Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[love detective]

if you tell me the name of the person who denied it i'll trawl through for you (or more correctly spend a couple of seconds on the search function)

 

[Firky]

you seriously took that post literally and seriously yes? (as opposed to all the other times similar digs have been made which you have took in the spirit intended - like this one here for example)

as for being called out and can't handle criticism, you said yourself yesterday on facebook you mostly agree with what i've said on here

I did take it seriously, aye.

There are reasons to doubt Laurie given her history but I'd keep those thoughts to myself. I wouldn't post them on this thread because it only gives her ammo that we're all bogeymen out to get her. That's about the third time I've said that now. You've got a point but it's not one I feel comfortable with. I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt and be wrong.

 

[equationgirl]

(((thread)))

 

[muscovyduck]

Have you ever received a PM off me, muscy, on here or on twitter, or is LD just getting pissy because he's been called out and can't handle criticism?

What's that supposed to mean?

What's going on here then?

I didn't mean for this to happen

 

[Firky]

anyone trying to say she's lying about getting rape threats.

who do you think that is?

No one has denied that she gets such threats, more the frequency of them / how threatening they are.

What's going on here then?

I didn't mean for this to happen

Think it was a joke that went over my head

 

[chilango]

Laurie wins.

Well done.

 

[equationgirl]

What's going on here then?

I didn't mean for this to happen

I read it as LD implying Firky was trying to be sleazy around you, and I didn't think it was an appropriate comment to make.

You did nothing!

 

[J Ed]

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadca...-prosecution-rapists-and-we-should-applaud-it

New Laurie article, actually quite good.

 

[muscovyduck]

Prepare to be patronised, condescended and spoken down to now your age is common knowledge.

You don't remember what it was like when Kurt died, maaan!

Who is Kurt?

(((joke)))

 

[toggle]

was that seriously an implication that the onlty reason firky was talking to a woman was to sleeze?

he had his own harem a few weeks ago

 

[Firky]

was that seriously an implication that the onlty reason firky was talking to a woman was to sleeze?

he had his own harem a few weeks ago

There's an old joke going back years that revol and I like sk8ter grls and I missed it, sorry love detective, you were too droll for me then.

 

[love detective]

I did take it seriously, aye.

ok well to confirm it was meant in the same spirit as the one linked to in the post you quoted above, as 'in joke' banter of a nature we have previously engaged in, in which you had taken and responded in the spirit intended

so apologies to both you and muscovyduck for it not coming across in the way it was intended (quite why you took it seriously though given we have engaged in the same kind of thing previously in a friendly/jokey manner and also how much worse the banter is on a certain other place that we both inhabit where neither of us take offence at due to understanding the spirit it is given in, I don't know)

There are reasons to doubt Laurie given her history but I'd keep those thoughts to myself. I wouldn't post them on this thread because it only gives her ammo that we're all bogeymen out to get her. That's about the third time I've said that now. You've got a point but it's not one I feel comfortable with. I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt and be wrong.

maybe not one you feel comfortable with, but one you (mostly) agree with

 

[weepiper]

There's an old joke going back years that revol and I like sk8ter grls and I missed it, sorry love detective, you were too droll for me then.

oh right, I didn't know about that hence my response.

 

[equationgirl]

From the New Statesman, an article by Martha Gill in which she says the feminist reaction to campaigns about rape is 'a knee-jerk reaction' and 'group think'.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tec...sex-little-girl-voice-internet-feminists-all-

A couple of months ago a University in Colorado published some guidelines on how to minimise your risk of rape. The list was short and practical, and when it went up there was an immediate outcry across several social media sites, during which it was asked repeatedly why the message wasn’t “don’t rape” or “rapists are the ones to blame”, rather than “don’t get raped”. The response was so dramatic that the list was removed almost as soon as it went up, amid apology.

An almost identical episode happened last year over West Mercia Police's "Safe Night Out" campaign, which involved posters advising women how to avoid rape. A number of feminist websites, including the F-Word, picked up on it, and a prolonged and angry Twitter barrage followed. In the end West Mercia Police too, took down the posters and apologised.

The point the online commenters had been keen to make is that nothing excuses rape, and of course they're right. But excusing rape is a very different thing from lowering the risks of rape. A number of things can lower the risks of rape – and these are things worth knowing about. The Safe Night Out campaign was never presented as a debate-framer, it was just some anti-crime info. Do we really need to couple every piece of “avoid being a victim of crime” advice with the rider “also, don’t commit crimes, crimes are illegal, and if anyone’s to blame for crimes, it’s definitely the criminal”? It's odd, not to say worrying, that these two concepts have become so muddled together in the case of rape that safety advice is being compromised

 

[love detective]

oh right, I didn't know about that hence my response.

i disclose it in the official register of 'in jokes' each year at the start of the posting season

 

[equationgirl]

oh right, I didn't know about that hence my response.

And mine.

(((in-jokes)))

 

[Belushi]

You're 17 muscovyduck? Holy crap.

You do not look anywhere near that young.

Big up da yoof!

frogwoman must be over the moon, it's taken over a decade but she's no longer the youngest pnp'er

 

[ViolentPanda]

don't be deliberately obtuse, it's unbecoming of a grown man.

Physically "grown", but emotionally?

 

[Delroy Booth]

Respect is due, you come across as much older. Fair play to you.

innit

 

[ViolentPanda]

i think there is a difference between the type of journalism (cough) penny does and the type of journalism smokedout does too, which could account to some difference - essentially smokedout writes news stories (albeit with a very specific slant), whereas penny conducts a conversation with her readership - which would invite substantially more feedback. enough to make such a substantial difference, i dunno. but worth considering.

What we used to call the "journalist/columnist divide", with smokedout obviously being the journalist.

 

[muscovyduck]

innit

You all say this but I still can't get served in off-licences.

 

[ViolentPanda]

that's a shame, i always used to think seumas milne was all right, could be completely wrong tho

His "The Enemy Within", about the state's response to the Miner's Strike of '84-85, was an excellent piece of investigative journalism.

 

[butchersapron]

You all say this but I still can't get served in off-licences.

I'm sure someone could sort you out.

 

[muscovyduck]

From the New Statesman, an article by Martha Gill in which she says the feminist reaction to campaigns about rape is 'a knee-jerk reaction' and 'group think'.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tec...sex-little-girl-voice-internet-feminists-all-

Oh dear. Do I want to read that article? She appears to have missed the point a bit.

 

[Firky]

(quite why you took it seriously though given we have engaged in the same kind of thing previously in a friendly/jokey manner and also how much worse the banter is on a certain other place that we both inhabit where neither of us take offence at due to understanding the spirit it is given in, I don't know)

Over there it is more obvious! Sorry for getting the hump with you over it, but you know.. a man of my reputation.

 

[Firky]

innit

Pot / kettle

 

[equationgirl]

Oh dear. Do I want to read that article? She appears to have missed the point a bit.

I read it twice because I couldn't believe what I was reading - and this is what gets me about the New Statesman. Their columnists just seem to wax lyrical about whatever subjects take their fancy, there's no cohesion.

lauriepenny really good article this week

 

[equationgirl]

Just to expand on my last point a little: compare what LP wrote this week with what Martha wrote.

One writes about the tipping point in society to fight back against rape culture and the other one writes about how feminists all say the same things without thinking about it enough to have an individual viewpoint (and I felt the last had echos of some of the posts seen on the Prince Bert thread recently). How can two diametrically opposed views be endorsed by the NS?

 

[J Ed]

It's interesting that the sort of people who provide a naked defence of the worst aspects of really existing capitalism and misogyny also defend paedos. Spiked should be strung up.

 

[butchersapron]

Just to expand on my last point a little: compare what LP wrote this week with what Martha wrote.

One writes about the tipping point in society to fight back against rape culture and the other one writes about how feminists all say the same things without thinking about it enough to have an individual viewpoint (and I felt the last had echos of some of the posts seen on the Prince Bert thread recently). How can two diametrically opposed views be endorsed by the NS?

The content of their columns isn't what this thread is about (what's left of it that is) though is it? We're not going to cheer LP if she says things that we agree with are we? Was it really all about that?

(And ftr, the first part of that Gill piece was excellent).