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 doubt Glinner needs Mnet FWR anymore. He's going for the much bigger MAGA market now.

As I've indicated, I wasn't here then, so I'm interested in your take. When you say a "feminist space" ( as opposed to an offshoot of the feminism topics board where sex and gender can be discussed, on a forum which is primarily for women but where men are not excluded) how did that work? Were men excluded then? Did posters get banned for not being feminist, and if so, who decided what being feminist was? Or was it simply that men, and women who disagreed with feminism, never bothered with it?

Do you think more men know about and are posting on Mumsnet now? Even being a woman I didn't really know what it was and just vaguely thought it was "something for mothers" ( which I'm not), for ages before I came here.

This board stopped being feminist when MNHQ decided to allow TRAs to be able to report our words without even being users themselves, by just contacting MNHQ on twitter.

It’s not.

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

I remember when I first read that as a young woman, it blew my mind - gave me a total change of perspective.

It seems to be very personal for you, your dislike of Glinner, in this parasocial relationship.

He hasn't got what it takes. He stinks of desperation, he's going all in fast with this 19th amendment bs and using the R word to impress maga losers on X. Now he's lost his piggy bank.

I don't think you know what that means.

Care to answer any of the counter points put to you?

?

I am feeling kind of pissed off and confused about your continued absolute fabrication of who I am and what I’m saying. It’s really weird and just plain wrong so I’m going to bow out of this interaction with you.

It's long-standing GC posters that are the ones coming up with reasons why he might not have meant to do what he did though, so not sure why that's relevant?
(Also I don't think MN allow anyone who's not a user to report anymore? I could be wrong though)

Even if he didn’t read it properly - and I don’t think that for a moment - it’s inexcusable

Exactly

I was posting in response to the person who said this was a feminist board.

It might be where arguments about feminism and women's rights are well, argued but it stopped being feminist when men were told they could report women, as I said, by contacting MNHQ on twitter to get users banned for upsetting them. This went on for years.

Don’t annoy those men who are busy setting up a dictatorship! Be nice and polite, women!

Remember posting that?

When did it stop?

Has it stopped?

I don't know. You said this went on for years. Did it stop or is it still going on?

I didn’t say it was excusable. I said it was my opinion (having followed him for years) that he isn’t actually in favour of having women’s right to vote revoked. As I also said, that was one not particularly clear part of a longer tweet.

General to who, exactly? Who are you talking to?

The need to scold women for wrongthink is a powerful one, it seems. When no one here has actually expressed any agreement with Glinner on this issue that I can see.

Of course. It was in response to you saying this regarding Renee Good being shot:

I have not said that. I have explicitly said that we cannot know exactly what happened and that it would be prudent to await the outcome of the inquest, or whatever type of investigation the US have in these cases. What I have said is that annoying men with guns is a lot more likely to result in them shooting you than not annoying them is, especially when the State has armed those men. I have said that compliance with such men maximises your chance of walking away from the encounter. I have not endorsed this reality, but merely described. Read what I actually write. Don't add extra words or meanings that aren't actually there. Don't fabricate opinions and ascribe them to me.

Anyway, I said was bowing out, so here’s hoping things improve for all women as these are terrifying times.

"Scold" 🙄
Give over. If anyone ever asks anything, or challenges something said, we're back to "you're scolding"
You're not being told off for goodness sake.

Okay, how about if I describe it as a negatively parasocial relationship instead? In that you have a one-sided, unreciprocated, intense belief of possessing innermost knowledge about him as your enemy.

What I'm trying to say is that your intense dislike of this man that you don't know is leading you to describe him in vitriolic terms that include a lot of mind reading on your part. You can describe his actions, but you can't know what his thoughts are.

You don't have to like him, or agree with him - to be honest, he can be a hard person to like - but I don't see how you can confidently state the motivations behind his actions.

Big lol at that. No, I’m not being “told off” because I’m not accountable to you for anything. Your criticism doesn’t bother me because I can see exactly what you’re doing and as I said, all these threads go exactly the same way.