BBC - Owen Jones

[Wookey]

When I watch the video of the Sky newspaper review, it's very clear to me that Hartley-Brewer DID acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack, several times.

It's also clear that Owen was distressed and upset, and was not bringing his best game to the segment. I would have preferred him to have taken a breath and carry on debating. (Actually, I'd have preferred him to have had a bath and an early night and give himself a break from the commentariat bullshit on Sky).

I understand why he walked; because he perceived that his voice was being contradicted by two non-gay people. But his exit left no gay voice on the panel, which is really regrettable.

I have also in the past used the argument "You don't understand this because you aren't gay...." which even at the time felt to me like a weak and tergiversational way to win an argument, and a very effective way of shutting down anyone who doesn't completely reflect what you believe from a gay perspective. There isn't any such thing as a single gay perspective though, just personal perspectives made by gay people.

By Monday, Owen should have had time to reflect, and perhaps refocus the story back on the crime, the victims and the issues at hand, rather than repeat the unfair and inaccurate accusation towards two people of trying to whitewash the homophobic nature of the attacks.

I love the guy dearly, currently really enjoying (right word?!) his book The Establishment And How They Get Away With It. But Julia HB makes the most important point - no-one should be telling her what to say, or how to say it. That's not what our movement should be about.

 

[Pickman's model]

When I watch the video of the Sky newspaper review, it's very clear to me that Hartley-Brewer DID acknowledge the homophobic nature of the attack, several times.

It's also clear that Owen was distressed and upset, and was not bringing his best game to the segment. I would have preferred him to have taken a breath and carry on debating. (Actually, I'd have preferred him to have had a bath and an early night and give himself a break from the commentariat bullshit on Sky).

I understand why he walked; because he perceived that his voice was being contradicted by two non-gay people. But his exit left no gay voice on the panel, which is really regrettable.

I have also in the past used the argument "You don't understand this because you aren't gay...." which even at the time felt to me like a weak and tergiversational way to win an argument, and a very effective way of shutting down anyone who doesn't completely reflect what you believe from a gay perspective. There isn't any such thing as a single gay perspective though, just personal perspectives made by gay people.

By Monday, Owen should have had time to reflect, and perhaps refocus the story back on the crime, the victims and the issues at hand, rather than repeat the unfair and inaccurate accusation towards two people of trying to whitewash the homophobic nature of the attacks.

I love the guy dearly, currently really enjoying (right word?!) his book The Establishment And How They Get Away With It. But Julia HB makes the most important point - no-one should be telling her what to say, or how to say it. That's not what our movement should be about.

Imagine the scene: "you don't understand because you're not straight" - wld no doubt go down like a lead balloon. Perhaps if instead of that argument being deployed 'one' might proceed by way of analogy to convey the sentiment desired.

 

[nino_savatte]

Here's an interesting take from Zelo Street. Jones apparently told his Twitter followers to lay off, but this didn't stop Hartley-Brewer as I've already noted.

But what Jones made clear is that no blame for the situation should be directed at fellow guest Julia Hartley Brewer, Tweeting “And please lay off @JuliaHB1 - none of the abuse directed at her is in my name” to underscore his concern.

Having extended the hand of friendship, one might have expected Ms Hartley Brewer to adopt a measured and understanding tone in response. But that would have missed her insatiable appetite for promoting More And Bigger Media Attention Events For Herself Personally Now. Jones was her latest meal ticket, and with the inevitability of night following day, she used the platform given her by the Telegraph to put the boot in.
Zelo Street: Julia Hartley Brewer - Me Me Meee!

He’s not asked for an apology from her. But now that she has openly accused him of being ratarsed on set (we all know what “tired and emotional” is code for, thanks) he has a damn good reason to request one. Her use of “This is peak Generation Snowflake … If Owen Jones wants to live in a world where people can only say what is on the officially approved list of platitudes, then perhaps he has more in common with Islamic State than he thinks” just underscores the point. This is abuse ad infinitum ad nauseam, to no point at all.

She's a bully and a troll.

 

[Wookey]

Imagine the scene: "you don't understand because you're not straight" - wld no doubt go down like a lead balloon. Perhaps if instead of that argument being deployed 'one' might proceed by way of analogy to convey the sentiment desired.

Good point! My response would be that I was raised as a straight person, in a straight family, in a straight culture. I know exactly what it is like to be straight because I was forced to live that way for many years. Few straight people would be able to claim the same kind of direct personal experience of "the other side" because they are never expected to.

That means that gay people's perspectives are unique, and vital to understanding many issues - but that doesn't mean to say it's the only perspective, or that straight people are incapable of empathy, imagination, self-education etc...cause they are.

Some of the most insightful gay rights statements I've ever heard have come from well-informed straight people. Some of the most narrow-minded, bigoted and self-defeating opinions I've heard have come from gay people. Go figure.

 

[Wookey]

Compare and contrast the Sky new segment with the papal statement on Orlando - Pope Francis manages to condemn the violence without once using the terms "gay" "LGBT" or "homophobia".

THAT is whitewash.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Ok; it's not a competition but, lest we forget

History of violence against LGBT people in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any precedent for a supposedly self-hating gay man shooting up to a hundred people (essentially near everyone but himself) and deliberately killing women as he went because he was suffering an identity crisis?

 

[8ball]

Compare and contrast the Sky new segment with the papal statement on Orlando - Pope Francis manages to condemn the violence without once using the terms "gay" "LGBT" or "homophobia".

THAT is whitewash.

With the Pope I'm less surprised, but when mainstream news are plastering over it there's a problem.

I was a bit busy when the story broke and caught snippets running along TV tickers and on the internet and it was over a day before I found out it was a gay club.

 

[Joe Reilly]

So, it would have been Disney, if he could. It definitely, definitely couldn't have been anything to do with a hate crime against LGBT people? Or even a self hate crime, given his alleged internal strife and issues?

Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.

But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.

'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.

 

[Wookey]

With the Pope I'm less surprised, but when mainstream news are plastering over it there's a problem.

I was a bit busy when the story broke and caught snippets running along TV tickers and on the internet and it was over a day before I found out it was a gay club.

Wow. I am surprised at that, everything I've seen has had "gay club" plastered all over it. (Apart from the papal statement, which as you say is not a surprise)

 

[belboid]

Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.

But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.

'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.

He didn't say anything g like that you dishonest shit. Your politics are now those of Julia Hartley Brewer, you must be proud.

 

[Ted Striker]

When I watch...

(Snipped...)

I'm quite a fan of his anyway, and whilst I wasn't expecting him to act like that, it did endear him to me further...He came across as very normal or human and acted as we all might under such a distressing event and windup shitheaddery.

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.

But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.

'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.

For substantial read circumstantial?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

He didn't say anything g like that

You are correct, the Owen Jones walk off was prompted by an attempt by the presenter and JHB to deny that this was a hate crime against LGBT people.

However, others - on this thread and elsewhere - have certainly tried to downplay any role religion may have played and/or the stated reasons given by the killer for the massacre.

It's already clear that in this instance the reasons are complex and possibly ones we will never fully understand. But there is a wider point about some on the left so desperate to defend Islam that it leads them to adopt positions or make assertions to let religion off the hook that in other circumstances they would rightly condemn. It's almost as though they think it counters those who wish to blame everything on those who hold irrational beliefs about a God.

 

[krtek a houby]

Anyone involved in religious fundamentalism is by definition not entirely rational. So there could have been a myriad of factors behind the selection and rejection of the numerous targets and the timing of the attack. Very clearly it was a hate crime against LGBT people.

But what Owen Jones and certain posters want everyone to believe is that 'hate crime' was all it could ever be. Cut and dried. Nothing more to see here folks.

'It definitely, definitely,couldn't have been anything to do with Islam' has been the message from the start. No case to answer has been the cry. Even, or especially, when the substantial evidence, is in one way or the other, pointing directly at it.

These aren't the excuses you're looking for.

 

[belboid]

However, others - on this thread and elsewhere - have certainly tried to downplay any role religion may have played and/or the stated reasons given by the killer for the massacre.

really? We must be reading different threads

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality.

On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.

 

[krtek a houby]

Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality.

On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.

He's a homophobic conflicted arse who used Isis and Hezbollah(!!!) as an excuse.

 

[8ball]

Wow. I am surprised at that, everything I've seen has had "gay club" plastered all over it. (Apart from the papal statement, which as you say is not a surprise)

The BBC ticker said 'night club' iirc. Other bits I saw said things like '50 feared dead in Orlando shooting' and 'worst mass shooting in recent US history' (I figured the word 'recent' was a late insertion after an informed viewer chirped up).

I only saw headlines and tickers, and the sample I saw is by no means representative, obv. It felt plausible enough when I saw the clip with Owen Jones, though, having not seen the terms 'gay club' or 'hate crime' in the (admittedly very restricted) content I saw.

 

[belboid]

Across the Guardian comments section yesterday there was almost a palpable sense of relief that the killer had possible conflicts about his sexuality.

On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.

who gives a flying fuck what is in the guardian comments? And give us some quotes to support your assertion, cos it does look an awful lot like bollocks

 

[chilango]

On here posters have advanced theories about the mental health of the killer and advanced the view that because he appears not to have been working as part of a cell,/an ISIS member 'proper' that his stated reasons for the attack can be dismissed.

I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form, so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.

However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.

That's it.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Yeah. Interviewed twice. Which, as you say, is more than once. And cleared.

Yeah. Phoned 911 at the very last minute. And ISIS are well known for giving warnings aren't they?

Yeah. ISIS news agency claims successful mass murderer as one of their own. Big fucking surprise there.

How about 'mentally disturbed bi-polar twat goes on killing rampage of gays and claims topic of the day (Islamic Fundamentalism) as justification'?

Soldier of the Caliphate my arse.

Well there is this for starters.....

And are you saying the Guardian comments section is not representative of left opinion by the way? Bizarre shit.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form, so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.

However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.

That's it.

I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.

 

[chilango]

I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.

Perhaps. I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

 

[krtek a houby]

I pretty much agree with that. My point however is that some on the left are desperate to eliminate religion/ISIS propoganda as having any weight as a casual factor.

Who? It is a casual factor. But it is not the main factor. It's like an excuse, an afterthought, a disguise. A sham.

 

[Sue]

I would strongly argue, on the basis of what is known at this point, that he was not a member of IS in any shape or form, so that trying to project IS's goals/aims/ideology or whatever onto him is mistaken.

However, that is not to say that IS did not provide some form of inspiration or justification or whatever for his act. Regardless it was a homophobic attack no matter what the balance of inspiration is between all the various factors that may be at play.

That's it.

So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.

 

[belboid]

And are you saying the Guardian comments section is not representative of left opinion by the way? Bizarre shit.

you're fucking kidding, arent you? Its full of fucking crackpots and imbeciles

 

[krtek a houby]

So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.

I'm Irish. Say I suddenly go postal on a room full of innocents and I ring the cops and mention the IRA. Does that mean I'm automatically a member?

 

[belboid]

So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this wasn't so.

well, the way he also said he was hezbollah and hamas kinda contradicts it. Clearly he was inspired by islamic fundamentalism in a genereic sense, but to tie him to any particular group seems well wide of the mark

 

[Sue]

I'm Irish. Say I suddenly go postal on a room full of innocents and I ring the cops and mention the IRA. Does that mean I'm automatically a member?

I'm not familiar with the IRA membership procedure but if you said your allegiance was with the IRA then I'd think you believed you were doing it on behalf of the IRA.

 

[chilango]

So how does one become a 'member of IS'? Is there an application form to be completed and subs to pay? He said his allegiance was with IS when he called 911 so I'm not quite sure why people are trying to pretend that this was nothing to do with IS.

I'm fairly sure there'll be some sort of command structure. Some sort of support structure. They're probably not just a bunch of unrelated randoms doing whatever they individually feel like on the day.

To argue that is probable that he was outside of these structures is not say that "it had nothing to do with IS".