|
|
Post by Aunt Alison on Oct 30, 2021 16:20:15 GMT
And as a bonus, one of the women featured in the article on trans predatoes is allegedly a rapist Hard to broccolieve some of the stuff you see sprouted on the BBC these days |
|
|
|
Post by dfunked on Oct 30, 2021 16:30:08 GMT
I've seen more believable articles on the daily mash.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Oct 31, 2021 12:44:12 GMT
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,866
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Oct 31, 2021 12:54:01 GMT
It's probably the right ruling, but yeah he's a piece of shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2021 14:27:41 GMT
I mean 'She already made a deal with my now dead paedo friend to keep me from being sued over being a paedo, which I'm totally not' isn't the best argument for an innocent man to be making, is it? He probably paid his lawyers several hundred thousand pounds to come up that, try to be more impressed  |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Oct 31, 2021 14:30:18 GMT
That interview must be a contradiction gold mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by RadicalRex on Nov 1, 2021 3:47:27 GMT
It's frustrating how "free speech" has degraded to being a red flag in the west. It is so important under actual oppression, but in the west "free speech!" has become almost synonymous with your right to be an antisocial cunt without consequence.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,866
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Nov 1, 2021 4:22:24 GMT
Yeah, unfortunately it's gone from "you should be able to say basically what you like without the government arresting you", to "I can say what I want and if people don't like it they just have to suck it up in silence because free speech"
|
|
Lukus
Junior Member
Posts: 2,708
|
Post by Lukus on Nov 1, 2021 10:22:19 GMT
The thing that pisses me off about the free speech bunch is how they think they should be free of the consequences that come from saying dumb shit. Yes, you're free to say basically whatever, but that doesn't mean people can't call you a stupid cunt for saying it.
|
|
Lukus
Junior Member
Posts: 2,708
|
Post by Lukus on Nov 1, 2021 10:24:05 GMT
Or what molar said
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Nov 1, 2021 11:10:10 GMT
I concur
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Nov 1, 2021 14:56:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by khanivor on Nov 1, 2021 15:33:35 GMT
Yeah, unfortunately it's gone from "you should be able to say basically what you like without the government arresting you", to "I can say what I want and if people don't like it they just have to suck it up in silence because free speech" Do I believe that there is a cabal of international financiers and billionaires conspiring to micromanage the direction of the world’s economy? No Do I believe there are a handful of state sponsored actors manipulating social discourse by tweaking a few filters, adjusting some algorithms and using knowledge of how easy it is to drive a mass of humans into certain behaviors, one of which is rallying around the cry ‘freedom of speech’ to justify their awfulness, thereby turning the positive phrase on its head into one of negative connotations, thereby depriving humanity of a keystone of liberty from control, thus making it harder to fight against being controlled. Fuck yes |
|
|
|
Post by Matt A on Nov 1, 2021 16:56:25 GMT
I just read that article. Seems like politicising personal conjecture and translating it into cultural convention. Its tricky because all of the anecdotal evidence, the aggressor is positioned as the victim and they have a slew of situations. The problem for me is they seem to want to impose cultural norms that are fundamentally discriminatory
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Nov 3, 2021 15:03:03 GMT
|
|
Lizard
Junior Member
I love ploughmans
Posts: 4,490
Member is Online
|
Post by Lizard on Nov 3, 2021 15:05:37 GMT
Oh dear. Not a good look. |
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Nov 3, 2021 15:07:02 GMT
Well she's definitely put her stall out there, no nuance going on there. It's interesting that again only trans women are mentioned never trans men. Strange that.
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,393
|
Post by cubby on Nov 3, 2021 15:49:38 GMT
It's just mind boggling. Just a little bit of research into Lily Cade turns up that she's crazy, rapey, on top of being anti-trans. Using the term "gold star lesbian" is a clear signifier of her idea of blood purity alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Nov 3, 2021 16:20:03 GMT
It's frustrating how "free speech" has degraded to being a red flag in the west. It is so important under actual oppression, but in the west "free speech!" has become almost synonymous with your right to be an antisocial cunt without consequence. Conversely though, arguing that there was a breach of human rights by making the joke in the first place (which is the argument employed) always seems like over-reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aunt Alison on Nov 3, 2021 17:06:09 GMT
She sounds quite reasonable so I can understand why someone might be interested in her views for a professional article about a sensitive issue
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Nov 3, 2021 18:37:45 GMT
Well she's definitely put her stall out there, no nuance going on there. It's interesting that again only trans women are mentioned never trans men. Strange that. She does mention a trans man, Buck Angel, but refers to him with the wrong pronouns. |
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 3, 2021 23:46:24 GMT
I'm on the second stage of complaint with them, really looking forward to them coming back with a pathetic and insulting response again so I can escalate it, and after they do it the last time, I can report them to Ofcom, which is a massive headache for them, as they're trying to avoid being regulated by Ofcom, but as that letter shows, they violated an astonishing number of their own rules with this article. Sad thing is, there is a real problem on the left, especially the younger and more "online" left where people get bullied for not finding people attractive, i.e., if you don't generally find fat people attractive, you're fatphobic and a scumbag, if you aren't generally attracted to people with certain features, you're a racist, and in general there's this weird attempt to police people's non-illegal fetishes. The right obviously does this sort of thing too, but comes from a very different angle. But instead of the BBC dealing with that, which would have meant they'd have to have published people being bullied for not being attracted a certain race, or to people of a certain appearance, which would not have gone down as well, even though it's literally what the small amount of truth here is part of. That's one small part of what makes it incredibly clear that transphobia was the motivation here - they ignored a greater phenomenon to focus solely on a tiny, rare part of it, and act like it was a huge and unique deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Nanocrystal on Nov 4, 2021 0:06:30 GMT
Sigh, now I know who Lily Cade is. Thanks a lot, BBC/FG.
|
|
|
|
Post by grizzly on Nov 4, 2021 11:52:45 GMT
Sad thing is, there is a real problem on the left, especially the younger and more "online" left where people get bullied for not finding people attractive, i.e., if you don't generally find fat people attractive, you're fatphobic and a scumbag, if you aren't generally attracted to people with certain features, you're a racist, and in general there's this weird attempt to police people's non-illegal fetishes. The right obviously does this sort of thing too, but comes from a very different angle.
Yes, I've noticed this a bit too, but it's... idk, I think a lot of the extremely online left are the kind of people who've been on the recieving end of a lot of bullying and internalized a bit of that.
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,655
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 4, 2021 12:15:35 GMT
I suppose the counterpoint to that is: how do they know what people are attracted to in the first place?
I suspect that if someone is getting called 'fatphobic', they have said something relatively derogatory about fat people. Same with not wanting to date trans people or whatever. You can have preferences without having to broadcast 'EWWW! FAT PEOPLE!' to anyone who will listen.
There is a difference between 'Im attracted to [characteristic]' and 'I'm NOT attracted to [characteristic]'.
|
|
|
|
Post by GigaChad Sigma. on Nov 4, 2021 12:39:04 GMT
Wait so now my "No Fat Chicks" tshirt is now unfashionable?
|
|
Bongo Heracles
Junior Member
Technically illegal to ride on public land
Posts: 4,655
|
Post by Bongo Heracles on Nov 4, 2021 12:40:33 GMT
I think they prefer the 'Female Body Inspector' ones now.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Nov 4, 2021 12:47:17 GMT
I think they prefer the 'Female Body Inspector' ones now. How very binary of you |
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,393
|
Post by cubby on Nov 4, 2021 13:43:57 GMT
Sad thing is, there is a real problem on the left, especially the younger and more "online" left where people get bullied for not finding people attractive, i.e., if you don't generally find fat people attractive, you're fatphobic and a scumbag, if you aren't generally attracted to people with certain features, you're a racist, and in general there's this weird attempt to police people's non-illegal fetishes. The right obviously does this sort of thing too, but comes from a very different angle.
Yes, I've noticed this a bit too, but it's... idk, I think a lot of the extremely online left are the kind of people who've been on the recieving end of a lot of bullying and internalized a bit of that.
Yeah this is the angle the BBC should be looking at to be honest, if they are actually interested in the discourse around LGBT rights. You can trace some of the Trumpism'ness in recent politics to a bubbling reaction to people jumping down other people's throats for not saying something the correct way. Rather than allowing for mistakes and forgiving and encouraging learning, a select few would rather say that they're now the enemy, with no hope of being allowed back into the fold. Obviously there's plenty of bigots too who need calling out as they're usually unrepentant about it, but jumping down someone's throat immediately makes them put their back up and disengage from the point trying to be made. So they more often than not go to the people who aren't criticising them. In this case, Trump. |
|
lexw
New Member
Posts: 858
|
Post by lexw on Nov 5, 2021 9:44:18 GMT
I suppose the counterpoint to that is: how do they know what people are attracted to in the first place? I suspect that if someone is getting called 'fatphobic', they have said something relatively derogatory about fat people. Same with not wanting to date trans people or whatever. You can have preferences without having to broadcast 'EWWW! FAT PEOPLE!' to anyone who will listen. There is a difference between 'Im attracted to [characteristic]' and 'I'm NOT attracted to [characteristic]'. I wish that were it, but sadly I have seen specific examples including offline IRL, which one younger friend called "purity tests" - as in ideological purity. One example is a black charity worker who likes to quiz people on whether they've ever had a black GF/BF, and if they haven't, to condemn them as a racist (albeit in slightly less obvious words). POC isn't good enough for the quizzer, note, as one person she quizzed had dated a Filipino guy for a long time, but was still condemned in the same terms. Another example is obvious manipulation, where a guy continually implied women not willing to enter a relationship with him were classist or bad/fake leftists, even if they were in long-term relationships, and that of their current male partners didn't want to be part of his proposed thruple, they were homophobic (which is much closer to what the beeb was looking for). Other times you get people being judged for their thirst posts. Like they didn't include enough POCs, or god help them, none at all, or everyone they thirst for is super-conventionally-attractive. Does that mean some weirdo is literally going through their Twitter or Insta trying to catch them out? Yes, yes it does. The people doing this are a tiny minority, even accounting for pile-ons because most people on the left, especially over age about 25 understand people are attracted to who they're attracted to and trying to police that is some creepy dystopian shit, but it keeps coming back. Very occasionally it makes it to the mainstream in some ill-advised column in the NYT or whatever, where some columnist decides to blanket-condemn people who find certain attributes attractive or otherwise decides to act as the bedroom police. Your example definitely does happen. Indeed some of the "bullying" the BBC article refers to is the result of someone saying stuff like "trans women are disgusting" or whatever and getting told off for it. Which honestly is fine. Express a gross opinion in public, don't expect everyone to love you. Ironically the sort of people who say that then see negative feedback as unfair are often keen to condemn people in the same way itself. As noted the right has a different set of attraction police issues here which, beyond the obvious homophobia and so on, often amount to "Why aren't you attracted to this wimpy soulless good Christian, ladies?", but people are so used to them they barely attract comment today. |
|
