Ben Cohen in the Times

[Igneococcus]

"Westminster used to agree on LGBT+ rights. What happened?" he asks. I'm sure the comments will tell him and he won't listen:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6c7b9c5a-e003-11eb-bac0-9597568b601f?shareToken=f472d35266ed238f4f8f181715bda78e

Riffing off concerns about the categorisation of beliefs aligning them with inimical political viewpoints recently I look forward to stories about PN being involved with RW ideology and ultra conservatism:

While there is still a long way to go in Northern Ireland, it says something when the DUP and Sinn Fein leadership can share a platform and agree on so many LGBT+ issues in a way that the leaders of the Conservatives and Labour just can’t anymore.

archive of article in case token lapses later: archive.is/31DRz

He is given a big platform by the Times to argue his case and he just doesn't (can't probably), just tries to manipulate readers, who see right through it.

"Westminster used to agree on LGBT+ rights. What happened?"

Westminster used to do what Stonewall told them to and now they don't, Ben, that's what happened.

Westminster started to look a bit more closely at whether what they were being told to do was in line with the actual law rather than what Stonewall would like it to be and found out that it wasn't, Ben, so did something about it.

What rights do transgender people not have that everyone else does, Ben?

Reading the comments under the article makes it look like the author is in the awkward position of being much less intelligent, informed and honest than the readers.

The Times is a quality paper and his stories do not belong in it.

Ben Cohen is not very bright

What a bizarre bit of rambling writing. Especially the bit about showing his wedding photos.

The good thing about the Times is that it gives space to both sides. On the GC side you get very intelligent arguments and then there's Benjamin Cohen. The Times readership appears to be very GC judging by the comments.

Goodness, what a weird rambling thoughtstream. And I doubt he will read the comments, but they will tell him why he's fallen out of touch with what's going on.

Many of the comments cut straight to the point. The T+ lobby is actually homophobic and misogynist in many cases. Time to split LGB from T and stop exploiting historical progress on LGB rights to pull the wool over people’s eyes about what TRAs actually want: allowing any man who says he is a woman to have access to women’s single-sex spaces.

No one in the comments is buying it.

They all see the manipulation.

Oh, he is annoying.

@highame

The good thing about the Times is that it gives space to both sides. On the GC side you get very intelligent arguments and then there's Benjamin Cohen. The Times readership appears to be very GC judging by the comments.

Well, let's hope the Times starts to tweet out its otherwise-paywalled GC pieces in long threads on Twitter. Yesterday it did that for the other side, with its mushy piece on look-at-me-everybody Crown actress Emma Corrin's breast binding, even helpfully tweeting out the name of the binder merchant. It would be great if teenagers were able to see, for free, the currently paywalled GC pieces too.

Those comments are great - Ben getting his arse handed to him in every one.

Thoroughly enjoying the comments.

Insofar as I can detect an argument in that piece, I think there are three main strands to it.

1. right side of history/march of progress etc
2. all right thinking people agree on this topic, how dare anyone disagree
3. people aren’t allowed to change their minds, nor are government departments.

It’s actually an interesting insight into the transactivist reasoning process. 1,2 and 3 are all examples of conformism overruling a person’s capacity to think, and even his capacity to observe.

1. listen to what you're told, don't examine it critically
2. listen to what you're told, don't examine it critically
3. you've been told what to think, that's the end of the matter

It's a singularly unappealing offer, isn't it?

What a load of waffle from Ben! I preferred his R4 interview where he made a right part of himself. I felt that was a truer reflection.

He’s saying nothing here. It’s all vague crap alluding to something. Smoke and mirrors. “Culture war” - a lazy cliche. The only ‘war’ is between reality and fantasy.

Part = prat

No you were right the first time Breathe. He really is a part(of the male anatomy.)

I couldn't read the article, started and gave up...but I loved reading the comments. They gave the firm impression that there are more sensible, rational people out there than there are blinkered flat-earthers, so very encouraging.

His writing is all over the place, it doesn't seem like he became a journalist through any actual talent or critical thinking ability.

Yet another demonstration of the over-confidence of a mediocre man.

Those comments are outstanding.

It's going so well for Ben in the comments!

I like the one that answers his question of what happened with "You happened, Ben!"

LOL

@allmywhat

Insofar as I can detect an argument in that piece, I think there are three main strands to it.

1. right side of history/march of progress etc
2. all right thinking people agree on this topic, how dare anyone disagree
3. people aren’t allowed to change their minds, nor are government departments.

It’s actually an interesting insight into the transactivist reasoning process. 1,2 and 3 are all examples of conformism overruling a person’s capacity to think, and even his capacity to observe.

I think (1) is very much to the fore. It's interesting - if also terrifying - to be living during the latest era in which the elite progressives have gone stark staring mad. They need to be told: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

No mention of either his faith or his disability in that article. Usually he lays out all the reasons why he is special.

None of his protected characteristics disguise that he's a bit short of critical thinking.