Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Owen Jones

189 replies

JoanWilliams75 · 08/04/2019 09:49

How can he be so obtuse? I can only assume he has never spent time with children?

twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1115021165398056960

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
AnotherAdultHumanFemale · 19/08/2019 23:13

I was confused by this too. When it was first described I expected something very serious and assumed he was badly hurt and in hospital. Then I see him talking about it on youtube looking really chirpy and happy saying it must have been a far right attack.

I believe that he was attacked in some way, but it looks like it hasn't been reported accurately. He seems almost gleeful about it, which is odd. I still condone violence, and any sort of assault however mild, but something seems off here.

Caucho · 19/08/2019 23:35

It seems the Twitterari are sceptical. As per Smollet however it’s just too dangerous for a public figure to call him out as they’ll be hounded by the media.

It’s difficult to say I believe you got attacked but you're milking it which will be portrayed as unsympathetic and victim blaming.

If he was clever he wouldn’t have done the media round yesterday and today and lied low as everyone can now see he seems pretty chipper and hardly has a mark on him. Not being seriously injured wouldn’t excuse the attack but does put some parts of his account into question

zebrasdontwearbras · 19/08/2019 23:37

twitter.com/Indigo41105581/status/1163576404405080064

Owen Jones
Caucho · 19/08/2019 23:37

Sorry for posting so much. It’s obvious I don’t like the guy but promise it wasn’t me

wacademia · 19/08/2019 23:42

He’s basically guessing it was a targeted far right attack.

Perhaps his attackers self-identified as being on the far-right?

I'll get my coat...

Caucho · 19/08/2019 23:59

I wish it was a few TRAs attacking him because the Guardian is a transphobic organisation but he wouldn’t have made such a fuss of it if it was.

TerfTalk · 20/08/2019 00:32

How does OJ know that the attackers were men? Did he ask their pronouns?

wacademia · 20/08/2019 00:55

I wish it was a few TRAs attacking him

Not cool. I wish no one was attacking him. I also wish he'd stop being a dick towards women he disagrees with.

Caucho · 20/08/2019 01:58

Ok. Would have preferred who the attackers were if an attack was going to happen. Obviously no assault is better than any.

There’s an element of schadenfruede to my earlier comments because OJ has occasionally cheared and encouraged violence and refused to condemn it. I have always been consistent about opposing violence full stop.

I suppose I shouldn’t change that stance and haven’t. Will still say violence can’t be excused. He will lose sympathy from some when it appears he’s cynically leveraging off the back of it though and not being wholly honest. Being attacked should be sufficient for people to emphasise with. Military precision manoeuvres however make me roll my eyes a little.

wacademia · 20/08/2019 02:39

There’s an element of schadenfruede to my earlier comments because OJ has occasionally cheared and encouraged violence and refused to condemn it.

Sure, I totally get the irony of him of all people being attacked. It comes back to what people were saying on the gay cake thread: if there's a rule, it has to apply to everyone. If there's a rule that says "it's not OK to physically assault people, that's not how we resolve disagreements in a democracy", that has to include the case when Tara/Tanis is thumping Maria at Speakers' Corner. If it's OK in Owen's eyes for Tara/Tanis to hit Maria, then Owen can't complain when thugs, far-right or otherwise, punch him. Yet he is complaining, and it's enragingly hypocritical, and I can totally see why some on this thread have no sympathy for him. That doesn't mean we should hope for him to be attacked, or even jest about who would be an even more ironic attacker (which I think is what you were doing) because jokes, especially when written, can be (wilfully or innocently) misconstrued.

We've already had a joke someone made on here about Section 28 be deliberately misconstrued by AWAs on Twitter. Let's not give them any more stuff that they can twist in their desperate attempt to paint us as the "prosecco stormfront".

Caucho · 20/08/2019 02:58

It’s not even that I don’t have sympathy for him being attacked by political opponents although I do of course recognise his hypocrisy. Two wrongs don’t make a right etc.

It’s more I don’t believe his story or to be generous his story is based on him wanting to be a case of being beaten by right wingers rather than something more mundane. He recalls they didn’t say or shout anything. Why wouldn’t they? No take that you lefty? Nothing?

Strange political attack. Has massively exaggerated whatever happened and think it will unravel but suppose there’s a small chance his theory is right but is still a theory given they said nothing

Floisme · 20/08/2019 06:28

Am I seriously seeing a discussion on a feminist board about whether a victim of an assault is behaving in an appropriately victim-like manner?

BuzzShitbagBobbly · 20/08/2019 06:57

really sad to see that people are not willing to beleive someone when they are assaulted

Yeah, shit isn't it,.

Maybe he was "asking for it"?
What was he wearing?
Why was he out late at night anyway?
He must have provoked them somehow?
Maybe they were just trying to be nice?
Why didn't he call 999?

RoyalCorgi · 20/08/2019 08:16

I agree with Floisme and Buzz. I think we should start from the assumption that OJ is telling the truth. This kind of questioning is exactly what women go through when they report violence.

And I don't know whether OJ was attacked by right-wing thugs or not, but it does seem to be the case that he has been a particular target of the far right in the past, and there has been a general increase in attacks on journalists by the far right. I don't think people should let their personal dislike of OJ lead to them ignoring this very serious and frightening trend:

www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/19/uk-journalists-facing-growing-number-of-attacks-from-far-right

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 20/08/2019 08:55

Or could have been anyone really. Maybe he pissed someone off in the pub. Maybe he was rude to someone and they spotted him. He seems quick to point the finger without evidence.

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 20/08/2019 10:24

Someone being physically attacked is never ok, even if they’re a dickhead who has previously condoned violence against others

A journalist being attacked because of the views they hold is particularly terrifying and should worry everyone, in the same way as when the journalist Julie Bindel was attacked because of opinions she holds

testing987654321 · 20/08/2019 10:42

I would expect some sort of evidence as to why he thought a particular group attacked him.

I would expect the same of a feminist attacked in the street if she was saying it was for a particular reason but the attackers hadn't been identified.

It does make sense as he has had threats made to him previously and he was targeted.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 20/08/2019 10:59

He’s probably had loads of threats though.

Reminds me of Frasier when Maris is complaining about why she doesn’t need a body guard.
‘Just keep being yourself and you'll need one...’

He/his persona is to agitate. So it could be as a result of his job.

BuzzShitbagBobbly · 20/08/2019 11:14

I’ve realised why I am getting so narked with all the pp saying how they abhor violence and that they wish it hadn’t happened and how awful blah blah.

Because this is just yet another example where we have to “prove” something blindingly obvious for the record.

I don’t recall any instance of anyone here wishing physical harm on OJ, or issuing threats of violence or rape or murder. Not one museum exhibit of weapons we’d use to smash his heads in Not one t shirt saying “kill LOJ”. Not one Tweet saying “OJ needs to DIAF”

Yet time and time again we feel obliged to preface anything we say with “of course I am against violence”, or “I am 100% not homophobic” or whatever.

But normal, rational people aren’t bigots, homophobes, transphobes or endorsers of violence as a starting point. We don’t go through the real world making advance preliminary statements about everything to prove we are not xxx-ist or yyy-phobic.

It‘s only in this climate, where violence and threats are routinely given out to us by aggressive, entitled activists, that we have to differentiate ourselves from it. Because by not saying it they assume we are just like them.

Fuck that.

zebrasdontwearbras · 20/08/2019 11:39

BuzzShitbagBobbly - couldn't agree more!

wacademia · 20/08/2019 13:10

What Buzz and Floisme said. When women complain about sexual assault and harassment and identify acts (such as knee touching) that are individually ambiguous as forming part of a pattern of male entitlement and abuse, we get gaslit to hell and back. We mustn't gaslight others.

Goosefoot · 20/08/2019 13:20

I think he was really assaulted, in all likelihood but I also don't think it's wrong to ask questions when a persons' story doesn't seem to make sense. That doesn't apply just to OJ.

wacademia · 20/08/2019 13:20

But normal, rational people aren’t bigots, homophobes, transphobes or endorsers of violence as a starting point.

The authoritarian left aren't normal rational people. I say this as a life-long trade unionist and socialist who despairs of my so-called fellow travellers. Antifa and their ilk are not rational people, they are a kind of cult. They have become the thing they claim to despise: violent, intolerant and bigoted (see dictionary for actual meaning of "bigot" meaning one who refuses to listen to opposing views), and authoritarian. The Knight Templar trope applies here.

Michelleoftheresistance · 20/08/2019 13:24

Thank you for the link, very apt! I hadn't heard of the Knight Templar trope before.

'Blinded by themselves and their ideals' reaching the point of 'tyrannical sociopathy' about nails it.

Goosefoot · 20/08/2019 13:31

The authoritarian left aren't normal rational people.

No, that's true.

My feeling though is this need to preface things has become very weird really, we've become generally habituated to making them. Often IME not to separate ourselves from radical leftists but to appease certain leftists. It's like a habit.