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

So glinner is being a twat and somehow that means men are women if they say they are?

nope

Apparently.

I'm open to discussion here. How could it be that endorsing the view below could be interpreted as anything other than naked misogyny?

Honestly, I'm not limber enough to perform the mental gymnastics needed to make this acceptable.

"If we want to be a serious country with law & order, anything short of outright abolishment of the 19th amendment would be a grave half-measure"

It's a joke.

FFS grow up

I've just been to look and the Glinner comment was 'bullseye' about Vance saying that if you drive straight at an armed ICE agent then you are likely to get shot in self defence. I'm assuming the agent themselves was armed for a reason and didn't want to die by being run over?

I'm guessing all the people that think this comment is wrong would just stand there and be crushed by a rather large vehicle and take no action to protect themselves?

Being charitable, maybe we're talking past each other. I'm referring to the retweet below, blaming Good for her own shooting and calling for the vote to be removed from women in general.

My point is this, coupled with other anti-women tweets this morning, makes it hard to interpret the "joke" about Renee Nicole Good's shooting as not being misogynistic.

The released videos do not support that description of the events.

Normally, I'd advocate reserving any judgment until the incident is fully investigated.

Unfortunately, the federal government's position is that state authorities are not to investigate this event. Senior government officials have already declared that the ICE agent did nothing wrong, and even if they did, they're immune from prosecution.

So we're left to interpret the evidence ourselves, and FWIW I think she was the victim of manslaughter.

They did at the time of the comment.

So, we have a choice, apparently, between the right who hate women so much that they rejoice in the cold-blooded murder of a lesbian mother of three, and the left who hate women so much they want us to share our private female-only spaces with sexual predators and rapists.

Forgive me if I'm not exactly thrilled about that.

I'm not sure that's not true. The comment was made yesterday, a video showing Good turning away from the officer from multiple viewpoints was available the day before.

Vance made those comments to try to counter the uproar the videos were causing

We have no idea what he had and hadn't seen by the point at which he posted this. We know algorithms change what people see and don't see. We also know now that we cannot trust what footage we do see due to AI which is why I for one have stopped commenting on pretty much anything substantial these days.

What I do know is that if I innocently ended up in front of an armed ICE agent I'd ask them where they wanted me to drive to, to try and avoid getting shot. All I have is what I'd do. And I've had to do that here in France where they often have armed patrols, and I asked the last time where they wanted us to go to when we were pulled over. We did, they did their search and we went on our way.

I agree, he has terrible judgment, is prone to repeating opinions from the toxic echo chamber he's constructed for himself and makes inflammatory anti-women posts without doing the most basic research.

Really, in all of this, it's Graham who's the victim here

It’s not going to be properly investigated. Too much is at stake for either interpretation of what happened.

Personally no matter whether she clipped him with the car as she drove away, no matter if she was being mouthy, disruptive and rowdy beforehand, she should not have been shot. The man should not have had a gun if he couldn’t remain calm enough to use it appropriately.

She should not have been killed regardless of what she did.

There should not be jokes about it.

There should not be nasty political name calling and blame and shit thrown around. Have some respect.

And stop using one incident as an excuse to justify shit talking. As the spiked article says, ‘two cheeks of the same arse of inhumanity.’.

I have no respect for anyone who comes here and tries to score points off this situation. So piss off with your swathing finger pointing, outrage farming, and virtue displays.

You know you can agree with someone's views on trans issues and yet they can still be a complete cunt, right?

Cheering on the death of a protester, an unarmed civilian shot in the face, makes you a complete cunt IMO. Whether or not she apparently had pronouns in her bio.

There's been a lot of amplification of right wing views from that guy of late, and one wonders what the Glinner who campaigned so heartily to repeal the eight and who supported the women who were harrassed during Gamergate would make of it all. Especially when he realises that many of his new anti-Antifa pals aren't, in many ways, great friends of women.

I’m not sure you know what fascism is.

Csn you explain how knowing that people can’t change sex, understanding that sex is important in some situations and wanting to keep all men (including those who claim to be women) out of female only spaces is ‘fascism’ exactly?

And while we are at it can you explain how men (who claim to be women) and want to make all female only spaces mixed sex by their presence and refuse to use the unisex spaces already provided, are ‘allies’ of women? Thx.

Not of all of us.

Two things can be true at the same time:

Yes It's probably unwise to piss off an angry man with a gun,

and

It's still wrong for law enforcement to kill someone just for not doing as they're told. The penalty for being rude to an officer should (obviously) not be instant death.

You're using the one to justify the other. What you're saying is equivalent to "she was wearing a short skirt and dancing, did she really expect not to get raped?!"

(And that's not even mentioning the weird semi-hidden admiration for armed thugs you can usually spot when reading between the lines of posts like this. Urgh.)

Crazy isn’t it? It’s bizarre that it’s presented as just those binary (ha! Irony!) choices. If you’re against one, you must renounce it and be for the other. Imagine being so against what the Right stands for you’re willing to let men into women’s spaces, instead of, you know, saying No to the Right and No to the Left and sitting comfortably in your own skin and own mind knowing neither are good options and it’s okay to not be “for” either.

I think a lot of people are genuinely cowardly and insecure.

Agree. What's frightening is that in the US these ICE enforcement agents are armed and are apparently allowed to shoot innocent people in cold blood. The US right talk a lot about what a free country America is, particularly compared to the UK with our freedom of speech restrictions. Well, it's true that there are things you can't say in the UK, but at least we don't have immigration officials going round shooting people dead for no reason.

People make mistakes. Glinner has made tactless comments before and deleted them, I hope he will delete this one particularly if solid evidence emerges that the description of the event he was agreeing with was inaccurate. Even if he doesn't, people can be wrong about one thing and right about another, they do it all the time. There's pretty much nobody I'd trust to represent my position on all issues all the time.

As for the attempts to condemn GC views on the basis of anything GL does, it's just bizarre. He's not even a woman. I thank him for what he's done in support of the GC cause and I think he screwed up badly here taking the wrong person's word for what happened.

IF it had been the case that someone was deliberately driving a car at a pedestrian, it would be reasonable to agree with armed police action against them if still unfortunate that the outcome was a death.

Imagine being so against the idea of letting men into women's spaces that you applaud the death of a woman in the country that other women who are against letting men into women's spaces effectively funded you the opportunity to go and live in.

Imagine being so against the idea of letting men into women's spaces that you overlook a man spending most of his days shouting 'groomer' at people on the internet, or harrassing those who don't agree with him, or reposting pictures of children post-surgery without their consent, or obsessively tweeting at people who have made clear that they have no interest in corresponding with him whether or not they once worked together because the way they now conduct themselves makes them an extremely difficult person to exist around; basically enabling the unwell, just because that man is also against the idea of letting men into women's spaces.

It seems to work in both directions and in that sense I agree with you.

I’m disappointed. But it doesn’t negate the superb work Glinner has done, for many years, on women’s rights, at great cost to his career and his health and well-being. I agree with him on the trans issue, but not on the ICE shooting.

I don't think Glinner will delete it. I think Glinner has been moving further to the right for a while, as evidenced by his tweets, if you go back and read them. He now seems to have fully bought into the Trump/Vance world view.

It's disappointing, because Glinner, as we all know, was one of the very few people in the entertainment industry to stand up against the assault on women's rights, and one of the few men in public life to do so. And I think we can all see how he's suffered as a result.

But what seems to have happened to Glinner, and a few people I know, is that their rage at the behaviour of the left - the misogyny, the denial of reality, the aggression, the authoritarianism - has led them into the embrace of the right. Because the right at least know what a woman is, the right don't want to pump children full of dangerous hormones and the right appear to be standing up for free speech. You can sort of see how it happens, except, of course, aligning yourself with the right means closing your eyes to all sorts of other horrors - including shooting dead innocent women.

The vast majority of sex-realist people, as I think we all know, have fairly mainstream political views. They vote Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative. They are neither far left nor far right. But it suits the lunatic fringe of trans activism (essentially, all of them) to pretend that anyone who thinks we shouldn't be locking up vulnerable women with rapists is a far right ideologue. Unfortunately, the example of people like Glinner only adds fuel to that argument.

The "kid" is a full-grown man with a woman fetish who repeatedly turned up at pro-women events to harass women. He also pretended to be a woman who had taken male hormones to become a man to explain his obviously male physique. Also, he shoved his smartphone right up into Graham's face and his reflex was to push away the object that was so close to him.

The photos that Graham posts of post-operative women are taken from social media so they are in the public domain. The young women in them are clearly troubled and Graham is using his platform to make the general public aware of what licensed surgeons are doing to young women. These surgeons should all be struck off in my opinion. The hippocratic oath says "first do no harm" and they have utterly failed to uphold it.

If you are accusing him of making racist comments, you will need to show proof, unless of course not supporting illegal immigration is racist in your opinion.

You’ll never get an intelligible answer from someone who thinks fascism means ‘something I don’t like’, Bundle.