KjK "insane rant" thread 2

[AdamRyan]

First thread filled up just as it was getting interesting

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5036512-kjks-insane-rant

So let's keep it going. My characterisation if the two basic positions are:

1)KJK is a stone cold legend, haters gonna hate but many women will give her cash to bathe in champagne

2. KJK is taking right wing positions for clicks and cash, most recently criticising a doctors conference to stay relevant.

Happy to discuss further. There are some particular posts I want to respond to which I will c&p below

I don't think it's fair to tar all posters here with the same brush though is it? Not everyone did that or engaged/participated with those types of responses.

Yes some of that happened, but as far as I understood it, that was in response to the OP misrepresenting what others were saying and other PP's getting frustrated by that, so rather than engaging to be misrepresented further, instead tried to insert humour.
I'm fairly sure I had to word and reword my point a good 3 or 4 times before OP understood what I meant for example, and if I'm being honest I was getting slightly frustrated at one point but I'd had good news to curtail those feelings and carried on (I hope?) politely and respectfully in between my dinner duties.

Perhaps that's wrong of people to have resorted to what you listed above, but everyone's human and makes mistakes. And in a forum in which everyone's allowed to participate with varying degree of viewpoints and responses I'd say the responses here have been relatively tame all things considered.

In regards to this point; "Attempts to imply Adam is some sort of danger to children based on her views / user name."
That line of thinking was swiftly responded to by another poster who suggested it wasn't a good idea to do so. So a degree of self policing also occurred on that front.
(Though I also suspect that to have been an attempt at dark humour re; OP's mentioning of conspiracy theories)

That's not to say any of what I've said above are to be taken as excuses, but simply that human interaction goes in two ways. If one person is trying to start a conversation, but then (seemingly) wilfully misinterprets every response they're given, people will start to respond in kind.
The best example of that is that infamous Channel 4 Interview with Jordan Peterson; "So what you're saying is..."
s

Also, why do you think me saying "some people act like she's the messiah" is "belittling the women who think she’s alright/fine/ok/quite like her/appreciate her"?

Those people clearly aren't acting like she's the messiah.

I'm referring very specifically to a small number of posters who think women should be extremely grateful for all she does for them, that noone else could have done it and that her message is somehow unique go her.

Its that mindset I find intriguing. It reminds me of religious zealotry.

I also find it intriguing to see that mindset on a board that previously was all about facts.

Because NO-ONE thinks she the messiah.

Actually I'm now loving this thread for answering the PP previous question about how the board has changed.

Jordan Peterson. Really. Proponent of enforced monogamy. Hero of the manosphere and inspiration to MRAs everywhere. And that's who you've chosen to make your point.

Speaks volumes.

I'm referring very specifically to a small number of posters who think women should be extremely grateful for all she does for them, that noone else could have done it and that her message is somehow unique go her.

It's that mindset I find intriguing. It reminds me of religious zealotry.

I've seen NOBODY doing that. Have you got a screenshot or link?

Shortening someone's name so as to not have to spell it out in full each time makes you a fan girl??
I'm certainly not a fangirl of IW, TR or DM, and I don't think anyone at all on these boards, let alone this specific thread are either!

Confirmation bias again then, innit. Likely to be caused by the different way peoples posts can be interpreted.

I'd say the post going on about who else could do what she does is a good example.

I've not seen that post. Or if I did, I've forgotten it.

And what confirmation bias? Please clarify.

Here's an example of a thread from the time:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3141642-Cathy-Newman-and-Jordan-Petersen-on-C4-News

The (wilful mis) interpretation of other people's intent when posting gives an insight into how people wish to use the board, I find.

You think I'm here because I hate KJK and am wilfully misrepresenting her. So you are (subconsciously) positively viewing posts from people criticising my perspective, and discounting my replies and replies of others inputting a similar perspective.

Hence when I say some posters are being zealots about KJK you are surprised because it appears to come out of nowhere.

Whereas for me (trying hard to acknowledge my own dissonance) I think KJK does and says things I find objectionable so I don't like her. Therefore I'm more likely to agree eith the posts saying "she said X which is right wing" and less likely to agree with the posts that love her, in fact they are probably triggering my own dissonance.

Unfortunately when other posters get entrenched and start talking in emotive language about jealousy, popularity etc it only entrenched both sides in a position. As opposed to having a rational conversation about two equally valid perspectives.

Good example of what I'm talking about. I'm not "wilfully misinterpeting" anything. You only have my word for that of course.

Charitably, one could conclude that confirmation bias is severely muddying this thread- that Adam is so convinced we are all KJK fangirls thats all she sees, and that we are responding personally and defensively to comments we think are unfair but which are actually aimed at someone else.

However, with the best will in the world (and I really trying) I feel as though I’m watching gaslighting and darvo.

I know one underlying reason- Adam thinks that because Jordan Peterson (for example) is who he is, then nothing he says can be interesting or insightful. No one must use the work of someone who is ‘problematic’. No one must get close to anyone with an odd world view in case you catch it.

Purity spirals. I do not buy into purity spirals. No one is beyond listening to as long as what they are saying is interesting.

Nope. Not happening.

I'm reading your posts as you've written them and nothing how much you're misinterpreting what you've read (either because you don't understand it, or because you're deliberately trying to misrepresent for some reason).

I am perfectly able to read what you've posted and understand it. No confirmation bias needed.

You do not get to tell me what / how I'm thinking. Particularly as you're very wrong indeed.

I'm surprised about the zealots comment because I haven't seen it. But I potentially haven't read the whole thread as I dip in and out.

Then you haven't understood what you're reading is the other alternative to this.

So what do you want Adam?

is it for all to denounce her as awful based on things we don't think are awful?

What do you want to happen?

Do you want her to shut up. Do you want her to stop giving women who wouldn't otherwise have a voice the microphone?

Don't you think her message is important about women being adult human females and needing a voice is important?

I am so baffled that you are so bothered by her. It's really strange. I can get that you don't like her but what are you trying to achieve by these endless threads. It really seems obsessive.

If you seriously believe those things about JP, then I'm sorry but you've only bothered to listen to what others say of him and have not looked into him yourself personally with an open mind.
(and I mean actually engaged in a meaningful way, not just sound bites from people who already dislike the man or watching all of 5 minutes and being done with it)

Echo chamber comes to mind at this point.

I still don't believe my question was ever answered re; what DO you consider to be far right (though I may have missed it) - but at this point the answer seems obvious.
Whatever you're told is far right by people you already agree with, is far right.

No. Again you totally misunderstand what I think, coming from your own preconception about purity spirals.

Jordan Peterson is a well known anti feminist who has inspired MRAs and various incel movements. Therefore I find it very interesting (and telling) that someone would choose him as an example of a victim of a pattern of behaviour on FWR.

It is nothing to do with purity spirals or anything that he says.

"Jordan Peterson is a well known anti feminist who has inspired MRAs and various incel movements. Therefore I find it very interesting (and telling) that someone would choose him as an example of a victim of a pattern of behaviour on FWR."

Just wow.
More believing what you're told rather than looking into it yourself?
MRA's and incels don't like JP very much at all lol - and he certainly isn't anti-feminist.

All of the above are talking points from MSM that have been trying to discredit him for literal years all starting from the point at which he refused to be compelled to use a person's preferred pronouns re; Canadian laws being proposed.

This tells me all I need to know, I'm done with this thread now I think lol. There's no honest conversation to be had here.
Have a great day~

I guess really, fundamentally what I want is for women to stop attacking other women as liars, bad faith, "wilfully misrepresenting" etc when those other women are expressing concern about KJK.

I am getting a bit bored by the "obsessive" comments too. I see various posters pop up in threads about the same topic, often posting the exact same things. I just assume they are interested and following the topic, not "obsessed". Calling people "obsessed" is just another way to shame them into shutting up.

Therefore I find it very interesting (and telling) that someone would choose him as an example of a victim of a pattern of behaviour on FWR.

We could equally say that your persistent misinterpretation is telling. 🤷‍♀️

OK. Interesting. Maybe you should read "men who hate women" by Laura Bates.

You have a nice day too.

How did I misinterpret exactly? Spicy deliberatly chose that video. I don't know why. I'm interested why but it looks like I'm not going to find out.

I guess really, fundamentally what I want is for women to stop attacking other women as liars, bad faith, "wilfully misrepresenting" etc when those other women are expressing concern about KJK.

But you have been reading things totally wrongly and misinterpreting what's been said. That's a fact. It isn't due to the concerns you're expressing, it's that your concerns are apparently coming from you reading / listening to something wrongly.

If it's not wilful misrepresentation, it's that you've simply not understood what you've read / listened to.

Edit. Duplicate post.