Why are some gender critical feminists praising Rod Liddle?

Like a lot of right wing contrarians (see also Jeremy Clarkson/Toby Young/Giles Coren) the public persona is at least partially an act/grift designed to keep them in the public eye of the chattering classes and generate newspaper columns.

I don't think many people are defending him, unless saying "I disagree with him" is defending him.

What most people are doing are examining the reasons why some feminists, who knew him, may have expressed sadness or whatever when he died.

Of course the OP and other's position is. RL wrote some terrible things, some GC feminists knew him and expressed sadness at his death, therefore this is proof positive that the GC movement is a far right movement that approves of the abuse and sexualisation of children. Which is a bonkers position, and what most people were addressing.

Cruelty to animals, actual cruelty not just making a creepy theoretical argument about it, is a pretty strong indicator of the likelihood that someone is capable of actual violence against people. I find that pretty abhorrent. I suppose though that is an illustration that people have different boundaries.

And I do think there is a difference between "child abuse, sexualising children [and] people who make creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children". Sure, the latter may indicate that the person making the argument is more likely to do the first two, but there is a danger that no-one discusses anything ever, because there is an immediate leap from "talking about" to "absolutely, definitely wanting to do terrible things". In the case of the first article (2003) I still believe (and other posters recollections support this) that there was a bit of a debate around 'just looking'. That again is not a defence (and it's a bit depressing that this keeps having to be restated), but it is context

I also tend to agree with a PP, that Liddle was one of those professional contrarians who doesn't really believe a lot of what he says. Although I'm never sure whether that makes it better or worse.

I get all of that. But if I had to choose between hanging out with the fox killer guy and hanging out with Alok I'd still feel more comfortable with the fox killer guy. That doesn't mean I think he's a good person.

I also agree there's a difference between child abuse and makinf creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children. Ones illegal and the other isn't and arguably falls under freedom of expression. But (and I hate this phrase so sorry) freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences and if people are going to make creepy theoretical arguments about sexualising children, a consequence might well be that they are viewed askance by people and that this is brought up when discussing their character.

And yes, it is quite likely he was taking deliberately contrarian positions. But there's something really off-putting about grown adults doing that (I know it's very common nowadays: thanks internet). It's very "edgy 13 year old". Especially when the "edgy" position is that CSE should be legal or racist stances. Again, I am not saying that it should be illegal. But an inevitable consequence of being an edgy contrarian is that many people will remember you for the positions you took publicly. Even on death. I don't agree with dancing on people's graves. But also, some people on here seem to be implying that any criticism is evidence of the "left" being goulish. It's not (and it's not the same as that person saying they hoped AW died in pains handcuffed to her bed).

I also tend to agree with a PP, that Liddle was one of those professional contrarians who doesn't really believe a lot of what he says. Although I'm never sure whether that makes it better or worse.

I agree. But if a big part of your life is spent putting on a particular public persona, at what point does that become who you are? I get people can have different faces in different situations - a public persona, how they are with friends, how they are with family, an interior life only they know. But I don't think it's the case that only one of those "selves" is real/matters. The words he wrote were real words and designed, on some level, to persuade.

There's a really good Kurt Vonnegut novel Mother Night about a more extreme situation that it reminds me of...
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”

I can happily be friends with people with whom I disagree vehemently on certain issues - I have friends who are TWAW for example - we agree to disagree or avoid the issue altogether (the latter is often the best tactic with younger people in my experience).

I could never be friends with someone who openly expresses sexual desire for children (even if in jest), or who believes that possession of CSAM should not be an offence, or who assaults their then pregnant girlfriend, nor could I hold them in any regard other than the lowest.

And I don't understand the mentality of people who can. It suggests to me that they simply think these are matters of "opinion" rather than fundamental morality.

Reminds me of a friend. Dead now, could be an absolute arsehole, could also be the most generous man alive. Anyway. He spent some time going to the pub in his dressing gown and slippers "for shits and giggles". (this was the 90s, before everyone just wore their pyjamas out) One day he looked at me and just said "There'll come a time when I won't know if I'm doing this deliberately or not."

It's the one area in which I am 100% in favour of the purity spiral.

I actually do know some people who know him. And his widow - who for the purposes of this thread has been reduced to 'pregnant girlfriend victim'. Some of them liked him very much - including a friend who had a difficult childhood, was a victim of DV and has mental health issues, and to whom he was apparently personally very kind and generous. While I won't be shedding too many tears myself, I'm not about to tell them that they can't express grief at his death and sadness for his family, nor that they are hideously flawed for doing so.

For balance, some of the people who knew him thought he was an absolute cunt

😁
I guess at least part of the reason he was wearing a dressing gown to the pub was because he wanted people to say "that man's wearing a dressing gown to the pub"

Do you remember Dylan Mulvaney? It was so on the nose that I thought they were pretending at first, either as a parody or a grift. But eventually they got surgery so either they were deadly serious all along or the persona took over.... I think I'd prefer to be stuck wearing a dressing gown to the pub non-ironically than having major surgery or having people debate whether I meant the things I said about wanting to sleep with 15 year olds. So I guess your friends path was better.

You don't give a shit about Duffield.

https://unherd.com/newsroom/rod-liddle-my-opponent-who-became-a-friend/

Well he died alone and his body wasn't found for a few days, so who knows who had the best path. Swings and roundabouts I guess. I'd moved away, years ago. Found out about his death on Facebook. I'm entirely sure that there would have been people who would have read some of the tributes to him and thought "But he was always awful".

Punching down on the mentally ill and people with food allergies is not "courageous" or "Swiftian satire." It's just being a playground bully.