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.

I suspect the meeting KJK had with Hanson was for Hanson and her colleagues to get a greater understanding of what was happening here. I don't actually doubt that Pauline Hanson is concerned by this issue. Her platform has focus on family issues as well as other issues. I believe that Pauline was attempting to get the issue of children's treatment debated in Australian Parliament. It may have been for single sex spaces as well.

I have followed Hanson's political career for decades. I was in a close by electorate when she first sprung on the scene. I disagree with quite a lot of her views, however, she also is fearless in voicing her concerns. That she is very well known for.

Is it a good thing?

Considering that Holly Lawford-Smith has been harassed and abused for saying similar things, I suspect that no one can say anything about the issues that would not draw similar abuse and distain from the same people.

Does anyone know why RiotsInBrixton’s post was removed? I’m intrigued how it broke the guidelines.

When posters are PBPs don't MN removed all their posts in this way?

What is PBP? It’s a bit annoying because the post seemed reasonable to me and now you can’t see the context of the following posts.

Previously banned poster.

If you found the posts reasonable and convincing, then just continue the theme of their posts.

Pauline Hanson probably also has a very personal reason for fighting for single sex spaces. She was jailed for election fraud at one stage.

I am sure she understands the need for single sex spaces from a very personal perspective.

Oh ok. Fair enough.

It’s not that I found their posts particularly convincing just a perspective on something I don’t know much about which is always interesting. Obviously I will continue to post but just wondered what I’d missed re deletion.

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.

It’s a persona he chooses to put out. If she thinks he lovely I’m not saying she can’t think that, but that wasn’t your point. You were suggesting that you couldn’t say someone isn’t lovely if you haven’t met them, of course you can.

Persona is certainly a good term for it - I don’t think he truly believes half the things he says, he’s a professional troll because he knows it’ll get him views and attention. Some of the things he’s come out with is just past the point of ridiculous. If someone chooses to put out a persona of stating harmful nonsense and vile statements about individuals and groups of people, then whether or not I’ve met them I’m going to say they’re not lovely.

I’m sure plenty of people think he’s a great bloke, he wouldn’t be so well known if everyone hated him. They’re allowed to think that and I’m allowed to disagree with them.

The note says the posts were breaking talk guidelines, not that the user was a previously banned poster.

In fact, the case of Pauline Hanson is a really good one for highlighting the case that even those perceived as right wing need to campaign for single sex spaces.

The fight for these protections are not the sole domain of the left, and in some instances, maybe many, the left has been very divided on the issues. If Hanson has a personal need to campaign for single sex spaces should she be shunned, or should she allowed to campaign, and if she is allowed to campaign, should she be left to do it without any support from the women who have information that may assist her own campaign? Should she not be able to go and listen and collect information that will help her campaign if someone decrees that it will harm their own campaign for the same thing?

I suggest you contact MNHQ. I think that they would be very interested in hearing from you and they will explain exactly why those posts were deleted.

Please. Let us know how you get on.

Could it have been the link in the deleted post?
I didn’t read the link, admittedly.

Am wondering what Matt Walsh’s politics are. Will Google, but if anyone has anything to hand I’d be interested. He is a Christian, I have gathered. Against reproductive rights? I cannot see his stance being compatible with evangelicals who do not want Science taught in schools; he seems keen on education for the general public and such.
What is the view he has that is ‘far right’?

Huh?

Maybe I'm extra dim today but I don't follow your analogy. Have the extreme left and extreme right secretly got together and agreed that men are women and are now all covering up the disastrous consequences because reasons?

Could it have been the link in the deleted post?
I didn’t read the link, admittedly.

No it was just a link to an Independent article about TC. Nothing controversial as far as I can remember.

This one I think…

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tucker-carlson-racist-text-fox-b2331989.html

The analogy doesn't work nothing. It is a totally unbelievable scenario.

Extreme left and extreme right might agree to meet up to discuss murder and how to reduce the occurrence in society. Is it likely that they would agree that the death penalty should be reintroduced? Really?

And I have no idea what is meant by the lies about statistics. Which group lied? Both? Is that likely as well?

So, no. The analogy is a crap one.

You know alot about him, are you aligned?

You know alot about him, are you aligned?

Not entirely sure what you mean by aligned, if you mean do I agree with him and support him? No. I’m sure I have some common ground with him because as I said in a previous post I don’t think it is possible to entirely disagree (or agree) with someone else about absolutely everything.

What that has to do with knowing a lot about him and his views, I am not sure, perhaps I have misunderstood your question.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · Today 13:18

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.

He's quite well known for shutting people down, if he disagrees, as well as shouting over the top of them and not letting them finish their replies. He pushed the Trump lie about the election being stolen, even after having it explained to him that it hadn't been.

He pushed the Trump lie about the election being stolen, even after having it explained to him that it hadn't been.
And many of “the left” pushed the lie that the Russians stole the 2016 election for Trump. So what’s your point?

The Russians are nice guys. They wouldn't do anything like trying to interfere in the politics of Western countries, oh no, sirree, Bob. Tucker Carlson is literally one the biggest shits to walk the earth. And I don't say that lightly.

That's interesting. Is it likely that he treats them that way on-screen after being privately charming? If he lulls his guests into a false sense of security, and then abruptly changes his behaviour while the cameras are rolling, it must make great TV.

Fascists in Germany and Italy believed in the death penalty. Communists in Russia and China did too. So extreme left and extreme right both believed in the death penalty. They agreed about a lot of things.

Christian Evangelicals in Northern Ireland managed to get the Nordic Model adopted. We're not talking about ordinary Protestants here, we're talking about DUP creationists like Jim Wells who has got into trouble because of his views on homosexuality and abortion.

In the Irish Republic the organisation Ruhama has enormous influence. It was founded by two orders of nuns both of which ran Magdalene laundries. They successfully campaigned for the Nordic Model.

They did it by telling lies. One of their lies was that 38% of Irish prostitutes have attempted suicide. That figure comes from a study of a small group of Dublin drug addicts. Radical Feminists have worked with Evangelicals and Ruhama and share their false statistics.

There was an official report into the effectives of the Nordic Model in Northern Ireland. It said that there seems to have been an increase in the amount of prostitution there. There was a report in the Irish Republic too. That one didn't have anything to say about whether prostitution has increased or decreased, but it did say that women were still being arrested and funds to help women exit prostitution hadn't been provided.

Then if you look at the first country to have the Nordic Model, Sweden, you can see that they have kept statistics from the public. There were surveys in Sweden in 1996 and 2008, on either side of the introduction in 1999. There are 3 key statistics from these surveys. The proportion of Swedish men who were active sex buyers increased. The proportion of Swedish men who had bought sex at some time in their life decreased. The proportion of Swedish women who had sold sex at some time in their life increased.

You may wonder how the first two stats could be different but the first is an incidence statistic and the second is a prevalence statistic. Really you should only use incidence stats to track changes because prevalence stats can change for a number of reasons, like older generations becoming too old to participate in the surveys.

So it seems that prostitution only decreased in Sweden after 2008 when their was a global financial crisis. There was also a decrease in Denmark where they don't have the Nordic Model. Then there's another statistic that says that there are now fewer active sex buyers in Sweden than other European countries: this seems to be a complete fabrication.

Lots of people believe that prostitution is a bad thing but it's about unintended consequences.

And it doesn't mean his can't be both an arsehole and a charming person. I know some people will still go on a shock jock's show after being humiliated because they want to get their point across or they want the publicity or they are fine with that sort of 'debate'.

If he does this regularly though, his show would have trouble getting anyone to come on more than once, and not even once if they think he is just an arse.

I don't believe anyone here is saying that they agree with all his views. I do believe though that describing him personally as 'delightful' doesn't mean that KJK has 'aligned' with his views on more than one single issue, if they are even in full agreeance on that single issue. Which they might not be.

And yet, your analogy was about murder and the death penalty. And we are supposed to assume about a discussion in a Western democratic society. Because you introduced it in response to Busy's point that simply agreeing on the overarching point does not mean that someone is aligned with another person who also agrees but has a different motivation and differences in their desired outcome. Not a communist or fascist one. And the analogy is supposed to be relevant to current times where supposedly we have become more aware of extremes.

Sure, if fascists and extreme communists get together to solve murders in their societies, they might use the death penalty. However, it is not likely that the Republicans or the Democrats would agree on the death penalty. And I would doubt the death penalty would be a solution proposed by a Tory / Labour cross party committee either.

The analogy doesn't fit Busy's point.

@asterel

thank you for that information. I have been confused by the historical antecedents claimed for ‘ drag queens’ , my own knowledge about stage history concentrates on much earlier periods, where I could not find evidence for this exaggerated portrayal of female characteristics.