The word ‘woke’ has been weaponised

[Setton]

3 hours ago, Michelle said:

 

As we have seen in the last five or ten years, "progressive" does not equal Democrats or liberals in any way, shape or form.

Good job you're in the UK and Europe board then...

 

[itsnotoutthere]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:26 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

What a non story. Her address is publicly available. It's part of a Harry Potter tour and can be found on Wikipedia.

She's a horrible woman anyway. Quite apart from her misinformed posts on transgenderism, she writes under the penname of Robert Galbraith, a super famous homophobe who pioneered gay conversion therapy. 

She's truly an awful person and, as long as she isn't physically harmed, anything that keeps the troll off Twitter is a good thing. 

"How on Earth did JK Rowling become the most controversial cultural figure of our times? Had you told someone this 10 years ago they’d have wondered what the hell you were going on about. What could this once beloved children’s author – whose Harry Potter books inculcated a generation of young people with a love for reading, well, Harry Potter books – possibly have done to fall so far in the estimations of the great and good? Pulled a Mel Gibson? Killed some kids? Joined the BNP? That the answer would turn out to be expressing her belief that biological sex is real would have struck someone in 2011 as even more implausible than Rowling suddenly going full fash."

 https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/23/jk-rowling-the-making-of-a-modern-folk-devil/

 

[itsnotoutthere]

"So, we finally have an answer to the largely rhetorical question of whether England’s oh-so-woke football players will take the knee against Qatar during the World Cup there next year. Whether these hyper-aware, rainbow laces-wearing, injustice-hating sportsmen will make some kind of physical gesture to register their concern about Qatar’s institutionalised misogyny, homophobia and mistreatment of migrant workers. The answer, in essence, is: ‘Maybe. We’re not sure. It’s complicated."

" Yes, it seems that England players who’ve spent the past 18 months kneeling down at the start of every game to ‘raise awareness’ about racism won’t do very much to raise awareness about the crushing of women’s rights, gay rights and migrants’ rights in an Islamist state where they’ll be playing football next year."

" England players were more than happy to bend the knee for George Floyd – that’s how it all started – and to join in the woke bashing of America as a white supremacist country. But when it comes to Qatar? ‘It’s complicated…’ This is 21st-century woke preening summed up. It’s anti-American, sniffy about the West, and obsessed with the idea that everyone’s racist, but it will stare at its feet if someone points out that an Islamic country is locking up same-sex lovers and forcing women to ask permission from a man before they get married or travel abroad."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/23/why-england-players-wont-take-the-knee-against-qatar/

Edited November 25, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Silver]

40 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

"So, we finally have an answer to the largely rhetorical question of whether England’s oh-so-woke football players will take the knee against Qatar during the World Cup there next year. Whether these hyper-aware, rainbow laces-wearing, injustice-hating sportsmen will make some kind of physical gesture to register their concern about Qatar’s institutionalised misogyny, homophobia and mistreatment of migrant workers. The answer, in essence, is: ‘Maybe. We’re not sure. It’s complicated."

 

It's not complicated. It is hypocrisy.

[itsnotoutthere]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:26 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

What a non story. Her address is publicly available. It's part of a Harry Potter tour and can be found on Wikipedia.

She's a horrible woman anyway. Quite apart from her misinformed posts on transgenderism, she writes under the penname of Robert Galbraith, a super famous homophobe who pioneered gay conversion therapy. 

She's truly an awful person and, as long as she isn't physically harmed, anything that keeps the troll off Twitter is a good thing. 

Can you post something to back that up?

[itsnotoutthere]

13 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Can you post something to back that up?

That would be a 'no' then. 

[Silver]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:26 PM, ExpandMyMind said:

.....

She's a horrible woman anyway. ....

She's truly an awful person......

She's not a very good writer. Very popular though. So was Enid Blyton, and she was both a dreadful writer and a supporter of eugenics (and maybe prohibition):

Edited November 28, 2021 by The Silver Shroud

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The thing I can't forgive Rowling for is been a mediocre writer, I brought up my two children reading her books and I was just staggered at the poor quality of her prose. Compared to Philip Pullmens His Dark Materials its like night and day and his were a pleasure to read to them. She's a hack with a clever story and her "Fantastic Beasts" story showed the weakness of her talent.
But having read up on what she actually wrote she starts out from a strawman argument where she claims that its no longer acceptable to call a women a women, this shows she was triggered with an issue about Trans-people and she made a stupid comment which she then spent a year trying to defend - digging herself deeper into a hole with each subsequent Tweet, she then topped it off with a crime novel which she surely knew would alienate all the trans-people in the world.

A sad silly little insignificant women and why anyone should pay attention to a single word she says is beyond me.

Br Cornelius

[itsnotoutthere]

6 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

The thing I can't forgive Rowling for is been a mediocre writer, I brought up my two children reading her books and I was just staggered at the poor quality of her prose. Compared to Philip Pullmens His Dark Materials its like night and day and his were a pleasure to read to them. She's a hack with a clever story and her "Fantastic Beasts" story showed the weakness of her talent.
But having read up on what she actually wrote she starts out from a strawman argument where she claims that its no longer acceptable to call a women a women, this shows she was triggered with an issue about Trans-people and she made a stupid comment which she then spent a year trying to defend - digging herself deeper into a hole with each subsequent Tweet, she then topped it off with a crime novel which she surely knew would alienate all the trans-people in the world.

A sad silly little insignificant women and why anyone should pay attention to a single word she says is beyond me.

Br Cornelius

Yes, she had the temerity to say that trans women aren't real women (in the physical sense)...... BURN HER.

Doesn't the dopey mare know that there are at least 120 genders? God, where has she been?

Personally i think the trans movement is politically motivated & being used to push through abhorent ideas that wouldn't have seen the light of day 5 years ago.

"Now that safe spaces and universal acceptance have become the norm, it is fashionable to tolerate all kinds of proclivities and inclinations in the name of diversity. But until recently, we respected the nebulous line that faintly dissects the parameters of what we consider to be good and evil. Not so today, where there is a growing campaign to destigmatise everything, even if doing so requires us to unpick the moral fabric of our society.

How else are we to explain the two most disturbing causes trumpeted by modern progressives: of paedophilia and of polygamy?"

https://unherd.com/2021/11/paedophilia-is-not-progressive/

What does the Aimee Challenor case teach us ..."Her rapid ascent is a testament to just how ready organisations are to overlook safeguarding concerns in their zeal to embrace trans ideology, says Kim Thomas."

Absolutetly shocking read. If you manage to read all of it you may rethink any ideas about voting for either the Green party or Libdems :-  http://www.uncancelled.co.uk/tie-world/gender/what-does-the-aimee-challenor-case-teach-us/

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Setton]

1 hour ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Yes, she had the temerity to say that trans women aren't real women (in the physical sense)...... BURN HER.

Doesn't the dopey mare know that there are at least 120 genders? God, where has she been?

Personally i think the trans movement is politically motivated & being used to push through abhorent ideas that wouldn't have seen the light of day 5 years ago.

"Now that safe spaces and universal acceptance have become the norm, it is fashionable to tolerate all kinds of proclivities and inclinations in the name of diversity. But until recently, we respected the nebulous line that faintly dissects the parameters of what we consider to be good and evil. Not so today, where there is a growing campaign to destigmatise everything, even if doing so requires us to unpick the moral fabric of our society.

How else are we to explain the two most disturbing causes trumpeted by modern progressives: of paedophilia and of polygamy?"

https://unherd.com/2021/11/paedophilia-is-not-progressive/

What does the Aimee Challenor case teach us ..."Her rapid ascent is a testament to just how ready organisations are to overlook safeguarding concerns in their zeal to embrace trans ideology, says Kim Thomas."

Absolutetly shocking read. If you manage to read all of it you may rethink any ideas about voting for either the Green party or Libdems :-  http://www.uncancelled.co.uk/tie-world/gender/what-does-the-aimee-challenor-case-teach-us/

Do you believe you can choose whether to be gay, straight or bi?

[itsnotoutthere]

35 minutes ago, Setton said:

Do you believe you can choose whether to be gay, straight or bi?

No.

I'll qualify that..... You can choose to be any of those, but whether you would enjoy it is another matter. 

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Setton]

1 hour ago, itsnotoutthere said:

No.

Good.

So do you think people who are attracted to children choose that?

Remember, we're just talking about feelings here, not acting on them.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Good.

So do you think people who are attracted to children choose that?

Remember, we're just talking about feelings here, not acting on them.

That TedTalk got taken down.

[Setton]

16 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That TedTalk got taken down.

I'm hoping there's enough intellectual honesty here to follow the logic to its conclusion.

[itsnotoutthere]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

Good.

So do you think people who are attracted to children choose that?

Remember, we're just talking about feelings here, not acting on them.

Hang on, let me get this straight, are you suggesting some sort of equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles? 

I don't think we even begin to go down the road of giving anybody with a sexual predilection for children any form of legitimacy by comparing it with anything else. I realise that the new tactic to try and get people to accept all this sort of stuff (trans ideology included) is to start by changing the language but we certainly don't try to make them feel better by renaming these people MAPS, we call them what they are, paedophiles. Why would you want to make life more comfortable for them? 

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Guest Br Cornelius]

4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

No.

I'll qualify that..... You can choose to be any of those, but whether you would enjoy it is another matter. 

By your logic a man can simply choose to be a women. Gender is not the same as biology according to modern science.
If who we are was simply a series of choices then the world would be a lot simpler, but sadly every shred of evidence says we have very limited choices about who we are, an extreme example been the colour of our skin.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 28, 2021 by Br Cornelius

[Setton]

6 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Hang on, let me get this straight, are you suggesting some sort of equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles? 

Just answer the question please. Do you think paedophiles choose to be attracted to children?

Yes or no?

[itsnotoutthere]

13 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

By your logic a man can simply choose to be a women. Gender is not the same as biology according to modern science.
If who we are was simply a series of choices then the world be a lot simpler, but sadly every shred of evidence says we have very limited choices about who we are, an extreme example been the colour of our skin.

Br Cornelius

I was being facetious. Obviously I could decide to be gay for a day just to try it out.....pretty sure I wouldn't like it though. As you say you are what you are. But no, a man cannot suddenly decide to be a woman, but they can try damn hard to look like one, I've noticed Thai men usually pull it off best (no pun intended).

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[itsnotoutthere]

22 minutes ago, Setton said:

Just answer the question please. Do you think paedophiles choose to be attracted to children?

Yes or no?

To some extent yes. Some people choose to be attracted to animals, should we remove the stigma from that? What is the case you're making exactly?

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[itsnotoutthere]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

I'm hoping there's enough intellectual honesty here to follow the logic to its conclusion.

It's not about logic, it's about morality.

I think I know the rabbit hole you're going down with this, but I'm not going to follow. You are basically trying to say they can't help it, & everybody should be more 'understanding' they were just born that way. No.

Edited November 28, 2021 by itsnotoutthere

[Setton]

41 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

To some extent yes. Some people choose to be attracted to animals, should we remove the stigma from that? What is the case you're making exactly?

So why is it you think whether you're attracted to men/women/both/neither is something hardwired into you but if it's children or animals it's a deliberate choice.

So you really think anyone would choose something like that?

[Setton]

33 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

It's not about logic, it's about morality.

I think I know the rabbit hole you're going down with this, but I'm not going to follow. You are basically trying to say they can't help it, & everybody should be more 'understanding' they were just born that way. No.

You clearly don't know where I'm going with this then.

So I'd suggest you try a little of that intellectual honesty and find out.

Or just admit you don't actually care about dealing with the issue and just want to feel morally superior to someone.

[Silver]

8 hours ago, Setton said:

Good.

So do you think people who are attracted to children choose that?

Remember, we're just talking about feelings here, not acting on them.

I think you are conflating two very different things, sexual attraction between adults of the same sex, and sexual attraction to children. They are different because, with regard to adults, adult people do have choice.

With children, one of the parties does not have choice- not in a meaningful way, even if they "consent".(Criminologists and psychologists agree that children can't make a distinction between right and wrong until they reach a certain level of maturity).

I'm not sure if there is a lot of point in making the comparison either, unless you are considering the most effective treatment - and I'm assuming you are coming from the point of view that sexual devience should not be treated but just understood (you may not be).

Did Gacy and Bundy have a choice? Their motivations are of interest mainly because it may help detect their traits in others, so that future potential offenders can be stopped before they can do harm.

 

 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

I think you are conflating two very different things, sexual attraction between adults of the same sex, and sexual attraction to children. They are different because, with regard to adults, adult people do have choice.

With children, one of the parties does not have choice- not in a meaningful way, even if they "consent".(Criminologists and psychologists agree that children can't make a distinction between right and wrong until they reach a certain level of maturity).

You'll notice that further up I clearly specified this relates only to people feeling that attraction, not acting on it.

So I'm afraid it's you who is conflating two different issues here.

Quote

I'm not sure if there is a lot of point in making the comparison either, unless you are considering the most effective treatment - and I'm assuming you are coming from the point of view that sexual devience should not be treated but just understood (you may not be).

You know what they say about assumptions.

Same as I said to @itsnotoutthere, have the intellectual honesty to follow the logic through, rather than relying on assumptions.

[Silver]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

You'll notice that further up I clearly specified this relates only to people feeling that attraction, not acting on it.

So I'm afraid it's you who is conflating two different issues here.

You know what they say about assumptions.

Same as I said to @itsnotoutthere, have the intellectual honesty to follow the logic through, rather than relying on assumptions.

I know you specified that. Made no difference to my response.

Why do you suggest I lack "intellectual honesty"? I have been honest in expressing the truth as I see it. If I am guilty of anything it is in being generous to you and your view.

Edited November 29, 2021 by The Silver Shroud