Evidence re GC women and white supremacism please?

[Froodwithatowel]

I'll quote JCJ here as I do not want to derail the other thread:

From my, and many other people's observation, over the last couple of years, the UK GC space, especially on twitter, has progressively merged with both the US MAGA/Christian nationalist space, and those of UK white nationalists.

It is not easy to make sense of that X thread, but this statement is one I want information on. I don't do parroting, I believe in critical thinking, evidence and independence of thought, and I have learned to be deeply cautious of being accidentally vaccuumed into the 'so and so smells so do what I tell you' strategies so very tediously rife at the moment to get people in line and useful to others, we live in very grotty times.

So please would some kind person provide me with evidence that women wanting rights, equality and single sex spaces are entangled with religious extremism and white nationalism? Actual evidence. Not aspersions, but evidence.

It seems some people think KJK is ‘nazi adjacent’ because she has spoken to a fair number of people who do hold views that are White supremacist; like Tucker Carlson platformed her on Fox before his fall from grace, and in Oslo she had a photo taken + a natter with Lysglimt Johansen who does hold racist views.
Even if she’s a middle aged Mum; lots of middle aged mums have been nazi’s up through the years.

KJK is not a nazi, though. Not at all. She is not racist and she does not hold White supremacist views. But she does speak with people with fundamentally opposite viewpoints and she has stated that she will continue to accept almost any platform given.
I admire that.

I am very adjacent to evangelical christians, even if I disagree with some of their stances we agree on others and respect eachother. Am also very adjacent to people from heavy criminal backgrounds. We talk. We certainly don’t always agree. Stuff they have done will be abhorrent. But how will they be exposed to other ways of living if I don’t talk to them?

Does this now tar my GC views (biological facts) with a racist/misogynistic/violent brush?
No.

I do joke about now being fascist, nazi, racist etc. And I’m sure there are people who believe these labels are accurate for me, and that I am a horribly bigoted transphobe. To me that is evidence of a narrow way of thinking, and I can’t do much about it. I have little desire to appease these people, and can only politely say I disagree.

When it comes to blackface/drag I can only say Thank you to @asterel for confirming what I had a vague recollection of.

It seems some people think KJK is ‘nazi adjacent’ because she has spoken to a fair number of people who do hold views that are White supremacist; like Tucker Carlson platformed her on Fox before his fall from grace

Is Tucker Carlson a white supremacist?

In a world of shits, Tucker Carlson is one of the biggest. He does have a big following in the US, though.

In your mind, does that make everyone he interviews align with his view about immigration? And does that make his interpretation on what is happening with one thing tainted for everything he says? He has been a media commentator for decades. Is everything he says then to be dismissed?

Let's say there was a conference where extreme left-wingers and extreme right-wingers gathered to discuss murder. They all agree that the way to combat murder is by re-introducing the death penalty. Let's say that somehow they managed to get it reintroduced. Then several years later they looked at the statistics, realised that it wasn't working, but lied about it. They pretended that it is working.

You have to examine what Radical Feminists are doing when they ally with Evangelicals and the social conservatives. Are their motives really what they say they are? What are the unintended consequences, and do they actually give a damn about the results?

She also is well known for not researching people who interview her before hand. She commented on how he treated her when she has been in contact with him.

Your opinion is that his is not a lovely man and that he is not delightful. Have you met him or have you just based that opinion on his opinions? I have met some people who are very charming and you would say they are charismatic and delightful company, but have views I don't agree with. I have met complete arseholes who have views that I 100% agree with.

If people base their opinion on KJK based on whether she has found someone who treated her with respect and was 'delightful' to her, that seems to be more about how those people are predisposed to judge a particular person rather than rationally looking at someone's behaviour as a whole and then making a judgement.

If you made a comment about how she makes comments about people's behaviour toward her but not about that person's personal views on things other than what they discussed, then yes, you would be correct. Does it mean that she has 'aligned' herself with him? No.

I remember once watching The Daily Show - when it was still funny with Jon Stewart. He had Bill O’Reilly on as a guest. O’Reilly was pretty much Carlson’s predecessor who set the tone for ridiculous Fox News coverage for which Stewart regularly mocked him for and flagged up how nonsensical it was.

But when he was a guest they had a normal conversation, giving each other stick, it was two people butting heads but in a good, respectful way. It was obvious they actually quite liked each other in some ways. Strangely no one at that time seemed to think that Jon Stewart had “aligned himself” with Bill O’Reilly.

And the accusation of “aligning” yourself with the wrong people only comes from the Left. You don’t see people on the right of politics bemoaning someone meeting with a Leftie. It’s just not even an issue.

Have you met him yourself? What did he do to you to make you think he wasn't lovely to you?

Have you met him yourself? What did he do to you to make you think he wasn't lovely to you?

I think it’s perfectly possible to say someone isn’t lovely without meeting them. There’s plenty of people I would say weren’t lovely that I haven’t met.

I’m not sure. I thought he bigged up many people with such views, and also spouted racist lies.
But then, it seemed it was all an act to keep up with what they thought the Fox News audience wanted.

That’s the end of the stick I got, and it may well be wrong too.

People in the media are known for their personas. It's only when you meet someone in real life that you have any idea what is behind that.

KJK got told to avoid Venice Allen because she was x and y, and turns out she isn't the monster they said she was. If her impression meeting a man is that he was lovely to her, who are you to tell her she is wrong?

It's just more of the Leftie 'you sat next to someone who knows someone who did something bad therefore you smell' approach that this whole thread is about.

Hm, yes. I reckon the great replacement Theory has a whiff of White supremacy about it.

I still think it is good to talk to and with people you don’t like and/or wildly disagree with.
On Carlson being lovely; many of the people I work with are lovely to me. I am well aware that they have not been lovely in the past, and that there are still occasions where they are the opposite of lovely.
I read KJK’s remarks in connection with the fact that Carlson gave her a massive platform when hardly no other media would.

Each to their own, though. I certainly have my own limits regarding who I will talk with. I will respect other people’s limits, but I will not respect being told who I may or may not talk with. That decision is mine.

Reminds me of the Christian Fundamentalist men who protected several elderly lesbian women from the Australian riot where a crowd of thugs tried to murder KJK and anyone associated with her.

Both the lesbians and the fundamentalists were very surprised by the experience, but whatever you may thinks about the belief systems of those men, functionally they were one hell of a lot kinder, safer, more tolerant and decent people than the mob of sociopathic maniacs claiming to be LGBT+ supportive.

And until everyone started to discuss the interview, I had no fucking idea who the man is.

So, just because you know who he is, doesn't mean that he is on everyone's radar. Does he also only have people on his show that he agrees with? Or does he have a show that he will invite any one on that is relevant to whatever is happening that is topical at the time?

There is a lot of people who are not conservatives in the USA that watch his programme:

"In October, The Wrap reports, Tucker Carlson’s primetime show was the top-rated news show among Democrats between 25-54. “In total-day viewership, Fox News grabbed 42 percent of Democrats aged 25-54, CNN nabbed 33 percent, and MSNBC got 25 percent,”"

If you don't know the show, but you google Tucker Carlson's show, what is attractive is that it was a very high viewership show. What more would someone who is looking to get the message out to as many people as possible look for if they don't watch the show and don't know what Tucker Carlson's views on immigration is?

I think you seem to have a rather skewed view on what people from outside of the USA know about Tucker Carlson.

I have never met Tucker Carlson, I have never seen one of his shows, and I couldn't pick him out of a line-up if you offered me astonishing sums of money.

However, I'm inferring that he's a very successful right-wing talk show host in the US. Is that right?

If so, I can absolutely guarantee that to his guests, he is charming and delightful. It's his job to be unexpectedly lovely and to put nervous guests at their ease. Right-wing aligned hosts are particularly good as this because they don't worry that their production staff will mutiny if they're seen being polite to a left-wing guest.

I have no idea what Carlson is like in private, or to his subordinates in the workplace, but anyone in his professional position has social skills, and can use those social skills when they want.

And commenting on how nice someone was to them and how pleasant they made a potentially very stressful experience doesn't mean that the person commenting how 'delightful' that person was to them has become aligned to that person's views on immigration.

FFS. If a presenter gets a reputation for being a complete fucking arsehole, they are not about to get anyone onto their show. And a TV show that is also very limited to only present views that are palatable to those on the extreme left, they are not fucking going to be on the commercial media channels.

What an insane world to live in where you only ever watch a programme after you have researched whether or not every single person that has been on the show has been pure enough of thought to enable you to watch it or that you have researched every single thought that the presenter has! The same with news media in any format.

"We're talking about the man who had the biggest show on Fox News, not some obscure French-Canadian podcaster."

Yes.... he had the biggest show on Fox News! FFS! That is fucking part of the attraction of going on to it. And it is also part of the reason for not spending a day researching every fucking idea that the man has expressed.

In a tour where she was being attacked and vilified by many, she commented that a man who had the biggest show on Fox News treated her with respect and she found it 'delightful'. It is really not that hard.

There are two problems for me with KJK agreeing to meet and discuss gender identity issues with people on the far right (Pauline Hanson in Australia being another example).

One is that it makes it easier for our political opponents to accuse all gender-critical feminists of being in league with the far right. Our political opponents fight dirty, as we all know, so this sort of stuff is meat and drink to them.

The other, probably more important one, is that the far right have seen gender ideology as an issue they can latch onto as a way of promoting their other ideas, many of which are very antifeminist (eg attacking abortion rights, attacking same-sex marriage). Most sensible people see that gender ideology is ludicrous, so by allying themselves with mainstream feminists who are fighting against gender ideology, people like Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson get to make themselves look a bit more reasonable and to push their less savoury ideas as being ordinary and unexceptional.

Have you got information about this 'meeting' that KJK had with Pauline Hanson? Do we know the agenda, meeting minutes etc?

More importantly, were there actions that were agreed to be taken forward after this meeting?

Seems the reverse in the US the white (religious) supremacist men there seem to want their white, gun toting women, uneducated (they learn bad habits at colleges), at the kitchen sink and pregnant (as frequently as possible). No evidence, just the stuff you read, women should be pretty much chattels passed from white father to white husband and kept close, to stop them getting any awkward ideas.

I get what you’re saying but I think that KJK could be politically pure as the driven snow and our opponents on the Left would still call her Far Right because that’s what they do with everyone and everything they dislike. It’s their way of labelling someone as persona non grata and it doesn’t have to be based in fact.

As you say, they fight dirty and this is one of their dirty tactics. I think KJK sees this and thinks she’ll never change their mind so she may as well go for access to large viewership rather than staying politically pure, reaching smaller audiences and still be called a Nazi anyway.

The other thing of course is that the terms "white supremacist" and "nazi" and "fascist" have been so ill used over the last 5 to 10 years it makes it difficult to know if the people who use those terms are doing so in good faith or whether they are using them as a way of undermining those who they disagree with. I have pretty much lost trust in many newspapers as well so unless I can see for myself what a person has said and in what context I tend to ignore such claims. Immigration issues in particular seem likely to result in some seriously hyperbolic name calling especially where a person is more conservative in their position on immigration.

The Independent article posted above makes for pretty grim reading and I suspect there is some truth in what they are reporting. Even so if you read it critically their main accusation seems to be that TC is a serial "dog whistler". So if he is a white supremacist he is certainly not overt about it.

Also GC feminists are often accused of dog whistling so this is another term I am always a bit suspicious of.

Also I agree with PPs who say they know next to nothing about TC. I've seen him interview a couple of people in relation to the gender debate (Helena the detransitioner I think was one) but have no real knowledge of his opinions on immigration etc. Also from what I've read it's virtually impossible to find a left leaning platform that will host feminists who wish to talk about this topic and plenty of liberal/left feminist Americans have resorted to doing interviews on right of centre podcasts or shows.