|
4 Premier League players tested positive for covid just yesterday. I don't have anything to offer for 160, but here is a pic of my dad's cat Bobo: 
bornbytheriver fucked around with this message at 00:25 on May 29, 2020 |
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Pissflaps terfing it up on twitter during the comedown from his thrice daily trans porn wank sesh is not surprising, he and glinner share links I heard.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Can I get a mod to escalate this one and discuss this between themselves? I’ve randomly encountered him myself on twitter being a trollish dickhead towards trans women but this is a whole new thing. Pissflaps has now gone full TERF and is attacking/stalking/abusing random cis women who show solidarity with our trans sisters. This is extraordinarily pathetic, you're so dedicated to being a wokescold cop that you actually forced posters here to say "That's outside our juristiction". Owlfancier I don't think you actually hate ugly people or Gamers or anyone else for that matter but you didn't answer the question, if we're gonna reflexively reject people that kind-of-suck-but-aren't-actually-evil then where does the potential winning coalition come from? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
bornbytheriver posted:4 Premier League players tested positive for covid just yesterday. Giving them a natural advantage as it would be a breach of regulations to tackle them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:This is extraordinarily pathetic, you're so dedicated to being a wokescold cop that you actually forced posters here to say "That's outside our juristiction". If you're going to characterise the kind of poo poo pissflaps posts as people just being "wokescolds" then I don't think I want to have any more conversations with you about anything. His views are utterly disgusting and there should be no tolerance for them at all. And you should know that, you've been posting here long enough to know why that is the case.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're going to characterise the kind of poo poo pissflaps posts as people just being "wokescolds" then I don't think I want to have any more conversations with you about anything. His views are utterly disgusting and there should be no tolerance for them at all. And you should know that, you've been posting here long enough to know why that is the case. Well that loving escalated didn't it, you got a list of what other views we should have zero tolerance for? Precisely what topics are allowed in this thread on a literal discussion forum and which have you decided are forbidden? If you have a problem with Pissflaps posts or any other posts then engage with and own them, you're obviously smart enough to, this wierdo authoritianism doesn't suit you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Well that loving escalated didn't it, you got a list of what other views we should have zero tolerance for? Precisely what topics are allowed in this thread on a literal discussion forum and which have you decided are forbidden? If you have a problem with Pissflaps posts or any other posts then engage with and own them, you're obviously smart enough to, this wierdo authoritianism doesn't suit you. open bigoted abuse is zero tolerance, that's it, that's all there is good luck building your left coalition without any of the oppressed you total loving shite
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Is "the only way to defeat fascism is to debate it" back already?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
stev posted:Is "the only way to defeat fascism is to debate it" back already? It never went away it's literally always been a useful method.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
It is not authoritarianism to withdraw my personal engagement with you. I am prepared to disagree with you about a lot of things on the basis that we may have different perspectives, infomation, or priorities. But you know the arguments for why being a shithead to trans people is unacceptable. You do not need me to repeat them to you. I know you are already familiar with the subject from your previous posts. Our kindred should not be obligated to share an environment with people who conduct themselves like that and I am not obligated to humour you if you want to defend that behaviour, knowing what you already know. That is where I draw the line. I have zero desire to cultivate an environment in which those ideas are acceptable. if you want to defend them you can defend them to the void.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:55 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:It never went away it's literally always been a useful method. lmao, the shitlib reveals itself
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
Serf and TERF: Political Thought in the British Isles RRP £42.69
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
I do enjoy when someone I've had on ignore for ages proves why that was a good choice
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:It never went away it's literally always been a useful method. This is dumb and wrong. Much as I'm loathe to link to the Guardian, this seems a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/may/03/death-of-debate-jordan-peterson-slavoj-zizek-alexandria-ocasio-cortez quote:Who wins from public debate? Liars, bullies and trolls
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
WTF is he on - and this was about 9am? https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1265913731634135043?s=20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4 Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Dictatorship by the one party state - here we come: https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2020/may/speaker-agrees-to-recall-of-parliament/ quote:Government requests recall of Parliament tl:dr No more online voting, only 50MPs max in the chamber, supposed to try and reach cross-party agreement on how divisions will work on Tuesday. Twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1266001968826396679
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Vitamin Pissflaps
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
I do think lefty culture gets very cancelly but I don't think it's unique really. The far right are constantly infighting, loving eachothers wives and making GBS threads their pants too. Now in terms of parties, the tories seem roughly 200x as stable and competent as Labour in terms of keeping their poo poo together
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lmao, the shitlib reveals itself At the risk of getting hit by the shrapnel of whatever the heck is going on here: What's wrong with good faith debating with people with appalling views? I know a hell of a lot of lefty types who used to be full fash, on the basis of "liberals don't give a poo poo that my life is a train-wreck since 2008". A lot of people are too far gone but proto-fash absolutely should be saved from the clutches of the predator weirdos who seem to spend their days grooming young men into racists. Cancel culture is one of the dumbest things ever and, whilst mainly a lib affliction, does creep into the left a fair bit. See e.g. the scorn heaped on "legitimate concerns" when the right is all too ready to give the appearance of listening. And provide their particular set of answers. Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 03:06 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:At the risk of getting hit by the shrapnel of whatever the heck is going on here: The problem with good faith debating with people with appalling views is that, for all practical aspects, it doesn't exist. Not on any scale that it'd prove a practical action anyway. Their ideology eventually slims down to "some people don't have a right to exist", and you cannot debate that. If you're down to the brass tacks of arguing for or against your life, there's no good faith debate. As for the right winning people over by paying lip service to "legitimate concerns": that's because the right have no problems lying to people and telling them they have the answers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lmao, the shitlib reveals itself isn't Vitamin P a lexiteer maybe RCP?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:At the risk of getting hit by the shrapnel of whatever the heck is going on here: The process of "hearing out those we disagree with" is employed entirely cynically by the right to push the overton window and get their talking points discussed. Hence Nigel Farage, a man who has never been an MP and whose political party has held all of 2 commons seats, was invited on to politics programmes again and again to discuss his views. The liberals like to talk about how inviting Nick Griffin on to Question Time in 2009 lead to the death of the party since the disinfectant of light shone on the shoddy operation. This entirely ignores the rise of UKIP in their stead, who had similar messaging just with more effective dog-whistling and a more charismatic leader  .Hence we get the news cycle of hatred. The Express runs a lie of a headline like "90% of muslims are rapists". The Telegraph reports on the reporting "90% of muslims are rapists, newspaper finds". The BBC reports on the headlines, and by the evening news Farage is on to honestly broker the conversation on whether or not Islam is a rape religion. The Mail can cover Farage being on TV to talk about muslim rape, and it doesn't matter where this story originated or whether it's true or not, you've just heard "muslims" and "rape" over and over and that idea gets baked into your brain and that's the point. When these points are aired in public it's done purely to rationalise hard-right views as being a reasonable end of the spectrum. You won't ever see, for example, a communist being interviewed about capitalist greed. You won't see the above cycle employed by people who want to preserve the planet, or who want to protect employee rights or anything left-wing, because nobody's interested in earnestly debating left-wing people, since that isn't the point. That said, one-to-one discussion with people, or discussing with them on a dead gay comedy forum, can be reasonable in my opinion, if the person is earnestly engaging in debate. Obviously this thread has been flapssed in the past, but I think that as a movement we need to get better at talking to people we disagree with and convincing them to get on side.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
winegums posted:Words Yes, I think this is an accurate summary of how a well-funded far-right media machine operates. I fundamentally agree with everything you've written... I don't think cancel culture applies there because there isn't really an opportunity to stop this message getting out this way. In fact, trying to not engage actually makes this cycle possible. you can't stop the Daily Mail publishing their hate but you can undermine the message. The liberal media has done an absolutely dreadful job of this because they fundamentally don't have answers and the message of "everything is actually ok" doesn't really hit the target when someone's entire future just got thrown on the scrapheap. The cycle is broken with more engagement, not less. If that has to be done one-to-one then so be it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
I'm all for political outreach/sceptical of cancel culture but this thread isn't just a debate space - I don't think people want to come here looking for UK-centred chat and find posters debating their right to exist, good faith or no
Lt. Danger fucked around with this message at 04:08 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 04:05
|
|
|
The issue with engaging with it in the media is that the question and discussion are always framed in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" sort of way. The left comes off as apologists for whatever bete noir is being aired. You're not arguing with someone who's engaging in debate rules, it's just a shouting match to get your point across and the battlefield is already skewed such that calling a loving racist a loving racist is met with cries of "what about decorum?" and "see? they call you a racist just for having legitimate concerns."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 04:06
|
|
|
“We don’t debate facts” Deborah Lipstadt on why she wouldn’t respond to David Irving’s repeated calls for her to “debate meeeee!” and which directly led to him suing her for libel and destroying his own self in the process. I think someone learned a new word and wanted to be all big and clever and use it. *shrugs* no matter if he’s banned or not warning people he might target that flaps has gone off the deep end and is now making it on the kind of list that gets your post screenshotted by random LGBT people on twitter isn’t a bad thing. I encountered him a few weeks back and he’s clearly read this thread recently which is why I wasn’t aware of the full ban. Edit: There is no “Trans women are women debate me” it’s “trans women are women gently caress you” learnincurve fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
The only reason they want a debate is to have yet another chance to be a shithead to the people they are marginalising or abusing. They have no interest in changing their mind.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Funnily enough, I read something with a nice turn of phrase about this yesterday: "Civility is worthless without ethics"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 07:00
|
|
|
"Cancel Culture" is the umpteenth new term describing the same phenomenon and I don't think I've ever seen a consistent definition. Like, some people use it (fairly, imo) to mean that some are too quick to declare someone Irredeemably Bad over minor fuckups but others use it to mean "why won't you calmly debate literal terfs" so I really don't think its a useful term. There's lots of trans issues I'm willing to debate but our right to exist is not one of them! Sorry if that makes me a jumped up little wokescold!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
I'm actually 100% fine with the spaces I inhabit being filled with discussion about whether my identity is real or valid, or whether I'm actually a rapist willing to undergo drastic hormonal changes and irreversible surgery in order to infiltrate women's spaces, because I am willing to break laws against rape but not willing to defy a little silhouette of a person in a skirt on a changing room door. Sorry, that got away from me a bit. Also I loving wish cancel culture was real because there's an awful lot of rusty harmonicas I would love to never hear from or about again Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 07:40 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Dictatorship by the one party state - here we come: lol they're literally making a rump parliament, mogg must be wetting his crinolines with excitement. I take it Lindsay Hoyle is as much of a useless garbage man as he always appeared to be? I definitely can't see bercow allowing this if he had been in charge e: unsurprisingly our world-beating contact tracing system that will be ready by the 1st of june doesn't really exist, won't be ready until the end of June, won't be very good, and appears to mostly being used as a vehicle for graft by serco et al After PPE and testing, contact tracing looks like the next UK shambles in some ways I'm quite looking forward to the next election, I will tell anyone who's planning on voting Tory that they're voting for someone who very publicly murderered tens of thousands of people and then when they win anyway I can finally stop pretending to give a gently caress about democracy E2: Like obviously they already murdered tens of thousands of people with austerity (and they're definitely fixing to repeat that on top of the virus murder) but those figures were sufficiently abstract that people could just refuse to acknowledge them, it's harder to argue with the death toll we've all been fixated on for months XMNN fucked around with this message at 08:17 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 07:53
|
|
|
Many folks ITT are here for a safe welcoming chat thread, so spoilers for a decidedly clinical comment: If you are concerned about the odds for ambitious GRA reform in the near future, you probably should be. The cross-party consensus in favour of self-ID that prevailed under Cameron has definitely collapsed; the previous pragmatic calculation that it was the unstoppable wave of the future has vanished. One is sitting around talking about single-sex parks because opponents have finally found a stick to beat it with, much more effective than the previous 2018-flavored focus on prisons (this probably does not come as a surprise but sympathy for prisoners is hard to generate, especially under the sexual assault framing). One women's only swimming pool at Hampstead Heath is worth all of the hypothetical prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assaults. Most people do not know a convict but they do visit public bathrooms. In practical terms the question was previously reckoned to be much like gay marriage - a paperwork change with strongly supportive stakeholders, but one which doesn't mobilize any more opposition than generic homophobia already does, the hard stuff already having been fought back during civil partnerships. But this has turned out not to be the case - the GRA Mk1 did not occupy a similar cultural place, it turned out, and opponents found a new ground upon which to stand. Once a cultural struggle sets one single-issue group against another single-issue group, there is no particular hurry; the politicos are content to watch civil society battle it out. It certainly isn't the sort of question that wins elections, after all. The concrete impact can already be seen in Scotland, where the SNP - with a 2016 Holyrood majority and a manifesto mandate for self-ID that is well within its competencies - is finding manifold excuses to postpone the question. One can also observe it in - like it or not - Labour itself retreating from the 2017 open-ended pledge to amend the Equalities Act 2010 and instead pledging to ensure that "single-sex-based exemptions ... are understood and fully enforced". Yes yes 10k-word sophisticated legal analyses, shadow minister says what, yada, yada, but the point is that Labour now perceives a rival concern that it is deliberately setting out to 'ambiguate' towards there. Cultural change is of course not a teleological conquest of history. The most well-known example is the downfall of the Equal Rights Amendment in the USA, which collapsed from bipartisan consensus to culture war fodder in the space of years, but you may also recall the apparently unstoppable juggernaut of Nordic model prohibition of prostitution from the early tens. That collapsed, too (it unanticipated opponent turned out to be the civil liberties groups like Amnesty) - by 2016 it was dead in the water. In the near future, my guess is that the likely outcome is plenty of consultations to drag it out as far as possible (the government excluded it from their 2019 manifesto altogether so there's no reason to even table it besides "Liz Truss needs something to pass the time, because of course International Trade has nothing to do. Brexit's a settled question... right?"). Probably all parties will drift toward creatively re-interpreting "self-ID" to be a demand to merely weaken the criteria for obtaining a GRC, rather than the original demand to abolish the requirement to obtain approval altogether. ronya fucked around with this message at 09:00 on May 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:16
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:What's wrong with good faith debating with people with appalling views? I know a hell of a lot of lefty types who used to be full fash, on the basis of "liberals don't give a poo poo that my life is a train-wreck since 2008". A lot of people are too far gone but proto-fash absolutely should be saved from the clutches of the predator weirdos who seem to spend their days grooming young men into racists.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 08:43
|
|
|
winegums posted:
Yeah, you have to distinguish between people who hold dumb views in good faith and those who are openly playing nasty games under the guise of "having the debate". learnincurve posted:
Pissflaps continuing to silently monitor this thread from a distance is pretty creepy lol.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:01
|
|
|
TACD posted:In addition to what others have said, there's several posters in this very thread who used to hold questionable views and have been won over through actual debate. But as has been stated, the overwhelming majority of the time the offer of 'debate' is not made in good faith. The word "debate" is part of the problem I think. It conjures up images of two very rational people with views both alike in dignity - to borrow my referendum example, the UK flag should be the union jack because A,B,C vs the UK flag should have a hippo on it because X,Y,Z. Is it a debate if someone wanders in to the thread with lazy, ill-informed views on e.g. trans issues, asks good-faith questions, and is promptly and thoroughly schooled on why their ideas are terrible? Or to put it another way, in the debate between "is it ok to be black people?" and "yes, it is", is the former ever going to win? And if not, is that a debate? Bad faith people conflate these two ideas to their advantage, when actually the debate has already been had and won, and all that remains is to educate the stragglers on why.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Pissflaps continuing to silently monitor this thread from a distance is pretty creepy lol. He is incapable of logging off. And I assume he brings the same energy to his real-life interactions, he must be a nightmare to have as a neighbour, not to mention his long-suffering, possibly fictional wife
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
Pissflaps is obsessed with transpeople, i guess in a way you could call him... a chaser.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
On a similar topic, is there any decent way to respond to people who choose to back up their lovely views by linking you to badly edited 3hr+ YouTube docs? I feel like, consciously or otherwise, conspiracy theorists, nutters and the alt-right use these videos precisely because it requires far more effort and time to refute video content than written content - and because videos don't tend to include citations. At the moment if I'm having a conversation with someone about these issues, as soon as one of those videos gets brought up the debate is basically over, because there's no way I'm going to subject myself to that poo poo (mainly because I find them genuinely unsettling, and they make me feel like I'm losing my mind). The person who shared the link then feels like they've won.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:12
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:Pissflaps continuing to silently monitor this thread from a distance is pretty creepy lol. probably enjoys / feeds off the attention. maybe if people STFU about him for 5 minutes he'd get bored and stop. maybe not, but it's worth a try
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:On a similar topic, is there any decent way to respond to people who choose to back up their lovely views by linking you to badly edited 3hr+ YouTube docs? I feel like, consciously or otherwise, conspiracy theorists, nutters and the alt-right use these videos precisely because it requires far more effort and time to refute video content than written content - and because videos don't tend to include citations. Link them to the 3 hour Hbomb video that corresponds with that issue.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2020 09:16
|
|