We thought Owen Jones couldn’t get more odious.. He has proved us wrong!

[Absentmindedsmile]

https://archive.md/aOdSj

Archive link for readability

‘[Owen] seems to be upset because she had a chuckle about his erratic behaviour on Piers Morgan Uncensored last week. In response to an X user who wondered if Jones might have partaken of the white stuff before fidgeting and gurning his way through Morgan’s show, Rowling tweeted: “Well, he is known as Talcum X.”

Jones is hopping mad. He’s even written a 1,300-word screed on what a rotter Rowling is, which I’m sure we can all agree is a perfectly normal response to a woman making a joke.’

😂😂 and also 🤮🤢

Is there much social class difference between them?

I've never thought that Fry is from a particularly 'smart' background apart from attending boarding school for a bit, nor that Jones was at all from a deprived background.

I think they each play up to opposite end of the social spectrum - with Fry attempting to pretend he's essentially an embarrassed aristocrat BUTIDON'TLIKETOTALKABOUTTHAT and Jones liking to give the impression he would have been down t'mines had he not been rescued by the Guardian, but I'm not sure there's actually much between these two Oxbridge, left-leaning, slightly hammy media luvvies in reality!

You’re correct of course. It’s only that part of Owen Jones’ ‘brand’ 👀 is that he thinks he’s a working class hero 🤢. On the other hand Stephen Fry plays on his poshness (lots of people think he’s extremely clever and extremely posh, the fact he’s neither doesn’t seem to impact on His brand).

Their mutual (jealousy) hatred of a successful and wildly popular billionaire woman, from whom they try and leech relevance, probably means they’ve got something to talk about.

Was glad to see she embarrassed Fry when he claimed she was his friend.

Two cheeks of the same misogynistic arse.

It's fascinating isn't it?

How connected their identity (not that honest) is so connected to their brand and career.

It's important to reflect on.

One of the dynamics of this is class and punching down on highly intelligent working class women, who may or may not be educated.

Word salad and intellectual intimidation to hold power over others is very much a thing.

🤣

That would be to fall into the trap some London media folx are prone to, where they assume LOJ is working class because he's got a slight Manchester accent.

I remember Owen telling us for years that his parents were teachers. It wasn't until much later that anyone discovered his mum was a full professor.

@SionnachRuadh he even wrote a crap book about it didn’t he..

‘the text has been critiqued for its anecdotal tone and lack of historical and analytical depth, often prioritising structural explanations while neglecting the complex cultural dynamics within the working class.’ One review.. sounds about right

Though I sort of regret making him a teeny bit more relevant via this thread. Might give him some much needed content to write about, given how desperate he his.

I bet he is reading it. I really hope so anyway.

& a load of shit spouted between them.

😂🤮 that is a particularly hideous image now in my head. Must drink more wine to get rid of it..

Oops, sorry! 😬

But but his great grandmother was a match girl or something...

OJ talks so much about being a fourth generation socialist who comes from an unbroken line of activists. I don't think he realises how rare and weird that is in working class culture. It's much rarer than having been privately educated.

Now, posh lefties of the Polly Toynbee type, that's a different matter...

Since the Corbyn failure OJ has made a living out of his misogyny. The sooner he disappears from the public discourse the better.

Fourth generation windbag who never achieved the potential their hot air suggested?

Well, his parents were in Militant, and for anyone trained in the Ted Grant school of politics, excruciatingly boring is the factory setting

Late to the thread, but…

<massive sigh > @ LOJ spitting yet more bile at a woman with an opinion (and one who is so obviously much, much cleverer than him).

<massive eye roll> @ LOJ pretending he gives a shiny shit about women’s rights. What a grotesque fucking reach.

Attacking women for not doing feminism right seems to be his favourite grift these days.

I'm not sure that's owt to shout about - the more I learn about the trade unions movement, the more I realise that they absolutely centred men and protected closed shops. They couldn't have given a stuff about women's rights and were notorious for pulling up the ladder after themselves.

Friedrich Engels said "they form an aristocracy among the working class" (Conditions of the working-class in England, 1892) and I think he had that bob-on.

Friedrich Engels said "they form an aristocracy among the working class" (Conditions of the working-class in England, 1892) and I think he had that bob-on.

💯

Sorry, I really should leave this alone but I just have to know - did you clock that I quoted your ENTIRE post in mine and responded to it in chunks (partially to explicitly prove that I had read the whole thing)?

Do you enjoy irony?

Yes, but Marx and Engels were also against trade unions because attempting to improve the working class's conditions under capitalism is reformism and therefore regressive. It's better for people to suffer in order to bring about Utopia down the line. He was biased

I think trade unions are beneficial and important. However, as with all things concerning humans, vulnerable to developing their own hierarchies or drifting from their original purpose. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

That sounds a very backwards/odd proposition. (suffering for utopia).

However, a good T shirt slogan.

It's what Marx, Charles Trevelyan, Peter Thiell, cult leaders all have/had in common even though they are miles apart ideologically.
Utopianism is a problem.

I think trade unions are beneficial and important

Trade unions can be beneficial and important. They were a major part of improving workers' rights at a time when they had virtually none, exploitation was rife and terrible injuries/deaths were seen as more of an inconvenience to the mill/factory owner than the human catastrophe they were (particularly if it was the affected family's breadwinner).

But their well-meaning origins have long since morphed into organisations where their leaders have all the kudos and benefits of being powerful (and often rich with it - look at Scargill with his £2m Barbican flat) without having to compromise their working class roots. They are often completely unreasonable in their demands, cause endless problems for everyone else with strikes, refuse to accept their members do anything wrong and were/should be fired for a bloody good reason, and generally seem to think they're still in some sort of perpetual class struggle with their abrasive "us against The Management" attitudes.

They could do good but all too often they're pursuing political ideals over practicality.