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 don't disagree with that summary in general.

But the case of people like Glinner is different because he has been a very prominent GC campaigner who frequently requests funding to carry on championing the cause, yet his advocacy now involves other causes that are quite unrelated to standing up for women's and children's rights, and are sometimes arguably at odds with such aims.

I think as a strategy you're correct. There is no value in hard right voices at this point in the fight. Anyone who will find their other views acceptable will be on board already and many will be alienated from being actively GC by the package deal they percieve to go with it.

I was clearly giving my personal advice as to what "we" should do, and it's clear from the context that by "we", I mean those gender critical feminists who, like me, don't align themselves with the political and cultural right.

Absolutely 100%. And that was what JD Vance said in the video.

“What was he supposed to do?”

Well, he could have:

• let her drive off and organise a controlled pursuit
• shot the tyres
• let her go
• got well out of the way to make sure he couldn’t be hit by a car again

It’s because he was an entitled man with a gun. If it had happened anywhere else, she wouldn’t have been shot. I am sure I have seen similar incidents on tv shows like Highway Patrol or whatever, people on meth who drive off when stopped, clipping officers. They get chased and get charged.

Even IF you think someone is driving their car at you, shooting them is a choice.

The Left as it stands no longer exists. So no idea who you are aligning with exactly.

If financially less well off left wing people voted for Trump on the basis of him tackling their local illegal immigrant issue, is that a left wing or right wing 'alignment'? Who are we to say whether they are correct or incorrect about it?

The UK jail people for words on the internet and are arresting and fining people for feeding birds. I'd suggest that is pretty Right Wingy. And yet it is the So Called Leftist Labour Party at the heart of it. The USA has its constitution which allows guns BECAUSE of the British.

I'm put in mind of the protests in Iran. Many people seem to think those women who have risked (and lost) their lives are heroic in standing up against wrongdoers who oppress them. I don't think I've seen anyone saying "oh, it would be so much better if they'd just complied, you really shouldn't go against nasty men like that, you're asking for trouble"

So I wonder if the bootlickers on this thread would have similar views to those below, but directed towards the Iranian protesters?

But if the state has decided to have such a thing, there are certain things that are the case and a huge one is that people are expected to comply with their legal direction to stop your vehicle, show your papers, get out of the car, etc

I was stopped by an armed officer in the US years ago for speeding while driving through a pitch-black nature reserve while trying to make my way back to the hotel after a day trip. I stopped as soon as I heard the siren and did exactly what the officer told me to because anything else would have been courting danger.

It doesn't matter if people think there is some kind of philosophic legitimacy to the government sending out ICE groups. They have the legal authority to ask people to do things.

When the State arms men and gives them a licence to shoot people, you do not do not do not provoke those men. Whether or not ICE agents are "everyday law enforcement officers with legitimacy" in your opinion or not, the State has given them guns and said they can use them

It wasn't even body cam footage whuch tends to suggest you are spouting bullshit that suits your agenda.

Glinner went over the edge ages ago

Thanks @ScholesPanda @Saucery

Funny that there seems to be a pattern in the comedy world of decent-seeming men with absolute tools for brothers-in-law. Makes you wonder what Christmas dinner must be like!

Peter Serofinowitz / Graham Linehan
Richard Ayoade / Laurence Fox
David Mitchell / Giles Coren

I'm not aligning with either left or right as such. My personal perspective is that of a pro-science, rational humanist and gender-critical (sex realist) feminist.

In the old days this might have been thought a generally left-wing perspective, but many of today's left are aligned with some irrational causes, the most obvious of which is the transgender rights movement and its absurd, misogynistic ideology.

That may not always be the case, but there's clearly a lot of pressure in some important left-wing circles to dismiss the GC lobby as "right wing bigots".

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.

Agree - their arguments about what she might have done or who she was, her politics or in Glinner’s case whether she’d have any mercy for her own enemies - what they’re saying is that if you disagree with someone enough, summary execution is justified. That’s incredibly dangerous. I wouldn’t expect Vance to have a deep awareness of the history of totalitarianism or a sophisticated take on it, but given Glinner wrote a blistering satire of the Catholic Church and clearly understands how ideology translates into corrupt power, he should be fully aware of how this ends up.

I despair of woke omnicause-chasing, ideology-spouting bandwagon-hoppers, and its possible RG may not have been a nice person in whatever ways, but the only thing I can see here is a dodgy-looking excessive use of force that needs to be fully investigated and that is true whoever the victim is.

You're all over this thread pretending to believe that agent was in danger, so that you can excuse him shooting dead an unarmed protester.

I realise the truth is painful to hear, but I'll continue to point out bootlicking where it appears, thanks.

People who do this kind of political protest, as in Iran, or in China, are very brave, and I hope they are thinking carefully about their strategy, because it is really dangerous.

Because they should absolutely expect that when they challenge their own local authorities, police or the military, they will be met with force. That's what will happen, that's why it's brave.

In the west we usually have limits on police response to political protest so that it can happen. But there are also limits on the protesters, there needs to be a line for both sides so they can happen without serious incidents. Which is why we don't think of them as brave in the same way as people protesting where there are no protections.

But there isn't a country you can go to, especially these days with so many people using cars for weapons or to deliver bombs, that someone driving off like this woman did would be a safe thing to do.

Im not pretending to believe anything but calling women 'bootlickers' for pointing out that men with guns will shoot if you drive at them is disgusting. But hey that's FWR these days. Apparently.

We all know she wasn't driving at him, we know that you know it, we know that you're pretending to believe it. Carry on blaming women for being shot dead by the state, if that's what you think FWR should be. I absolutely could not care less if I disgust you

Believing she drove at him is what makes you bootlickers. Hth

'Glinner' is a vile bully, something most right thinking people have known for a long time

Went on Glinner's thread in Nitter. Turns out he's a racist now.😒

Blimey. What a let down (understatement). The way he’s approached things in the past has made me wince but I had him down as a fundamentally decent man. Not anymore.

Most of the men who claim to be women are middle-class or above.
Your argument is like a sieve - full of holes.

Reminded me of the joke about the Isle of Wight ferry; what comes steaming out of Cowes?

Here he is retweeting a call to repeal the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution. This is the amendment that granted women the right to vote.

I (like everyone in N Ireland) dealt with the imposition of armed men (who were jumpy because they felt they were in enemy territory) demanding that I stop my car, or stop in the street, and submit to their questions nearly every day of my life for decades. But what do I know compared to you, a brave and mighty keyboard warrior from the internet?!

Fine, have it your way. Next time you're surrounded by armed police/soldiers/terrorists you make sure to tell them what you think of them and drive off - see where that gets you.

I think "bootlickers" is a fairly mild term for people who blame a woman for her own murder.

delurking to say anyone still backing glinner after his retweets wants a word with themself. "protecting women and girls" is a smokescreen - he doesn't respect women, look at how he reacts when they disagree with him. if he respected women he wouldnt chosen X over his family.

and what about his substack? isn't that written by women, and are they not unpaid? if thats true then where is the subscription money going if not Glinner's own pockets?? and wtf is glinner doing making a merch store with shirts of himself??

this is grifting. and now his X activity is making that clear to people late to the truth. if he gave a hoot about protecting women he wouldnt be retweeting the vile misogynistic stuff on X about the lady in the car. or saying vance said a bullseye. or sicking his followers on Rosie Jones. deplorable man. he doesn't belong on this website either.