FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > TERF Centipede
TERF Centipede
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't get how people calling a trans man by the wrong name is a TERF activity. Where is the radical feminist angle?" May I suggest reading up on the topic, there's far too much to say for it to fit on the forums. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is understandable for women to be apprehensive of folk who spent their lives up to their 40s or 50s as male suddenly identifying as female. You don't win people over to your cause or gain acceptance by attacking them for holding perfectly reasonable views. To do so just damages your message in the eyes of the wider public." First that has nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about people attacking a trans man. Secondly, you can dress up bigotry how you like, it is still bigotry. [this has been an opinion] | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't get how people calling a trans man by the wrong name is a TERF activity. Where is the radical feminist angle?" "May I suggest reading up on the topic, there's far too much to say for it to fit on the forums. " I am fairly well-read on the subject. TERF, as you already know, stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. I don't see Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, or Ben Shapiro being any sort of feminist, let alone a radical one. Calling them TERFs seems to be wildly inaccurate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This topic is about people attacking a trans man. Secondly, you can dress up bigotry how you like, it is still bigotry." So why use the acronym TERF? Why not just call them bigots? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't get how people calling a trans man by the wrong name is a TERF activity. Where is the radical feminist angle? May I suggest reading up on the topic, there's far too much to say for it to fit on the forums. I am fairly well-read on the subject. TERF, as you already know, stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. I don't see Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, or Ben Shapiro being any sort of feminist, let alone a radical one. Calling them TERFs seems to be wildly inaccurate." If you focus on the Parsing of the words instead of the values they hold sure. TERFs are not feminists either. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"This topic is about people attacking a trans man. Secondly, you can dress up bigotry how you like, it is still bigotry. So why use the acronym TERF? Why not just call them bigots?" Because it is accurate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic" Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. " The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling." Did they lose their ability to post on social media? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? " No | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No" They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views." Deadnaming someone is bigotry, it is not holding different views. It is his legal name. People have no issues Calling someone the Rick, or Meatloaf or Sting, but because its a Trans Man it is a problem to call them their legal name? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view...." No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Had a look on Twitter and it seems along the lines of Protest aimed at the fact you can happily post up Jk Rowling address on Twitter along with a pipe bomb but if you use someone’s old name you are immediately suspended. Seems a little unfair that the Twitter moderation is not even and both items removed as swiftly/accounts suspended. Bit of a childish way to go about it though " Well for one the person who made the threat removed their account is less time than Twitter banned any of the people we are discussing who deadnamed Elliot Page. Second JK Rowlings address is public knowledge, it is on Scottish Bus Tours and Wikipedia, its not doxxing if it is public knowledge. There is no argument there | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them." They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be" The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If you focus on the Parsing of the words instead of the values they hold sure." Well then I apologise for having the temerity to answer you based on the words that you used, rather than the values that you have in your head. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric." Are you surprised at what they are doing? They have polar opposite views to you and will do anything they can to express them, like you will. They don't get your logic, you don't get theirs and that is how it will always be. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"If you focus on the Parsing of the words instead of the values they hold sure. Well then I apologise for having the temerity to answer you based on the words that you used, rather than the values that you have in your head." I apologise for being dismissive, truly I do. The thing about TERFs is that their relationship with Radical Feminism is like the relationship between National Socialist German Workers' Party and Socialism... in that you could not get further away from each other. Again I apologise for not explaining better and being abrasive. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric. Are you surprised at what they are doing? They have polar opposite views to you and will do anything they can to express them, like you will. They don't get your logic, you don't get theirs and that is how it will always be. " Rubbish, they could have expressed those views without misgendering or deadnaming Elliot Page. I know this because there are plenty of Transphobe's who do it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric. Are you surprised at what they are doing? They have polar opposite views to you and will do anything they can to express them, like you will. They don't get your logic, you don't get theirs and that is how it will always be. Rubbish, they could have expressed those views without misgendering or deadnaming Elliot Page. I know this because there are plenty of Transphobe's who do it." Not rubbish at all, because they did exactly what they did on purpose. You get triggered and they have made a point. I'm really surprised you give this a moments thought, let alone airtime. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric. Are you surprised at what they are doing? They have polar opposite views to you and will do anything they can to express them, like you will. They don't get your logic, you don't get theirs and that is how it will always be. Rubbish, they could have expressed those views without misgendering or deadnaming Elliot Page. I know this because there are plenty of Transphobe's who do it. Not rubbish at all, because they did exactly what they did on purpose. You get triggered and they have made a point. I'm really surprised you give this a moments thought, let alone airtime." First I am not sure you know what triggered actually means because it certainly isn't applicable here. Second my post is commenting on the bizarreness of them doing the same thing and expecting different results. Thirdly you are the one who went in a massive tangent to defend the actions of far right hate mongers... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just read through the initial Twitter posts to get an idea as to what the fuss is about. Can definitely agree that the first Tweet by Peterson was uncalled for, especially as Page has their own Twitter account and is a user. Not so sure about the following ones. That said, if hubby was a Twitter mod they'd jave most of their userbase banned for talking about politics. This section on Fab would have been a no no too. Use to mod a computing forum many moons ago." While I disagree with what they did, I didn't make this thread to comment on that. It was the whole repeating the same action and expecting different results line I was bringing here. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Jordan Peterson deadnames Elliot page on twitter & gets his account locked. Dave Rubin then deadnames Elliot talking about Petersons lock so gets their account locked. Now Ben Shapiro is dead naming Page talking about Rubin's lock, and is expecting not to get his account locked? I don;t get the TERF logic Is it a case of them highlighting their freedom to express their views, is being cancelled? I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is more liberal in the US than here, I could be wrong. The fact you think anyone is getting cancelled is very telling. Did they lose their ability to post on social media? No They did on the Twitter platform and that is why I think there was chain reaction. You asked about the logic, I'm trying to give you an other view.... No, any inability to not post was self inflicted. They broke the terms of service of the platform. and were told that their profile was locked until the removed the tweet that broke the rules. Their inability to post was entirely down to them. They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. As I said, the freedom of speech rules in the US are different and they could be testing the waters and pushing buttons, it seems to have worked if that was the plan. They know what they are doing and I'm sure they know what the outcome was likely to be The freedom of speech rules in the US do not apply to Twitter. The laws are to protect citizens from the government, not private entities. They do know what they are doing, I never claimed otherwise. It is still hateful bigoted rhetoric. Are you surprised at what they are doing? They have polar opposite views to you and will do anything they can to express them, like you will. They don't get your logic, you don't get theirs and that is how it will always be. Rubbish, they could have expressed those views without misgendering or deadnaming Elliot Page. I know this because there are plenty of Transphobe's who do it. Not rubbish at all, because they did exactly what they did on purpose. You get triggered and they have made a point. I'm really surprised you give this a moments thought, let alone airtime. First I am not sure you know what triggered actually means because it certainly isn't applicable here. Second my post is commenting on the bizarreness of them doing the same thing and expecting different results. Thirdly you are the one who went in a massive tangent to defend the actions of far right hate mongers..." This is where you shoot yourself in the foot every time, you seem to read things as it is against what you have said, you have done that a few times already on this thread. You can go back through my posts and pick out where I am defending anyones actions. You wont find anything, because I haven't defended what they have done, merely pointed out that they know what they are doing and pushing buttons. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules." Whatever you say. you came in, took the topic title in a tangent. tried making it a conversation about US freedom of speech, which is a strawman argument as US freedom of speech doesn't affect twitter, you then moved the goal posts to make it about them knowing what they were doing which is something I never claimed they didnt. One day you might actually present a good faith argument, today is obviously not that day | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. Whatever you say. you came in, took the topic title in a tangent. tried making it a conversation about US freedom of speech, which is a strawman argument as US freedom of speech doesn't affect twitter, you then moved the goal posts to make it about them knowing what they were doing which is something I never claimed they didnt. One day you might actually present a good faith argument, today is obviously not that day" Do you fall out with yourself often? My opinion is my opinion on how I see things, you try and twist and turn things that are not there, all of the time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"They obviously think Twitter is wrong in applying those rules. Whatever you say. you came in, took the topic title in a tangent. tried making it a conversation about US freedom of speech, which is a strawman argument as US freedom of speech doesn't affect twitter, you then moved the goal posts to make it about them knowing what they were doing which is something I never claimed they didnt. One day you might actually present a good faith argument, today is obviously not that day Do you fall out with yourself often? My opinion is my opinion on how I see things, you try and twist and turn things that are not there, all of the time." Smells like Hypocrisy in the air with that claim. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Be interested to know what you think about the Maya Forstater ruling today Op? Without prejudice do you think she is a Terf? Apologies if I am hijacking the thread somewhat. " No apologies need assuming all is in good faith you raise a good question. First yes I think she is a TERF she uses a shield of feminism as an excuse to be transphobic. I may be wrong but I think she even admitted to being a TERF once (it could have been one of her peers though) Well first off I think Maya Forstater and her comrades are claiming a lot more of a win out of the ruling than I understand they actually got. I you may be surprised agree she has the right to be a transphobic hateful bigot. Everyone has the right to believe what they believe. I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. Specific to the rulings though: I agree wih the finding that she was discriminated against based on her beleifs. Had the company fired her I would have disagreed with that (unless there was a morality clause that covered it), I however disagree they were in the wrong for not renewing a contract. No company should be forced to renew a contract, regardless of other factors. I also agree with the victimisation with her presence being completely scrubbed from being online. They should have removed her in the aspect of being actively involved and left the rest as is. I think an important thing about this ruling though is that it is about whether people are allowed to believe what they believe. I think they could be, I don't think people should expect to be able to share those without consequence because that infringes on others beliefs. and that's what arguments are about. I argue a lot, I am opinionated, I may think your a bigot, and idiot or worse but I will still agree you have a right to think what you do. I think she has a right to beleive her bigotry, the ruling though just says she has that right, it doesnt say that beleif is correct though and thats where her and her supporters are claiming more than they got, they are seeing it as validation of the beleif itself and not just the right to hold it. In summation Maya and her Cohorts have the right to be Hateful Bigots, but F*** them for being so! [this has been an opinion] | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Is TERF a word created by the group themselves, or by those that oppose them? Will admit, I don't get the tweet, deadname or not. Im assuming when talking about someone before they have changed their name or confirmed what their pronouns are, we should use theor current name and pronouns. So in writing my Olympic history is should say "in xxxx, Caitlyn Jenner won gold when she fought off the Russians in the men's decathlon/whatever sport it was". Not a wind up or a bait. The tweet has made me think. " That's right unless you are told otherwise use their current name and pronouns when referring to them no matter when in their life you are talking about. Some Trans people see them as different lives and may be ok with dead names and dead pronouns being used when referring to their old lives, but that should be something you do only with the express permission of the person. That is of course if you are trying to respect them. In short yes Caitlyn Jenner won gold in the Olympic and Elliot Page was great in Juno [this has been an opinion] | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence." The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'." I have never seen those things being referred to as consequences. But would the phrase unchecked be better? I am saying that by demanding zero pushback whatsoever infringes on others rights to their beliefs and their right to share it. By the nature of things if you have the right to share your view, then someone with an opposing view has the right to share their back, this is going to cause a conflict, and yes that conflict should stay verbal. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I think she has a right to beleive her bigotry, the ruling though just says she has that right, it doesnt say that beleif is correct though and thats where her and her supporters are claiming more than they got, they are seeing it as validation of the beleif itself and not just the right to hold it." This is certainly true. She does seem to be using the line "we are right to hold these beliefs" rather than "we have the right to hold these beliefs". | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Be interested to know what you think about the Maya Forstater ruling today Op? Without prejudice do you think she is a Terf? Apologies if I am hijacking the thread somewhat. No apologies need assuming all is in good faith you raise a good question. First yes I think she is a TERF she uses a shield of feminism as an excuse to be transphobic. I may be wrong but I think she even admitted to being a TERF once (it could have been one of her peers though) Well first off I think Maya Forstater and her comrades are claiming a lot more of a win out of the ruling than I understand they actually got. I you may be surprised agree she has the right to be a transphobic hateful bigot. Everyone has the right to believe what they believe. I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. Specific to the rulings though: I agree wih the finding that she was discriminated against based on her beleifs. Had the company fired her I would have disagreed with that (unless there was a morality clause that covered it), I however disagree they were in the wrong for not renewing a contract. No company should be forced to renew a contract, regardless of other factors. I also agree with the victimisation with her presence being completely scrubbed from being online. They should have removed her in the aspect of being actively involved and left the rest as is. I think an important thing about this ruling though is that it is about whether people are allowed to believe what they believe. I think they could be, I don't think people should expect to be able to share those without consequence because that infringes on others beliefs. and that's what arguments are about. I argue a lot, I am opinionated, I may think your a bigot, and idiot or worse but I will still agree you have a right to think what you do. I think she has a right to beleive her bigotry, the ruling though just says she has that right, it doesnt say that beleif is correct though and thats where her and her supporters are claiming more than they got, they are seeing it as validation of the beleif itself and not just the right to hold it. In summation Maya and her Cohorts have the right to be Hateful Bigots, but F*** them for being so! [this has been an opinion]" What do you think about Julie Bindel suing Nottingham City Council for canceling a talk she was due to give due to her views on transgender issues? Also not trying to bait, just genuinely curious? And would you also say she's a TERF? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Be interested to know what you think about the Maya Forstater ruling today Op? Without prejudice do you think she is a Terf? Apologies if I am hijacking the thread somewhat. No apologies need assuming all is in good faith you raise a good question. First yes I think she is a TERF she uses a shield of feminism as an excuse to be transphobic. I may be wrong but I think she even admitted to being a TERF once (it could have been one of her peers though) Well first off I think Maya Forstater and her comrades are claiming a lot more of a win out of the ruling than I understand they actually got. I you may be surprised agree she has the right to be a transphobic hateful bigot. Everyone has the right to believe what they believe. I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. Specific to the rulings though: I agree wih the finding that she was discriminated against based on her beleifs. Had the company fired her I would have disagreed with that (unless there was a morality clause that covered it), I however disagree they were in the wrong for not renewing a contract. No company should be forced to renew a contract, regardless of other factors. I also agree with the victimisation with her presence being completely scrubbed from being online. They should have removed her in the aspect of being actively involved and left the rest as is. I think an important thing about this ruling though is that it is about whether people are allowed to believe what they believe. I think they could be, I don't think people should expect to be able to share those without consequence because that infringes on others beliefs. and that's what arguments are about. I argue a lot, I am opinionated, I may think your a bigot, and idiot or worse but I will still agree you have a right to think what you do. I think she has a right to beleive her bigotry, the ruling though just says she has that right, it doesnt say that beleif is correct though and thats where her and her supporters are claiming more than they got, they are seeing it as validation of the beleif itself and not just the right to hold it. In summation Maya and her Cohorts have the right to be Hateful Bigots, but F*** them for being so! [this has been an opinion] What do you think about Julie Bindel suing Nottingham City Council for canceling a talk she was due to give due to her views on transgender issues? Also not trying to bait, just genuinely curious? And would you also say she's a TERF?" Her views don't factor into this for me. There was an agreement and a contract, that contract would have had details regarding cancelling the event. as long as the council honour those segments of the contract, the rest is irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'." Well said | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said "Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence."you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals."Yup I literally said no violence, from either side. If you think otherwise you are projecting. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals.
Yup I literally said no violence, from either side.
If you think otherwise you are projecting."My statement stands | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals.
Yup I literally said no violence, from either side.
If you think otherwise you are projecting.
My statement stands "Violence is the weak person's answer. Standing up and protecting those who would choose violence is for the weak. You only engage in violence if it brought to your door. You really do not have a clue about me. All you know is I am passionate about what i believe and you know a slice of one or two of those beliefs. No-one can know a person in the amount of interactions I have had on these forums, to think otherwise is a little pretentious and arrogant. Just like I do not know you, I only know part of you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals.
Yup I literally said no violence, from either side.
If you think otherwise you are projecting.
My statement stands
Violence is the weak person's answer. Standing up and protecting those who would choose violence is for the weak.
You only engage in violence if it brought to your door.
You really do not have a clue about me. All you know is I am passionate about what i believe and you know a slice of one or two of those beliefs.
No-one can know a person in the amount of interactions I have had on these forums, to think otherwise is a little pretentious and arrogant.
Just like I do not know you, I only know part of you."you have given me more than enough to make a sound opinion. My statement stands | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals.
Yup I literally said no violence, from either side.
If you think otherwise you are projecting.
My statement stands
Violence is the weak person's answer. Standing up and protecting those who would choose violence is for the weak.
You only engage in violence if it brought to your door.
You really do not have a clue about me. All you know is I am passionate about what i believe and you know a slice of one or two of those beliefs.
No-one can know a person in the amount of interactions I have had on these forums, to think otherwise is a little pretentious and arrogant.
Just like I do not know you, I only know part of you.
you have given me more than enough to make a sound opinion. My statement stands "I'll leave you to your arrogance then | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. The word 'consequence' is nowadays used as an excuse for appalling behaviour, as in "Yes I stabbed her and burned down her house, but if you say horrible things you have to accept the consequences". You can't justify violence, harassment, or hate speech by saying that it's 'consequences'. Well said
Yup, like I said both side play under the same rules and without violence.
you have said enough for me to fully understand exactly your position, motives and ideals.
Yup I literally said no violence, from either side.
If you think otherwise you are projecting.
My statement stands
Violence is the weak person's answer. Standing up and protecting those who would choose violence is for the weak.
You only engage in violence if it brought to your door.
You really do not have a clue about me. All you know is I am passionate about what i believe and you know a slice of one or two of those beliefs.
No-one can know a person in the amount of interactions I have had on these forums, to think otherwise is a little pretentious and arrogant.
Just like I do not know you, I only know part of you.
you have given me more than enough to make a sound opinion. My statement stands
I'll leave you to your arrogance then"Thank you | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Be interested to know what you think about the Maya Forstater ruling today Op? Without prejudice do you think she is a Terf? Apologies if I am hijacking the thread somewhat. No apologies need assuming all is in good faith you raise a good question. First yes I think she is a TERF she uses a shield of feminism as an excuse to be transphobic. I may be wrong but I think she even admitted to being a TERF once (it could have been one of her peers though) Well first off I think Maya Forstater and her comrades are claiming a lot more of a win out of the ruling than I understand they actually got. I you may be surprised agree she has the right to be a transphobic hateful bigot. Everyone has the right to believe what they believe. I don't think people have the right to express those beliefs without consequence. Specific to the rulings though: I agree wih the finding that she was discriminated against based on her beleifs. Had the company fired her I would have disagreed with that (unless there was a morality clause that covered it), I however disagree they were in the wrong for not renewing a contract. No company should be forced to renew a contract, regardless of other factors. I also agree with the victimisation with her presence being completely scrubbed from being online. They should have removed her in the aspect of being actively involved and left the rest as is. I think an important thing about this ruling though is that it is about whether people are allowed to believe what they believe. I think they could be, I don't think people should expect to be able to share those without consequence because that infringes on others beliefs. and that's what arguments are about. I argue a lot, I am opinionated, I may think your a bigot, and idiot or worse but I will still agree you have a right to think what you do. I think she has a right to beleive her bigotry, the ruling though just says she has that right, it doesnt say that beleif is correct though and thats where her and her supporters are claiming more than they got, they are seeing it as validation of the beleif itself and not just the right to hold it. In summation Maya and her Cohorts have the right to be Hateful Bigots, but F*** them for being so! [this has been an opinion]" I don’t think those against her realise how important this case was. This was a test case so now all subsequent cases involving gender beliefs in the work place will now refer back to this judgement. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don’t think those against her realise how important this case was. This was a test case so now all subsequent cases involving gender beliefs in the work place will now refer back to this judgement. " We know. The only silver lining is that the ruling doesn't quite line up with what they claim it does. It is a shitty precedent, but it could have been a lot worse. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I don’t think those against her realise how important this case was. This was a test case so now all subsequent cases involving gender beliefs in the work place will now refer back to this judgement. We know. The only silver lining is that the ruling doesn't quite line up with what they claim it does. It is a shitty precedent, but it could have been a lot worse. " I’m afraid it does, hence why HR departments up and down the country will be studious reading up on it. TRA’s think that because the judge ‘dismissed’ some of her claim that she didn’t have a strong claim on those. She did but because she won on the most important claim the judge viewed the rest as Irrelevant to the judgement because the other one was as a claim run alongside the one she won. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's outright wrong to treat a person in such manner just because they don't believe in the woke nonsense being parroted by certain influencers and lobby groups. Same goes for hate crime laws that act as a blacklist of political dissidents." Says a lot when you use woke as a pejorative. Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question." People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself." They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist." When did this happen? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When did this happen? " Look it up, you're gonna deny any link I provide anyway | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When did this happen? " Check out some of the transphobic articles that the Daily Mail publish by Richard Littlejohn. Pretty fucking gross. Or read up about why India Willoughby quit GB news. There are countless examples of hate towards the trans community in mainstream media. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself." Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. " Textbook victim blaming. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming." you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion " Hypocrite | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion Hypocrite" Not a clue do you have, other than your self obsessed belief you are victimised. You identify as a woman and I along with everyone else on every post you have interacted with respect that, show me where it hasn't been.... You are going out of your way to prove what, exactly? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion Hypocrite Not a clue do you have, other than your self obsessed belief you are victimised. You identify as a woman and I along with everyone else on every post you have interacted with respect that, show me where it hasn't been.... You are going out of your way to prove what, exactly? " You are really that clueless aren't you? I am sorry for you. truly. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion Hypocrite Not a clue do you have, other than your self obsessed belief you are victimised. You identify as a woman and I along with everyone else on every post you have interacted with respect that, show me where it hasn't been.... You are going out of your way to prove what, exactly? You are really that clueless aren't you? I am sorry for you. truly." Can you see you have mirrored my response? I used the words, "not a clue do you have" I have not used used them before, enabling me to easily identify you as mirroring, and you as a reactive troll. Loss leader. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion Hypocrite Not a clue do you have, other than your self obsessed belief you are victimised. You identify as a woman and I along with everyone else on every post you have interacted with respect that, show me where it hasn't been.... You are going out of your way to prove what, exactly? You are really that clueless aren't you? I am sorry for you. truly. Can you see you have mirrored my response? I used the words, "not a clue do you have" I have not used used them before, enabling me to easily identify you as mirroring, and you as a reactive troll. Loss leader. " Ok, Be safe! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. Isn't that the truth! I would like to understand and recognise the existence issues and experiences she claims as Trans, other than an activist mantra that is accompanied by it isn't fair, often followed by a clear discrimination towards anyone who dares not follow the views of this very person. I have no doubt I managed to get wording wrong somewhere, and If I have I apologies, it was not my intention! Which is in it self, is a problem, people will and are giving up on having to walking on eggshells. Education, rather than activism, can be more effective in getting a message across. Textbook victim blaming. you cannot debate without labelling to shame. You are literally a weak link in the path to inclusion Hypocrite Not a clue do you have, other than your self obsessed belief you are victimised. You identify as a woman and I along with everyone else on every post you have interacted with respect that, show me where it hasn't been.... You are going out of your way to prove what, exactly? You are really that clueless aren't you? I am sorry for you. truly. Can you see you have mirrored my response? I used the words, "not a clue do you have" I have not used used them before, enabling me to easily identify you as mirroring, and you as a reactive troll. Loss leader. Ok, Be safe!" With your track record on advocating consequences to people who do not agree with you, how should I consider this message and your intent? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ok, Be safe! With your track record on advocating consequences to people who do not agree with you, how should I consider this message and your intent? " Genuinely confused by this, I don't wish ill on individuals (except outright nazi level fascists) I may not give a shit if something bad were to happen. but that is not the same thing. So yeah be safe! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ok, Be safe! With your track record on advocating consequences to people who do not agree with you, how should I consider this message and your intent? Genuinely confused by this, I don't wish ill on individuals (except outright nazi level fascists) I may not give a shit if something bad were to happen. but that is not the same thing. So yeah be safe!" I honesty think this forum is not helping you be your best self. I wont continue to trade comments, in the hope you can take some time out Peace | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ok, Be safe! With your track record on advocating consequences to people who do not agree with you, how should I consider this message and your intent? Genuinely confused by this, I don't wish ill on individuals (except outright nazi level fascists) I may not give a shit if something bad were to happen. but that is not the same thing. So yeah be safe! I honesty think this forum is not helping you be your best self. I wont continue to trade comments, in the hope you can take some time out Peace"Bye, have the day you deserve! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When did this happen? Check out some of the transphobic articles that the Daily Mail publish by Richard Littlejohn. Pretty fucking gross. Or read up about why India Willoughby quit GB news. There are countless examples of hate towards the trans community in mainstream media. " Yes but don’t think he only picks on trans people. He has written unpleasant stuff about gay people for the last probably 3 decades. Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. I don’t really have a view on Willoughby except I try to ignore her as I don’t think she really offers any real insight into the discussion going on about the subject. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era." You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate.... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate...." Trouble is people are so used to framing a anything someone disagrees with as hate or transphobic, when real hate happens people switch off to it. Yes the trans discussion is unpleasant on both sides, but that is in a large part because of Stonewall’s strategy of #no debate. You think gay and lesbian people got their rights by adopting a #no debate strategy? No they used dialogue to convince people it was the right thing to do. Rarely does such a intransigent position get what you want and stonewall were told this by many people. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate.... Trouble is people are so used to framing a anything someone disagrees with as hate or transphobic, when real hate happens people switch off to it. Yes the trans discussion is unpleasant on both sides, but that is in a large part because of Stonewall’s strategy of #no debate. You think gay and lesbian people got their rights by adopting a #no debate strategy? No they used dialogue to convince people it was the right thing to do. Rarely does such a intransigent position get what you want and stonewall were told this by many people. " nope, and I wont be elaborating | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate.... Trouble is people are so used to framing a anything someone disagrees with as hate or transphobic, when real hate happens people switch off to it. Yes the trans discussion is unpleasant on both sides, but that is in a large part because of Stonewall’s strategy of #no debate. You think gay and lesbian people got their rights by adopting a #no debate strategy? No they used dialogue to convince people it was the right thing to do. Rarely does such a intransigent position get what you want and stonewall were told this by many people. nope, and I wont be elaborating" Missed off what I meant to write which was Littlejohn is a complete #### and I don’t agree with anything he writes about trans or gay people. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate...." I’m not playing down hate. If trans people are threatened or attacked that is out of order and anyone responsible deserves to be punished. Point I was making that because of the hyperbole that goes on by both sides, very few people actually get to hear about the real hate crimes because it’s drowned out by all the noise about the subject. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Ok, Be safe! With your track record on advocating consequences to people who do not agree with you, how should I consider this message and your intent? Genuinely confused by this, I don't wish ill on individuals (except outright nazi level fascists) I may not give a shit if something bad were to happen. but that is not the same thing. So yeah be safe! I honesty think this forum is not helping you be your best self. I wont continue to trade comments, in the hope you can take some time out Peace"your right | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views." Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome. "the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me.... Rent Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free"lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. You start a paragraph saying your not playing down any hate, then proceed to spend the rest of it playing down the hate.... Trouble is people are so used to framing a anything someone disagrees with as hate or transphobic, when real hate happens people switch off to it. Yes the trans discussion is unpleasant on both sides, but that is in a large part because of Stonewall’s strategy of #no debate. You think gay and lesbian people got their rights by adopting a #no debate strategy? No they used dialogue to convince people it was the right thing to do. Rarely does such a intransigent position get what you want and stonewall were told this by many people. nope, and I wont be elaborating" Fair enough I won’t post anymore on the subject. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ? "Rent Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ?
Rent Free"Lol again if you can't understand the majority what is your worth again ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ?
Rent Free
Lol again if you can't understand the majority what is your worth again ?". . . Rent . . . Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ?
Rent Free
Lol again if you can't understand the majority what is your worth again ?
.
.
.
Rent
.
.
.
Free"lol nothing more intelligent typical. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Sorry, the thread title "TERF centipede" mislead us a little as to the exact point you were trying to make. As a celebrity Elliot has chosen to publicly share things about their personal life. This will of course lead to media attention, some supportive and some negative. It is rather mean of those people you name to act as they did but labelling them as TERFs also makes no sense either as I doubt they are very feminist. Bigotry is not being open to other views. It's ironic that some ise the term as a slander despite their own obstinate views. Bigotry is OP go to if everyone else has a different view. It's tiresome.
the amount of threads you are finding to leave snide remarks about me....
Rent Free lol I can show the timelines you usually there first just click on my arrow. People no matter their choices according to the majority are the correct ones are they not ? Bigot is a favorite words of your if anyone shows and inference to your standards. I believe in all you choose one why is that ?
Rent Free
Lol again if you can't understand the majority what is your worth again ?
.
.
.
Rent
.
.
.
Free lol nothing more intelligent typical."R E N T . F R E E ! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise "What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing!"rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous."Living in your head of course! Otherwise you would have stopped ages ago. Rent Free! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous.".lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous..lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous."Rent Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous..lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous.
Rent Free"lolz did you have a aneurism because of my statements if you did I apologize. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous..lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous.
Rent Free lolz did you have a aneurism because of my statements if you did I apologize. "You're still coming back? Rent Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous..lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous.
Rent Free lolz did you have a aneurism because of my statements if you did I apologize.
You're still coming back?
Rent Free"at least I don't hide you do  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Try being more ambiguous.. it's will serve you better I promise
What was the rent again? Oh right! Nothing! rent on what ? Like I stated be ambiguous..lol who the confused child that's all you got rent and bigotry statement to others? Lol and you consider me weak . You are ridiculous.
Rent Free lolz did you have a aneurism because of my statements if you did I apologize.
You're still coming back?
Rent Free at least I don't hide you do "I don't need to hide, your the one who is obsessed. Cannot bear not having the last word... Rent Free | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When did this happen? Check out some of the transphobic articles that the Daily Mail publish by Richard Littlejohn. Pretty fucking gross. Or read up about why India Willoughby quit GB news. There are countless examples of hate towards the trans community in mainstream media. Yes but don’t think he only picks on trans people. He has written unpleasant stuff about gay people for the last probably 3 decades. Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. I don’t really have a view on Willoughby except I try to ignore her as I don’t think she really offers any real insight into the discussion going on about the subject. " Being less hateful than the 80s homophobes seems like a low bar. Why can't we aspire to move away from hating the trans community too? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Trans Rights are Human Rights, my existence is not a question. People who disagree with what you say are not trying to harm you, you seem more than capable of doing that yourself. They literally are. There are Gender Critical people who are on national media calling for an end to Trans people, not just trans health care, but the people themselves. Just because you choose not to see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. When did this happen? Check out some of the transphobic articles that the Daily Mail publish by Richard Littlejohn. Pretty fucking gross. Or read up about why India Willoughby quit GB news. There are countless examples of hate towards the trans community in mainstream media. Yes but don’t think he only picks on trans people. He has written unpleasant stuff about gay people for the last probably 3 decades. Not playing down any hate stuff as I’m sure it goes on but the stuff that goes on with trans issues is pretty tame compared with went on with gay men in the 80’s. Homophobia mixed with ignorance about AIDS made Britain pretty unpleasant to be gay in that era. I don’t really have a view on Willoughby except I try to ignore her as I don’t think she really offers any real insight into the discussion going on about the subject. Being less hateful than the 80s homophobes seems like a low bar. Why can't we aspire to move away from hating the trans community too?" Scroll down to my other comments after that post you can see I’ve no time for hate. If anyone threatens any trans person they deserve the harshest punishment. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
