By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
A lawyer on Today even floated the idea of cancelling ALL historical statues, paintings, and physical memorials because 'standards change and people whom today seem great may be hiding dark secrets' Bonkers.
Am all for free speech. Owen Jones and his cabal can scream "offence" until their lungs turn inside out. Makes my blood boil if you hadn't guessed.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
So if there were cases of men who had transitioned to get into women's prisons for the purposes of assaulting them, would that make point number two invalid? Or at least challenge it?
I don't think Rowling said all safe spaces are no longer safe. Her point was that there is a danger some might not be.
From your article: Transgender politics — like any politics — can be divisive. Yet in the case of Karen White, who is legally still a man but was put in a female-only prison, both sides of the transgender rights debate are united in the belief mistakes were made.
I think there is probably a clear argument against putting convicted rapists in the general population of any prison.
Nobody. Is. Condoning. Threats. To. Rape. Or. Harm. J.K. Rowling.
She has a history of taking views that are transphobic, some of which has been explained by Jake earlier in this thread. She has a big platform and I imagine some of the audience she can reach includes young people who may be questioning their gender identity. It is right that her views are challenged. It is not right that people make threats against her for holding those views. This isn't hard.
And yet. All I hear is her being condemned. And not the people threatening her. I know it's awkward to admit that there is fault on both sides, but if we don't acknowledge that we get nowhere.
JK Rowling wrote some sh*t books and I vehemently disagree with some thing she has said in the past but she's a victim of abuse and sexual assault as a young person and a passionate feminist. How sad to see what is, I presume, a largely male football forum deciding she's some kind of modern evil.
So if there were cases of men who had transitioned to get into women's prisons for the purposes of assaulting them, would that make point number two invalid? Or at least challenge it?
I don't think Rowling said all safe spaces are no longer safe. Her point was that there is a danger some might not be.
The issue here is tarring an entire community with the label of being a threat because of very isolated cases where they have been. It's the same logic Tommy Robinson uses to justify his Islamaphobic views.
And it is basically akin to me saying I'm not comfortable with sharing a male changing room with a gay man because some individual gay men have committed acts of rape against men. That attitude is homophobic in the way that the views of someone like Rowling are transphibic.
What she said that was harmful has already been explained in this thread.
Further to that, she decided to start a pile-on on some random guy on Twitter when they pointed out she had liked a (factually inaccurate) tweet about gender transitioning being like gay conversion therapy. This random guy then started getting threats to the extent that they were terrified to pick up the phone when their mum rang them as they feared she’d been targeted by the people abusing him.
Like many celebrities, she’s an insane narcissist who thinks her view is king and who has never once listened to anyone putting across a reasoned opposing view, instead accusing everyone of ‘trolling’ her and being misogynist.
No one condones the threats of violence against her so stop hiding behind that as a reason to not engage with anything else.
Nobody is condoning them. Just ignoring them and failing to mention them as though this is a good v evil, black and white issue.
And yet you are happy to bring up a Twitter "pile-on" which paints Rowling in a negative light.
And yet. All I hear is her being condemned. And not the people threatening her. I know it's awkward to admit that there is fault on both sides, but if we don't acknowledge that we get nowhere.
JK Rowling wrote some sh*t books and I vehemently disagree with some thing she has said in the past but she's a victim of abuse and sexual assault as a young person and a passionate feminist. How sad to see what is, I presume, a largely male football forum deciding she's some kind of modern evil.
I think it's kind of taken as a given that threats of rape and personal harm are widely condemned, but just to put your mind at ease - Twitter is an absolute cesspit of abuse and they need to do something about it, and there is absolutely no doubt that the threats she is receiving are worse than her posts (on any subject), and they should be investigated by the police.
The issue here is tarring an entire community with the label of being a threat because of very isolated cases where they have been. It's the same logic Tommy Robinson uses to justify his Islamaphobic views.
And it is basically akin to me saying I'm not comfortable with sharing a male changing room with a gay man because some individual gay men have committed acts of rape against men. That attitude is homophobic in the way that the views of someone like Rowling are transphibic.
I do hate labels. They are the scourge of our current times.
And yet. All I hear is her being condemned. And not the people threatening her. I know it's awkward to admit that there is fault on both sides, but if we don't acknowledge that we get nowhere.
JK Rowling wrote some sh*t books and I vehemently disagree with some thing she has said in the past but she's a victim of abuse and sexual assault as a young person and a passionate feminist. How sad to see what is, I presume, a largely male football forum deciding she's some kind of modern evil.
Straw men all over the place in that post. And if you've not seen anyone condemning the abuse she's received you haven't been looking very hard.
I think it's kind of taken as a given that threats of rape and personal harm are widely condemned, but just to put your mind at ease - Twitter is an absolute cesspit of abuse and they need to do something about it, and there is absolutely no doubt that the threats she is receiving are worse than her posts (on any subject), and they should be investigated by the police.
Nobody is condoning them. Just ignoring them and failing to mention them as though this is a good v evil, black and white issue.
And yet you are happy to bring up a Twitter "pile-on" which paints Rowling in a negative light.
Tells a story.
Oh come on, how can you take yourself seriously when you've just totally brushed aside a point that counters your argument and then claim other people aren't showing any nuance?
What story does it tell? Please say, because from where I'm sitting it looks like you're accusing me of not caring about rape/death threats, which is a pretty disgraceful insinuation.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Nonsense. He's just a lefty rent-a-gob at best. It seems you don't even understand "cancel culture" let alone see it on the right - shock horror.
It's older than Whitehouse after all.
What? I'm happy in understanding this topic. Thanks.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
What she said that was harmful has already been explained in this thread.
Further to that, she decided to start a pile-on on some random guy on Twitter when they pointed out she had liked a (factually inaccurate) tweet about gender transitioning being like gay conversion therapy. This random guy then started getting threats to the extent that they were terrified to pick up the phone when their mum rang them as they feared she’d been targeted by the people abusing him.
Like many celebrities, she’s an insane narcissist who thinks her view is king and who has never once listened to anyone putting across a reasoned opposing view, instead accusing everyone of ‘trolling’ her and being misogynist.
No one condones the threats of violence against her so stop hiding behind that as a reason to not engage with anything else.
If I might put aside the element of her views outlined in your second para (which I agree is out of order) for the moment.
Her *basic* point of view/argument as I understand it, and speaking as another biological female, is that women down the centuries have been assaulted, raped, stalked, murdered and victims of domestic abuse (men can be the last too, but it's predominantly females who are). Fear of these things are therefore an instinct for women.
To allow people who are biologically men into what are currently safe spaces for women (public loos, changing rooms, refuges, hostels etc.) therefore raises great fears for women. Of course the majority of trans people are perfectly harmless, but there will also be some men, not genuine trans, who simply see the situation as an opportunity to attack women.
There's also the whole issue of categorisation in sport, but that's probably a separate argument worth a thread of its own.
I do hate labels. They are the scourge of our current times.
For example, TERF. WTF does it even mean.
it means feminists who think that, while transsexuals have the absolute right to adopt their chosen gender presentation and must be legally protected from discrimination and harassment, biologically speaking if you have a penis you're not a woman. i know, i know, could it be more offensive?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
'Freedom of speech' doesn't mean that individuals have the right to demand a platform is given to them by private organisations to espouse their views.
What it does mean is that if you want to criticise someone's viewpoint, make clear that they don't represent you, or ask that they not be supported by an organisation, you can do that.
It always amazes how people who say they care about 'freedom of speech' normally don't know what it means.
In one group, Ex-Army or something like that, someone posted a video of a black chap gobbing off to a group of white blokes. He got his head bashed about. Nothing particularly edifying for either party in the video.
What hurt me was the comments. I'm not going to repeat as I don't want to be any way linked but......
I did report it and left the group.
It's sad and shameful that a bunch of Phil Mitchell lookeelikeees, and that was pretty much the demographic, are out there and spouting off in the name of 'veterans'.
Happy to share good and bad and this is utterly shameful.
Context before someone disappears into the kuiper belt........These are only my 'own' in that they are veterans. Nowt else links me to those utter morons. Let's just make that clear. Sorry Herbivore to ruin that one for you.
Understanding stuff isn't your strong point. Stick to disability related insults, that's your strength.
Oh dear, stuck in the insult box again.
Take a break from insulting me and do something positive.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
In one group, Ex-Army or something like that, someone posted a video of a black chap gobbing off to a group of white blokes. He got his head bashed about. Nothing particularly edifying for either party in the video.
What hurt me was the comments. I'm not going to repeat as I don't want to be any way linked but......
I did report it and left the group.
It's sad and shameful that a bunch of Phil Mitchell lookeelikeees, and that was pretty much the demographic, are out there and spouting off in the name of 'veterans'.
Happy to share good and bad and this is utterly shameful.
Context before someone disappears into the kuiper belt........These are only my 'own' in that they are veterans. Nowt else links me to those utter morons. Let's just make that clear. Sorry Herbivore to ruin that one for you.
How rude, inaccurate, and totally unnecessary.
Please keep your assumptions to yourself. If you want to state a fact then make it solid. So far yourself and Herbivore are the duty insulters of those with whom you disagree.
Do you insult everyone with whom you disagree to this level and to themselves in person? You both seem like the types who's chest expands when presented with a keyboard.
GIve yourself some time off and be nice.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
If I might put aside the element of her views outlined in your second para (which I agree is out of order) for the moment.
Her *basic* point of view/argument as I understand it, and speaking as another biological female, is that women down the centuries have been assaulted, raped, stalked, murdered and victims of domestic abuse (men can be the last too, but it's predominantly females who are). Fear of these things are therefore an instinct for women.
To allow people who are biologically men into what are currently safe spaces for women (public loos, changing rooms, refuges, hostels etc.) therefore raises great fears for women. Of course the majority of trans people are perfectly harmless, but there will also be some men, not genuine trans, who simply see the situation as an opportunity to attack women.
There's also the whole issue of categorisation in sport, but that's probably a separate argument worth a thread of its own.
The thing is, no-one is dismissing acts of harassment and violence against women, but people like Rowling assume they are so they can clear the decks for their argument whilst painting anyone with opposing views as hypocritical or otherwise nefarious.
Whilst there are grey areas in the complexities of these conversations (sport, which is split into ‘men’ and ‘women’ being a major one), a lot of the arguments around safe spaces and protecting women are made in bad faith. To be blunt, a sexual assaulter won’t need a sign on a toilet door to stop them assaulting someone. A lot of failings of other people or institutions are often pushed, by Rowling etc., onto trans people. To take an example from earlier in the thread, men using transitioning as an excuse to be put in a women’s prison and then assaulting women in there is a failing of the legal and prison systems to take care of those situations properly.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Please keep your assumptions to yourself. If you want to state a fact then make it solid. So far yourself and Herbivore are the duty insulters of those with whom you disagree.
Do you insult everyone with whom you disagree to this level and to themselves in person? You both seem like the types who's chest expands when presented with a keyboard.
GIve yourself some time off and be nice.
Maybe you could highlight what exactly I've said that's inaccurate? People can read for themselves what you said, I've linked the thread(s)
Internet or face to face, if I had to deal with someone showing the level of ignorance you have, I'd do so in the same manner.
I'm sorry you feel insulted, from my point of view I'm simply not letting you get away with your disingenuous attempt to shift context around the term "window licker" which is completely unacceptable in modern society. Your weak defence just doesn't cut it and neither does your lack of humility around you dropping such a b0llock publicly. You can't ignore this, the more you act like a berk about it the more I'll highlight your hypocrisy.
It's one thing to drop a clanger, it's a whole 'nother to double down, ignore valid complaints and try to pretend that it never happened. Surprisingly cowardly actions from a former veteran. Acknowledge your mistake, take ownership of it and move on.
I won't be lectured on being "nice" from a man that thinks that using derogatory terms for the disabled is acceptable.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
