Interview with Kara Dansky and Charlie Kirk

There is no line given Kirk was instrumental in Tump's victory that effectively rolled back human rights to women, immigrants, the LGBTQ community as well as the rights to everyday Americans in terms of free speech & due process not to mention facilitating a genocide.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend whatever the cost…

Bah! Hung out... Sodding autoconfect.

JanesLittleGirl · Today 18:54

What the heck did I get deleted for?

There are many people who have views that I find quite disgusting. That happens and I'm sure that I hold views that others find equally disgusting.

For me, the split is "are you willing to honestly discuss this in the open with nobody running interference or do you need top cover?"

Oh, I agree, but 10 years ago, they wouldn't have entertained anything more than occasional piece with them, if that. I was trying to say that their natural home is on the left, in Guardianland; but they've been hangout to dry.

Like Kara Dansky, they have been left with the choice of obscurity, or working with media which they disagree with on 95% of issues.

This is an interesting conversation. Can I ask a question?:

At what point does somebody’s distasteful views - and their willingness to use everything in their power to effect them in law - override their public ‘decency’ or your agreement on a part of their world view?There must be a point at which you say to yourself “this person is a danger to human rights. His/Her success will be devastating to this or that group of people”.

I’m not talking about assassination here, Just not being polite and accommodating to a dangerous person. Where is the line?

A funny example from HP that I like is when Snape I think is 'punting' students across the lake. US readers thought that meant kicking, not giving a boat ride! 🤣

The Times, the Telegraph and even the Mail are not the same level of right wing as Charlie Kirk. Ikwym, tho.

I think that it is quite inconvenient when you have radical feminists talking with anyone who will listen. That people who cannot conceive of discussion across political party boundaries, they feel they have to put people into tribal boxes. Hence the constant accusations about ‘Nazis’ and fascists’.

Getting from Manchester to Newcastle is ridiculous too. A lot of the necessary interconnections within the real North were ignored.

It's cheap because no other country has spent as much as we have. The tickets for this waste of time will be too much for ordinary plebs. It was always about getting to London quicker, no government for the last 40+ years has cared about the north. Bringing the railway back into public ownership and increasing routes and carriages would go some way to alleviate the shitshow we currently have.

As i suggest, it was not primarily about speed, although that was important, but about capacity. I also think that leaving Liverpool off the original route was a mistake, and made it end up looking like it was all just about getting to and from London more quickly.

Liverpool, where I live, has a serious shortage of capacity, and needs new capacity and new lines in order to reconnect it to other cities that it has lost direct connections to over the years. Reform has suggested it doesn't see improved rail pathways in the north as being very important.

As I say, every major country in Europe has a high speed network and a transport system that is far more efficient, cheap and effective than we have here. We don't seem to be able to build infrastructure anymore......which is a sorry tale considering Britain ws the home of the first railways.

My son lives in Barcelona, and whilst Spain already has high speed rail, they are now building a new high speed station in his neighbourhood - which is expected to give it a big economic boost. High speed networks also, if planned properly, have the potential to connect the rest of Britain to the European network.

Sorry, I was trying to summarise 'thinking' that's currently prevalent on the identitarian/liberal left.

Thinking that women critical of gender and gender ideology are thereby aligned with the right, also attaches importance to the right that they're seemingly incapable of attaching to women.

Are you stating this as your opinion or the opinion you think society has?

Our country is one of the smallest in Europe, by the time it got up to speed it would have to start slowing down again. And all for 20 mins, or not even that, off a journey from London to Manchester. Complete waste of money, which should have been spent on upgrading existing networks and reinstating some in the north. We had Ely have any that go west to east and vice versa, most journeys go north south/South North.

And that's your take? Seriously?

Of course Kirk was 'sympathetic'….the far right exploiting 'degeneracy' as a trojan horse to smuggle in their patriarchal white nationalist crony capitalist aspirations is an oldie but goodie….just ask the Nazis.

https://theconversation.com/how-the-nazis-destroyed-the-first-gay-rights-movement-80354

I guess none of you are black. It’s the only way you can go out of your way to highlight this man’s ’virtues’. I don’t believe anyone is born bad or is irredeemably bad, I guess that’s my Christian upbringing, but I also don’t understand the deification of this man and the need for many people on this website to paint him in the best possible light. He’s not the first public figure to be shot and killed, even this year. If those deaths were even mentioned on Mumsnet, they certainly weren’t given much attention.

I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was shot and his death had little impact on me. I have serious issues in my own life, people are shot and killed in America every day and there is a lot of suffering going on around the world, a lot of atrocities committed. It didn’t seem to be an incident that affected me in any significant way, even when I discovered his position on transgender ideology. I share essentially the same position on transgender ideology with many people I don’t want to be associated with.

Then I read his comments about black people. I can’t wax lyrical about how Charlie Kirk was ‘decent’ and ‘respectful’. How, ‘Isn’t it nice he gave his political opponents a platform’. And I can’t feel any kind of kinship with people who, knowing what he’s said about black people, still feel compelled to highlight his good qualities.

Let me be clear: I don’t believe he should have been killed. I don’t even support the death penalty in any circumstance, so I can hardly support Charlie Kirk being killed. But I am learning, not for the first time, that Mumsnetters in general, and users of this subforum (FWR) tend to ignore black people and our concerns, until we are useful. Whether that is taking cases to court when much is made of the claimant’s ethnic heritage (why?) or the perennial ‘transgenderism is womanface, it’s offensive like blackface’.

You have no idea and I think it is possible you will never understand just how much slights about my ethnic heritage cut deep. Slights to my womanhood are pretty trivial in comparison. I think this is something white women will never understand. So, you go on singing the virtues of Charlie Kirk. We’ll be here the next time you need to exploit us for your own purposes.

I think most Americans are not familiar ( why should they be?) with the nuances of British culture and politics and so they miss the mark quite often.

I think that's a consistent problem. When Eric Idle was trying to sell Monty Python in America, John Cleese thought it would never catch on because there were so many specifically British references that Americans would never understand it. What happened was that Americans loved it, but the bits they didn't understand they just processed as "random".

Lots of Brits think they get American culture and politics because we see so much of it, but most of what we see via British media is a specific NYC and Los Angeles culture, and Brits often have a very cartoonish view of the whole continent in between.

Thanks to extended family, I know quite a few weird details about Utah Mormon culture and history, but that just brings home to me how much I don't know.

But my point is that many of the women, myself included,, who post here. for example have been Labour party voters and/or members in the past, and some still are. In fact many have repeatedly referenced how they see themselves as being fundamentally more of the Left - except for this whole trans/identity politics stuff.

But yes, all of the parties, with the exception of the Tories have been fundamentally captured in terms of ideological allegiance.

I think most Americans are not familiar ( why should they be?) with the nuances of British culture and politics and so they miss the mark quite often.

We have Labour/ Lib Dem’s/ and Greens - all more Left - institutionally captured.

Labour is only just, just beginning to question their previous stance and they are still extremely reluctant to be open about it. Lib Dem and Greens not at all.

The way intersectionality is widely interpreted, people on the team are expected to have the full box-set of views. They come as a package, so there's no bedfellows issue with, say, going on the same Gaza demo as Nick Griffin. But if left wing gender critical women share similar conclusions with gender-enforcing right wing men, then they are to be viewed as the same.

Yes, she's not quite got it right........but the sentiment is still the same. Where are all of the rebellious registered Democrat voters speaking out about and against trans ideology in the way that equivalent Labour voters have been here?