Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

🙄you know exactly what I fucking meant!!!!
Just to clarify I am v aware that there are many, many, many, many paedophles, globally!!
You know nothing about me having a "charmed life" and being oblivious to the evils of our world.
You really should think before you lecture

I mean that we have multiple people in this thread posting absurd claims that no-one can find Rod Liddle columns funny.

To post such a thing and believe it means that one is ignorant of the existence of child abusers, the reddits devoted to jokes about sexual abuse, and Frankie Boyle's entire comedy career. No-one that ignorant of humanity and popular culture has anything of value to contribute.

The alternative is that they're lying and assuming that no-one will challenge them on their absurdities. By definition, liars don't have anything of value to contribute either.

Did you mean to say "nobody should find an adult [...] fucking funny"?

I don't know what kind of charmed life you'd have to live to literally believe that nobody in the world could find that funny. At a bare minimum, have you stopped to consider that lots of people are out there downloading child abuse imagery, and abusing children for real? Do you genuinely think they get offended by jokes concerning sexual activity with children?

While problems exist in all parts of the world, the United States emerges as a particularly high-risk area. Childlight’s new global index, Into the Light, found high levels of CSAM (child sexual abuse material) hosted there as well as the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, one in nine men in the States (10.9%, equating to almost 14 million men) admitted online sexual offending against children at some point in their lives. Representative surveys found the same said by 7% of men in the UK – equating to 1.8 million offenders – and by 7.5% of men in Australia (nearly 700,000).

Many more across the three countries said they would also seek to commit contact sexual offences against children if they thought it would be kept secret.

https://www.childlight.org/newsroom/over-300-million-children-a-year-are-victims-of-online-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse

Elucidate, s'il vous plaît.

There is nothing remotely misogynistic about the username: Mouldemort.

Seriously people, just give your heads a wobble, eh?

Why are you putting evidence in inverted commas? He literally wrote a non-humorous article advocating the legalisation of child pornography. Your working class relatives are very different to mine.

"How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter."

They aren't excusing his behaviour.

They are saying something nice about somebody they know who has died.

Human beings have complicated relationships with other people, particularly off line.

Never speak ill of the dead. Talk of dancing and pissing on people's graves is beyond the pale. At the end of the day, no one's opinion really matters, we'll all be gone when our time comes.

Never speak ill of the dead. Talk of dancing and pissing on people's graves is beyond the pale. At the end of the day, no one's opinion really matters, we'll all be gone when our time comes.

I've read this several times to try and understand what you are saying. I'm sorry but I still don't know what you were trying to say.

Why are you putting evidence in inverted commas? He literally wrote a non-humorous article advocating the legalisation of child pornography. Your working class relatives are very different to mine.

"How absurd the law is. But at least it is an appropriate reflection of our collective neurosis and confusion about paedophilia generally. The one laudable and necessary aim - to protect children from abuse - has become warped by our consuming, obsessive hatred for those who find children sexually attractive. There is no causal link between viewing child porn and abusing children. And even if there were, it would not be sufficient, within the philosophy of our judicial system, to simply assume that an unpleasant penchant for the former presupposes guilt of the latter."

FFS it was not a joke! Have you read the extract of him posted upthread, where he writes about shagging Y10s- they are 14/15 years old.

He was great at supporting women against the trans nonesense. We can also say he beat women up and fantasised about shagging teenage girls. In my world that makes him pretty awful person. Others will disagree but don’t fob off his awfulness.

Apparently the Guardian thought it was OK to publish. Maybe ask them?

Personally, I can't put any value on the opinions of people whose posts imply they are either unaware of the prevalence of child abuse, or that they assume that child abusers are tutting disapprovingly at Rod Liddle columns in between clicking on footage of children being tortured.

It's weird when these threads happen. All sorts of usernames I don't remember ever seeing before on MN just magically pop out of the woodwork. Usually to condemn others.

This is what we used to call 'a joke'.