Thank you. It's good to finally know what all the fuss has been about, absolutely nothing. Which is why I couldn't find anything, I shall stop bothering to check anymore.
"To make people stop using major smears used to discredit and demonise Posie Parker, I'll write an article using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson"
The same media who propagandised you into thinking "tOmMy RoBiNsOn Is A rAcIsT" is the same media who are trying to make Posie Parker into a bigot.
If Tommy Robinson is a racist, Posie Parker is a bigot, or they are both smeared by the same media, so which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are making.
My article is not about Tommy Robinson, it is about Posie Parker.
If you disagree with her opinion of Tommy Robinson, fine. That it not the point.
The point is simply that her opinions, not just about Tommy Robinson but also about feminists, have been systematically misrepresented.
---------
Edit 12 Feb:
It has been bugging me that I couldn't understand your reply and I think I know now what you are getting at.
Firstly, this is wrong:
"To make people stop using major smears used to discredit and demonise Posie Parker, I'll write an article using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson"
The purpose is not to "discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson".
The purpose is to make it easier for people to find out what KJK actually said and to make up their own minds about what she said.
I take it that you feel that KJK (not me) was "using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson".
Some people might agree with you, others might disagree.
Your second point is, "The same media who propagandised you into thinking "tOmMy RoBiNsOn Is A rAcIsT" is the same media who are trying to make Posie Parker into a bigot".
It could be argued that the differences are simply of scale, reach or intent but the "media" involved in this case is a single post on an obscure blog.
The author is entitled to her own interpretation of what KJK said during the Feminist Current podcast. However, from how she has summarised KJK's words, it seems possible that she has misinterpreted at least some of what KJK said.
Perhaps I should have come up with a better title and sub-title? The issue of what KJK did or didn't say about "feminists" and women "on the ground in places like Rotherham and Telford and everywhere that grooming gangs existed" has caused as much, possibly more, problems for KJK than what she did or didn't say about Tommy Robinson.
That aspect might seem trivial to you if you are focussed on Tommy Robinson rather than KJK.
However, I think it might account for the fact that a lot of women, including some who have high media profiles, have been disinclined to give KJK the benefit of the doubt about almost anything she says. That some of those women are journalists is disappointing to say the least.
As @Spikey TERF points out in her comment on Feb 8, it is not easy to find the original source of the allegations against KJK. Then, having found them, you have to find and listen very carefully to a podcast interview where KJK is speaking "off the cuff".
The problem I am trying to address in this article is that one extremely emotive, negative reaction in an obscure blog, to a few words spoken in a podcast, has been adopted and promulgated unquestioningly by many people, mostly women, who have no idea what KJK actually said.
You would have to understand the context in January 2019 to appreciate how and why this could possibly have so much impact and affect so many people, mostly women, for so long.
You can get a flavour of this from my article about another Myth that originates in exactly the same source and that continues to be cited as "fact", right up to this week in a supposedly respectable "feminist journal".
This is my article, not the "feminist journal" I referred to:
KJK and the H Word - Part 1
aka "Posie Parker and the Mythical Meeting with The Heritage Foundation"
Finally, you say, "If Tommy Robinson is a racist, Posie Parker is a bigot, or they are both smeared by the same media, so which one is it? You can't have it both ways."
The logic just does not work here and, again, it is not me "wanting to have it both ways".
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. The feeling I get is that you admire both Tommy Robinson and KJK and you are upset because you have just found out that KJK has said some things about TR that you find offensive, that you believe are misinformed and are based on smears and propaganda in the media.
I think most people experience at one time or another that sinking feeling when we realise that one friend dislikes another of our friends, or disappointment when people we admire do not agree with each other, or even dislike each other or do one another harm. It is unlikely that any two people agree on everything, so we can't expect to agree with them both on everything even if we agree with them both on one thing.
Personally, I think one of the most interesting things KJK said about TR and the media is this:
"who does it serve to give this insignificant man such significance, it just doesn't make any sense".
This is in the context of publicising, investigating and dealing with the "grooming gangs" scandal. Despite all the efforts made over decades by many women, most of them "left-leaning" and not just those whose names are well known, it was TR's occasional interventions, or "PR stunts" depending how you look a them, very late in the day that the media chose to spotlight.
If you can swallow your outrage at the comment about TR being "insignificant", would you agree that this question is very pertinent, ie. in the context of the "grooming gangs scandal"?
"who does it serve to give this insignificant man such significance, it just doesn't make any sense".
Equally, who does it serve to smear KJK, as in that obscure blog post that has had so much traction and influence?
Thank you. It's good to finally know what all the fuss has been about, absolutely nothing. Which is why I couldn't find anything, I shall stop bothering to check anymore.
Ridiculous article, and I'm on your side.
"To make people stop using major smears used to discredit and demonise Posie Parker, I'll write an article using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson"
The same media who propagandised you into thinking "tOmMy RoBiNsOn Is A rAcIsT" is the same media who are trying to make Posie Parker into a bigot.
If Tommy Robinson is a racist, Posie Parker is a bigot, or they are both smeared by the same media, so which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are making.
My article is not about Tommy Robinson, it is about Posie Parker.
If you disagree with her opinion of Tommy Robinson, fine. That it not the point.
The point is simply that her opinions, not just about Tommy Robinson but also about feminists, have been systematically misrepresented.
---------
Edit 12 Feb:
It has been bugging me that I couldn't understand your reply and I think I know now what you are getting at.
Firstly, this is wrong:
"To make people stop using major smears used to discredit and demonise Posie Parker, I'll write an article using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson"
The purpose is not to "discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson".
The purpose is to make it easier for people to find out what KJK actually said and to make up their own minds about what she said.
I take it that you feel that KJK (not me) was "using major smears to discredit and demonise Tommy Robinson".
Some people might agree with you, others might disagree.
Your second point is, "The same media who propagandised you into thinking "tOmMy RoBiNsOn Is A rAcIsT" is the same media who are trying to make Posie Parker into a bigot".
It could be argued that the differences are simply of scale, reach or intent but the "media" involved in this case is a single post on an obscure blog.
The author is entitled to her own interpretation of what KJK said during the Feminist Current podcast. However, from how she has summarised KJK's words, it seems possible that she has misinterpreted at least some of what KJK said.
Perhaps I should have come up with a better title and sub-title? The issue of what KJK did or didn't say about "feminists" and women "on the ground in places like Rotherham and Telford and everywhere that grooming gangs existed" has caused as much, possibly more, problems for KJK than what she did or didn't say about Tommy Robinson.
That aspect might seem trivial to you if you are focussed on Tommy Robinson rather than KJK.
However, I think it might account for the fact that a lot of women, including some who have high media profiles, have been disinclined to give KJK the benefit of the doubt about almost anything she says. That some of those women are journalists is disappointing to say the least.
As @Spikey TERF points out in her comment on Feb 8, it is not easy to find the original source of the allegations against KJK. Then, having found them, you have to find and listen very carefully to a podcast interview where KJK is speaking "off the cuff".
The problem I am trying to address in this article is that one extremely emotive, negative reaction in an obscure blog, to a few words spoken in a podcast, has been adopted and promulgated unquestioningly by many people, mostly women, who have no idea what KJK actually said.
You would have to understand the context in January 2019 to appreciate how and why this could possibly have so much impact and affect so many people, mostly women, for so long.
You can get a flavour of this from my article about another Myth that originates in exactly the same source and that continues to be cited as "fact", right up to this week in a supposedly respectable "feminist journal".
This is my article, not the "feminist journal" I referred to:
KJK and the H Word - Part 1
aka "Posie Parker and the Mythical Meeting with The Heritage Foundation"
https://genderwang.substack.com/p/kjk-and-the-h-word-part-1
Finally, you say, "If Tommy Robinson is a racist, Posie Parker is a bigot, or they are both smeared by the same media, so which one is it? You can't have it both ways."
The logic just does not work here and, again, it is not me "wanting to have it both ways".
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. The feeling I get is that you admire both Tommy Robinson and KJK and you are upset because you have just found out that KJK has said some things about TR that you find offensive, that you believe are misinformed and are based on smears and propaganda in the media.
I think most people experience at one time or another that sinking feeling when we realise that one friend dislikes another of our friends, or disappointment when people we admire do not agree with each other, or even dislike each other or do one another harm. It is unlikely that any two people agree on everything, so we can't expect to agree with them both on everything even if we agree with them both on one thing.
Personally, I think one of the most interesting things KJK said about TR and the media is this:
"who does it serve to give this insignificant man such significance, it just doesn't make any sense".
This is in the context of publicising, investigating and dealing with the "grooming gangs" scandal. Despite all the efforts made over decades by many women, most of them "left-leaning" and not just those whose names are well known, it was TR's occasional interventions, or "PR stunts" depending how you look a them, very late in the day that the media chose to spotlight.
If you can swallow your outrage at the comment about TR being "insignificant", would you agree that this question is very pertinent, ie. in the context of the "grooming gangs scandal"?
"who does it serve to give this insignificant man such significance, it just doesn't make any sense".
Equally, who does it serve to smear KJK, as in that obscure blog post that has had so much traction and influence?