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

Stop👏 making 👏excuses 👏for 👏glinner 👏

Glinner has no clothes. He's shown his true colours on X after goods murder.

This was never about women's rights it was hitching his wagon to whatever movement he thought would get him back his career.

His interactions are purely transactional.

Since you've made it clear that you are a TRA, what makes you think anyone here will value your advice?

Where have they done that?
So because some are a bit 🙄 at what seems to be making excuses and trying to explain away something what a man did because "maybe he didn't read it properly, maybe he didn't know what it meant" that means they must be a TRA?
Ok ....

We’re discussing ideologies, not foodstuffs. That is such a tired and inaccurate comparison. It’s spewed out any time the board is challenged is this way.

I think there is a big difference between how KJK views this issue and Konstantin Kisin. KJK would not call herself a gender critical feminist, and I agree she’s moved to the right, but she is an OG “TERF” and she does focus on women’s lives and safeguarding children in a way that KK doesn’t really grasp the relevance of. Whether you agree with the way she does it or some of her more recent focuses (eg American politics, Islam) or not.

It’s an analogy 🙄 the poster is saying that they don’t believe they have to agree with everything Trump does or says to agree with one thing he does. As the post explained perfectly clearly.

Fast Biscuit has posted many times in this very thread as an explicit opponent of GC feminism. So have you. You're not remotely on our side and it's hardly surprising that we don't value your advice.

So you defend glinner then?

Why should anyone dismiss the advice , he's using women to further his own ends. Have you seen his merch store lol

I'm going to quote myself here:

"It's an absolute disgrace that, in these situations, citizens can't insist on their rights being respected but that's the reality of having an armed police force, they can make you comply via threat of state-sanctioned lethal force and you're at the mercy of their temperament in any fraught encounter."

As for Glinner: as I and others have said before, those of us who are GC feminists not aligned with the right don't have "do" anything about Glinner except stop throwing money at him, and when the subject comes up, make it clear that he doesn't speak for us.

With his courting of the US right (who seem to have limitless funds) he may soon find himself comfortably supported by them anyway, and withdraw the constant cap-in-hand to GC women.

Utopia and I are trying to minimise the risk of those men shooting women. What we are saying is comparable to when women on the Relationships board warn abuse victims to keep their plans to leave secret because abusers escalate sharply, and sometimes fatally, when their victims leave. Are those women offering that advice being patronising, or are they being realistic and helpful?

I repeat: we are trying to protect women's lives, based on our respective experiences of growing up with roadblocks and being trained to handle firearms.

You can try to be like this mouse if you like, but it is a lot less likely to end well.

Suggesting that people defy law enforcement is exactly the same "you should be willing to die for X" logic that is used by war-mongering military recruiters. The only difference is whether X = "social justice" or X = "your country". It treats other people's lives as expendable and as such is utterly appalling behaviour.

I gave up on KJK quite some time ago and on Glinner at some point in the last year. I don’t share many of their views, aside from knowing that sex matters. I don’t like who they are as people (from what they themselves have presented to the public). But hey, there are PLENTY of other GC people I can still admire and enjoy content from.

We agree on something then I'll take that.

So anyone posting anything at least slightly contradictory or goes against group think in any way is automatically a TRA?
Sounds rational..🙄 I know I'm not a TRA, obviously I don't know about others.
Not sure how people thinking that it's a bit off to make excuses for a man who "probably didn't know what he was doing" etc and say "stop making excuses for him" makes them a TRA, but hey.
Carry on.
Maybe he fell on his keyboard, his fingers tripped up and he accidentally retweeted it?
We don't know.

Right wing women are women, as KJK once said. And it's true. Right wing women deserve single-sex services. So do criminal women, racist women, religious women, prostituted women, left wing women, atheist women.

It was Dworkin who said that feminism means defending the rights of all women, even the ones you don't like.

Indeed. No one is obliged to support everyone who has ever said anything that they agreed with.

Yup, I know what an analogy is. It’s a poor one.

This.

That's probably the excuse he'll use when he comes sniffing round here again for the next handout.

I'm not seeing how regularly tapping women for money is defending women. I have to work i dont get to tweet on x all day and get paid. he should get a job like the rest of us.

Yes, in your opinion. But the pp’s post wasn’t actually about hamburgers, was it, so that was a bit of a ridiculous thing to say, on your part. In my opinion.

Whether he agrees entirely with the tweet he retweeted or not, I have no idea. But he has a history of impulsively posting and retweeting, and sometimes he has backtracked and apologised. I stopped following him and reading his substack because I felt it was unhelpful, not because I had any certainty about the shocking things he was talking about. I'm certain he has got some things wrong and some things right, and I wish he took more care.

Reposting this excellent post from earlier in the thread, which basically sums up my position on things Other People Say and Do. I don’t blindly support anyone or any particular political ideology. I am my own person. I simply don’t believe that “gender identity” trumps biological sex.

Okay. But the actual ridiculous thing is the constant refrain on here - for years now - of “we don’t have to agree with everything a person says, you know”. Except the amount of things you might be agreeing with seem to be, IDK, piling up? Or your association with a particular person or group is difficult to shake even if you wanted to? (‘You’ here is general, not specific.)

I'm not annoyed, I'm confused. Please tell me what it is that you are saying because I don't understand you.

"...But I’m not the one telling other women how to behave in altercations with aggressive men."

Your statement looks to be you objecting to the premise that it's not safe to get on the wrong side of armed men.

Why are posters making excuses for Glinner retweeting a tweet calling for the repeal of the 19th amendment? Women supporting a man calling for the end of the vote for women in the US? Even if he didn’t read it properly - and I don’t think that for a moment - it’s inexcusable.

This is a feminist board.