Owen. Not getting it or goady? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

[viques]

Article in the Guardian about why homophobia against straight men needs to be addressed. Apparently straight men are at risk of homophobic abuse if they “violate the boundaries of masculinity”, which according to Owen include, being kind and empathetic and “ by not objectifying women or treating them as equals”. Blimey, that will put the frighteners on the guardian readership even faster than news that quinoa is in short supply.

He also challenges ( if that is the word) “perceptive discrimination” when people are treated unfairly on the grounds that they are ‘perceived’ to have a protected characteristic, he gives as an example Sikh men( not, you notice Sikh women, or even Sikh people) who are abused because they are perceived to be Muslim. Not sure where “perceptive discrimination” leaves women, but am pretty sure it is low down on the pecking order as usual, though also in todays guardian interestingly enough is an article by a transwoman who is apparently astonished at the unwarranted verbal sexual harassment she gets, which apparently didn’t happen at all when she wasn’t a transwoman. Maybe she ought to get together with Owen for support.

Anyway good to know that straight men have such a champion in their midst. I hope they can all breathe a little easier knowing that OJ is on their side. He has done such amazing things for gay and transitioning men after all.

I think at some point he's said to Kath Viner that he's this magical bridge for the Gordian to connect with their American readership, so that's her told isn't it?

Their gain (more of OJ's words) is the UK's loss (more of OJ's words).

I think positioning yourself as the Guardian's only trans ally - whether that's correct or not - is actually a pretty smart move. It almost makes me sympathise with Katharine Viner.

Question: so it's apparently conspiracy thinking to wonder whether Owen has material on his boss, and if that's dissuading her from pulling him into line.

So why isn't it conspiracy thinking, when Owen Jones doubts this article in the Times? What do you, Janet, think needs to be verified?

The school's existence? That a female peer spoke at it? That any bullying might have happened?

What do you think is being lied about? Multiple sources have been quoted, although anonymised. Do you think it's a conspiracy on the part of the Times?

As I think I mentioned before, there are journalistic ways of verifying or falsifying this event. No need to go on Twitter and to launch a mob to do the investigation (which will result in doxxing of young people doing their exams). He could have done it in a quiet manner without advertising that he was going to do it beforehand. Had he really wished to research the piece.

He could have privately sent a text message to the peer involved and asked her what her account was.

Unless she thinks he's a misogynist too and she's refused to give him her number...

Just to remind you all of what he said

I need your help!

This "story" - claiming 60 girls drove a girl out of a school for "questioning trans ideology" - doesn't include their side of the story or even name the school.

I want to speak anonymously to these girls for their story, so please RT!

The scare quotes around story are meant to signify what? That it is fictitious? The emphasis on the school remaining unnamed is meant to signify what? That it is fictitious?

I am not a journalist but I have been doing some light background reading, which meant I found the teacher's original blogpost about the situation. I'm sure Owen is capable of doing the same.

You'll never believe this, but it contains some quotes from the "other side"!

extract

It is both heartening and interesting that some of those fired up students on that day have in hindsight somewhat changed their position. I spoke to one of the girls today who was at the centre of the ‘outraged’ group and who had taken on the role as chief spokesperson. She admitted that they’d gone too far and that she regretted it. She also, without any prompting, added that she thought that there is a lot of ideology around the issue and that they should be properly debating these things. Good on her. Lets bring it on. However this would be too late to help the girl who was most wounded by this situation. The damage here is done.

which meant I found the teacher's original blogpost about the situation. I'm sure Owen is capable of doing the same.
You can't take just reading blog post opinions as your news source.
You have to verify the details in it.
Not just blindly take it as truth in a there you go, I've checked it now as the blog post says it's true, it must be.
It doesn't work like that.

You are (deliberately?) missing the point. The identity of the school was available without going via twitter so publicly, and contrary to his claim that the other side had not been heard, it had actually been written about.

Yes. That's what the journalists at the Times did.

They spoke to the teacher, they spoke to the girl, they approached the peer for comment (she's declined to comment). They've also quoted a councillor who was there in a follow up article.

Would you like to explain to me why Owen could not take this selfsame route, instead of making a public shout out on twitter, and risking people helpfully naming individuals in his replies?

He's off again, setting his million followers on a woman whose Twitter account was obviously hacked.
Lots of the "be kind" people tagging her employer etc.
I expect he'll apologize & call off the dogs once he realises his mistake 🤔

What's this?

God that poor woman on Twitter. LOJ's lot are rabid.

He'd been send some really nasty tweets, posted screenshots & a trail of breadcrumbs so that his followers could identify the account but he has plausible deniability about what they do to her.

Thanks, will take a look.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10841217/Baroness-trans-free-speech-row-pupil-DEFENDS-students-right-disagree-her.html

Is it not a possibility that the woman on Twitter who has posted hardly anything ever and then suddenly sends abusive messages may have had her account hacked? She's now got people trying to get her fired from her job, putting her name all over Twitter and asking if anyone knows her address.

If it turns out that she is actually sending all the horrible messages and hasn't been hacked by trolls then obviously that's unacceptable. Wouldn't reporting to Twitter be more suitable than sending the hordes after her though, in case she's innocent?

Is it not a possibility that the woman on Twitter who has posted hardly anything ever and then suddenly sends abusive messages may have had her account hacked?

He even points out himself that her prior posting history is completely innocent and that her name, face and workplace are attached to the account. But somehow that didn’t occur to him. Please someone make him stop, he’s awful.

It's not 'obviously been hacked'.

OJ is a bellend of the highest order but he does get a hell of a lot of abuse online from all sorts of people, there's not really any reason to think this was a hacking.

Agree that the 'keep her anonymous but give big clues to find her account' strategy is disingenous crap though.

A timely reminder of why I'm not on Twitter. (And I don't work at Garden Court, honest!)

(a) I'm sure Owen is sent many similar messages by men. Does he also give clues about their identities to his million followers so they can be harassed online and reported to their employers?
(b) What's he got against Aldi and Captain Tom?

Hmm, just looked again - the woman in question hasn't posted anything for about 9 months and is now suddenly posting abuse at OJ and India Willoughby? And also, if this person had genuinely been caught out by OJ and was getting a pile on and being outed to her employers, she probably would have at least locked her account by now. Whereas if she wasn't using Twitter these days and had no idea she had been hacked.......

It probably at least bears a thought before tweeting to a million people!

If this person has been hacked and OJ has set the dogs on her he is going to look like an absolute plonker and is going to have to apologise to her!

I disagree about it being hacked, her tl was full of doggos & boy bands until 6 months ago. Then no posts until last night's string of racist, homophobic & transphobic abuse to 4 different people. There's lots of replies to OJ pointing this out but he hasn't bothered engaging with any of them.

Also suddenly posting racist abuse to Ian Wright and misogynistic abuse to Angela Rayner in the past 24hrs, whereas she hadn't posted anything for 9 months and the stuff before that was all mundane and inoffensive?

Either she has suddenly become radicalised by JKR as OJ claims or.....she's been hacked!

>If this person has been hacked and OJ has set the dogs on her he is going to look like an absolute plonker and is going to have to apologise to her!

Do you think he would? Or would he keep insisting that she did it? I honestly think he’s vile enough to double down.

Well that was a classic cross post 😁
Also lol at the idea of OJ apologising to woman.