Glinner Bullseye comment on X

[Thatcatsaflippingnightmare]

Always trying to explain Glinner to DH, today he showed me on X JD Vance defending murder of the woman by ICE. Glinner had replied something like 'bullseye', as in agreement. I tried to comprehend with "satire?" but he said no he's on Liz truss show these days. I said well he's always been about protecting women and children, he's not suddenly supporting femicide, but the post convinced DH otherwise. Any insights? I'm not on social media

I’m not sure how she’d been following them all day when it was 9.37am in the morning and she’d just dropped her six-year-old off. But who cares about facts when an unarmed mother has been shot three times in the face?

I’m also not sure that official sources are helpful here, given that Trump, Vance and Noem spouted horrendous, and clearly provable lies incredibly soon after the event.

You’re also patently wrong about guidelines for how officers are allowed to interact with people in cars and how they’re allowed to stop them. I’m not sure what kind of lawyer you are but it doesn’t seem to be helping with your accuracy.

@persephoniai am not sure they do in lots of respects (civil liberties)

Some time ago, many people pointed out that although the tide seemed to be turning in favour of sanity in the gender wars, the picture was different in the USA in ways that may be of consequence for the West in general, given that so much of the madness originated there in the first place.

In the US, much of the left is doubling down in expectation that GC and sex realist ideas will be increasingly associated with the Trumpian right, so that when the latter finally fall out of favour, the trans agenda will resume with a vengeance, backed by the new centres of power.

Unfortunately, Glinner has become just the sort of GC commentator who is likely to reinforce such expectations, as he's susceptible to forming overt alliances with very dubious players.

Probably the best strategy for the GC side as a whole would be to distance ourselves from the some of the more eccentric campaigners, and continually emphasise the rational and scientific basis of our perspective, and the straightforward ethics involved, in which the basic rights of women and the health and safety of children come to the fore.

Why do you always feel the need to police threads in this way? I think it’s been an edifying discussion.

Yes. I have 2 colleagues who were seconded to a period of time Virginia. That was the very first thing they were told on arrival. Not really the first thing you wamt to hear tbh.

Why anyone would want to move to the US or see it as the "Land of the Free" is beyond me.

Exactly. Come on holiday to the US. By the way, one wrong move and you could be shot in the face.

In the last few hours, he’s also had a pop at Rosie Jones, who has obviously offended him at some point or other, perhaps by having a job at the BBC when he doesn’t. The comments under this tweet are particularly disgusting (and he no doubt was aware this would happen).

https://x.com/glinner/status/2010118349129150691?s=61&t=3wYru9P_J0h74BXKFXAfmw

Probably the best strategy for the GC side as a whole would be to distance ourselves from the some of the more eccentric campaigners, and continually emphasise the rational and scientific basis of our perspective, and the straightforward ethics involved, in which the basic rights of women and the health and safety of children come to the fore.

Totally agree. We can start with KJK and Glinner - they’ve become real liabilities as they move further (and sometimes past) the authoritarian right. I stopped following them once they started retweeting some pretty vile people; it looks like they’ve gone way down the rabbit hole now.

It's a good thing that women's rights activism is grassroots and decentralised with no single leader or figurehead. Makes cutting problematic people loose a lot easier.

The US is not the UK or Europe. Their political and religious environment is less mature and more partisan. And while there are people in the UK and continental Europe who would like to take advantage of the momentum of both US leftist (trans rights activists) and right-wing movements (racists, sexists, religious etho nationalists etc), both sides do not naturally map onto what we have here.

Glinmer has it seems become lost in a particularly US-specific reality tunnel along with JD Vance et al. Their vision of reality has been distorted to the point where a US citizen causing no ongoing threat to a law enforcement officer can be handed an on-the-spot execution sentence. This is Judge Dredd irl. Judge, jury and executioner.

The US has become a fascist state and glinner is now supporting that. A dark day.

There is an article in the Telegraph about Rosie Jones’ telling people how to joke responsibly. She is fed up of ‘privileged cis white straight men’ making ‘inappropriate jokes’. She is being criticised because of her comments about people making jokes without ‘lived experience’ etc - if that helps with any context.

Graham is now reposting accusations that those protesting ICE are 'race traitors'

He's gone.

Don't give him your money

If you want to help GC causes, I am certain you do so without funding this man's descent into ethno-nationalism

I’m not sure if you saw the comments underneath Glinner’s retweet, but they were awful - misogynistic and disablist in particular. I don’t believe whatever she might have said deserves this kind of personal bile, and Glinner would have known the tweet would attract it.

I'm not a fan of Rosie Jones, but that's absolutely no excuse for awful comments about her appearance and disability which Glinners tweet has encouraged. This isn't the first time he's gone after her either.

Did I say anything about comments. I was responding to why her name had been in the news. Nothing more. A poster suggested that it was because of her working at the BBC when it was actually an article in the paper.

One might suggest that telling 'privileged cis white straight men' what they can and cannot joke about might end up with 'privileged cis white straight men' responding 'right back at you'.

No, she's an absolute handmaiden tool who thinks she's part of the resistance, but none of that means it's anything other than vile to throw abuse at her.

So many of the comments here are arguing that Renee Good somehow provoked the ICE officer - because she didn't do what he told her, because she decided to drive away, because, essentially, she was disobedient to authority.

The people making this argument appear to think that she has all the agency, but the man who shot her has none - as if he was bound to shoot her dead after she disrespected him.

Now, if Good had kicked a hornets' nest and got stung, or poked a bear and got attacked, it would be reasonable to say that she should take responsibility for what happened. We know how hornets behave, we know how bears behave. But grown men have a choice about how to behave. They don't have to shoot a woman who's annoyed/provoked/disobeyed them. It's as if some people imagine that a grown man with a gun is incapable of making an appropriate ethical choice - that we should, in fact, assume that these men are just like bears, or hornets: with an instinct for violence and aggression and absolutely no capacity for moral reflection.

I find that quite telling.

What I don't get is why posters who find the likes of Glinner and KJK so offensive that they need to make entire threads about them even follow their X accounts in the first place?

You can choose to ignore.

This just all comes back to free speech ultimately and this idea that we must agree with every opinion of every person otherwise everything they say on any topic is invalid.

It's just nonsense. I have friends with diverse opinions, I tend to avoid talking about topics that I know we will disagree on and focus on things that we have in common.

I don't agree with every word that KJK or Glinner said, but I don't expect to either.

Men still cannot be women and women should have single sex spaces free from all males whatever their gender identity.

Renee Good did not deserve to be shot in the face.

Obviously we don't have to agree with everything Glinner says.

But publicly disassociating ourselves from his right-wing views becomes advisable when the TRAs and their allies exploit them to paint the GC side in general as right-wing, as inevitably they do and will.

There's also a real and major difference between opposing the TRAs from a rationally and scientifically sound feminist perspective, and opposing them from the pov of the Christian Right, who are themselves just as sexist as the TRAs and just as opposed to many women's rights.

Glinner is apparently happy to side with Trump and the Christian Right as allies.

We? Ourselves?

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for everyone else. You can publicly disassociate yourself from whoever you want.

This is not the Borg.

That's right, I'm expressing my opinion, how very observant of you!

Have a round of applause.👏

It's all so tiresome. We hold an utterly mainstream view that sex exists and sometimes matters. We know from surveys that a large majority of the country hold this view. That will include right wing and left wing, clever and stupid, and people who talk on other subjects with insufficient research or understanding. I don't feel the need to 'disassociate with' every single person who agrees with me that the sky is blue and says something I disagree with on another topic. I'm not 'associated with' them in the first place, we just had a point of agreement. We can thank someone for good work they've done on a shared aim without becoming associated with their political views forever more.

It's cancel culture, and that is a dangerous game in my opinion. Who hasn't said something stupid in their lives? Who can you safely associate with whose views are pure on every issue under the sun? Looking at it the other direction I have friends who aren't GC, does that mean I'm siding with TRAs?

You seemed to be expressing our opinion.

If you were expressing your opinion you'd not have used the words pertaining to 'we'.

Maybe stick to 'I' in future?