Main Edition
US
FR
A protestor confronts police in Manchester (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
The Democrats seem to have settled on a new and sophisticated campaign strategy: calling the Republicans “weird”. Ever since prospective vice president Tim Walz first aired the insult on a TV show a few weeks ago, it has become the party’s unofficial battle-cry. And the strategy seems to be working, with even Trump being lured into disavowing his own weirdness and that of his running mate, J.D. Vance.
Much of the force of the new “weird” insult is directed at Vance but threatens to become contagious. Contrary to popular belief, guilt-by-association is not really a thing: attributions of guilt only make sense in terms of what an individual does, not who he stands next to. In contrast, weirdness-by-association is absolutely real. As every child in the playground instinctively knows, making friends with the weirdo who has just arrived in class can make you vulnerable to unflattering reappraisal.
Not helped by his awkward attempts at a statesmanlike public persona, Vance has been caught out by old comments of his, such as riffing about “childless cat ladies” running the Democrats. What presumably came across to Fox News fans at the time as edgy pugilism now appears to the wider world as an unnecessarily mean and aggressive attempt to sow division. The incident encapsulates the general PR problem of the popular conservative echo chamber, which for years has gloried in transgressive puerility and irony-soaked radical-posturing as a counter to the po-faced pieties of the Left — but now looks psychopathic to those normies not in on the “joke”.
Indeed, a true irony of the current situation is that the coarsening of discourse allowed by Trump and the online Right is arguably what has allowed Walz and co. to lean so heavily into cheap insults and get away with it. Even so, the sight of leading progressives enthusiastically bandying around jibes like “weird” and “creepy” is still somewhat disorienting. The robust language has a transgressive ring of danger about it, compared with the past oversensitive decade strewn with dog whistles and fig leaves everywhere they looked.
In fact, it must be highly galling for those who have built careers policing language, condemning “othering”, and deconstructing the concept of normality in the name of progress, to see their party of choice revalidating mainstream instincts and the scapegoating of social outliers in such a big way. It’s also a blow to anyone with remaining fantasies of a new enlightened political discourse on the Left: “weird” is more an instinctive expression of distaste than a rational analysis, which is partly why it works so well. Judgements of what is weird and creepy come from the gut not the brains.
A lot of scrambling is now taking place in internet circles, trying to convince the general public that the Democrats are the real weirdos. The X account Libs of Tiktok, for instance, has pronounced of Walz’s time as Governor of Minnesota: “This is the guy who signed laws requiring tampons in boys bathrooms, allows kids to get their body parts chopped off, and wants p**n in schools.” Conservative activist Christopher Rufo elaborated further: “He’s hip to ‘Gender Queer’. He loves non-binary children. He knows that graphic depictions of vibrators, blowjobs, and strap-on dildos belong in every classroom.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDemocrats, who apparently think that mudslinging equals arguing, have found a new schoolyard taunt that suits them: “Weird”. This is a matter of complete indifference to me.
No, the Democrats are against “sowing division.” Its very important for them to call out “division sowers.” They’re obviously very kind and empathetic…which is probably why they run so many trainings on “empathy.”
Well aren’t you the superior one!
There’s horror in this accurate observation, that the rhetoric of public discourse takes us one more step down into the basement. Who would have thought it would get this way, from friends in the street to our so-called leaders. Not only have we somehow been dumbed down, we’re not even bothering to hide or moderate our new stupidity. Faced with such attitudes from friends there’s no choice except to turn away, which changes nothing, because they see it as a win. There’s not much left after this: an animal nature on the loose, like two bulls charging at each other and destroying everything around them in the process. Obviously we’ll get down to the basement eventually, maybe sooner than we think, but one things for sure, it’s very dark down there.
Wise words, Kathleen. Which is why wise politicians think long and hard before unleashing some bon mot upon the world.
The heat of an election campaign can loosen tongues disastrously. For example, announcing that an elected Labour government would need its own Gestapo, was not wise. Still, the perpetrator went on to win an election a few years later.
The same perpetrator was a monumental embarrassment to his party and his country when he denounced Hitler as a liar and a warmonger. Later events proved him triumphantly right.
So, know your subject thoroughly, use a colourful expression to get yourself noticed, and you will probably be ok.
Dr. Stock- I’m an American. I’m not an academic and I don’t share your worldview but I have great respect for your mind. However, it seems like it doesn’t matter how great someone’s mind is if its clouded by emotional subjectivism. Anger clouds judgment. Lets just acknowledge that JD Vance offended you. I don’t think he was referring to a free thinking lady like you…but I think you heard it as a criticism of anyone operating outside the norm or “nuclear family.” Its fair to call it a bad joke. But it wasn’t malicious.
I think you know good and well that Trump and Vance will respect your voice more than Harris/Walz. So as a free thinking person that supports cognitive Liberty, I would ask you to chill criticizing Conservative Americans until you’ve talked with at least a dozen or so directly.
Well said.
To which i’d add: along with you, i have great respect for her intellect and ability to highlight disingenuity. Here, i shall highlight hers.
I suspect she has very little insight into the lives of those in the UK whose everyday existence has become increasingly diminished due to the effects of uncontrolled immigration. Yes, many of those on the streets are d***heads; i know, i grew up in the 60s/70s and went to school with their parents/grandparents.
Those on the streets have way overstepped the mark, but the resentment and anger has been building for decades in our urban communities. It can’t be dismissed by ‘cleverness’ or ‘intellect’, and it will manifest itself again; hopefully via more peaceful means but with equal, if not greater, fervour.
I agree with you and hope so too.
Apropos dismissing things with cleverness: I’ve found that the people who, by their academic background, should be clever are often the dimmest of lightbulbs.
A while ago, I was out with a friend (highly educated, holds a PhD) and was telling her about an honour killing which had just happened in my area (an Afghan stabbed his sister). I articulated my concern that this cultural phenomenon is something we’re going to see more of considering the number of Afghans that illegally immigrate into Austria each year.
She stopped me mid-sentence – not to express horror or shared concern at the brutality or even the feminist outrage which she usually hoses you down with at every opportunity. No. It was to inform me that the cool kids aren’t referring to “honour killings” anymore. The correct terminology is “femicide”. You know, so the specific cultural elements of this crime that mean it needs extra discussion get swept under the carpet and the conversation is choked off. So the far right can’t weaponise it. Or something like that.
I thought: “I love you, but – how do you not fall down more?”
Yes, weird isn’t it how little insight many clever people have?
So caught up in theories and complicated abstracts that they become completely removed from what’s practical or true on the ground.
I always look to see K. E. comments. She gets it.
It’s called emotional intelligence.
There’s a difference I think between clever and intelligent; it is possible to be both, but unfortunately all too often there’s cleverness without intelligence. There’s no rule though that someone clever cannot become more intelligent over time by making an effort. Perhaps arrogance and pride don’t help either.
And wisdom! Does it even exist anymore?
One can only be wise if one has experience. Life spent in offices affords little experience.
I think some people can become wise through their ability to process information (rather than simply retain it).
When I taught in primary school and got a new class of students each September, I could tell you with some accuracy which kids ate around a table with conversation and which ones at in front of the TV.
In Keir Starmer’s case, I think it’s intelligence without cleverness. In other words, limited usable intelligence.
Disagree, he has cleverness, but no imagination or character. He would not be were he is if he wasn’t clever. He knows how to take advantage of situations that will result in benefiting him personally, but he can’t really fix problems nor is he really all that interested in doing so. The majority of the political classes is very much like this.
Nonsense.
He got where he is by playing woke book.
He is nothing more than disgusting human remains lawyer.
The sooner scumbags like him are removed from politics the better for the country.
Clever is knowing a tomato is a fruit.
Intelligent is knowing not to put it in the fruit salad.
And wisdom is recognising that in some cultures, they do just that, and it can be delicious!
Good one!
The wife said the same thing, without the culture aspect.
As Orwell pointed out they have a shallow self righteousness and little contact with physical reality.
My thoight exactly
I’d question just how genuinely “clever” someone is if they don’t make some effort to ground their opinions in reality.
Having said that: as Sinclair observed, “it’s hard to get a man to understand something when their paycheck requires they don’t understand it”.
Do you self censor to preserve the friendship? I certainly do with some of my oldest friends.
Increasingly so, with both family and friends. Started a decade or so ago, increased markedly during Covid, and continues on an upward journey. It’s rarefied and lonely here.
“both family and friends.” My wife is of a conservative bent but uninterested in political discussion so I don’t discuss such things with her but I do consider it part of my duty as a father to educate my sons by discussion. One of my sons works in a conservative firm and so has no difficulty discussing matters but the other has a lot of left leaning friends and is careful not to voice ideas too far from the leftist consensus with his friends but has reasonably balanced views in discussion with me.
As for friends it depends on the level of their commitment to their ideology. I didn’t bother to dispute a long-standing friend so gripped by TDS as to regret the shooter didn’t kill Trump.
Unlike committed leftists I am happy to maintain friendships with those whose political opinions I think absurd as long as they don’t try to proselytise or obsess over their ideology. I will happily avoid discussion that might prove contentious as for the most part people’s views on politics need have little practical impact on how they conduct their lives generally and engage with others. Most people’s views are pretty unexamined and derivative so there is little point in falling out over them.
Well said, sir.
Seconded.
Rather than discuss ideas, it helps to ask what experience people have.
Well put. I maintain friendships with people who espouse the fluffy kindness which results in DEI, acti racism and other wokery as long as they don’t indulge in self righteous punitive judging.
Surprisingly, some of my friends have red pilled themselves. They are open minded in the face of evidence. Everyone can change their world views, even me (sometimes).
Most people don’t don’t think for themselves.
I am sorry, but people who would drop you because of your views are not really friends.
You basically defer to their disgusting views because you just want to be part of the crowd.
I do the same now, with so few “friends” left but not really happy about it.
I know what you mean.
Yes, absolutely. However, if I find I’m having to do it too often with certain people, I sort of slowly withdraw and let the contact go without argument or acrimony. If you’re having to bite your tongue that much, it’s a sign that we just aren’t on the same wavelength anymore and that my friendship energies are better invested elsewhere.
I had the same experience. I tolerated it because we were sharing ideas, thoughts, you know, a discussion. But it got worse, Eventually I refused to talk anymore and now ignore this person.
I find it easier with (my) advancing old age just to say what I think. If they think I am too blunt then they can excuse me for being ‘old’. If they de-friend me, then no loss. It’s more efficient to let others make the choice. Me? I care less as I see the cycle of offence and reconciliation whirling away faster and faster.
Yes, it is very sad. Never been in this position in the whole of my life.
Yes and on both ends of the political spectrum. Nowadays even people you agree with tend to be on the extreme. It’s lonely in the middle.
Indeed it is.
Yes, same here.
I lost so many friends over Brexit and covid that I don’t have many left.
Question is though:
Are they really friends if you can not openly discuss issues without them calling you fascist, gammon ot whatever?
Especially with all of them never reading anything apart from Guardian or listening to BBC?
Never. If I have to self censor, I don’t consider them to be friends. I’d rather lose the relationship than my right to express an opinion.
Yes, my uni. educated daughter told me I sounded like her plumber. Not thinking that was an actual compliment. Half baked education is far more dangerous than none at all.
Apparently, Courtesy, Decency, Respect, and Humility were not on the curriculum there ….. 😉
Nor discipline.
Gist I would rather not explore…only to say she’s an angel to her friends, who probably have the same world view. A rather grim laugh, though, when she discovered her son had voted Reform. Me? Huge grin.
“Common sense” is misnamed, and in fact is not that common, nor is “Common decency” as common as one would wish.
Many of these well educated people are ‘clever but stupid’.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615000057
Who are the “Clever Sillies”? The intelligence, personality, and motives of clever silly originators and those who follow them
IntelligenceVolume 49, March–April 2015, Pages 57-65
One of the main ideas is that they use their excellent intelligence to rationalize away from the unpleasant realities.
‘……this cultural phenomenon’. A euphemism for barbarity. This sort of language allows the truth to be concealed and allow conversations cloaked with a false respectability. Not all cultures are equal and it’s way way overdue that they’re named for what they are, sickening, murderous tribal barbarities that have no place in civil society. Deport perpetrators to their place of origin.
“Honour killing” should only be used in inverted commas if at all. There is no honour involved in these murders and calling them honour killings belittles the victims and plays down the crime”
Exactly.
The correct reply is: “I do not tolerate having my language policed, and will continue to refer to such murders as ‘honour killings’. As I was saying before you talked over me …”
At which point a lifelong friendship is over.
Or even add, ‘Islamic honour Killings’ if indeed it’s only adherents of Islam who
commit such crimes.
One must understand the ideology that segment of society is marinated in – neo-Marxism.
One of the major thinkers in that ideology was Saul Alinsky, who was also one of Obama’s and Hillary’s mentors. One of the most quoted teachings from him – possibly from Rules for Radicals – was: The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.
That’s what your friend caught blowing in the wind in the segment. She is adept at social adaptation and groupthink in the service of power. She herself probably experiences it as decency, morality, etc.
In the long term, she undermines her own (and everyone’s) living conditions, but she is too group-thinking to realize that, and it benefits her even in the short term to speak in the way the Power needs.
In Denmark, some of us call those people – The new service aristocracy – but I don’t know if it translates well.
It is not-nobles who are granted a certain limited status in a noble direction, to use their professional knowledge to look after the interests of Power, for which they then get the crumbs from the table of the rich.
Good post.
I remember a number of these episodes which were apparently going to shame the public out of their “unacceptable” opinions.
That poor little boy whose body was washed up on the beach in Turkey after the migrant dinghy he was being smuggled in capsized. The murder of Jo Cox MP during the referendum. The death of George Floyd in police custody.
These events, we were told, were so shocking that they would change public opinion (our current Home Secretary was so emboldened by the first that she was photographed with a “refugees welcome” sign, our PM released a snap of him taking the knee after the third!).
None of these incidents had the slightest effect on the public’s view on immigration, the EU or policing. Most people can hold two thoughts in their heads simultaneously – rioting in opposition to mass immigration is bad and mass immigration is bad. As you say, this won’t be any different.
Until the migrant picks their food or cares for them in A&E or in their Care Home.
I think this article proves what I have thought for a while. Just because Stock recognizes the problems transgenderism poses for feminists doesn’t mean she is that smart. She is still a devoted leftist. She is way off.
Even her diagnosis of the trans problem is totally wrong. She refuses to admit that feminism per se has been part of the problem, generating the bogus and slippery idea of gender as untethered by biological sex – and for 100 years pushing an anti-family, hyperindividualist, anti-nature and anti-natural law understanding of human beings as unsexed, potentially untethered by nature (and God) and unconstrained by family — and pushing a Leviathan state to make it happen. Like other feminists, she wants the most extreme Faustian promise of the Enlightenment….cocaine liberalism, wild individualism….transforming everything, every institution, every value….but wants it to stop in mid-air, at precisely the point that lesbian philosophers paid by the state can create their niche in the ivory tower, without any sense that the landslide they have started might carry them with it. Trans-everything. The personal is political. The state will enforce equality of outcomes whether you like it or not. Down with nature…. Rousseau + Jacobins + revolutionary feminism — always ends in tears and blood. Always terrible for women
Precisely. Never has there been a more obvious example of creating the seeds of their own demise.
Rubbish.
Nuanced as ever
Thanks.
Oh, but it was malicious. Many a true word is spoken in jest.
The cat comment was a reaction, and identified a real toxic feminization of large areas of the culture, the denigration of motherhood, the attack on families, the undermining of marriage – all of which has led to the collapse in birth rates. In short, he was on the money. It wasn’t malicious. It was a sociological truth. And for Stock, the truth hurts. And clearly for you too
Rubbish.
Never said he didn’t mean it. I agree that it was harsh but if you heard the entire clip instead of a snippet you would understand the context better.
T-Bone, Professor Stock has kids so I doubt she is personally offended by Vance’s remark that childless people have less investment in the future – though she may feel this is hurtful to some of her friends.
I don’t have a view on Vance’s argument – the counterargument that the childless have more time to think about and work towards the future is also valid. So is the point that traditionally everyone had kids but also that fathers (and mothers who availed themselves of the British public school system) tended to spend very little time with offspring, certainly compared to hothouse parents today.
Stock is making the point that name-calling language such as “childless cat ladies” is offputting, albeit made on a podcast interview before Vance became a VP candidate, rather than just “the childless”. So is “wierd”. Sadly, the latter, more adult language gets fewer fans, clicks or even votes.
We should all try harder to listen to reasoned debate (as Prof. Stock’s columns usually are, except when she is enlisted to write a hit-piece) and avoid gravitating to popular voices who use dumbed-down discourse.
The pope has said women who have pets instead of children are selfish.
I completely agree with your point about civil discourse. That said, Vance made the comment three years ago and was referring to very specific people pushing an agenda. The theory is that you have an ideology promoting childlessness as a form of feminist liberation while most mental health statistics are saying it’s not making women happier as a whole. I think women can do what they want but the Ideology is negating empirical reality.
Walz’ comment just comes off as a projective deflection to me and and Democrats are using contrived emotion in reflexive push to “Make Fetch Happen.” That appears to be their whole 100 Day Campaign Strategy. Manifesting reality through social constructivism. Its very Hegelian and Postmodern.
Vance’s comment about childless car ladies was in reply to AOC’s notion that it’s selfish and irresponsible to birth children in a world whose existence is immediately threatened, by warmer weather.
He wasn’t necessarily referring to women who dislike children, or find them inconvenient. But I suspect in many cases that the rationalization of the former is, in reality, an excuse for the latter.
In other words, “I’m not having kids because climate change” sounds far better than “kids would interfere with my hedonistic lifestyle.”
I can’t agree on your reading of Kathleen Stock’s article. Her point on weirdness is not against conservatives. I take it rather as a “get serious guys” wake up call..! As for the remarks made that people without a family are not equally suited for politics, that’s a baseless idea. JD Vance is a likeable person but you don’t need to support his every single saying..! His remark on “progressive women with cats” is deferent. Not polite maybe but more accurate..! But this is no way a proof for who should be governing.
Furthermore, conservatives are very problematic..! It’s only that the progressives are in such a deep chaos and disorientation that their situation gives conservatives a chance. I wish that they take this chance and make things better. Will they..? I’m still not convinced. If you care for the unaffiliated, I one of them, it takes more than not been as bad as the progressive are, to win the race and most importantly lead seriously and wisely..! I do wish that Trump wins. I am not sure I will not regret it though..!
As for Kathleen Stock’s anger, this is only speculation..! Don’t read her mind please..!
I’m normally a fan of Stock’s writing, but found this piece unusually weak.
“Rather, insofar as the man thinks about sexually explicit books in school libraries at all, he presumably frames them as equipping young minds with tools to reduce shame and help them deal with a complicated modern world” pretty much sums up her ignorance on the topic. Anyone even mildly informed on this subject knows that Progressives in the US have been pushing (what amounts to) gay porn on pre-pubescent children, and thinks it’s not just “weird” but wrong and downright suspect.
When Vance dismissed the Progressive “childless cat ladies” in positions of power and influence, I think he probably was coming from a place of dislike, and why not? Most of them intensely dislike White “cisgender heteronormative” males and have for many years not been shy about announcing their loathing, so why shouldn’t he return the feeling?
As for dismissing the alt-Right’s army of memers’ attempts at short-circuiting the “Republicans are weird” trope, anyone who has seen the meme of your standard Progressive (pink hair, piercings, tattoos) saying “Republicans are weird!” is forever immune to the idea… with the exception of Christian Evangelicals; yes, they’re pretty weird. But then so are Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims, and they tend Democratic.
“The X account Libs of Tiktok, for instance, has pronounced of Walz’s time as Governor of Minnesota: “This is the guy who signed laws requiring tampons in boys bathrooms, allows kids to get their body parts chopped off, and wants p**n in schools.”
The author seems to suggest that issues such as the foregoing require “too much backstory” for their significance to really register with moderate voters. Is that true? I’m not trying to find fault with the author, I’m asking if it’s really true that the average American, particularly parents of school age children, knows almost nothing about current educational policies promoting transgenderism in schools?
If that’s true then it’s a terrible indictment of average Americans, but I find it hard to believe parents are really so detached from what’s happening in schools these days. On the other hand, at one time I thought there would be a national revolt against what’s going on in our schools, but it hasn’t happened so far.
I think she took what JD said really personally. There’s lots of animosity in the writing. I think personal insults blind or at least limit someone’s ability to analyze all variables. Progressives pride themselves on being “Holistic” but actually shut their minds to inconvenient facts. You can’t properly evaluate if you’ve automatically negated a possibility.
Basically, even once Progressives realize they’re wrong about a person or a policy, they’re too committed to the cause to completely shift course. It’s the Sunk Cost Dilemma.
I don’t think KS is progressive. Neither are the staff at the Free Press, who seem equally offended by the cat lady wisecrack. I think it struck a nerve with traditional liberal women.
Are you sure about the Free Press? That is the Bari Weiss site, I believe, and she is not of the right. Weiss and people like her may be looking at the left with some skepticism and even sadness, but it remains their tribe. They, like people such as Bill Maher, point to the most egregious excesses but otherwise fall in line.
if the shoe fits wear it
Exactly. Or just all women.
“I’m asking if it’s really true that the average American, particularly parents of school age children, knows almost nothing about current educational policies promoting transgenderism in schools?
If that’s true then it’s a terrible indictment of average Americans, but I find it hard to believe parents are really so detached from what’s happening in schools these days.”
And no matter how much I read about these things I’m no closer to the truth. Are they or aren’t they? What are the actual facts about school content? How many schools have these policies? Is it really so bad that there might be a national revolt. Maybe there hasn’t been a national revolt because the those progressive policies are not so endemic as we’re told.
The world is the sum of cheap politics and media hysteria.
Parenting is not conducive to sitting around reading the news.
Go talk to educators. They are in your community.
Some parents are just feral.
Prof. Stock, do you own a cat ?
No two tier policing?
When the police allowed buses in Harehills to be burned?
And let’s not forget the police kneeling in front of BLM protestors, and elbow bumping protestors :-
‘‘I came into the job to help people and it was a nice gesture. A few of us decided to do it.’’
And let’s not forget that these counter-protests are so terribly , terribly peaceful, that the Director of Public Prosecutions is threatening people with 7 years in jail for sharing video of them.
Why should anybody get 7 years in jail for retweeting a video of a peaceful protest?
Of course there is. They have been trained in DEI, aka progressive discrimination.
I think this 2-tier label is a fine attack line.
It has been difficult until now to find a way to express the situation where policy favours the urban professional elite and people with “protected characteristics” at the expense of the white, working and middle class, suburban and provincial majority.
But this label encapsulates that and the association with Two-tier Keir is just perfect. And it can be used to cover all forms of wokery, net zero nuttery, mass immigration, lax criminal sentences, etc. Expect to hear it used ad inifinitum.
I didn’t mention it! You can’t stop catch phrases happening. But it is a fact police do act on their political preferences – just stop oil being one case example. Remember the young Met officers grew up in Khan’s London, painting police cars rainbow colours, dancing at carnivals, etc. it is plain to see they caught a good dose of woke. And what do you make of the latest catch word: progrom? Expect to hear that ad infinitum.
Sorry Vici, I responded to the wrong person. Apologies.
Just Stop Oil protesters just gone to jail.
Except Starmer wasn’t in power til 5wks ago.
It’s the point Author makes – vast majority will just think you talking twaddle.
And as we’ve seen some Muslims and a Lab councillor gonna go down too, rightly.
Two Tier policing is paranoid delusion. All actual evidence shows people of working class backgrounds and especially those who are non-white and on the Left do worse by the police and legal system.
The two-tier policing is far from a paranoid delusion, especially when it comes to recent, high-profile public events. A thoroughly researched statistical longitudinal study might bear out your claim – and I would be glad to read it when you’ve finished with it – but Harehills, Manchester, Birmingham, Rochdale, the Pro-Palestinian jihadists, the grooming gangs cover-up, etc, is where the term originates, and they are clear examples of two-tier policing.
27 police officers were injured in BLM riots.
And many people arrested. I appreciate that narrative goes against your point, but it is a fact nonetheless…
‘all actual evidence’ = things I made ups
That could have something to do with actual crime statistics.
I’m getting really bored of Unherd now. This gaslighting seems deliberate and coordinated. This is the gender activist who voted for the Children-Transitioner-General – a philosopher and master of letters who doesn’t seem to know the meaning of ad hominem
You just can’t handle the truth.
As snowflake as the worst extreme woke activist. Bedfellow’s
Watt truth is that?
Trusting our own eyes makes us weird. Who knew!?
Twaddle and weird with it.
The protest you refer didn’t degenerate into lobbing bricks at Police or trying to burn down a Hotel full of people.
I know twaddle when I see it and it usually has your name on it on this site.
I get the argument but I would also like to add that those on the left who seem really taken aback that these riots happened seem just as “weird” to me, like they’ve been living not just in a different country, but on a whole other planet to the many, many disaffected whose anger is bubbling up now (if only through the medium of a keyboard rather than an airborne brick).
There have been many years of discontent building and a number of clear signs that the temperature was rising (the biggest of which was of course Brexit): to be in any way shocked that things would boil over at some point requires almost industrial levels of denial. Yes, I find that very strange. A bit scary in fact.
It isn’t a time to be laughing but since I’m a weirdo too and actively work on my skills of being totes inappropes then I will also say that it’s funny to observe each side sitting in their own echo chamber, shouting out to people who think exactly like them, with both thoroughly believing they are “the silent majority”.
The internet has actually mashed our brains.
Happy Friday everyone.
Best – A Keyboard Warrior
Exactly. Much like those who didn’t know one single person who was going to vote for Brexit, and absolutely knew that the country would vote Remain, and couldn’t even imagine how anybody could not want to be in the EU.
As you say: as if on a different planet from their fellow-citizens. Probably Planet Empathy, the one where nobody can even conceive that someone else might, you know, actually have something different going on in their mind.
‘Bundling the Southport crime, committed by a British-born citizen for as yet unknown motives….’
Why are the motives not known yet?
The judge ordered him to be held in youth detention accomodation.
He is not being held in secure psychiatric accommodation, so we can rule out mental health problems.
His birthday was 2 days ago.
He is now 18 years old, so why can’t the authorities tell us the motives of this adult?
“why can’t the authorities tell us the motives of this adult?”
Maybe they don’t know yet. Maybe he is refusing to speak. He’s in the legal process now and that’s how it works in Britain.
You mean like in America where they withheld permanently (until it was leaked) the manifesto of the trans-shooter who killed all those kids in Tennessee. #yafos
The authorities may not know the motive and the perpetrator may not know either.
Deleted
Interesting article.
The crux of this for me is the maelstrom of words and voices swirling round in our new communication age. The lowest common denominator tends to dominate resulting in off-the-cuff, virtually meaningless insults such as “wierd”, “thugs”, “fascists” etc.
How we are ever going to sort it all out and improve things I don’t know, but we have done it before, particularly here in Britain, despite what the new authoritarians think. I hope we can do it again.
All of this bears out my instinct that DeSantis was the right direction for the GOP. They gambled on Trump, thinking Biden would stay and now have been outflanked and will lose again. Even with clean voting this time.
Art thou a Prophet?
I pray not!
This is two-tier commentary. Softly, softly on the catastrophic failings of the pro-immigration side:
“Nonetheless, it remains reasonable for people on both Left and Right to complain about the way mass immigration is habitually managed in this country, and to insist that not all protestors are violent rioters. They are correct to point out that the Establishment too often designates such complaints as “far-Right”, and that some institutions, including judicial ones, are making what look like unacceptably unfair decisions based on ethnic factors.”
And full on riot gear when it comes to the rioters:
“Attempting to cast opportunistic recreational violence by bored dickheads as some kind of noble quest on behalf of the working classes only seems plausible if you are already desperate for it to be true”.
The views and behaviour of GCs were once weird too. It took Nicola Sturgeon to cut through to the public what it was all about.
Metropolitan talking heads discussing the finer points of whether the actions or motivations of the detested gammons and Brexit voters have any moral justification is one thing, but the people whose lives have been most directly affected are not listening to these discussions. The disgruntled have adopted standpoint epistemology & identity politics.
There is a full-on David Amess-style operation to shut down debate, blame everything on social media, and bury this issue again. Recognising that the simple sub judice playbook might not work this time, the apparatus of the security state is now being employed and ratcheted up.
I hate to go all Niemöller on you, but the GCs could be next in the crosshairs. I wouldn’t hold out too much hope that only the more polemical right-wing ones will be swept up if that happens.
What’s a GC?
Indeed. Until he clarifies, it renders his comment meaningless. It’s certainly not an abbreviation used commonly. (Others take note, especially when using abbreviations on a transatlantic forum!)
Gender Critical.
Gender Critical, perhaps?
Kathleen Stock is a great writer. However, weird is in the eye of the beholder. Me I find progressives weird with their magical belief that men can become women at will, cross dressers are just the right people to read to children and that high taxation stimulates useful enterprise. Weird that authoritarians think they are liberal.
Most of us think views that differ from ours are weird if we don’t think they are downright dangerous or destructive. Weird is really a pretty mild assessment of difference.
With power cuts in London and the South East expected within four years, because we don’t have sufficient reliable electricity generating capacity, at least one ‘weird reality’ of the Green Agenda has been shattered.
May they continue.
The news cycle got lost a bit in the aftermath of the assassination attempt and Biden dropping out (wow. less than a month ago – scrolled by and washed out of the feeds)
And I’m too dumb to get the ‘brat’ summer or why ‘weird’ would work as an insult, particularly when the people using it are pretty weird themselves (pronoun is correct). That and the highlighting of the “childless cat ladies” all seem targeted at Tiktok users and ‘crazy’ video likes.
The military stuff also seems a bit bleugh, for memorabilia collectors only. And then we get the UK right seemingly intent on reviving Qanon with all the subtlety and nuance of a dog reveling in rolling in fresh manure.
Meanwhile, Kamala continues to run as a glass-princess – too fragile to be taken out to meet the press. And the 2020 strategy of hiding and saying nothing continues to garner more votes because of the internet tendency to scroll-and-forget. It’s August, so silly-season, but weird…
Let’s start by acknowledging the obvious: there is an issue in Britain with uncontrolled immigration and a lot of people aren’t happy about it. After that the Prof is entirely correct, those of us who pontificate on sites like this are quite deep into an echo chamber.
In the George Floyd aftermath British premier league footballers took the knee before every game. At first in empty stadiums due to Covid. When crowds were allowed again about 25% boo’ed the gesture (it varied from city to city). Over a few games the rest of the crowd cheered the gesture and eventually the booing died out.
There was no rioting on Wednesday night because the streets were flooded with (many more) anti racist protesters.
The majority do not spend their time on sites like this and are simply not as exercised by all this stuff as ‘we’ are. If I try to propound the kind of views I do on here, most of my social circle do look at me as if I’m weird. One of my friends was ribbing me on Saturday night about where the next riots were going to be as I’m on “all those right wing websites.”
A good rule of thumb is to ask somebody whether they’ve ever heard of Kathleen Stock. I haven’t come across anybody yet, in casual conversation, who has. If I try to explain what a clear thinker she is and how she was hounded out of her university you can see them glaze over; too much backstory.
It is worth reflecting occasionally whether we are red-pilled knowers of the truth, accurately prophesying the forthcoming apocalypse …or part of the problem.
Re part of the problem.
I’ve sort of said something similar below (where it belongs probably). Surely the critical thinking and courtesy (most of the time) written here and on a few other forums have value in that they counteract the worst excesses elsewhere, they work towards the good. I hope so anyway.
Yes, Unherd comments are generally of much better quality than, say, Telegraph and even Spectator.
I don’t mind some of the rudeness on the Spectator, it can be very witty and amusing.
I don’t think that is right. No anti-immigration protesters turned up. It is unlikely that that was because of the presence of counter protesters otherwise we would have heard stories about anti-immigration protesters arriving on the scene and then retreating in the face of the opposition. My hunch is that the “100 protests” was always just online rumours.
Exactly this.
There is not uncontrolled immigration. 14 years of a Conservative government and immigration levels relate entirely to government decisions and policy. The boat numbers are tiny in comparison to ‘controlled immigration’.
This is true, but are they actually vetting people coming over legally, or if it just an open door?
Legal Immigration since Brexit does have a lot to do with Brits not willing to do certain jobs, or more recently, not wanting to work much at all.
The young seem oblivious to thar notion that of they don’t want to work hard when they’re young, they’re going to have a long, tough old age.
Ya. Self correcting for echo chambers is a big challenge. Hard to overcome. Real Clear Politics covers both the right and left on every issue. It’s essentially a link service to a wide range of different news organizations.
Real Clear Politics & Real Clear World are my go to sites for obtaining some semblance of rational opinion on both sides on many issues. It’s not perfect but it’s a great starting point.
Not strictly true, at least according to some reports. In Croydon, the anti-anti-immigration protestors got a bit miffed about the lack of anti-immigration protestors to oppose, and simply had a riot of their own!
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/gallery/croydon-riots-see-counter-protesting-29697821
One of my friends was ribbing me on Saturday night about where the next riots were going to be as I’m on “all those right wing websites.”
Your friend will be among many asking “how did this happen?” while they blithely ignored what was happening right under their noses.
Talk to the people around you about what you think and listen to what they think. Then you will be part of the solution.
Where have all your upticks gone ?
As the Good Book says, Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners.
The Good Book is many things, but its ability to reassure those that have seen how fallen we are, that it’s always been that way, is undervalued, so it is sufficient to strive, as has always been done, with Hope.
Perhaps ‘the Right’ should start picking apart what ‘Progressive’ means? ‘The Left’ are such a broad church politically that all sorts of weird and creepy ideas huddle together. Women can have penises – progressive. Support terrorist groups – progressive. March through the institutions – progressive. Tax the wealthy until they all leave – progressive. Defund the Police – progressive. Take the knee – progressive. Hate the jews – progressive. Think there is no problem with a senile President – progressive. Ban free speech – progressive. Global government through international bureaucracies – progressive. Open borders – progressive.
I really don’t like the sound of such a world.
I think one should differentiate the extreme right and left from moderate right and left because there is a big difference.
I recommend Kathleen Stock reads JD Vance’s book Hillbilly Elegy. It might help her understand the people on the other side of the fence a bit better. It’s an important book.
“Important” to whom?
Important to those making comment, especially Americans. What a dumb observation.
This article is disappointingly vacuous.
The question of why these riots started is a legitimate one. Goodwin may well be wrong, but what reasons does Stock offer, and perhaps more significantly, what answers does she have to that important question?
Stock writes:
“Attempting to cast opportunistic recreational violence by bored dickheads as some kind of noble quest on behalf of the working classes only seems plausible if you are already desperate for it to be true.”
The entire article seems to rest on this disappointing assertion. The riots started because the rioters are “dickheads”.
This is snobbish, dismissive and alarmingly shallow, particularly for an academic. Is this the reason for all riots? Do we never need to examine the reasons for social unrest? Are all the people who attended the demonstrations / riots “dickheads” or just those who were violent?
Sadly this article is simply an ad hominem attack on right wing commentators relying on barely relevant assertions. This is the unfortunate currency of modern discourse and is perhaps why Stock seems to admire the frankly childish use of the phrase “wierd”. For some unfathomable reason, Democrats seem to think that this has struck gold even though it applies far more aptly to many of their frankly “wierd” policies such as believing that abortion should be permitted “at any point” during pregnancy which is, as I understand it, Walz’s position (perhaps even the Marquis De Sade would be proud of that one).
But, childishness aside, the question of what started these riots needs an answer. I don’t profess to have the slightest idea what that answer is. The catalyst might be the greatest fall in living standards since records began. It might be the imposition of social theories that require people to be ashamed of their past and tell them they have “white privilege” even though they can’t pay their electricity bills. There may be any number of explanations. It may simply be that social media roused people into an unjustified fury. But if we don’t engage seriously with this subject and those raising it, rather than arrogantly dismissing all those involved, no matter their culpability, as “dickheads”, then you can be sure these won’t be the last riots that we see.
I’m tired of the “abortion at any time” right up to birth. An abortion after 23 weeks is very rare. During the second trimester It usually because the fetus is incompatible with life or the fetus is dead. Two doctors have to sign off on the abortion. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare and only two or three hospitals can perform them. The reason is incompatible with life. How dare you judge parents who wanted their child. By the way, abortion up to birth is nonsense. No doctor would such a thing—and it’s against the law.
If you’re against abortion don’t have one, otherwise, mind your own business.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be describing the situation in the UK, whereas SJK is discussing the position in the USA, which is not the same.
‘bored dickheads’ ‘deplorables’ ‘White van man’ ‘trailer trash’ – she’s an awful woman, part of the liberal elite who impose this crap on everyone….She’s only ‘brave’ in relation to one single issue. Kathleen – you lost me when you voted labour
That rant was weird!
Not as weird as your comment.
If you think my comment was weird you don’t know weird.
Excellent, as always from Kathleen Stock. 95% of Britain just wants to get on with life and make it this best they can, with only a few weirdos, though loud mouthed weirdos, on the ethno-nationalist Right and the gender ideology Left, trying to impose their weird ideologies on us.
What is that group on the right trying to impose on you?
Most excellent and insightful piece of honest unbiased and open minded journalism
Stock is probably right about some commentators on the right fighting their own shadows in response to the riots, but I would have preferred more examples. Matt Goodwin is not a good example of what she is discussing (as she concedes), and Laurence Fox is a known ‘weirdo’. A pretty poor evidence base.
But Goodwin flatly denounced the violence.
“The Democrats seem to have settled on a new and sophisticated campaign strategy: calling the Republicans ‘weird.'”
This from the party that is OK with men dressed as women reading to schoolchildren and gender transition of kids at school without their parents’ knowledge.
What does JD Vance’s cat lady comment – a description people have used for years – have to do with the rage felt by ordinary Britons whose country is being destroyed by unassimilated immigrants?
Talk about weird.
Nothing
What’s weird is that civic nationalism seems to inevitably create a multiplicity of cultural and ethnic communities with very strong in group preferences
The marchers for a Gaza ceasefire might have been arrested if they had set fire to a police car, never mind to an hotel. They have never done anything remotely of the sort. The recent rioters have been given far lighter sentences than were handed down to the Just Stop Oil nuisances, who should certainly have been given something but who had not attempted to kill anyone, and to those who pilfered single items of ice cream or of bottled water in 2011. The problem is not two-tier policing, but two-tier sentencing.
Still, we may now begin to enjoy the absurdity of these people. According to the BBC, in court Derek Drummond “sat there fidgeting, trying to compose himself”. Still a cokehead at 58. Only on a Far Right riot or in Parliament. On Wednesday evening in Burnley, a grand total of two people turned up, and they went home because it was raining. Expect a lot more of these stories to come out. Such fun.
Watch out for stolen valour, such as medals that their wearers were the wrong ages to have won, or the insignia of two or more units in which the same man could not have served. There is always that sort of thing with this lot. Mind you, both realistic candidates for Vice President of the United States are in the same position. J.D. Vance was deployed to Iraq as a “combat correspondent”, which might very politely have been called a journalist, but which was really just a public relations man for the Marine Corps. In his career-making book, he gloated about having “evaded combat”. Meanwhile, Tim Walz seems to have been demoted for his failure to complete coursework, and therefore to have retired with a lower rank than he claims. He undoubtedly retired from the Army National Guard after 24 years, and while still aged only 41, just as his unit was about to be sent to Iraq.
So American centrists are much like British centrists, and in the same way in which American Far Rightists are much like British Far Rightists. More left-wingers than you may imagine have a military record. Some, though no means all, play it down. But no one on the Left ever fakes it. That is just not something that we do. In the other two tribes, however, it is endemic. At least for those of us with no valour to steal, the best thing to do is to laugh.
That is also the best thing to do at the fact that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has either used his EU passport to breeze through the airport in Cyprus, or he has been too thick to do so and he has had to queue as a Briton when he could have been wafted in as an Irishman. It must be one or the other, and either is amusing. As is the fact that he is abroad at all in this of all weeks.
Successive Home Secretaries have merely opined that Shamima Begum would be eligible for another nationality, although the nation in question is adamant that she is not. She would be a Bangladeshi, and Keir Starmer wants to send those back in general. But in civic terms, she is not one, whereas Yaxley-Lennon is an Irish citizen. The Home Secretary ought not to have the power to revoke British citizenship. But she does, and it is clear from the Begum case that she has no plan to give it up. Over, then, to Yvette Cooper. Since the United Kingdom wrongly has two-tier citizenship, those from whom it can be revoked and those of us from whom it cannot, then “Tommy Robinson” should be left in no doubt which tier was his.
How did the sentencing for the grooming gangs go?
I adhere to a “materialist” conception of history. Economic “bread and butter” issues are what really drive social behaviour. Culture, in the sense of “culture wars”, is essentially froth: it boils up when the underlying situation is bad, dies away when things improve. Indeed culture wars may motivate all sorts of behaviour some of which can have very substantial effects. But to end culture wars you need to end what is causing them (if you can). In the UK now the major real issues include an aging population requiring very substantial immigration, stagnating productivity, and a crazy energy policy, and costs from the Ukraine war.
So while I agree with the author that the “far right” is weird and hope that people may come increasingly to realise that, I believe only real solutions to difficult problems can calm things in the end.
If “normal” is defined by what accords with the views of the center-left elite, then opposition to it is by definition “weird”. In many contexts any not-explicitly-Marxist opposition to the elite is declared to be “far-right”. Thus, whatever the lickspittles in the media decry as “far-right” is seen by a simple syllogism to be “weird” in the eyes of those for whom the center-left are “normal”
However, I think we could do with a bit more weirdness throughout the West in general and the Anglosphere in particular.
Yes, well White people should still stop apologising.
“Rather, insofar as the man thinks about sexually explicit books in school libraries at all, he presumably frames them as equipping young minds with tools to reduce shame and help them deal with a complicated modern world.”
Projection, Dr Stock? Presuming what in his head is fair, I guess. If so, what do you presume was in Walz’s head when he signed into law a bill that makes Minnesota a ‘trans sanctuary’ state where children seeking trans treatments (including surgery) can go to flee their parents and receive legal protection from the state to act against the will of their parents? Is that just another instance of him looking to ‘equip young minds with tools’? Only this time, being the good Progressive he is, the tools allow the state (of Minnesota) to thwart the will of parents. Think about that for a moment – he supports the state government of Minnesota taking legal custody of a child in order for that child to permanently alter their body in the name of ‘trans rights’ against the will of their parents.
I suppose I’m just weird to have concerns about his philosophical and political beliefs.
Perhaps you are because you certainly distorted those facts.
What I find really bizarre from this otherwise brilliant author is that she is applauding name-calling as an effective strategy. Better to be silent than to be thought ‘weird’? Better to let it slide that late trimester abortion, or pornography in schools, or trans operations on children are a national horror? “No one will understand your concern so why even raise it?” Climate alarmism is good and virtuous but leftist indoctrination alarmism is weird?
I’m reminded (perhaps over-dramatically) in Elie Wiesel’s book “Night”, of the Polish Jews during the Nazi era who were being “rehoused” to concentration camps, and were completely dumbfounded when their cattle car arrived at the destination only to be herded into ditches and shot in the back. They had ignored all the signs of their obvious persecution because they thought the alarmists were ‘weird’ exaggerators.
The Left have made their plans known, and it’s the destruction of western civilization – by encouraging Islamization with LGBT celebration to foster polarization leading to civil war. Klaus Schwab’s “The Great Reset” is out as a book. It’s in black-and-white. There is no secret to the desire for a reset – introducing an elite overclass and everyone else are serfs.
I’m going to keep raising the alarm and be thought weird, because if the WEF acolytes get their way, my sort will be in the re-education camps, like the North Koreans and Chinese Ughurs are today. I am proudly normal.
What presumably came across to Fox News fans at the time as edgy pugilism now appears to the wider world as an unnecessarily mean and aggressive attempt to sow division.
Really? After more than a decade of bitter clingers, deplorable, fascists, Hitler, and all the rest, a reference to cat ladies is over the top? Come on, professor. You are better than that. And for a guy who advocated for tampons on boys’ bathrooms to call anyone else ‘weird’ is its own form of projection.
This is why I hang out with normal people. You know, people who can say what they mean in a form that is comprehensible to other humans.
When the normal say a woman can have a willy, I am happy to be called weird.
“In fact, it must be highly galling for those who have built careers policing language, condemning “othering”, and deconstructing the concept of normality in the name of progress, to see their party of choice revalidating mainstream instincts and the scapegoating of social outliers.” Not at all. It’s perfectly acceptable to condemn conservatives for this behavior, but if “progressives” do it, it’s ok.
Walz “knows that graphic depictions of vibrators, blowjobs, and strap-on dildos belong in every classroom.” if so called neutral observers don’t know that this is not only weird, but simply wrong, then society is truly doomed.
The author is correct of course, many of us on the right *are* weird, really weird in fact. I’m not taking about the types of public figures on the right mentioned in the article, but the iceberg-below-the-waterline subculture, comprised of a lot of slightly strange people like me, leading everyday lives on the surface, earning a normal living, in the background often obsessively preoccupied with the bees in their bonnets, be they about bees, or bonnets, or basilisks made out of (digital) bits, or anything. This subculture is comprised of an eclectic assortment of oddballs spanning all the demographics; these are people who are into all sorts of wacko beliefs and theories (and I should know, being the proud owner of not a few of those myself), but the one thing linking everyone is a sporadic, nagging feeling that something somewhere is slightly off. I don’t mean big things like geopolitical tensions or global debt or anything like that, I mean an intermittent sensation of inadvertently participating in some version of ‘The Truman Show’.
For example, the previous couple of days have been characterised by a playout that affects me pretty much not at all, yet I could not help noticing all sorts of bits and pieces that jarred, like finding bananas growing on a coconut tree in the middle of Kew Gardens, and I don’t know what to do with that. Let me try and explain. On Wednesday we had all the stories of up 30, no, 100, gatherings with a potential for violent far-right thuggery. I in fact drove past the police presence amassing in some bits of north London in the late afternoon. In the event, no far-right thugs turned up, but from what I can make out, lots of black and brown people with lots of palastine flags did, screaming love and peace and solidarity with parachutists. So far, so blah. But what was curious was the reporting of what had happened the next day. Monolithic does not begin to describe it. Not many people flick through multiple papers and websites for their news, but I do, and I have to admit experiencing a sense of both deja vu and vertigo. Everyone reported, in near identical terms, thousands taking to the streets to counter the far-right. This included all of the so-called right-wing press – Telegraph, Mail, Express etc. Often enough the words and phrases used were near identical, like one of them colour-by-numbers children’s books. Had they all been nobbled? Did the nudge units get to them? Was Lord Rothermere made an offer he couldn’t refuse? What am I to make of all that? Just ignore it all and get on with my coding?
Not being red, or a queen, I stopped moving a couple of decades ago. As a consequence, I have found myself drifting ever rightwards by the mere act of standing still. I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan by now. So, very far to the right of the far-right. I am wondering when the urge to invade Poland kicks in. I now completely avoid discussing anything political with any work colleagues, because, well, I’m freelancing in IT, and I don’t want to get lynched. For the same reason I don’t now ever wear my t-shirt with the big print of the Union Jack (£4.99 from BHS in 1998) when I go into London.
Well said sir, the institutionalised reporting was rather unsettling
“These strategies might play well to the like-minded, but in terms of convincing neutral onlookers…. they look monumentally self-defeating. Far too much backstory is required to explain the provenance of the supposed gotchas to the casual observer” This is well said. And it is a huge problem for any would-be counter-insurgency against the domininant groupthink….the dominant ‘progressive’ groupthink.
Another very good article from Kathleen Stock.One thought on a bit of it,J D Vance’s “cat lady” gibe is a bit nasty but people are a bit off with politicians that don’t have children or a partner,or both,male and female.It dogged Gordon Brown and I’m sure it played a part in the top brass in the party swinging behind Tony Blair.Ted Heath the same,with the Tories desperate to marry him off and Tony Benn’s diaries of that period note lots of politicians being sent poison pen letters about Heath.Matthew Parris has said in The Times he had seen them,his favourite being “disgusted of Tunbridge Wells” railing against Heath and saying the country needed more upstanding leaders such as that fine fellow Jeremy Thorpe.Oh well………….
Vance said “It’s not a criticism of people who don’t have children. I explicitly said in my remarks … this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons don’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming anti-family and anti-child.”
Thanks Ms. Stock. Interesting insights
All the weird comment deserves is, “no you’re weird”.
The aspect that it has traction shows the level of discourse being provided by the “adults” trying to win the election.
Kathleen, you of all people ought to understand that Misogyny is the oldest, most shape-shifting ideology in the world & that misogynistic violence is the oldest, most cross-cultural, most endemic form of “hate crime” on the planet today. The vile misogynistic speech, & yes overtly racist, ethnically bigoted, ableist slurs, that are spoken/yelled/growled during the filming of trafficked sexually assaulted women & kids (aka violent “pornography) is transmitted in billions of digital packets by the hour across the globe. We’re not talking about your granddad’s Playboy w/ usually non-abused (Dorothy Stratton excepted) nude legal adult females & the healthy curiosity of adolescent straight boys about what women’s breasts look like. “Objectification” is a matter for debate–it’s not criminal. Transmitting 30-year-old images of gang rapes from Serbian concentration camps where porn studios were set up to monetize sexual assault of prisoners of all ages is an actual crime, now. Instead, senior citizens are arrested in your country for misgendering or speculating about the background of the latest male serial killer.
As an American gender critical feminist w/ years helping women victims of male violence, I do not want speech policed. Unless something like sexual insults spitted out on the streets or online rises to the level of a direct credible threat under existing law (of which there are tens of thousands leveled at women like JK Rowling, but never prosecuted), then ugly speech ought to be addressed via free debate & education. It’s actually more effective to expose openly anti-semitic & KKK statements because more people can learn about their absurdities. And murders of people are murders–adding “hate” makes it seem like some lives are more important than others, and is only relevant as a motive for determining degree of intent.
But by the standards of UK “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws, the Rwandan teenage male planning then slaughtering little girls enjoying dancing & fancelebration of an icon of Western female success & unapologetic sexual attractiveness was acting out of an Ideology of Misogyny, prima facie. Physically attacking random females b/c of misogynistic hate is prima facie terrorism and not “mental illness” motivated unless there’s evidence of an organic brain disorder & a degree of hallucination that would make it impossible to plan to take a cab to a specific known event. Mary Daly’s work 40 years ago was the first to catalog cross-cultural parallels in misogyny, whether chinese foot binding, tribal FGM & infibulation, Indian suttee or Western corsets & medical pathologization of female resistance. Patriarchal Sharia or Sunni laws have no monopoly on contemporary Misogynistic Ideologies & Misogynistic Terror. We see this in Mexican & Indian femicides, sex trafficking gangs, Islamist grooming gangs, East African Christian practiitioners of FGM, secular Incels & transactivists stalking “TERFs” & assaulting females in prisons, shelters & changing rooms.
It appears that none of the leaders of the UK parties (just as in most of the US) take misogynistic threats & violence against females seriously, or else they could not have announced that an adolescent male’s successful plan to hack 3 little girls to death & terrorize others “not terrorism related.” Violent misogyny IS terrorism, whether he was raised w/ East African patriarchal Christian beliefs in which FGM is still frequently practiced or he was a secular misogynist who got his ideas from international traffickers in torture porn.
A woke leftist calling anyone else weird is like a morbidly obese person calling someone ‘a bit fat’.
“What presumably came across to Fox News fans at the time as edgy pugilism now appears to the wider world as an unnecessarily mean and aggressive attempt to sow division.”
I think you should confine your essays to Britain and feminist issues. You clearly do not understand the US or its politics.
Weird is in the eye of the beholder. Only a few weeks ago this writer wrote an article about Keir Starmer becoming PM boosted many women’s sexuality! Now that is weird!
Why does’ nt Stock write an article on how many white working class girls were raped by Muslim Pakistani men. Perhaps if the magnitude of the probem was acknowledged it would remove much anger.
Cryer mentioned the Muslim Pakistani men white working class girls before 2010 but was ostracised by the Labour Party.
Cryer attracted media attention, and death threats,[8] for speaking out against forced marriages, honour killings, calling on immigrants to learn to speak English before entering the country,[9] and for being amongst the first people to talk about the issue of gangs of Asian men sexually abusing children in Yorkshire.[10
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Why does it matter who Tim Waltz thinks is “weird”? Policies matter. Could we please get after a policy discussion?
All revolutions are started by ‘di**heads’. If they are successful, we later call them heroes.
Beautiful. Nailed it
All this from a woman whose most recent effort oreviously was to peg a priori – not just once but twice – so much as the slightest suggestion of “chikf” and “sexuality” ever existing in the same world together as “hideous”
The civil unrest in the UK has led to a series of very disappointing articles on sites such as this.
This will be my third cancelled subscription in a week. I will be funding writers on Stacked instead.
Ms Stock, you have missed the mark, by a wide margin, in this article. What is the right or left these days? There are two versions, the media’s and what the individual person thinks it is. The Media, the great majority of it anyway, are nothing but propaganda sites for mainly the left and one, Fox, on the right.
I would recommend that you spend some time, not with the left or right wingnuts, but with the hard-working folks who have been most impacted by the draconian measures taken by the left during the Pandemic and beyond. They feel there is zero accountability of those in power and their voices mean nothing. As long as the current government has the votes, they will do what they want no matter how their agenda harms the nation or individuals. And those agendas have done harm worldwide. When folks feel they are not heard and they are being economically harmed they will turn to insurrection and possibly a revolution.
We have the most inept, weakest, greediest, and controlling leaders in every sector of our world, and that needs to change, and fast. The ballot box is the preferred way, but there are others and I am beginning to believe that may be the only way for the mass of folks, in the US that would be approaching 50 percent, who feel they have no voice and no alternative.
Tell you what, if Walz’ recent non verbals when onstage with “Good evening ….. good evening …… good evening” Harris isn’t, like, seriously weird then I don’t know what is. I was like, totally, like, pissing myself. Totally.
Being able to take criticism when it is warranted, even when it hurts your feelings, is a sign of intelligence, folks. Instead of immediately defending that weird Vance is not weird and that right-wing idiots are not idiots, maybe take a moment to reflect, as Kathleen suggests? You know, instead of being immediately offended by any complex take that doesn’t immediately confirm your feelings or leanings…