To think Owen Jones is childish

[sandrabedminster]

Owen Jones storms off sky news

I don't even get what his issue is, he's invited on to discuss the headlines and then runs off as he doesn't like how much attention the biggest story is getting.

Never liked him. I've never seen him on Question Time or being interviewed on TV where he hasn't come across as very "know all" and often think he is patronising and condescending. That's not to say I don't occasionally agree with him, however.

When a minority group have their voices silenced in the way LGBT people have been, it's incredibly important we acknowledge the homophobic (& biphobic / transphobic) nature of the attack. I completely understand why he was so angry. Yes we need to discuss gun control but we also need to discuss homophobia. A lot.

I get it. He said on Twitter that he was 'messed up' about going on tv so soon after the event. The two presenters were discussing a political issue, he was in mourning for his people. They didn't seem to acknowledge this as a hate crime against LGBT people, thus negating OJ's pain and kind of gaslighting. It was like inviting a rabbi on to discuss a synagogue shooting then downplaying antisemitism (the parallel that OJ used, I think justifiably). the sense of solidarity in the LGBT community goes very deep. My thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones and who are traumatised and hospitalised - but the ripples of pain that go out across the world are real, and that's what OJ's walkout was about - it was too real, too raw, and to sit and talk about it rationally as an abstract issue whilst not giving proper credence to the homophobia that motivated this atrocity, was too much.

"he was in mourning for his people"

I don't like that phrase. It implies that people not in the LGBT community can't empathise or feel profoundly distressed because we're not part of "those people".

If he was "messed up" then he probably shouldn't have gone on there. As he was on there, being gay himself and being good with words, he could have been incredibly eloquent and expressive about it.

I don't think "his people" is inappropriate. LGBT people will feel differently to straight people, because straight people won't be viewing the attack through the lens of having experienced homophobia personally. Of course non-LGBT people are shocked and upset too because we empathise, but there is a difference.

But did he know any of them?

Why are they his people just because of sexuality? They were humans, we all are human they are all of our people in my eyes. Looked like he was trying to make it about hinself IMO.

I see what you mean, DrSeth, re 'mourning for his people.' I just meant he was in mourning in a way that the two presenters didn't seem to be. He probably shouldn't have gone on, but he said that there were v few LGBT voices in the media over this and he wanted to be one of them.

He was obviously and understandably very upset and they had been downplaying the hate crime element. He's only human. It's a horrible day for everyone.

If he wasn't able to contribute meaningfully to the debate then he should have declined the invitation to appear.

Yabu

It was a homophobic attack. And those hosts tried to minimise that and say it was against 'all people.' No, it was a homophobic attack, in a gay club, targeted because it would be full of gay people

Why does it pain you to acknowledge that OP?

I don't like him at all but I am totally sympathetic to his walking out of that discussion. They surely could at least acknowledged that it was a hate crime against gay people instead of basically saying that it could have been any large group of people.

I don't like him either but I sympathise with him on this. They weren't listening to his point and were pushing to move on.

I dunno - think about the (all too real) Jewish parallel. I'm not Jewish but I know and love many Jewish people and have the deepest love and respect for their history, traditions and so on. If my local synagogue were attacked, God forbid, I'd be devastated and traumatised, but a) I wouldn't have been physically present at the time of the attack as I don't attend, b) there'd be no sense of 'this could so easily have been me', c) yes, the sense of solidarity among Jewish people is such that you don't need to know each other personally to feel connected, that what happens to one Jew affects another, and d) I wouldn't feel the sense that who I am, how I live and what I embody is the very thing that the attacked set out to destroy - that's very unsettling. I'd feel all of this for the Jewish community, I'd cry with them and empathise very deeply - but there is a sense in which it would be crass to claim that it would be my tragedy as much as theirs. Obviously I hope with all my heart that this never happens. But does that make sense as a parallel to how LGBT people might be feeling today?

I think he had every justification for storming off. They silenced him and played down the sole reason for the attack. Yes he was a terrorist but he focussed his hate on the LGBT community and attacked their way of life but Sky News weren't even listening to a person from that community.

Why this resistance to the idea of 'his people'? To use another poster's analogy, would anyone really think that it was wrong for a rabbi to see an antisemitic attack as striking particularly close to home for them? Would that be making it ' all about them'?

I was horrified by the presenters. Dismissing the homophobia and describing it as an attack on people having fun and totally ignoring the hate crime element of the attack.

I think he was right. I am not sure why they were so odd about acknowledging that the LBGT community was the target because of their sexuality - I found them dismissive.
He behaved emotionally and without applying the career enhancing media polished veneer-more right and more real than most we see.

Saying 'we're all people' when there has been an attack specifically on LGBT people is like being someone who chooses to not deal with racism by saying 'I'm colour blind me' and therefore ignores the fact that people of colour are treated differently. You ignore the lack of privilege of both groups.

Read I find that offensive by Claire Fox. He wanted to identify as Victim to gain power control the conversation and shut the others up. It didn't work he has a tantrum.

I thought he was bloody fantastic.

I have never come across a man who divides my opinions ( never mind anyone else's) quite as much as he does but on this occasion he was absolutely right. They were trying to silence him and minimize the issue.

It's easy to say with hindsight that he should have avoided the debate but at the time he probably felt ok and that it was quite important. I can totally understand why he lost his cool and needed to leave.

Owen Jones is a twat and he was deflecting all the same. He cited the killer's father (Taliban supporter/defender) as saying the reason for the attack was the killer seeing two men kissing, as if this is a perfectly rational explanation, and as if people just magically get repulsed by this without the influence of religion.

Owen Jones is the sort of idiot who wants to say 'homophobia is terrible', but then puts his hands over his ears and says 'la la la' when the source of the homophobia (unequivocally Islam) is one he doesn't like. What sort of gay man defends Islam? It's bonkers, like Jews defending Hitler.