sarah ditum on Posie parker

[narcymum]

Just saw a tweet where she calls PP a 'poundshop marine le Pen'
WTF! why are women who are supposedly in this fight together actively trying to sabotage another woman's activism?
Can we not move away from this schoolyard shit?

Ok, I’m on it!

perhaps we could try and collect up any existing transcripts to counteract the problems with background noise/sound quality?

Did you just define fascist as someone not "progressive"? That is literally all mainstream partie in the UK right now, not least the ones pushing a regressive gender stereotypes / let's revive the ancient practice of castration (eunuchs), agenda.

Progressive is moving away from a patriarchal society and / or monarchy, away from things like repression of women and the LGB community and trans people, towards a society where people get where they get through merit, where there is a fair amount of equality of opportunity and outcome, where LGB are not threatned with rape by people of the opposite sex, where trans people can have the right to third spaces if they ask for them, where sex-based sterotypes are laughed at as 70 years out of date!

We do not currently have progressive parties in the UK, except maybe the SDP.

Progressivism is an idea that sows the seeds of it's own destruction, it allows for idiotic thinking to prevail.

By all means have moral and political ideas you believe in, but as soon as anyone imagines there is (or maybe more importantly has been) some kind of "right side of history" they are going to be enabling bad thinking. Both because it tends to assume that people living in the here and now are more uniquely empowered to understand the Good than anyone else, (and presumably those in the future even more so, totally idiotic.) And also because it imagines a scenario where there are not trade-offs to every social and political construction.

It makes the kind of abstract utopianism that has infected the LP and others on this issue, or race issues, among others, to flourish.

What I find particularly weird is that many people who consider themselves secular atheists embrace the idea of progressivism. It makes no sense if you don't believe in some kind of unfolding of the World Spirit. It's borrowed from Christian humanism, and even there it's arguably a little naive.

'Progressive' just means 'changing'. The idea is that it's change for the better, but it tends to bake in an awful lot of assumptions - that all change will be for the better, that there will be no negative outcomes from change, and buys into a general idea that society is on an upward trajectory, heading towards some kind of utopia.

Of course we constantly strive to improve things. Of course that involves change.

But the idea that we are always getting better is the same misconception as the idea that we are evolving 'progressively'. In the same way that evolution is actually a (probably) random process that rewards useful mutations that offer advantage in the current situation/context, political change is only ever operating from the position of current conditions, which is inevitably based on a partial and subjective view. We can't really predict how those conditions will change, or what all of the consequences will be.

By sides, I meant what side of the police line people were on. HoO were on the SFW side.

I was using progressive in the old-fashioned, feminist sense of the word ie progressing the rights and situation of women. As opposed to the regression and rolling back of rights that we've been seeing pretty much all over the world in recent years. The situation in the US is really frightening for many women there.

If people don't mind footage of them being hosted on a website that spews hate about minorities especially Muslim people that's their choice, I guess.

I agree that there isn't a progressive political party in the UK and while the Conservative party has the most progressive policies regarding sex-based rights pretty much every other policy they have is bad news for most women.

So @christinarossetti39 I don't think you saw my question. I was asking you what the problem is with HoO livestreaming the event in Brighton? Isn't it a good thing if those women's words reach the biggest audience possible? Why do you think it's a bad thing?

“Live-streaming a public open-air event” is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in the argument that Posie Parker (who I have no particular feelings about one way or the other, indeed I think this may be the first time I’ve ever commented about her) is a far right fascist.

Would any of those handwringing about “not my brand of feminism” like to address the point that this apparently fascist organisation, Hearts of Oak, have actual links to an actual TRA? If you’re looking for evidence that someone supports right wing fascism, that seems rather more substantial to me than “they rocked up to my non-selective, non-invitation, no-admission-ticket-necessary outdoor event and decided to film it”? Why is PP the one in the wrong here?

HoO were on the SFW side.

Over 6 billion people were on the SFW side...

beastlyslumber has the outcome of HoO streaming been to amplify women's voices? Can't see it myself. Looks to me like it's the other way round - those voices are now assets on the HoO sm channels, used to support their far bigger agenda.

Has anyone said that KJK is a far right fascist? I may have missed that.

HoO don't have links to TRA, although women who were there are saying that Side Hustle who were filming the event from the front do? No idea about that, but I don't think anyone's said that HoO are linked to TRA.

KJK isn't in the wrong if you think it's okay for her to welcome men from racist, nationalist groups to film the events that she organises and broadcast them on their channels without the knowledge or consent of the speakers. If that's okay for you, there's nothing to see here.

NecessaryScene not sure what you mean. The video footage shows a few hundred people on the SFW side of the police line. Maybe you mean something else?

I think if people go to an event called Speakers Corner, modelled on the long standing tradition of anyone being able to stand up and say what they want and anyone able to listen and respond, with the intention of speaking and do so with multiple cameras openly held up for them to willingly speak into, they have done this as informed as they could be.

This is such a bizzare line of reproach.

those voices are now assets on the HoO sm channels, used to support their far bigger agenda.

So if women's voices are used to promote HoO's agenda, then their agenda includes promoting women's voices.

So that's good, then? I'm happy with that. HoO are sounding less fascist by the minute (and we already established they're not fascists).

Look. The whole point of speaking at these events is to get your voice heard. So why would you care if people... hear your voice? It's a good thing.

And I'm not sure what you think KJK could have done about people turning up to an open-air, open-access event. It's amazing how people are focusing on those two men as if they were the most important people there! Almost like you don't care about the women at all.

Has anyone said that KJK is a far right fascist? I may have missed that.

Sarah Ditum called her "a poundshop Marine Le Pen." That's what this entire thread is about. Hard to miss.

True, so she did. I don't think that type of name calling adds anything to debates fwiw.

KJK could have said 'we don't welcome racists here' but she didn't because she's happy to 'stand with the devil himself' (her words) whereas some of the women who have spoken at her events have different boundaries which are disregarded.

And no, before anyone asks I don't think anyone can vet the credentials of everyone who turns up. People holding all sorts of views and opinions that others don't agree can show up. Questions could be asked about people who set up a camera and tripod (if you think the speakers at these events have any sort of autonomy), but there is a difference between having racist views, and belonging to a group with explicitly racist view and filming and broadcasting women speaking to advance these views to your thousands of viewers.

Actually, I do care about the women there and how they're being used to advance agendas that they haven't signed up for but feel free to ignore that if you like.

By sides, I meant what side of the police line people were on. HoO were on the SFW side.

Carly-May Kavanagh, who called a baby a fascist, was filmed on that side, very close to the speakers. I'm not sure which side of the line she was on when she had her 'fascist' rant. So is she on the SFW side too?

It sounds like you are saying women have disregarded their own boundaries by speaking without asking questions of the people filming them.

Or are you trying to blame someone else?

NecessaryScene not sure what you mean. The video footage shows a few hundred people on the SFW side of the police line. Maybe you mean something else?

I mean the police were holding and containing back the TRA mob. I recall some of them being quite miffed that that the police were facing them, rather them than the other way around, but of course they are the to hold back trouble makers.

There were hence about six billion people behind the police line.

filming and broadcasting women speaking to advance these views to your thousands of viewers.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying the women speaking were advancing Heart of Oak's views? They were advancing their own views.

I really hope you're not accusing those women of racism.

Actually, I do care about the women there and how they're being used to advance agendas that they haven't signed up for but feel free to ignore that if you like.

Oh, and another important point here is that the main thing the right gets from this is FILMING THE LOONY TRANS ACTIVISTS. That's the main thing they're interested in - illustrating what the "left" is like.

So it's the TRAs that are primarily being used to "advance agendas".

And they also get no veto in this.

Basically anyone performing in public has to take responsibility for what they do. They can't fully control how it will be portrayed, or who will see it, but they are the primary authors.

The whole claim that if you have an open meeting, or are filmed in a meeting at a public place, you are complicit in some political alliance, is bizarre.

If I go to an environmental protest, and some group opposed to that films the protest for their channel, where they say "look at these crazy people" it does not mean I am involved with their cause.

And if it's a public meeting they are entitled to do that.

If it's an open discussion they could probably even speak. No one would say it meant the organizers agreed with them if that were allowed.

The fact that people are trying to spin this event in that way is just very transparently bs.

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. How are the speakers being used to advance HoO's agenda? Could you explain please @christinarossetti39 because it doesn't make sense to me. The speakers were each advancing their own agenda, and the livestreams were just publishing the speakers. So where does HoO's agenda come into it?

Questions could be asked about people who set up a camera and tripod (if you think the speakers at these events have any sort of autonomy), but there is a difference between having racist views, and belonging to a group with explicitly racist view and filming and broadcasting women speaking to advance these views to your thousands of viewers.

OK you ask them who they are and then tell them they're not welcome. Then what? The police won't remove them, they're not breaking any laws and they certainly didn't seem to be drawing attention to themselves. Let's assume they politely leave. What happens next time? They send someone else who lies about who they are? Seriously how does this work? You really don't seem to understand how an open air unticketed event works.

KJK isn't remotely interested in them. The only people who seem interested in HoO are those who want to advertise their presence at the Brighton event in order to discredit KJK.

I've been thinking about JB going on tour with MY, they were simpler times when anyone trying to impose guilt by association would have been laughed at. In reality though I think it is much worse than HoO turning up in Brighton and not being shooed away. JB is a credible feminist with a respectable track record and she legitimised the inflammatory views of a professional troll by sharing a platform and debating with them. It would have be less undignified if she'd debated a serious minded Christian right winger.

there is a difference between having racist views, and belonging to a group with explicitly racist view and filming and broadcasting women speaking to advance these views to your thousands of viewers.
Agree with this, and it applies to transphobic views too
awaits define transphobia comments
Just like you'd get people saying "define racism, what is that exactly?"
Exact same behaviour

People ask the definition of racism because (like ‘woman’) it’s used differently by those who follow the new religion and those who are still working off the original definition.

if you ask someone you’ve just met to define racism, or woman, or lesbian, or gay, the answer is a fairly good predictor as to how likely they are to shout fascist at a baby.

Why lie? No far right person that anyone has been able to identify had a tripod at the event.