KJK’s insane rant

[Dontblameitonsunshine]

Kjk’s decision to attack everyone who is not her lapdog is increasingly destructive. It looks like Can-sg put on a great conference. Those doctors who have spoken up have risked their careers. Kjk has become famous and has started a business from LWS. She has benefited way more than any of these doctors.

Her work could be powerful if she just stopped attacking everyone else. But these days she is a demagogue and causes more harm than good by capitalising on vulnerable and timid women and telling them that they need her to speak for them.

That's not what you said. You said you have no idea if the women who told her to spend money on champagne, actually mean it.

Me: Do you think women don't mean that?

You: That wasn't me so I have no idea

And then you've answered a question that I didn't ask

"No, I don't think that what a subset of women say is in any way representative of what all women would do."

🥴

I'm really unsure why you are trying to pin me down in legalistic arguments about something I never said. It's tedious.

I said I think its oversimplification to accuse her opponents of being motivated by ideological purity, and gave some examples based on what they themselves said.

You are now demonstrating the same ideological purity by insisting I have to be 100% clear on my view, and it better be the same as yours.

It's boring and completely non-logical

You quoted me and said you didn't know if it was me that said it. I answered your question.

At least reflect on your own contribution to the lack of clarity. It's coming across a bit bad faith.

Hmm. I think she was unclear. She also said: So, I’ve just continued to...say... it’s the fault of the left. If the police force had dealt with those grooming gangs..., there would be no room for anyone to capitalise that void.

Reading that she seems to me to be saying 90% of groomers are Muslim and the police failure to deal withit is why Tommy Robinson stepped in. So I agree it's supporting TR.

Someone who was anti far right would:

1. not quote flawed data implying the problem was muslims;
2. not attribute the blame to "the left" and lack of police action and therefore
3. not suggest Tommy Robinson had no choice but to say those things. They would condemn him unequivocally.

This is the problem with applying black and white thinking to what people say.

No. You post other people's opinions and then claim they're not your own, which, you have to admit, is a very confusing way of debating. Clarifying why you use other people's opinions to drive forward a conversation, without saying if you agree with them or not, isn't really legalese level of discourse, is it?

I asked you if you believed the people who say she associates with the far right. You said you have no idea.

*How on earth would I know for sure who she does or doesn't associate with? I don't know any of these people. I can't answer that

I was just reiterating what you said.

But it's good to know. You have no idea who she does or doesn't associate with and cannot agree or disagree with people who says she associates with the far right.

Whether you said it or not was irrelevant to my question.

You seem incapable of forming an opinion about a concept, unless you are voicing that concept!

So you are now saying that it is your opinion that she as 'links' to the far right?

And that all you have posted supports your opinion and is not just what someone else has said?

You're not wrong.

Someone says "people are ideologically driven to oppose KJK"

I say I think that's overly simplistic, here are a range of views I've seen as to why people don't support her

Get asked for evidence

Provide said evidence

Get multiple pages of strawman about my view and exactly what I think

So weird.

I have seen this with other posters recently too. It could be because they actually don't have the depth of understanding about a topic that they want to portray that they do. It could be that a poster thinks they have found 'evidence' but can't be arsed to do the interrogation of that evidence to see if it is valid for the purpose they want to use it for or not so they don't post it with any relevant discussion.

Or it could be that they know that their argument is as weak as fuck and only superficial but they want to post something that may or may not support their argument. But won't own the opinion that the link presents. As you say Datun it is a very obfuscated way of discussion. That is entire point I think.

But it then brings forth the posts about people asking them questions and analysing the content they post. As if that somehow discredits the people asking the questions and considering the posts in depth.

Anyway I do like these threads because I always learn something new. I just googled "KJK funding" and found security on her Australian leg was provided by CPAC.

About them:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/22/politics/cpac-trump-republican-president-election

Why is an American, MAGA type organisation funding KJK in Australia? Its very weird.

Reading that she seems to me to be saying 90% of groomers are Muslim and the police failure to deal withit is why Tommy Robinson stepped in.

How on earth can you think that she's saying that 90% of groomers are Muslim?
She said that the police's failure to act left the door open for bad actors like TR to step in and say that. She doesn't say that she agrees with him.

You've understood part of it though. She is blaming the police and the media for being too cowardly to act and/or too willing to blame the victims, resulting in the opportunity for racists to step in and use the situation to try to get support for their cause.

Someone who was anti far right would:

1. not quote flawed data implying the problem was muslims;

So being anti far right, she can't quote the far right even to point out that they're wrong? She didn't quote flawed data, she quoted typical things that the far right might say. She didn't say she agreed with any of it, in fact it's totally clear to everyone except you that she doesn't agree with it.

not attribute the blame to "the left" and lack of police action and therefore

What? Even if she believes that the left and the police were to blame she can't say that? We should be able to criticise anyone who we think is in the wrong.

not suggest Tommy Robinson had no choice but to say those things. They would condemn him unequivocally.

She didn't say he had no choice. She just said he had the opportunity to say those things because of the police failure. And she did condemn him. You just don't seem to have understood what she said. What do you think she meant by "people with ill motives"?

How is it totally clear she doesn't agree with it?

To me it reads like:

This thing happened (fact)
The police and the Left did nothing (fact)
Therefore Tommy Robinson did something (go him).

You can say "noone thinks this apart from you" but that clearly isn't true when many people think she supports TR.

Why hasn't she clarified if that interpretation is wrong?

No. She is asking you to clarify your stance. Because your posts need clarification to ascertain what you do and you don't believe.

It is entirely logical and what you have quoted specifically doesn't say 'it better be the same as [hers]' at all. That is a judgement statement that you have made.

Did you know that senior members of CPAC Australia have been Australian Labor Party chair people and elected members of parliament for the ALP in the past? Again, can I suggest that you do some research into what you post. It is known that groups may operate differently between countries.

Or are the Australian Labor Party now far right too?

What I think is quite simple.
If one doesn't want people to think one is far right, don't say far right things, don't take money off right wing groups, don't tolerate right wing activities in one's name and unequivocally condemn far right activity when asked.

Otherwise one runs the risk of being misunderstood and the resulting blog posts and accusations.

That's it. Literally.

Therefore Tommy Robinson did something (go him).

So do we have to conclude that every time you say something about KJK you're supporting it?

Although, reading back, you do seem to have a quirk where you are careful to say "I don't like it" or "I'm bothered by it" after every statement.

Like

"The way she does her business means that isn't transparent. That bothers me."

Presumably you think that if you hadn't said "That bothers me.", it should be read as "The way she does her business means that isn't transparent (go her)".

So if someone doesn't put an explicit "and I don't think that's good" after a statement, you read it as support?

I'm not driven by right/left in the same way you are helle. I have no idea why Australian politicians would get involved. My point was more American conservative money seems to crop up in lots of these conversations.

American conservative money?

I think they call that 'money'.

I was going to try to explain again, but I've decided to leave it to Julie Bindel. Read this. She's saying much the same as KJK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/three-girls-drama-child-sexual-exploitation-rochdale-blackpool-pimping-a7739006.html

These 2 paragraphs cover KJK's points about the media, the police and the far right. Perhaps you'll find her writing clearer than my ramblings or KJK's interview.

Well over a decade ago I was interviewing these “deniers”, and being fobbed off by social workers, police officers, and some newspaper editors who refused to accept the scale of the abuse I and other campaigners (including the mothers of some of the victims) had uncovered.

Many years before the award-winning journalist Andrew Norfolk wrote his first piece about the grooming gangs in northern towns in England, I was investigating this phenomenon. But despite the quality of material I had amassed, it took me until 2007 to get my first piece published because some editors feared an accusation of racism. In this particular geographical area, many of the members of grooming gangs were of Pakistani origin. As a feminist who has always gone after the men who abuse women and girls, whichever social class or ethnic group they belong to, I was concerned that the story would only be told by racists. The British National Party (BNP) had been already been claiming that nasty Muslim “paedophiles” were preying on innocent white girls.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/03/cpac-how-australias-rightwing-speaking-circuit-went-from-pr-stunt-to-cash-cow

🤔

Breitbart, Trump, Milo Yiannopolous and Nigel Farage. They sound lovely and definitely interested in womens rights.

This is an extremely bad faith misrepresentation of this statement:

"And so, what that did—and there was a culture of “Let’s not be racist”... and also “These girls are losers” and “they probably want to be prostitutes at 15”—all of those things tied in together left a gaping hole for someone to come in and say, “Well, 90% of all the men that….we’ve arrested for grooming are Pakistani or Muslim or Somali...They’re all Muslims, so let’s talk about Muslim grooming gangs”...If you can’t talk about these things, you leave them open for people with ill motives to talk about them and make it their cause. And that is exactly what happened. So, I’ve just continued to...say... it’s the fault of the left. If the police force had dealt with those grooming gangs..., there would be no room for anyone to capitalise that void."

It is actually quite clear that she has said that people not discussing these issues left the issues open to be discussed and shaped by people who had 'ill motives'.

What part of her declaring this to be 'ill motives', gives anyone the idea that she supports this? I look forward to how someone describing motives as 'ill motives' can be framed as being supportive of those motives. Considering she also referred to the man supposedly responsible for some of those ill motivated statements as likely being in her opinion, a racist yob .

And this statement of your is inconsistent with your posting on this very thread. You have declared groups and individuals as being 'far right'. I have constantly asked for clarification as to them being 'far right'.

Or would you like to propose an alternative interpretation to this statement:
She says far right things (e.g. that stuff OldCrone helpfully bolded upthread). She gives interviews on shows hosted by people like Richie Allen, Jordan Peterson and Laurence Fox. Neo nazis attend her rallies and livestream her content. To me those can be described as "links". To you maybe they can't.