Kellie Jay Keen

[Beebop2025]

Just watched KJK talking about all things trans on a Tanya De Grunwald podcast ( great podcast) - she says she is banned from mumsnet? I just wondered why she was banned.

Why do you feel it necessary to tell us your qualifications? It isn’t a job interview. Some of the smartest people I know don’t have degrees and a lot of those who lack critical thinking skills do. It doesn’t make your points more valid, and it’s a bit juvenile tbh.

The ridiculous accusations that also then come about of ‘well if you are saying that she didn’t do what I have wrongly accused her of doing, you obviously support her in everything ‘ also is common. It is the all or nothing mechanism that is concerning to see in adults.

It is like some people don’t seem to be able to accept that even repugnant people can agree on good outcomes for women and children. And that sometimes those repugnant people will do good things. To them, it is always ‘all or nothing’.

Nah. That is not ‘telling it like it is’. It is a slur in the hopes it will create a narrative. The good Judge O’Callaghan looked at those sort of ‘claims’ being made in the defamation case against John Pesutto by Moira Deeming. Moira Deeming won the case. The good Judge O’Callaghan wasn’t duped by similar disingenuous (someone might call them falsehoods) claims made by the defendants in the defamation case.

‘I danced with the boy, who danced with the girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales.’ I think a variation of ‘Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you’re a vegetarian you agree with Hitler’ came up. Maybe it was another case, trying to promote the same sort of logic as a reasonable claim.

In fact, I remember O’Callaghan pointing out that KJK was disagreeing with what the host was saying in a podcast put forward as evidence. It proved the opposite of what the defendants were asserting.

We live in strange times. Who would have thought the use of propaganda slurs would be so casually used? Despite certain assertions already being shown to be false in a court of law.

Mind you, we may think we are more resistant to ‘group think’ and brainwashing. However, the little red guards, and similar others denouncing everyone and anyone unpopular with an ideology/regime as ‘enemies of the people’ shows us how easy it is to be little more than puppets to be manipulated.

I'm not quite sure what you learned, then. Because 'religion' might be the rallying standard, but the underlying causes are often much more complex. English Civil War, for example: rise of a middle class, improved literacy and communications, a useless king...

This. Religion is the excuse, not the reason

Not angry at all. Just seeing whether you can get yourself out of your own boring purity spiral without being honest.
You just deflected. Yawn. Where did you get your prestigious degree? Internet?

And most religious disputes are culture clashes. Members of religions, denominations and sects often pick up their beliefs uncritically from the people around them, just as they do with political and cultural beliefs. It's a mark of maturity to question what you have assumed, even if you end up happy with the culture you were brought up in.

"The English, the English, the English are best ..." (Flanders and Swann). But if I had been born in Scotland, I would have thought that the Scottish are best. And that might have been truer ... or not.

I normally like this board but this thread has become a bit of a spiteful pile-on.

I don’t necessarily agree with the views that everyone is attacking but I think they’re largely being made in good faith. Maybe it’s poor wording, maybe misinformation, maybe something else. But not discussing them and piling into the poster and taking the piss is just shitty.

Like it or not, KJK is a divisive figure. I’ve seen plenty of women on this board say they don’t like her or some of her views but that doesn’t seem to be allowed on this thread. Trouble is, she has also been unfairly treated and had a load of shite written about her at times.

I would like to know what some PP meant but I think this post has gone past that now.

There are lots of interesting discussions to be had about viewing something through the lens of feminism while ignoring other views, and how to balance it all.

I’m autistic and can sometimes struggle with all or nothing thinking. I’ve frequently read comments on this board that have been really helpful in seeing another perspective.

I’ve unfollowed KJK as I don’t want to see her pro-Trump rhetoric (and I don’t just mean about gender). I am still appreciative of her continuing to fight for women’s rights though.

The more sensible, obvious and realistic a cause is, the more likely it is to attract support from people of different political persuasions, and so the more likely it is to be "tainted" by support from the "wrong" people. A bit of a paradox, really.

I dunno. The poster that I think you’re talking about offered this as the reason Posie was banned from MN which is absolute mince:

She’s quite far right Christian aligned as well as being GC. Not the best advert for the cause of feminism!

She was banned because she was rude to Stella Creasey (whether you think Creasey deserved it or not is a different question) and because she spoke to mods in a way they did not find acceptable (again whether it was that bad is a different question. The thread was deleted but my memory is that no-one, including MNHQ covered themselves in glory).

now if people don’t want me to find them funny and subject them to some ribbing, I can only suggest they

1. don’t make stuff up

2. don’t post ridiculous things (like basically offering up their CV as a reason why silly things they’ve said should be taken seriously)

Is there something wrong with being a Christian? What about the religions?

Is it “Islamophobia” to point out the role Muslims have played in some horrific world events? Are we not allowed to mention the religious beliefs of jihadists?

What’s the point of speaking at events when the only people there agree with you wholeheartedly? You have to be willing to speak to anyone who will listen in order to get your message across, otherwise it’s just an echo chamber.

Babes 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well Bernard,

They could be referring to the poster who called people babes, regressed to directly accusing anyone who said ‘actually this doesn’t seem correct’ as being also aligned with repugnant people, completely made up accusations and seems to not be able to understand that people can interact with others professionally without actually being ‘aligned’ with the people they are interacting with.

Apart from those directly making accusations that a judge dismissed as being inaccurate and so biased that it didn’t reflect reality, I have not seen people receiving push back on any negative opinions expressed. Just ones that lack substance.

Apparently soontobe60, that is the new expected way to make sure people don’t then simply misalign you with someone who you don’t agree with. The era of going out and speaking to as many people as possible about something is over apparently.

Now, you have to audit the video crew, don’t ever answer a question some random puts to you in front of a phone, ensure the tv / news media people ALL share your views and only your views and to never hold an open mic event where anyone can get up. Only inside with tickets where everyone is vetted first.

It would be a laughing matter, but we have seen too many posters make just these claims. They seem to honestly believe that that is how the world should works. God knows how any discussion panel can be formed under those parameters. Or how any campaigning can ever be successful.

To go off on a slight tangent... two definitions of "trolling" that popped up when I just googled.

Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to deliberately upset others

To antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content

It seems to me that trolling broadly encompasses two types of behaviours... the first is pointless and harmful - outright abuse, deliberate attempts to disrupt and ultimately end debate, popping up on the feminism board of mumsnet to state how ugly feminists are and how their demands are all nonsense, before disappearing again. That sort of thing.

But a lot of "inflammatory" content, or content that others would call offensive or disruptive is nothing of the sort - it is nothing more than expressing an alternative view which angers or offends people who hold a different view AND are not willing to listen or to have to justify their position.

To some extent, when we post online, we are either in an echo chamber telling each other how obvious the "sex is real and matters" position is, or we are in a space with a mixture of views where "sex is real and matters" is regarded as trolling.

I firmly support the idea that the most important people to talk to are those different to us. If we believe in the idea that some beliefs and positions are better than others, then almost by definition everyone we meet is someone who, ideally, we would educate, or we would learn from. Without that difference of opinion, without the risk of being accused of trolling, we might as well not bother speaking.

The left should be a broad church that is there to support the working classes, and, to a lesser extent, the middle classes against the interests of the wealthy.

In my view the previous paragraph literally defines the left.

It seems to me that much of what claims to be the left nowadays is very much concerned with a particular world view ["woke-ism" or "critical social justice" is probably a good way of describing it] and not the interests of the workign classes. You cannot have a broad church if the agenda is a very narrow idea of social justice... whereas you can if the agenda is to support the working class interests against those of the rich.

I completely agree with this. And it's where my feeling of "I didn't leave the Left, the Left left me" comes from.

I believe in a society that protects its weaker and vulnerable members, that those who need help in whatever form is given it and can obtain it easily. A society in which everyone has access to good quality education, healthcare and housing, and there is equality of opportunity. A society where those who need help have a decent standard of living and are able to live with dignity, and that all of the above is paid for by those who can afford to contribute more to the societal pot. I temper all of that by saying with the right to expect help comes the responsibility to take responsibility for yourself as far as possible - the welfare safety net should be a trampoline not a hammock - but overall there should be a state that supports equality, fairness and a decent standard of living for all.

But I'm pro-women's rights, I don't feel colonialism is the root of all known evil, I'm really not sure net-zero is achieving anything other than making ordinary people's lives harder and more expensive, I can understand why some people feel disenfranchised/left behind enough to vote Trump/Reform in the hope of making their lives better, and I don't think the situation in Gaza is as simple as Hamas good/Israel bad. So why do certain factions of the political left think I'm practically - if not literally - a fascist?

@SidewaysOtter I'm in much the same situation. A while ago I found myself explaining to a very lovely LibDem why Reform was attracting voters. She'd had years as a local councillor, but the social shifts and changes since she gave it up 15-20 years ago seemed to have entirely passed her by.

@SidewaysOtter Very much the same, though I'll admit I used to be very left wing and these days I think of myself more as a moderate social democrat. But I just don't believe in a lot of the left's current totems.

Also, if you want to get anything done in politics, especially against an entrenched political class, you have to appeal to the median voter.

Weirdly enough, Reform are the only people who seem to get this. Gawain Towler has been explaining it on podcasts. They got 4 million votes last year with a ramshackle operation on the basis of alienation from the legacy parties. If you need 10 million to win an election, where are the extra 6 million coming from? Not from the far right. You have to appeal to the centre ground.

Hence the strategy they've been following since last year. Keep the Tommy Robinson fanboys out of the party; get rid of loose cannons; promote candidates who are more mainstream; champion popular causes like nationalising steel regardless of whether they fit in with right wing orthodoxy.

The left seems incapable of thinking like this. Instead they just double down on purity spirals and horribly unpopular policies, while calling everyone else a fascist.

I've believed for a long time that Labour hate and fear Labour voters. If they want to drive them all to Farage, they're going the right way about it.

All politicians say they have to appeal to the centre ground as a way of framing popular issues, that they havent a hope of solving, as extreme. They can acknowledge the issue but also say the centre ground people couldnt handle it yet.

Its why politicians acknowledge women needed ss spaces, but dont want to take away mens female id, and its why they say they understand immigration problems, then hand out visas.

The centre ground, apparently, arent ready for those issue to be solved.

I literally could not agree with you more.

I think one big issue is that we've got a political class, and Starmer is a classic example, that can only seem to govern by narrative control.

There was a lot of this under Biden in the US. Do you follow Trump and have border enforcement? Do you make a case for relaxing immigration controls? They seemed to settle on a centre ground of opening the borders while getting the NY Times to write about what a tough border hawk Biden was.

The trouble is, you can only lie to the voters for so long before they figure out you're lying.