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.

ummmm... I'm not driven by right/left in the same way you are.

Do you see the disconnect in your posts even on this page?

Do you see the disconnect in your posts even on this page?

Maybe it's a sort of Tourette's syndrome thing where one unconsciously keeps blurting out stuff about links to the far right without consciously intending it?

Yeah, unfortunately, I didn't say any of those things, so your responses to me were in reply to, and using the posts of, other people.

It's no wonder that your posts come across as completely incoherent

🍸

It is getting to be like this necessary. This is the level of logic that we are seeing on this thread by some posters.

"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."

oh my God. Five seconds ago you said

"*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

😄

Didn't Julie do an event with Milo Yiannopolous? Is Julie far right now too?

This logic never quite points to where it is intended does it.

I look forward to the clarification from Adam though. Because the accusations of 'far right' seem to be their domain on this thread.

Stone. Cold. Legend.

The inconsistency and disconnect that I am seeing is really stark on this thread datun.

I don’t pay an awful lot of attention to KJK

but some of the stuff on here being used to attack her is very silly, i would be embarrassed to use it in an argument

she paid off her mortgage being one, and the misrepresentation of her words is another

I find it really tiresome the whole ‘far right’ labelling about just about anything.

If you dare suggest the police might sit on their hands instead of taking action on something because they fear accusations of racism, that means you are far right.

Its like suggesting that transgender status sometimes leads to preferential treatment by law enforcement or weaker DBS safeguards, means you are far right too.

God forbid anyone looks into things, turns things over, makes up their own minds, concluding that well-intentioned diversity and inclusion measures can sometimes have negative unintended consequences.

It seems that any deviation from brainlessly consuming and regurgitating the ‘allowed’ line is ‘far right’.

This groupthink bound by the fear of ‘far right’ accusations not only leads to dangerous consequences (eg- breaking safeguards, threatening free speech, etc), it is also REALLY BORING. It makes people brainless, tedious, whingy, unoriginal and devoid of all spark. It murders threads too. 🥱

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 think that must be it.

Julie Bindel said:
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.

KJK said:
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.

They're saying very much the same thing here, but Julie Bindel made it quite clear that she doesn't agree with the BNP by saying 'I was concerned..."

It should also be clear that KJK doesn't agree with the racists, by calling them "people with ill motives".

But it seems that this wasn't explicit enough for people like Adam. Or maybe Adam thinks Julie Bindel is also 'far right'.

Well Julie did an event with Milo Yiannopolous remember.....

By the logic used on this thread, that makes Julie Bindel absolutely far right.

Because....

But let's also see why adamryan thinks ill motives means there is a skerrick of a chance that someone supports a group with those motives. Because I think it might be an interesting twist and pivot.

Adam will be singularly unable to comprehend that post, Necessary.

My dad once said about someone I knew with a couch that was a bit old and tatty

"you'd be embarrassed to leave that out for the rubbish"

ummm.. ... the person applying 'black and white' thinking to what she has said here, is YOU.

You have just declared that she might still support those racist statements because she dared actually make a point. And that by making the point in the way that she did (even though she stated that Robinson was a racist yob), she is somehow showing she might still support the point.

Because if she didn't want to be considered as supporting that point, she would have shut the fuck up or would have worded it just the way you expect someone to word something.

That is fucked up black and white thinking. And it also seems to be points that someone who need to forcibly label someone as either 'good' or 'bad' would do.

Late to the party but to return to the OP, is "insane rant" a synonym for "hysterical"? Was it hard choosing between sexism and ableism?

Because if she didn't want to be considered as supporting that point, she would have shut the fuck up or would have worded it just the way you expect someone to word something.

Wording clearly doesn't matter. If someone wanted, they could reproduce the whole last 20 pages of the thread about Julie Bindel's far right links, not-totally-up-to-spec phrasing and non-transparency.

Clearly the target is pre-selected, and the arguments constructed to match.

I'm reminded of all the nonsense we get about how hard it is to define "women", where you could also use all the same arguments about any other word. Again, the target is pre-selected, and the arguments constructed to match, and we just hope no-one notices that the arguments aren't unique to the target.

Only one person (KJK) and one group (women) are subject to that, which tells you far more about the person's intent than anything about the victim.

Yes, not great really.

This.

As with TRAs, and I'm not for one second suggesting any poster on the thread is a TRA but IME the tactics are sometimes similar within the GC movement, it's often a case of throwing enough shit so that some of it will stick.

Considering the victim blaming potential of a statement such as

"All these lawsuits must be costing KJK a fortune."

I think you are right about what it says about the the person's intention rather than the person being targeted.

It is just another inconsistency really.

What interests me is if this a left wing phenomenon or if it happens in conservative circles too?

I (like most Mumsnetters) don’t have any experience of anything but left wing activism so can’t make a comparison

What interests me is if this a left wing phenomenon or if it happens in conservative circles too?

I gather it's starting to happen more as people are spotting the techniques being used so much and realising they can be effective.

But then on the other hand, they're losing their edge through overuse anyway - the people on the receiving end are getting wiser to it - so the conservatives might be a bit late to the party. But maybe the conservative crowd has less exposure too. So there will be a later wave.

Woman: Adult Human Female.

And this is a gem:

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?

um ... because she already DID clarify it earlier in the interview. Did you miss the transcript where she clarified very clearly that she though he was a racist, a yob, an opportunist amongst other things she said about him?

Or.... you know... some 'journalists' don't do their research and print absolute shite misinformation and declare it fact. There is that too... but hey... don't let a lack of research get in the way of a good case of misinformation!