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

It's usually towards stuff like helping with legal fees or towards court cases

I don't donate to those sort of things. But I think the patreon/Sub stack etc model is quite popular with political commentators/campaigners/YouTubers. It's a way to earn money especially if your views are "controversial" and therefore at risk of demonitising in platforms like youtube. I can see the argument for it- it lets independent "content creators" earn a wage without being dependent on big tech companies like YouTube paying out (YouTube dont pay much at the best of times). But it often seems to incentivice begging behaviour and often an uncomfortable situation where well off people are asking much less financially comfortable fans for money. And means said content creators are actively going to want to create parasocial relationships with viewers or try to manufacture controversies to earn more.

Glinner's far from the worst for it. The Triggernometery guys started doing it really intensely via YouTube live broadcast for a bit (they stopped now) and KJK does those live donation broadcasts as well. People can spend their money how they wish of course. But it always felt icky to me. At least the substack model Glinner used felt less parasocial but I still think it skews your ability to be objective.
Maybe also for Glinner the amounts he was earning were much less than he would have been earning in his previous job. So it would have felt like a sacrifice he made. But he was still likely earning more than some of the women giving him money.

That's the world we live in though.

you sound surprised that GC views would lead further down a hard right rabbit hole?

when will it finally smelling fishy if this current far right lean isn't enough to make you realise you've been had?

Are you saying that women standing up for their sex based rights and the safeguarding of children are now far right because of a man’s (Linehan) shitty, offensive tweets? Because if you are, then you are thick as mince. And you are also a misogynist if you think that women are responsible for men’s shitty behaviour.

Someone posted a screenshot earlier that purportedly showed Glinner retweeting in support of removing an amendment of the US Constitution (removing voting rights from women). I’ve scrolled back through his TwiX feed, cos I wanted to see it for myself, and can’t find a tweet like that - has anyone got a link to it?

Are you from the US? In the UK, gender critical views are largely (not only) held by left-wing feminists.

Although I don't really think that an acceptance of biological facts is "a view".

That works if you can categorise the Mail, Times, Telegraph, GBN, Talk etc as left wing but I think that requires a very eccentric definition of left wing politics that wouldn't be recognised anywhere else.

(I accept the left is where it started but it appears to have been co-opted 'cuckoo' style by the right with all the above plus the same far right US lobby groups trying to push the maga agenda over here)

Looks like he's since deleted it.

It is still there. You have go back through his replies to find it and there are a lot and not in order that makes sense to me. Here is my screenshot.

I wouldn't categorise an acceptance of biological facts as either left or right wing. Biological fact is simply fact, and not denying it should be the norm. Like agreeing that the Earth is NOT flat. However, the denial of biological facts has become political. What I said was that those in the UK fighting for the acceptance of biological facts or at least no discrimination against those of us who recognise facts in this insane world we currently live in are in the main politically on the left, in terms of their political beliefs (eg likely in the past to have supported Labour rather than Tories, etc).

Does anyone know who retard mode is? The person who posted the post in question? Are they really a woman?

Like I said, the left wing originators have (largely) been drowned out by a torrent on the right.

I wouldn't categorise an acceptance of biological facts as either left or right wing. Biological fact is simply fact, and not denying it should be the norm

this, i have no idea how it has taken hold that to believe you can’t change sex and that someones sex is important makes you right wing….fucking stupid

What makes you think they might be a woman? Their avatar is a male character from anime.

I was just thinking about Charlie Kirk when I was reading about this. I'm sure GL was one who said it was bad taste to celebrate his death, so why should this be different.

I said a similar thing a while ago on a thread about flags. I was mauled by about 5 mumsnetters who said they didn't believe I was GC.
There's a difference between acknowledging biology and trolling victoria coren Mitchell because a trans person is on Only connect, or agreeing with Vance that the woman effectively deserved to be shot.
Jk Rowling has been criticised in the past by not openly supporting him, I think she kept the right amount of distance.

So what?

They are still correct whatever their political views.

As tadpolesinponds said, belief that sex exists is no more a political opinion than believing that the sun will rise tomorrow.

TWAW is a massive own goal for the left, so it tends to be highlighted by right wing media.

However, criticism of gendered stereotypes and advocacy for women’s rights has historically come from the left.

Incidentally, much of the Trump supporting social media commentary on this incident demonstrates a very strong belief that there is a right and a wrong way for women to behave and present. That is exactly the thing that gender critical feminists criticise.

It's the virgin/whore stereotype repackaged. Whoever Renee was in reality she's being lost. A martyr for the left, a criminal for the right. A tragedy for herself and her family. Either way, for me, there's nothing to celebrate.

To be fair, I think he deleted that retweet after the 19th Amendment part was pointed out to him. At least, I couldn't find it against his account.

It is a shame to see him take this side, though. It not only reflects on him, it casts a wider shadow on other gender critical people. I get the impression he's very isolated and bitter. Another thing that's sad to see is people saying they supported him in the past, but don't now because of these recent tweets. Things might have been different if they'd shown him open support earlier on.

Absolutely. The word 'terf' shows that the original people who stood against transgenderism were radical feminists. Back in 2017, this was a battle between mainly older feminists and TRAs - the Maria MacLachlan era. Then the right-wing saw the left making fools of themselves and seized on it. It was a ready-made weapon for them. I honestly think it was part of what brought Trump back to power. Even now, the right-wing are quick to mention men in women's bathrooms or women's sports, although the subject feels stale and irrelevant given everything else that's happening.

To be honest... I'm often dismayed these days to see the kind of views some other 'gender critical' people have. 'Gender critical' doesn't mean feminist now, it has a massive conservative component. I'm on the verge of leaving a 'gender critical' group I joined on Facebook, because it has too many people supporting the shooting in Minneapolis.

I still stand by it of course. 'Woman' isn't a subjective identity, it's the state of being an adult human female. People should have the right to say so, and we shouldn't be teaching young kids at school about 'gender identity'.

The right-wing are using feminist causes cynically and politically - as tools. That’s the difference. Do you want to be used in such a way? I know I don’t - that’s part of my own feminism.

You interprete a pragmatic recognition that State-armed men can kill you, and are more likely to do so if you piss them off, as "bootlicking"? There's something wrong with your reading comprehension, especially as you seem to have overlooked the bit where I advised fighting back through the courts.

Good is dead. She can't raise her children and she can't fight ICE.

Yes, it’s lucky there are observers, otherwise we wouldn’t have footage of what they’re actually doing. There is footage from soon after the shooting, elsewhere, where an ICE agent is asking another woman something along the lines of ‘haven’t you learned?’

The thing is, it doesn’t really matter what she did, as there’s literally nothing that could justify shooting her three times.