What if you're all wrong about KJK? Even her own security have serious concerns

[andarounditgoesagain]

Her own security are saying she's courting trouble for views, knowingly putting them in danger, that she has no human connection with people but her fans don't notice as they hero-worship her and see what they want to see, and that the end game is she's after becoming a talking head in the US, and that SFW women are just pawns she's using to get there.

twitter.com/Fair_Maiden1/status/1637529465126285312

She seems more and more like a Katie Hopkins type who's leeching off our movement.

I used to love her, before I get accused of jealousy. I still love the approach of platforming women who don't usually get a chance to be heard.

But actual nazis are now turning up at women's rights events - precisely because KJK refused to denounce them and has been courting the far right for ages. It's not a coincidence.

What does she have to do before women realise she's using us?
At what point do women accept KJK is toxic and damaging our movement?

If those closest to her have serious concerns - shouldn't you?

Not So.

Excellent, we are in agreement. I will wait for the OP to provide us with the evidence to back up her accusations

This definitely is not true as I’ve now posted 3 times from my enormous back catalogue of random names (purely as a test, as I only name change to amuse myself, not for privacy or sock puppetry).

There was a thread in Site Stuff. The default name will be your default username. If you've used a different one in a thread already, the default one will be that one. Either way it can be overwritten. It's just the default that changes depending on what you've used in a thread alreqdy.

I have asked the OP numerous times now for that evidence, as have others.

There is nothing.

I reckon that we know why that is. Why do you think that OP has not provided the evidence that convinced them about this?

‘Appropriately’

👍

tone police much?

So the "middle ground" is pretty much where the majority of posters on this thread are located. Agree with KJK on some things, disagree on others.

So what's the issue?

I said it before - nobody ever agrees with anyone 100% of the time.

The OP appears to be trying to stop the middle ground. KJK = bad, according to OP.

Fair enough.

Others feel differently. That's also fair enough.

Trouble is, OP has claimed some rather nasty things about KJK and has, rightly, been asked for the evidence.

The silence is deafening

‘Refuses to denounce KJK’ (even if it provides really great cardio) seems to get translated in some people’s heads as

’thinks she’s the messiah and will obey all her commandments’

i think it says more about the people doing the translating than those refusing to denounce myself

What would be an appropriate way to say
'women don't have penises'?

Gently? Quietly? Silently?

OP you mean what if we are wrong about letting women speak? That really we should all just shut up?

"The general tone of the replies to the OP is hostile and often insulting. A few people replied appropriately but the pile on puts people off saying anything against the grain."

I asked you Climbles up thread, why you interpreted the OP's first post to show any intention of engaging with an expectation of positive interaction rather than to vilify and denigrate Kellie Jay Keen?

Or did you read that OP ignoring the hostile, patronising and insulting tone that it was written in.

Telekineses?

That's not 'middle ground'. That's agreeing with your personal opinion over the way a woman who has nothing to do with you conducts herself.

And in case you hadn't noticed, tons of women prefix their posts with I don't agree with everything KJK says!

What most vehemently disagree with is the pretence that because various sections of violent male groups show up to have a go at each other, or at her, at her events, that she is aligned with them.

The deliberate undermining of her using a completely made up narrative, is what gets most people's' goat.

And, as several people have testified on this very thread, it's the rank injustice and misogyny of trying to discredit her with fake facts that results in people supporting her more than they may have done.

What movement do we agree with every campaigner on? In fact we shouldn’t - different voices speak to different people.

Amplify those you do agree with OP, vs this embarrassingly facile attempt at a takedown.

No. Just the women who have been deemed to be not the right type of women... didn'tchaknow?

Her own security are saying she's courting trouble for views, knowingly putting them in danger,

which rule of misogyny is it where women are responsible for what men do?

That’ll be number one!

1. Women are responsible for what men do.

Those rules of misogyny are so applicable, aren't they? And I believe that's rule number one.

Women are always getting blamed for the behaviour of men.

Does it really not occur to other men, that those violet men don't actually have to show up and be violent??

1. Women are responsible for what men do.

Exactly.

And I think it needs a prodigious airing every time someone suggests it.

yes. This is.

That is not 'middle ground'. That is a post declaring that we should support fuckwittery. And by fuckwittery, I mean dishonest interpretations of her words and her actions which can never be evidenced beyond bad faith interpretations or repeating straight out misinformation.

We are all waiting here now for that evidence.

What sort of security company complains about having to keep the people who hire them safe anyway?

If they aren’t capable of doing the work, they should surely refuse the job?

Interpretive dance.

I would genuinely like to see the interpretive dance that expresses this concept

?

I believe the intention of this tweet was that it was stewards not a security company. I believe that the tweet is intended to convey that KJK is someone who is divisive and that those supporting her don't actually support her at all.

And hey, it might well be true. But then in talking with those who work with her for some of her events, it doesn't seem to reflect their attitudes. It might be one region. It might be some people who work more closely. Who the fuck knows?

That is the point. That tweet is as yet unverified and highly suspicious timingwise.