some ways turning into their opponents, the woke, for example having their own version of Cancel Culture.

I think these positions are worth thinking about.

It was his response to aya. It was neither funny (hes a comedian) or thoughtful (if hes setting himself up as a hitchens).

It was just a display of gender - a women critised him and he lashed out disproportionately. Which is no big deal, but just {hmmm} given it was off the back of him critising walsh for enforcing gender.

But it wouldn't surprise me if they thought MW was kind of a dick at times, he is. And I don't think his views and theirs are all that close on a lot of things.

There is a pretty wide diversity of opinion about using requested pronouns, if it's ever ok, never, or sometimes, even among GE people. There are lots who will in limited circumstances, for a variety of reasons.

It seems weird that would cause such a kerfuffle in this instance.

I, of course, can't comment on the difference in nature of testiness. Don't know if old sexism was at play with Aja, as I missed it all.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs but KJK is feminine presenting and she handles them well too.

I always think that men come at this issue from a different perspective. It's a given. Plus, yes, KK does tend to look at it from a free speech angle. Sometimes his views and my views align but not always.