Posie Parker Interview

[wprice81]

Is anyone else aware that Posie is doing an interview with controversial youtuber, j.f. gariepy? didn't expect to see that...

something they're up to somewhere else

What exactly? And by the time we find out, how many young girls will have had their breasts cut off?

Datun

As I said before, if she didn't know, when a quick Google of his name would have informed her about him, then at best she is incredibly naiive.

In fact, given the threats made against her I do find it unbelievable that she agreed to be interviewed by some man that she knows about following a random unsolicited approach. He quite literally could have been anyone, with any agenda. Is that honestly how she works? A random drops her a message to ask for an interview and she simply agrees?

Sorry, not buying that.

Sorry, not buying that.

What's the alternative explanation, in your opinion? That she knew exactly what she was doing and why, was prepared for the backlash, had a statement already written?

You must think she's off her rocker.

I also think it's more than just women who have been successfully attacked in this.

A lot of women's political energy is often directed towards gaining universal economic rights and equalities of opportunity, benefitting more than women. Eg, as has often been said on MN, feminism is good for men.

Diverting that energy into dealing with this artificially created crisis is a win for anyone who'd quite like to get on with consolidating their wealth or privilege without those nasty bothering women banging on about employment rights or universal healthcare not dependent on spouse, for example.

It's also a win for anyone who'd like to present themselves – for this issue only – as women's New Best Friend.

clitherow, yes, by all means replace "form of" with "content of the underlying idea".

Diverting that energy into dealing with this artificially created crisis is a win for anyone who'd quite like to get on with consolidating their wealth or privilege without those nasty bothering women banging on about employment rights or universal healthcare not dependent on spouse, for example

I think I see what you're saying. I do not think that the transgender 'issue' is what it seems either. But I don't think that it is distracting from the issues that you highlight, but it is part of a wholesale re-structuring. Transgender ideology is one of the tools that is being used to deracinate people so that those in power can more easily manage the massive changes that are ahead of us. If a population can be made to say that men are women then they can be made to swallow any version of reality presented to us by those who control education, media and so on

Datun

Are you honestly of the opinion then that she just agrees to interviews with any random person that approaches her? She has no vetting procedure, does no due diligence at all. She just rocks up for an interview with a complete stranger with no idea about what they'll ask her, what their agenda is or how they will present the interview?

What if he'd been some comedian who took the interview and then edited it in some way that made her and her campaign a laughing stock, kind of Borat style?

She appears way to intelligent to take that chance.

I don't have an opinion, tequila. I read her statement, and I believe it.

It dovetails with her general MO.

It's because she is an effective gender critical campaigner. That's actual issue. Alleged racism is just an excuse.

Hence upping the ante by telling the women here they must also be racist.

That just about sums it up for me.

What's it distracting from?

Well for example, a few years ago MNers were paying a lot of attention to austerity and Universal Credit.

Particular feminist issues were the cutting of funding to women's refuges, and the decision to make Universal Credit a payment solely to one "head" of household, which was correctly predicted to be an abuser's charter.

This sort of thing used to light up MN. Now it doesn't get much airtime. And if it does, it's concentrated in one thread title among a sea of trans thread titles.

I've seen people yelling that it's a disgrace that disabled people such as myself might not be able to chose to have a carer of the same sex. Well newsflash – I don't get a carer of any sex. Because austerity.

But that detail seems to have been eclipsed by "trans".

There's something bubbling away that's REALLY concerning me about women's access to medical care as privatisation creeps in. (Because any form of paid-for healthcare requires access to funds or to employment-based healthcare, which disadvantages SAHPs who are often women.) I've considered starting a thread but again don't think it'll get much airtime.

Those are off the top of my head. I'm sure you can come up with more. It's not like we were twiddling our thumbs going, "Oh yeah, feminism's finished the job and we can go home," before all this blew up.

(I'm a very slow typer, so apologies if cross-posted.)

*What?

You can have societies that are completely ethnically homogeneous that develop social hierarchies, class hierarchies are a good example of this*

Yep, which is why I said very often for race and intrinsic for sex.

And it's entirely possible to think that all people are universally valuable, and that still, social hierarchies will appear in any society simply as a result of different social roles. Or in the case of male/female issues, that the nature of sexed physical bodies will always be significant in social structures. For that matter, you can make a very good argument that is precisely what we see in every society that has ever existed, and while Marx suggested that there is a way to smash that, and following him certain other groups, it's very unclear, empirically speaking, if that is actually possible. That's the root of the right argument, not so much that it's wrong to want a classless society, but that it is impossible

Yep this is all typically right wing and exactly what I mean.

and so we need to always deal with the hierarchies that class differentiation will create

Yeah you've lost me a bit there. You just defended these classes as natural and impossible to stop so what do you mean by "deal with"? It's an interesting choice of words by the way.

Do you seriously not know any thinkers on the right who aren't in favour of racism and the oppression of women?

No I don't. Please point me to one. I imagine there are plenty of right wing thinkers who are against racism and sexism on an individual level but as you have just explained these are structural problems and if you are defending those structures then your anti racism and sexism are utterly worthless.

If you believe that a womans place in the social hierarchy is a natural result of our biology can you point to a right wing way of "dealing with this"?

BTW the above is not in anyway a criticism of you, Datun, or others who are doing very fine work analysing what's going on.

It's simply an observation.

There's something bubbling away that's REALLY concerning me about women's access to medical care as privatisation creeps in.

I really agree with you. I think that the transgender issue, as people like Posie Parker are highlighting it, it has become a kind of tangible proof that something is afoot. I am sure that after Brexit the NHS is going to come under an even more sustained attack by faceless, greedy, corporate vultures. We already burden our young people with so much debt before they even get started onlife that I could weep. Then they have to face the scandal that is the cost of housing. I feel that we are in a version of the old fairy tale where the girl puts on red shoes and can't stop dancing until she dies - this is where we are with the nightmare that is global finance.

I think the transgender ideology is one of the visible 'proofs' that we are caught up in a madness that we can't control. But the transgender ideology is even more than heartless financial greed. For the first time we are trying to re-define the very nature of what it is to be human. This is why I think it has shocked so many people into taking notice of what is going on.

PerkingFaintly

That's okay. I didn't take it in that way.

I think transgenderism has scooped up a lot of women who would not have considered themselves particularly feminist.

So I'm not sure it detracts necessarily from other issues - a lot of these women are 'in addition to', not 'instead of'.

There is a restructuring going on with the protected characteristic of sex. There is a large amount of global funding going into researching how it can be removed from law completely. I'm going to a meeting next month to find out more. I am particularly interested in how we manage equal pay cases when sex is no longer a legal category. In my experience equal pay claims will just be shrugged off as having no basis! Business won't have to deal with it any more if it doesn't exist legally. I am hoping to find out what the grand plan is to deal with this. But as it's a group of queer theory non binaries they won't have a clue. I am agog!

She's not guilty of a personal attack by posting lies about someone though

Id take this one up with MNHQ if i were you

I have asked MNHQ where they stand with posters telling outright and provable lies against another poster

At the time they said it wasnt a personal attack...their stance on this may have changed obviously

clitherow, you might find it interesting to read about hedge fund billionaires Robert & Rebekah Mercer and their funding of "culture war" creators like Milo Yiannopoulus – precisely to cause disruption and move into whatever disarray was created. This is the essence of disaster capitalism.

(BTW, Mercer sr was also the one put together Trump, Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica/AggregateIQ.)

ROBERT MERCER, TRUMP’S SUGAR DADDY, IS BEING SUED
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/robert-mercer-david-magerman-lawsuit

Are the Mercers being taken for a ride by their favorite hate-mongering boy toy?
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/mercers-money-milo-yiannopoulos-conservative

ROBERT MERCER, TRUMP’S SUGAR DADDY, IS BEING SUED
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/robert-mercer-david-magerman-lawsuit

It feels slightly as though talking about the Mercer on this thread is off-topic, but on reflection I think it's very much ON-topic.

There seems to be general agreement that Posie's interlocutor is a misogynist, anti-Semitic white supremacist.

IURC, according to this thread Posie has stated these are not her values.

So the thing that's caused her to lend her brand to his channel is purely "trans".

No trans issue = no traffic bump or general publicity for the white supremacist.

So there are some... interesting winners from the current trans-activism.

Yes, I don't think anyone would disagree that it is incredibly divisive.

I've been saying from the beginning (of the crisis, not this thread) that there is someone or something we don't know yet behind the curtain. Possibly a coalition of interests. My fear is that by the time we figure out who's pushing all this and why it may be far too late to stop them.

www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity

I've been saying from the beginning (of the crisis, not this thread) that there is someone or something we don't know yet behind the curtain. Possibly a coalition of interests. My fear is that by the time we figure out who's pushing all this and why it may be far too late to stop them.

It's already to late.

LangCleg, that article's fascinating! I was there at that "brief moment in the early 1990s", and I'm also interested in the history of technology. Some of this article echoes the concept of the "human equation" developed by C19th natural philosophers, who were grappling with measurable mechanical and heat inputs to manufacturing and wanted to measure the human input as well.

It's also very plus ça change...

Last year, I got invited to a super-deluxe private resort to deliver a keynote speech [...] I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys – yes, all men – from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world
[...]
There was a brief moment, in the early 1990s, when the digital future felt open-ended and up for our invention. Technology was becoming a playground for the counterculture, who saw in it the opportunity to create a more inclusive, distributed, and pro-human future. But established business interests only saw new potentials for the same old extraction, and too many technologists were seduced by unicorn IPOs. Digital futures became understood more like stock futures or cotton futures – something to predict and make bets on.[...] The future became less a thing we create through our present-day choices or hopes for humankind than a predestined scenario we bet on with our venture capital but arrive at passively. [...] This freed everyone from the moral implications of their activities.
[...]
So instead of considering the practical ethics of impoverishing and exploiting the many in the name of the few, most academics, journalists, and science fiction writers instead considered much more abstract and fanciful conundrums: is it fair for a stock trader to use smart drugs? Should children get implants for foreign languages?
[...]
Asking these sorts of questions, while philosophically entertaining, is a poor substitute for wrestling with the real moral quandaries associated with unbridled technological development in the name of corporate capitalism. Digital platforms have turned an already exploitative and extractive marketplace (think Walmart) into an even more dehumanizing successor (think Amazon).