Rod Liddle: I’m identifying as a young, black, trans chihuahua, and the truth can go whistle

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/i-m-identifying-as-a-young-black-trans-chihuahua-and-the-truth-can-go-whistle-tq550nx5f

This piece seems to have sent our favourite Doctor into an apoplectic rage yet again so I assume it is worth reading.

The stream of posters arriving on FWR to demand that we stop discussing, talking about, analysing matters that threaten and harm women and children is relentless. And all without a hint of self awareness as they provide us with lists of approved reading, language we must use, people that we must and must not discuss, ideas that we must uncritically adopt. Quite incredible.

Jezebelz
'Use every man (woman) after his desert, and who should scape whipping?'
I find your position extremely tedious - nobody on here is going to change their behaviour at your behest. If you don't like RL don't contribute to a thread about one of his articles. If you want to participate then deal with the points in the article.

The stream of posters arriving on FWR to demand that we stop discussing, talking about, analysing matters that threaten and harm women and children is relentless. And all without a hint of self awareness as they provide us with lists of approved reading, language we must use, people that we must and must not discuss, ideas that we must uncritically adopt. Quite incredible.

Yes. You'd almost think they were all co-ordinating their tactics on Twitter, wouldn't you?

It's fascinating isn't it.

I genuinely wish people who come on threads like this would actually engage in debate - I think both "sides" would learn something.

I think, for example, if some sort of compelling evidence for "lady brain" was found people here would be extremely interested in discussing it.

I'm speaking personally here, but I follow a lot of TRAs on Twitter and I always consider what they say - I don't just dismiss it because of my and their beliefs.

Trying to shut down debate just isn't a very well balanced thing to do.

If a poster on this thread had taken apart the linked article piece by piece that would have made for an interesting discussion. But instead variations on "nasty women who like a nasty man" were posted repeatedly which comes across as childish and unintelligent.

Just spotted this on Twitter

No OP, if you have shared a lovely article by Hitler about his love of dogs I would have said 'hold on a minute, do you realise who this guy is? Do you know what he stands for?'

I wouldn't have bothered picking apart his article about dogs. In the grand scheme of things his thoughts on dogs aren't important.

Many posters may not have realised what a vile journalist Rod Liddle is. Well hopefully now they know.

Rod Liddle is loathsome and wrote an article in mainstream media.

And it is the fault of women for reading it. Of course.

I wish Liddle's detractors would spend one thousandth of the time taking him to task for his actual behaviour rather than taking women to task for reading articles.

It all goes downhill in the bit about Jess Philips in which his true colours come out in the 'wit laden comedy sterotypes we haven't heard a thousand times before' section:

Other things girls could be taught to break down that imbalance include, but are not confined to, parking a car, getting to the point and walking past a shoe shop without buying anything.

Still, at least he's consistently a wanker I suppose.

if you have shared a lovely article by Hitler about his love of dogs I would have said 'hold on a minute, do you realise who this guy is? Do you know what he stands for

I wouldn't have bothered picking apart his article about dogs. In the grand scheme of things his thoughts on dogs aren't important

I find this point of view pretty astonishing, but I guess it also explains terfblocker and why TRAs are so upset when challenged - they just aren't used to seeing anything outside of their bubble because they usually censor everything they consume so heavily.

I don't agree with your point of view at all Jezebel and I am going to follow the advice of the esteemed Bunbury in one of her seminal works "Wrestling with Pigs, and Chess with Pigeons" and not be derailed anymore

I wish Liddle's detractors would spend one thousandth of the time taking him to task for his actual behaviour rather than taking women to task for reading articles.

Popchyk funny you should say that as it's exactly what Liddle himself argues about child abusers and those that watch child abuse online.

Well by all means go after Liddle then, Jez.

I can't imagine why you are wasting time haranguing women on here when you have a huge job on your hands to try to get the Sunday Times and other media to sack him.

The stream of posters arriving on FWR to demand that we stop discussing, talking about, analysing matters that threaten and harm women and children is relentless. And all without a hint of self awareness as they provide us with lists of approved reading, language we must use, people that we must and must not discuss, ideas that we must uncritically adopt. Quite incredible.

One needs to remember that the terminally woke who sanctimoniously "identify as right" must spend their time tirelessly lecturing everyone else for wrong think otherwise what's the point of them?

No OP, if you have shared a lovely article by Hitler about his love of dogs I would have said 'hold on a minute, do you realise who this guy is? Do you know what he stands for?'

Barking.

Many posters may not have realised what a vile journalist Rod Liddle is. Well hopefully now they know.

I’m quite aware of who he is, thanks. His views on this particular issue, however, happen to be shared by 80% of the population, as well as mostly standing up to critical scrutiny. So I’ll carry on discussing them, irrespective of your permission. I’m pretty sure I won’t catch some of his other views by touching this one.

Something to bear in mind before sharing his work.

You've made your point. We have all borne it in mind. Now stop derailing the thread and move on. If you have an actual point to make about the content of the article, by all means make it.

I can just imagine the scenes at TRAHQ.

"Some bloke has written an article that we don't like, Tiffany. What shall we do?"

"Can we blame it on Julie Bindel?"

"Well, she was nothing to do with it".

"That's never stopped us in the past. Try to pin the blame on Bindel anyway and then blame Mumsnet if all else fails. The only thing we can't do is blame the bloke responsible. Over and out".

terryleather wrote: One needs to remember that the terminally woke who sanctimoniously "identify as right" must spend their time tirelessly lecturing everyone else for wrong think otherwise what's the point of them?

And we're back to Mark Fisher's Exiting the Vampire Castle - parts of which feel on-point on this issue.

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/mark-fisher/exiting-vampire-castle

And, tho' @LadyPrincesexual is a devotee of Prince (can't reproduce the symbol), I instinctively feel that she's open to her very own anthem, if delivered in raucous Bonnie style.

I'm going to have a read of that arran and then I will sing along to some Bonnie - I freakin' LOVE Total Eclipse Of The Heart, it's a stone cold guilty pleasure classic.

Good article. He's nailing the absurdity beautifully.

I think Rod Liddle is a great writer. I love his 'I don't give a shit' attitude.

He makes me laugh out loud and occasionally rage at his outrageousness.
I like that.

The important thing, surely, is that none of us are suggesting we form an alliance with Rod Liddle or ask him to join our organisations or speak at our meetings. We're just saying that this one article he wrote on this one topic was a good one. Which it was.

none of us are suggesting we form an alliance with Rod Liddle or ask him to join our organisations or speak at our meetings.

Indeed - the W in LAWS would emphatically stand for something other than Women. In some places, that word would be Wazzock - in others, it might well be something else...

Speaking of Ws. I have thought occasionally of what our frothing Doctor would look like dressed in a red & white stripy jumper & bobble hat.

This is a needed thread. I am, frankly, quite astonished at the recent trend of people unwilling to engage critically with what they are reading, and to instead display (quite terrifying) tribal behaviour. It seems even more bizarre to read it on a feminist board, where presumably one has to think about the issues impacting women and have some ability to be able to think about why they exist to be able to determine what we should be fighting for.

Three things:

1. This is precisely why LAWS was formed. Let’s hear some different opinions so we may, as individuals, make up our minds about issues that impact us. Engage brains!
2. If one refused to have anything to do with anything said or written by a person simply because they said/wrote/did something one disagreed with once then what an incredibly sheltered life one would lead. Barely any literature could be read for a start, and presumably one would have no friends. How on earth can a person learn if they are not willing to engage with things they do not agree with?
3. OP - your twitter account sounds fab. I’d like to follow you (and find some of aforementioned TRAs to follow) if you’d be so kind as to DM me your handle.

As an aside, the article posted was great. I know nothing about the author and I don’t see wtf that matters. I’m not going to research every action a person has performed before I engage with the piece in front of me.

That vampire castle post is brilliant, I hadn't had chance to read it before. No doubt some W 'purist' will be along to point out that the author has done something I'm unaware of though...

Re DMs tweet upthread btw, while I agree with the general premise, no I wouldn't retweet because DM is trying to insert DMself into the narrative as an "oppressed woman". Colonisation generally isn't a good look.

If the tweet had been about GNC males being at risk at night, I would have no cause to disagree at all, despite having largely negative views of DM.

Re DMs tweet upthread btw, while I agree with the general premise, no I wouldn't retweet because DM is trying to insert DMself into the narrative as an "oppressed woman". Colonisation generally isn't a good look.

Exactly.