Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Guest post: Dead women can’t say No

    Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? in Miscellany Room 8.

    Canada’s Global News reports on Manhunt author’s fantasized depiction of Rowling’s death in novel.

    The reporter, Kathryn Mannie, begins with a brief description of the book:

    The book is set in an apocalyptic scenario in which people with a sufficient amount of testosterone get turned into monstrous beasts. All that remains of humanity are cisgender women, non-binary people, transgender men and transgender women.

    (I wonder if, in this future, fully intact “transgender women” also turn into beasts? Or do they all have testosterone dutifully reduced to the level that would allow them to join the Penn women’s swim team? And what about transmen? Is Chase Strangio’s T level still low enough to prevent her from becoming a monstrous beast, moustache notwthstanding? Not that I’m interested enough to read it and find out. I’d pay for a root canal before buying (or reading) Manhunt .)

    Even with this bare bones outline, we’re in trouble already. The ideas of “cisgender women”, “non-binary people” and “transgender” men and women are plopped in without definition. We’re already supposed to know who and what these entities are. Anyone outside of the trans/GC Twitterverse would have little idea what the hell any of that really meant. Any one without the requisite familiarity with these terms of art will be counting on Mannie as their guide. That, it turns out, will be a mistake.

    Then a bit of well poisoning:

    In the book, the Rowling character travels with her TERF friends to a castle, where they all perish after it collapses in an inferno.

    TERFs are feminists who exclude transgender women in their fight for women’s rights — Rowling is considered by some as a TERF due to transphobic tweets she has shared on social media.

    The definition of TERF given here shows that the writer has taken a side, and hidden this fact from the view of most of her readers. The very definition she uses smears women and sneaks TiMs in as women in a few deceptively simple words. Anyone who didn’t know the meaning of TERF before has been given an inaccurate description cloaked in presumed journalistic “neutrality. “Pro-woman is painted as “anti-trans.” How much differently that would have come across if it were rewritten thus:

    TERFs are feminists who exclude trans identified males from single-sex organizations, facilities, and institutions intended for women only.

    The phrase “transphobic tweets” links to a story about the “backlash” against her “Wimpund” tweet, which is portrayed as a tone-deaf equation of “womanhood” with menstuation that “erases” trans men, as opposed to it being a satirical comment on the erasure of women in messaging intended to convey lifesaving medical information, in the interests of “inclusion”.

    Here’s what I consider the least dishonest part:

    Several news outlets have reported on a number of negative reviews the book has received on Amazon.

    “I have no idea how this even got published. The existence of this book proves once again that misogyny is alright as long as you identify as a member of a certain group,” one reviewer complained. “If you want to read a messed-up individual’s unhinged violent sexual fantasies against women then this is the book for you!”

    A handful of other reviews also deride the novel for being misogynistic and promoting violence against women. One reviewer wrote that the book “describes horrible violence towards an actual living person which could be interpret (sic) by extreme activists as an instruction manual.”

    But it’s okay, all those bad reviews are by evilTERFs who have axes to grind:

    In response to the online backlash, the author is claiming that supporters of Rowling are flooding the Amazon and Good Reads pages for her book with negative comments
.Some reviews on Amazon are acknowledging the controversy the book has whipped up, with one person writing, “This book is being bombed with one star reviews because it’s written by a trans woman. The terms ‘misogyny’ and ‘women hating’ are being thrown around because cis women can (sic) handle the fact that a trans women (sic) has written one of the best dystopian books we’ve seen of the last century.”

    It ends with quotes from the glowing NPR review, concluding the piece on an upbeat note for our Brave and Stunning trans author.

    One of the problems I see with this story is that it focuses too much on the whole “Let’s kill off JKR” theme. Not that fantasizing the death of an actual living, breathing woman isn’t bad. It’s terrible, cruel, and uncalled for. The biggest problem for me is that it takes for granted that Rowling, as well as her supporters and followers, actually want to murder trans people. It’s taken as read that this supposed desire is an accurate and truthful portrayal of what feminists believe, that this could be a possible future if they had their way. It’s another installment of the transperbolic lie that “THEY WANT US ALL DEAD!” The journalist’s definition of TERF reinforces the “anti-trans, not pro-woman” portrayal of feminists, making this dystopian exaggeration into a legitimate artistic act of pre-emptive “self-defence”, instead of a sick, misogynistic projection.

    It’s curious that a movement that views “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as unspeakably violent, is so unabashedly and self-righteously violent in its own rhetoric on social media. And now, long form fiction. The writer of this Global piece would be hard pressed to find anything at all from the feminist side that comes anywhere close to the years of demonization, harassment, and threats that trans activists and their allies have heaped upon women who dare to say “no” to male entitlement dressed in a frock. This extreme asymmetry suggests that the question of exactly who, if given the opportunity, would be killing whom a somewhat different answer than Felker-Martin is positing in his screed. If feminists had been threatening rape and murder against TAs, it would have been front page news; the writer of this article would pointed it out. It would be being retweeted over and over. But rape and death threats to women? Same old same old. This book is just more of the same. It sounds like little more than a bog standard trans activist’s “Shut up, TERF; choke to death on my dick!” tweet, padded out to the length of a novel. Dead women can’t say “No.”

  • Your instructions

    Hmmm let’s see.

    Correct yourself briefly and move on.

    No. I was right, so I’m not going to correct myself.

    Interrupt people with quick corrections.

    Not in a million years. They weren’t wrong, so I’m not going to correct them any more than I’m going to correct myself, and anyway I wouldn’t correct them if they were “wrong.” Officiously interrupting people to correct them on something that doesn’t matter in the first place is not a fun hobby.

    Don’t complain about how hard it is!

    Don’t tell me what to complain about! Who do you think you are? Anyway I don’t care how hard it is, because I have no intention of doing it in the first place.

    Say “thank you” when someone corrects you.

    How about “fuck off”? Will that do? It will have to do, because I’m certainly not going to say thanks.

    Try practicing new pronouns with a friend!

    You think my friends are that tedious and dim-witted? You must be thinking of your friends.

    Last: don’t apologize profusely.

    Oh that’s an easy one. See if you can figure out why.

  • Treat

    BBC headline:

    Queen gets her own Barbie for Platinum Jubilee

    Really? Only now? You’d think she could have had one right away when they first came out. They were only $3.

  • Why, by Jove, it’s the female athletes!

    Jon Pike on the use of passive and speculative wording to arrive at one’s desired conclusion:

    It’s always female sport that needs conceptual engineering. Funny how that works.

    They’ve given up on the claim that T reduction is all that’s needed, he says, and that’s good, that’s an advance, but…

    Oh for fuck’s SAKE was my initial response, and then my ongoing response. Unique individuality in a pig’s eye. Lia Thomas’s advantage is not part of his “unique individuality,” it’s all too generic. Get a fucking clue.

    Seriously. Anything “could be” regarded as anything; the Amalgamated Union of Weasels issues a complaint of plagiarism.

    His PhD students need to suck it up. The point is crucial.

    Then he goes in for the kill.

    Bam.

  • Looking at solutions

    BASEM UK finally understood that it has made a tiny mistake.

    Let’s just ignore the bit about personal attacks, in order to focus on the astonishing fact that they apparently had no idea they should have women on a panel discussing a plan to destroy women’s sports. How did they manage that I wonder? Wouldn’t you think it was obvious? I would…but then I’m a woman. This could indicate why it’s a good idea to include women, or it could indicate that women should always be shut out. Difficult call.

  • Basic precautions

    Pro tip: If you try to overthrow the government, don’t brag about it to your Uber driver on your way home.

    On 6 January 2021, Jerry Braun hailed an Uber in Washington DC and got in the car, nursing a bleeding eye wound. The Uber driver noticed and asked, “So, has it been violent all day?”

    “Well it started around, right when I got there. I tore down the barricades,” Braun bragged.

    The conversation, captured on video by the driver’s recording device installed on the dashboard, triggered a 15-month long investigation by the FBI. Earlier this month, on 12 April, Braun was finally arrested by federal authorities and charged with violent entry or disorderly conduct, obstruction during civil disorder, and entering and remaining on restricted grounds, according to an affidavit by Lucas Bauers, FBI special agent.

    Just a harmless prank.

    Braun boasted openly to the Uber driver about his involvement in the deadly riots, which resulted in the deaths of five people. When he explained he’d torn down the barricades, the driver asked: “You did? Why?”

    “Well, because, so we could get to the Capitol,” Braun replied.

    It’s common sense, man.

    The driver asked: “Well, how’d that work out for ya?”

    “Well, it looks like, uh, Biden’s gonna be our president,” said Braun.

    And the driver turned him in.

  • Centers for Disease Passive Observation

    Can we have public health regulations or no?

    The Biden administration on Wednesday appealed a federal court ruling striking down the mask requirement for passengers on planes, trains, buses and other public transportation after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the mandate was “necessary for the public health.”

    That judge thinks bus drivers and flight attendants and the people who need to use buses and trains and planes should just take their chances, for the sake of our Divine Freedom. That judge who is very young and inexperienced and a Trump appointee.

    While the C.D.C. wants to keep the mandate intact, it is also pressing the appeal to preserve its public health powers. But doing so is potentially risky. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which will hear the case, has a conservative bent, and the case could end up before the Supreme Court. If the ruling striking down the mandate is upheld, that decision could permanently weaken the agency’s authority.

    How are we defining “conservative” here though? It seems like a very odd notion of conservatism to think people should be free to spread disease, or that rules are inherently bad things. It’s not so much conservative as bonkers-AynRandian, or Purely Selfish Libertarianism.

    “This sets up a clash between public health and a conservative judiciary, and what’s riding on it is the future ability of our nation’s public health agencies to protect the American public,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, an expert in public health law at Georgetown University. “The risk is that you will get a conservative 11th Circuit ruling that will so curtail C.D.C.’s powers to fight Covid and future pandemics that it will make all Americans less safe and secure.”

    There again, what’s “conservative” about that? Trumpian, yes, but conservative, no. This nonsense is tribalism rather than any recognizable right v left issue.

    The C.D.C. actually has very limited regulatory authority; by and large, the power to impose public health restrictions lies with state and local governments. But legal experts agree that interstate transportation is a notable exception. In interviews, several said Judge Mizelle badly misread the law.

    When it passed the Public Health Service Act of 1944, Congress authorized the C.D.C. to “make and enforce such regulations as in its judgment are necessity to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable disease.”

    The law also suggests some steps the C.D.C. could take to prevent the spread of disease, including sanitation, disinfection and pest extermination.Judge Mizelle construed those suggestions as the C.D.C.’s only options — a narrow interpretation that “fundamentally misunderstands the scope of authority allowed to C.D.C.,” said James Hodge, the director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University. She also erred in likening the mask mandate to a quarantine, he said.

    Oh ffs – really? That’s childish. Pretending a “for example” is a complete list is a rules-lawyering kid’s trick. “You said I couldn’t have any more cookies, you didn’t say cake!!”

    The judge also faulted the C.D.C. for failing to solicit public comment on the mask order — a finding that Professor Gostin said “defies common sense.” While administrative law requires public comment for most federal actions, it also allows for exceptions for “good cause.”

    No it’s fine. Next time the National Weather Service issues a hurricane warning they should solicit public comment before anyone takes it seriously. That’s always worked well in the past.

  • How to hold a pen

  • Only following the rules

    Another woman speaks up:

    The double Olympic champion Katie Archibald has sharply criticised the transgender policies of the International Olympic Committee and other sports bodies – saying they have not only let down female cyclists by underplaying biology but left trans women, such as Emily Bridges, facing intense scrutiny.

    Maybe, but the intense scrutiny on Bridges is his fault as well as that of sports bodies. He should have been sharply aware all along that he should never compete against women, end of story.

    Archibald, who won the second of her cycling gold medals in Tokyo last year alongside Dame Laura Kenny in the Madison, said it was wrong for governing bodies to ignore the science that shows trans women who have gone through male puberty have a retained advantage in strength, stamina and physique.

    However, she also expressed deep sympathy for Bridges, who broke the junior men’s 25-mile record before transitioning in 2020, saying she was only following the rules of cycling’s governing body, the UCI, before it decided to block her racing as a woman last month.

    Not “only.” Not really. Yes cycling’s governing body is at fault but Bridges’s conscience was AWOL. It’s an unfair advantage, it’s obvious that the advantage is unfair, and people should just stop.

    “It is my opinion that the international governing bodies of several sports have let down transgender athletes, in particular transgender women, with their inclusion policies,” Archibald said in a statement.

    “These policies have put the athletes, their involvement in sport, and their personal lives under intense scrutiny when all the athletes have done is follow the rules and enter a category they were encouraged to enter.”

    But they shouldn’t have. Archibald is being generous, but too much generosity is how we got here in the first place, and I think we need to shelve it. The athletes all know it’s unfair, and they do it anyway. I’m way more interested in the unfairness to women than I am in the unfairness to men who are trans.

  • Includey inclusionism

    I am so fucking livid about this. All this time and still they think it’s ok to set up a panel of five men to talk about how much of women’s sport it’s ok for men to destroy in the name of “inclusion.” WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?? Do they even realize we exist? Do they think we’re computer programs? Blowup dolls? Aliens? Hello hello is this microphone even on?

  • The very important session

    They’re just trolling us.

    Yay! Let’s talk about fairness and safety for women [though we carefully don’t say “for women”] in sport by asking a bunch of men what they think!

    Oh wait, isn’t there one woman included? The token woman you might say?

    No.

    Taunty McTauntface. Dr Blair Hamilton is not a woman. Hastings Football Club on “social media abuse” of Dr Blair Hamilton:

    Hastings United Football Club would like to respond and condemn the disgraceful and tasteless comments made on Twitter since the announcement of Blair Hamilton’s call up to the England Women’s University Squad.

    The ‘U’s will continue to support equality in football and are proud to have Blair Hamilton represent us on the national stage. We do not condone messages of abuse, many as always coming through online accounts where the individuals hide behind a username. Online abuse is still abuse and the accounts have been reported and passed on to Twitter.

    All our staff, players and supporters stand alongside Blair and will continue to support her both on and off the pitch.

    Insultingly, they file this under “Womens News.” [sic]

    They also, also insultingly, don’t say what the “abuse” was, or what it was about. I’m making a wild guess that it wasn’t abuse and it was about putting a man on a women’s football team.

    pause to confirm

    Oh yes, it’s this guy:

    Transgender woman who used to play men's football receives England Universities call-up | The Argus

    We’ve seen that photo before.

    So yes, a panel of five men, one of whom identifies as a woman and feels entitled to compete against women in football, are getting together to decide what rights women can have.

  • In a frank and open manner

    The story of the groomers and their sex show for “children as young as 5” is being framed in the non-conservative press as a matter of threats and abuse against the organizers as opposed to a matter of grooming.

    The Guardian for instance:

    Sex education theatre show for children cancelled after ‘violent threats’

    The Family Sex Show organisers receive abuse over UK production aimed at children as young as five

    A theatre show that promised to reimagine sex education by discussing the issue in a frank and open manner with audience members as young as five years old has been cancelled after “violent threats” were made against its organisers.

    But small children don’t need “sex education” apart from a few basics. That kind of “sex education” is of interest to no one except groomers, who want to train children to be compliant with their molesters.

    The company added it would have offered “safe and positive learning to children, young people and guardians about rights, bodies, sex and relationships, advised by safeguarding and educational specialists”.

    Its statement said: “We believe that what has happened is reflective of structural and societal attitudes towards relationships and sex education as well as art, culture and who is allowed to create and what we are allowed to engage with in the UK.”

    Of course it is. It’s reflective of “structural and societal attitudes” that small children shouldn’t be tricked and manipulated into thinking it’s fine for adults to, say, guide a small hand to the adult’s genitalia.

    The Independent takes the same line. (The BBC, the Guardian, and the Indy all seem to be reporting This Egg’s Twitter version of the story.)

    The Family Sex Show, an educational theatre production aimed at children, has been axed after the venue said its staff had been subjected to “unprecedented threats and abuse”.

    The show, which covers themes such as gender, consent, pleasure, queerness and masturbation, was due to open at Bristol’s Tobacco Factory in May.

    What does “queerness” have to do with sex education? What is “queerness”? How is it different from same-sex attraction? Above all why would anyone want a random theater group teaching sex ed on stage?

  • Girlguiding is a home for trans people

    Girlguiding UK issues a statement:

    We have been involved in a legal case with a former volunteer since 2018 and we have now reached a settlement. Please find our statement below.

    Girlguiding’s full statement regarding its legal case with Katie Alcock:

    Girlguiding celebrates the ever-growing diversity of its membership. We are committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all of our members in a complex and changing world. It’s important that we do this in a thoughtful and respectful way, reflecting our volunteer code of conduct. So we have a diversity and inclusion strategic plan which underpins our commitment to inclusion.

    Define diversity. Define inclusion.

    Diversity meaning girls from all backgrounds, excellent, keep doing that. Diversity meaning boys, then you’re not Girlguiding any more. Same for “inclusion.”

    Girlguiding recognises that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act and that there are girls and volunteers who hold gender critical beliefs within our membership. We respect and value their right to do so, and to express those beliefs. Girlguiding is also, and shall remain, a home for trans people. Whatever their protected characteristics, all our young members and adult volunteers are welcome within Girlguiding.

    All trans people? So male trans people as well as female ones? Then it’s not Girlguiding any more.

    Our priority is to ensure that we offer a safe space where all girls are welcome to have fun, learn, and grow, and feel that they can be who they truly are. 

    But when they say “all girls” they mean…?

    Girlguiding has evolved for 110 years and will continue to evolve to ensure that it remains a forward-thinking, inclusive and diverse organisation where all girls, young women and volunteers feel welcome and belong.

    But when they say “all girls” they mean…?

    On another subject – I would love to know why on earth the image at the top is of a girl’s hand holding a pen incorrectly.

  • Apprentice judge

    Oh, great. Who is the judge who struck down the mask mandate? A Trump appointee, age 35, rated unqualified.

    US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has been serving as a federal judge in Florida for more than a year. Notably, the Senate vote confirming her to the lifetime appointment came in mid-November 2020, after the presidential election. She had been given a “not qualified” rating by the American Bar Association, based on her limited amount of experience post-law school.

    Terrific! And she’s risking people’s health and lives, especially bus drivers, for a childish and stupid idea of freedomfreedomfreedom, meaning I can do whatever I want to and other people don’t matter.

  • Whatever we want

    Activist asks: Why can’t I just do whatever I want to? Why????

    Columnist Leanne Wood in The National [Wales]:

    “Being trans in the UK is fucking agony right now.”

    My friend’s words last week following publication of guidance for separate and single-sex service providers by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. She goes on: “So now the EHRC want to help people exclude me from taking a piss in a bathroom that I’m comfortable in”.

    As if that were the only possible criterion.

    Here’s the thing: the fact that he’s comfortable in the women’s toilets doesn’t mean that anyone else is comfortable in the women’s toilets while he’s in them. It’s not just automatic or obvious that his comfort matters more than anyone else’s. It’s very odd that he assumes it does. Trans dogma is like that – it trains people to think their comfort is the only comfort that counts.

    Trans people are protected under the Equality Act (2010) with several exceptions around access to some spaces. EHRC guidance seeks to exploit these exceptions.

    Wtf? How is it exploiting exceptions to use them? That’s what they’re for. And the issue isn’t trans people not being protected, it’s women and girls needing protection. Again, what men who identify as trans want doesn’t automatically trump what women and girls need. Leanne Wood has apparently been well trained to think it does.

    Trans people should have every right to use whatever facilities they want and to go wherever they want.

    Of course they shouldn’t, any more than anyone else should. People can’t just use whatever they want and go wherever they want; that’s not how any of this works. That’s a small child’s view of life.

    After all, gender reassignment is a legally protected characteristic and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) (2004) allowed people to change their legal gender. So what’s the problem? 

    Well, for a start, the problem is that none of that equals “trans people can do whatever they want and go wherever they want.”

    There’s a lot more drivel along the same lines. It’s pitifully unreasoned and unargued.

  • Or perhaps not

    The BBC seems to be nostalgic for the Jimmy Savile days.

    A sex education theatre show aimed at children has been cancelled after the venue said it had received “unprecedented threats and abuse”.

    Is sex education really something you want to do in a theater?

    The Family Sex Show, featuring topics such as consent, pleasure and queerness, was due to be performed at Bristol’s Tobacco Factory in May.

    Wtf is “queerness”? And who on earth wants some random theater company “educating” children about it?

    The show also explored topics such as non-sexual nudity and gender and was aimed at children as young as five.

    Who wants to take children age 5 to a sex show at a theater? Besides groomers?

    Its creators ThisEgg, who were advised by safeguarding and educational specialists, said they had received “violent and illegal threats” from “a small group of people with extremist views”.

    Onlookers are saying the bit about safeguarding and educational specialists is not true, and the BBC has allowed itself to be misled. This Egg’s website seems to be highly dubious.

    Why don’t you little kids draw the masturbating animals you found on the internet? What could be more jolly??

  • The vituperation is misplaced

    Miriam Margolyes declines to shun JKR.

    The actress who played Professor Sprout in the Harry Potter films has offered sympathy to JK Rowling over accusations of transphobia.

    …

    Younger Potter stars including Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, the three principals, all distanced themselves from Rowling after she expressed her views on the importance of biological sex.

    Being the clueless ungrateful young toads they are.

    “There isn’t one answer to all these trans questions,” [MM] told Radio Times. “We all know people who are slightly pansy or a bit butch or whatever you call it. But I think the vituperation that JK Rowling has received is misplaced. I don’t know her at all. I admire her as a human being. She’s a generous woman, she’s a brilliant writer.”

    Margolyes, 80, responded to the suggestion that she could broker an understanding between Rowling and Watson: “I would if anybody asked me.”

    Rowling, who denies being transphobic, was not selected for an official Platinum Jubilee reading list announced on Sunday despite being Britain’s most successful living author.

    Well, to be fair, “successful” [in terms of sales] really isn’t the only relevant criterion for an author.

    Margolyes, who published her memoir This Much is True in September, also spoke out against Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, who has announced cuts for the BBC and a plan to privatise Channel 4. “It’s inconceivable to me that a woman of limited intelligence can be given such a vital role,” Margolyes said. “She doesn’t know anything about anything.”

    I like her.

  • The peace did not last long

    You’d think people in India would have had enough of communal [aka religious] violence during Partition, but apparently not.

    The procession had begun peacefully. Marching through the streets of Delhi’s Jahangirpuri district on Saturday, the devotees had gathered to celebrate the Hindu festival of Hanuman Jayanti. But the peace did not last long. As the evening drew in, an unauthorised parade began to gather. This time, men clad in saffron, the signature colour of Hindu nationalism, filled the streets brandishing swords and pistols, and started to shout provocative communal slogans.

    Previous agreements between Hindu and Muslim residents for the procession to avoid passing by a local mosque, which was holding evening prayers, were ignored.

    “A Hindu mob smashed beer bottles inside the mosque, put up saffron flags there and chanted Jai Shri Ram [Hail Lord Ram],” said Tabreez Khan, 39, a witness. “A caretaker of the mosque started resisting them, leading to a brawl. It was only after they started to desecrate the mosque that Muslims got angry and clashes started and stones were thrown.”

    Good old religion, inspiring people to kill each other. What would we do without it.

    The events in Jahangirpuri were far from isolated. Over the weekend, almost 140 people were arrested in connection with incidents of communal violence and rioting between Hindus and Muslims in the states of Uttarakhand, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka during celebrations of Hanuman Jayanti.

    Can’t they just fight over football instead?

    The surge in communal violence has sparked concern among many in India who fear the country is becoming more polarised than ever along Hindu-Muslim lines. For many, the blame has been directed at the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, led by the prime minister, Narendra Modi. The BJP is accused of overseeing a religiously divisive agenda and emboldening hostility towards India’s 200m Muslims, relegating them to second-class citizens. Meanwhile, Hindu vigilante groups such as VHP have been allowed to operate freely and have increasingly begun to take the law into their own hands.

    Don’t elect theocrats to run countries. Ever.

    “There is a strong case to be made that we are passing through the most difficult phase for Muslims in independent India,” said Asim Ali, a political researcher at the Centre for Policy Research thinktank, writing in the Telegraph, an Indian newspaper. “Being in the crosshairs of the dominant party of the country is a bad place to be for a community, and the Hindu nationalist stance towards Muslims seems to be becoming more hostile with time.”

    Of course deciding Muslims or Hindus make a “community” is part of the problem in the first place. You can make anything a community, or you can make nothing a community. The word and the concept can tip over into bullying in a heartbeat. Community and identity are two of the most destructive words in the language (and the other languages).

    Activists and academics have pointed to increasingly violent rhetoric against Muslims seeping into India’s mainstream, stirring up communal tensions to dangerous levels. In December 2021, a religious assembly of Hindu holy figures was held in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, during which the speakers called for a genocide against Muslims. Last week, police arrested Bajrang Muni Das, a Hindu priest accused of threatening mass rape against Muslim women during a speech two weeks ago in presence of officers.

    How spiritual.

  • Libs of what now?

    The Washington Post has a piece on something called Libs of TikTok, apparently a Very Influential Twitter account of the angry right-wing variety. It’s somewhat interesting, as such things are, but the writing is terrible – don’t their editors edit?

    The anonymous account’s impact is deep and far-reaching. Its content is amplified by high-profile media figures, politicians and right-wing influencers. Its tweets reach millions, with influence spreading far beyond its more than 648,000 Twitter followers. Libs of TikTok has become an agenda-setter in right-wing online discourse, and the content it surfaces shows a direct correlation with the recent push in legislation and rhetoric directly targeting the LGBTQ+ community.

    What the reporter, Taylor Lorenz, means is of course as usual the T “community.”

    Throughout its increasingly popular posts and despite numerous media appearances, the account has remained anonymous. But the identity of the operator of Libs of TikTok is traceable through a complex online history and reveals someone who has been plugged into right-wing discourse for two years and is now helping to drive it.

    You see what I mean about the crappy writing.

    Chaya Raichik had been working as a real estate salesperson in Brooklyn when, in early November 2020, she created the account that would eventually become Libs of TikTok.

    It went through several names before settling on that one.

    In January 2021, Raichik started talking about traveling to D.C. to support Trump on Jan. 6 at the Stop the Steal rally. When violence broke out at the Capitol that day, she tweeted a play-by-play account claiming to be on the ground. “They were rubber bullets from law enforcement. 1 hit right next to me,” she said. She posted videos from the crowd and spoke of tear gas being deployed nearby. After saying she left the riot, she used Twitter to downplay the event, claiming that it was peaceful compared to a “BLM protest.”

    …

    Just four months after getting started, Libs of TikTok got its big break: Joe Rogan started promoting the account to the millions of listeners of his hit podcast. He mentioned it several times on the show in August, then again in late September. “Libs of TikTok is one of the greatest f—ing accounts of all time,” he said. With his seal of approval, Raichik’s following skyrocketed.

    I like a rags to riches story.

  • Please be assured

    I very often think accusations of virtue-signaling are unfair, even when I do think the accused is being fatuous or censorious or worse. Even then I generally think there’s some intention of doing good. Other times, though, it’s just unmistakably “Look at me I have ascended to the highest level.”

    Like this:

    Too funny. Please be assured that I have told the organisers to make sure all the other people they invite are not white women like me and that they are trans not like me. Behold my saintly generosity.