UK graduate thrown out of gay club after "triggering" Blurred Lines is played

Wright

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

probably more the "graduate" bit than the "uk" bit. like that makes them in some way special.

I'm betting on the polar opposite I'd say he thought the incident happened here, and we were specifying it was a UK person because that made them in some way special.

Into The Blue

Wright wrote: »

Not really. Any decent op will place the person/story, what about 'UK graduate' gets your thong riding up?

I don't know what else to say, bar, what i already explained. I didn't think it was necessary to the story. The op explained his thinking..

I'm running out of ways of saying it..........

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

It astounds me too how the feminists and egalitarianists can't see the Puritanism and how they are out to destroy fun and everyone's sex lives with their political bull****.

It's astounding, especially when you see them arguing over whether something is right or wrong for the "correct" reasons. Happens a lot with stripping, for example - it's wrong because it objectifies women, but it's right because it gives them agency - but sometimes people using agency are unconsciously abusing themselves - well that's not your right to dictate - etc etc etc.

The idea of live and let live, and self-determination / autonomy doesn't ever seem to factor in to such debates.

Now you have these morons invalidating consent if under the influence of alcohol, so essentially have taken my adulthood away from me.

I'd take this a step further and suggest, racism accusations aside, that if sex under the influence of alcohol was made illegal, the population of Ireland would plummet even more than it did during the famine. :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Wright wrote: »

I'm betting on the polar opposite I'd say he thought the incident happened here, and we were specifying it was a UK person because that made them in some way special.

possible i suppose. we may never know

Uncle Ben

'blurred line's', not a bad tune.

SeanW

Kev W wrote: »

"They" as a pronoun works for anyone. Unless you object to being referred to as "they" then you yourself allow for alternating pronouns by your own definition.

"They" doesn't work because it is a plural term. I for one would be quite insulted to be referred to as "they" I mean, do I have an invisible clone beside me mirroring my movements or what? The f***? Seriously? "They" to refer to a single individual? I seriously despair sometimes.

The King of Moo wrote: »

A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

Do you remember the full passages of "Rock a bye baby" that stuff was pretty scary.

frostyjacks

Dimwits like the girl in this story should just carry earplugs around with them in case the song comes on if it's so traumatic, instead of dictating what everyone else should and shouldn't listen to.

Kev W

SeanW wrote: »

"They" doesn't work because it is a plural term. I for one would be quite insulted to be referred to as "they" I mean, do I have an invisible clone beside me mirroring my movements or what? The f***? Seriously? "They" to refer to a single individual? I seriously despair sometimes.

they
ðeɪ/Submit
pronoun
1.
used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
"the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted"
2.
used to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
"ask a friend if they could help"

RWCNT

SeanW wrote: »

"They" doesn't work because it is a plural term. I for one would be quite insulted to be referred to as "they" I mean, do I have an invisible clone beside me mirroring my movements or what? The f***? Seriously? "They" to refer to a single individual? I seriously despair sometimes.

Do you remember the full passages of "Rock a bye baby" that stuff was pretty scary.

Singular they has been around since Shakespeare.

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

Dimwits like the girl in this story should just carry earplugs around with them in case the song comes on if it's so traumatic, instead of dictating what everyone else should and shouldn't listen to.

Once again:
Nobody is telling anyone what they can't listen to.

Into The Blue

Wright wrote: »

I'd say he thought the incident happened here, and we were specifying it was a UK person because that made them in some way special.

I honestly don't know what to say. You can only take what i post at face value.

The Corinthian

The King of Moo wrote: »

A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe,
She had so many children, her uterus fell out...

Kev W wrote: »

Incidentally, since there is a process of psychological evaluation before gender reassignment surgery can commence and that hasn't stopped gender reassignment surgery from happening, doesn't that indicate that one can be born with a gender identity distinct from their physical sex? Someone must be passing these evaluations.

Actually it indicates that self identification is a crock of shìt.

ohnonotgmail

Kev W wrote: »

Once again:
Nobody is telling anyone what they can't listen to.

from the story in the OP

“‘I know you want it’ are the exact words my rapist said to me before he raped me. I don’t want to hear this ****.”

i think thats a pretty clear attempt to get the DJ to turn if off. I know they said that isnt the intention but i dont see how you can read it any other way.

Into The Blue

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

possible i suppose. we may never know

Can you see my posts?

hatrickpatrick

frostyjacks wrote: »

Dimwits like the girl in this story should just carry earplugs around with them in case the song comes on if it's so traumatic, instead of dictating what everyone else should and shouldn't listen to.

Except that it's not their own listening to it that they object to, that's a cover. What they actually object to is that there isn't a rule stating that such content cannot exist at all, and that they are not allowed to police what content others are "allowed" to consume. The debate over banning certain forums on Reddit, such as CoonTown (anti-black forum) pretty much underlines this - they have the option of not visiting the aforementioned forum specifically, but their objection is to the fact that certain viewpoints / opinions are not considered awful enough to be outright "not allowed".

Again, these so-called "progressives" share more ideology-wise with social conservatives of the 50s and 60s than they realise. They are authoritarians.

EDIT: Also as I was saying to Zeff, it changes based on context. For example: Erotica involving non-consensual sex is ok for those who fantasise about being victims to read and enjoy, but not for those who fantasise about being aggressors. Or sometimes it's not even ok for victims to read and enjoy, because they are "unconsciously abusing themselves" or something like that.

When Facesitting was banned in UK porn, the rather sickening argument from certain producers was "I don't think the government understands, in Facesitting it's the woman who's doing the suffocating". Now I actually enjoy that type of porn and would absolutely agree that it shouldn't be banned, but to say that it's ok or not ok based on the gender of the top or bottom is absolutely sickening, to my mind.

galljga1

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Well met lifeform, I hope that your mental and emotional states are within the spectrum that you consider adequate, or better than adequate, insofar as emotional states are accessible to you. Alternatively, I hope that your respiratory, biological or life supporting systems are operating optimally."

Would that be sufficiently inoffensive way to address somebody?

I would hazard a guess that this does not cover silicon based life forms.

awec

Kev W wrote: »

I feel sorry for you if the idea of politeness seems silly to you.

What is polite about asking someone their pronoun?

In fact, I am pretty sure that females who look like women and males who look like men are going to be pretty insulted if you ask them are they a he or a she.

For women it would imply a lack of feminine looks, and for men it would imply a lack of masculine looks, which I bet those groups would prefer not to be lacking in.

Kev W

The Corinthian wrote: »

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe,
She had so many children, her uterus fell out...

Actually it indicates that self identification is a crock of shìt.

So if they pass the assessment or not, the result is the same to you? So why bring it up?

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's astounding, especially when you see them arguing over whether something is right or wrong for the "correct" reasons. Happens a lot with stripping, for example - it's wrong because it objectifies women, but it's right because it gives them agency - but sometimes people using agency are unconsciously abusing themselves - well that's not your right to dictate - etc etc etc.

The idea of live and let live, and self-determination / autonomy doesn't ever seem to factor in to such debates.



I'd take this a step further and suggest, racism accusations aside, that if sex under the influence of alcohol was made illegal, the population of Ireland would plummet even more than it did during the famine. :pac:

Yeah I stopped listening the day I was told wearing a skirt is internalised oppression, as is mascara....

Now when Jenner wears a skirt it's an act of heroism.

The Corinthian

Kev W wrote: »

So if they pass the assessment or not, the result is the same to you?

Sorry, but what's that got to so with the fact that self identification is not recognized by anyone?

ohnonotgmail

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yeah I stopped listening the day I was told wearing a skirt is internalised oppression, as is mascara....

Now when Jenner wears a skirt it's an act of heroism.

maybe Jenner has better legs *runs away giggling*

Kev W

awec wrote: »

What is polite about asking someone their pronoun?

In fact, I am pretty sure that females who look like women and males who look like men are going to be pretty insulted if you ask them are they a he or a she.

For women it would imply a lack of feminine looks, and for men it would imply a lack of masculine looks, which I bet those groups would prefer not to be lacking in.

Why would you be unsure if a woman who looks like a woman is a woman?

Again, in all caps to be clear:

ASK IF IT'S NOT OBVIOUS. IF IT'S OBVIOUS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK.

ohnonotgmail

Just to be absolutely clear my last post was totally in jest.

FobleAsNuck

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you be unsure if a woman who looks like a woman is a woman?

Again, in all caps to be clear:

ASK IF IT'S NOT OBVIOUS. IF IT'S OBVIOUS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK.

for loads of people I know it's not obvious

Kev W

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but what's that got to so with the fact that self identification is not recognized by anyone?

You'll have to rephrase that, it seems like you're asserting that nobody recognises self-identification, which is not true.

zeffabelli

Kev W wrote: »

So if they pass the assessment or not, the result is the same to you? So why bring it up?

What does the assessment actually do? Assess whether they really believe it or not or whether through some act of trans gender substantiation they will one day go through menopause?

KomradeBishop

Why is an article from the arsehole of the Internet, that is unverifiable and probably fake/heavily-embellished, being amplified like this on Boards?

It's so non-notable, that I don't see how this article was even found? The link only has 8 hits on Google.

It's getting increasingly common, to see random articles like this pop up, which are hardly linked anywhere else on the Internet, and which get used to try and drum-up mocking-by-association - to hold up a silly article as a caricature - of people holding certain views around gender issues (usually anything that can be remotely construed as relating to feminism); my bets are, that this article was found through some newsfeed that posts along those lines.

galljga1

FobleAsNuck wrote: »

for loads of people I know it's not obvious

At least you know that you know. If it was an unknown unknown, that would be a different matter. Is that binary or not?

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

What does the assessment actually do? Assess whether they really believe it or not or whether through some act of trans gender substantiation they will one day go through menopause?

Ask The Corinthian, he brought it up.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

She posted a conversation between herself and the club manager / promoter on her twitter

I can't link, but it's from the 4th of May.
@GeorgiaG92

There's 5/6 screenshots of their messages.
Read them, and figure it out yourself. Incredible stuff really.

Her entire Twitter feed makes me want to punch a duck

Recently I was heckled for smiling and for not wearing a bra. Basically if you have tits and a face men will yell at you.

Spends most of her time complaining about people making narrow generalisations and the rest of it doing the very same thing herself.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yeah I stopped listening the day I was told wearing a skirt is internalised oppression, as is mascara....

Now when Jenner wears a skirt it's an act of heroism.

When I've really seen it annoy women (and where I've pointed out that as a man, such SJW enforcement has actually caused me to have more freedom online when asking questions than the average woman on some websites) is when they ask for advice about something and because it ticks some oppression box, instead of advice, they get lectures. For instance, "my bf really likes it when my hair is long, but how do I do that without the ends getting frazzled" or something like that. This on forums like Reddit is often met with a chorus of "eh, since when does your bf dictate your hairstyle? Tell him to f*ck off or better yet break up with him, he sounds like a dick!"

And lord forbid any woman asks a similar question about losing weight or trying something new in bed.

Whereas, as a man, I can go onto such websites and say "My gf wants to tie me up but I'm a little nervous, any advice on what to expect?" and get genuine, helpful answers as opposed to "THAT OPPRESSIVE B!TCH, DUMP HER ASS!", or "I've put on a lot of weight lately, any advice for losing it but keeping my muscle gains from last winter?" and get a bunch of useful bodybuilding information as opposed to "Don't let SOCIETY tell you how to look, just be happy with who you are!"

Like... There are half-truths in all of those answers, but they all totally ignore the fact that the person asking the question has chosen, themselves, to walk down a particular road. If I was seen reading FemDom erotica, nobody would accuse me of betraying all men by buying into oppression. If I decide to go to the gym because the woman I'm with has a fetish for muscles, I'm just a lad doing something nice for his girlfriend. So in fact, right now, as a man, these SJW types afford me far, far more freedom than if I were a woman.

That's just my two cents anyway.

Barely There

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's getting increasingly common, to see random articles like this pop up, which are hardly linked anywhere else on the Internet, and which get used to try and drum-up mocking-by-association

I'm eagerly awaiting an article to breathless inform us that a transgender knacker was arrested for the murder of Madeline McCann while performing an abortion on a giraffe.

speedboatchase

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why is an article from the arsehole of the Internet, that is unverifiable and probably fake/heavily-embellished, being amplified like this on Boards?

It's so non-notable, that I don't see how this article was even found? The link only has 8 hits on Google.

It's getting increasingly common, to see random articles like this pop up, which are hardly linked anywhere else on the Internet, and which get used to try and drum-up mocking-by-association - to hold up a silly article as a caricature - of people holding certain views around gender issues (usually anything that can be remotely construed as relating to feminism); my bets are, that this article was found through some newsfeed that posts along those lines.

As the OP, I can probably answer this. On Twitter I follow a Daily Telegraph columnist called Martin Daubney, who tweeted a link to this story earlier. I thought it was interesting and wanted to see what people thought about it. It definitely seems to be a real story - users here have linked to the complainant's Twitter and Facebook pages.

In the past few hours the story has been picked up by Yahoo and the Daily Mirror, and the complainant has said they have been interviewed by BBC Radio. It's an interesting story and I imagine it'll properly go viral within the next day. Plus, there is room for follow-up pieces based on the club or DJ's response to the coverage.

looksee

The original article had nothing whatever to do with gender. Person in night club (gay or not is irrelevant) hears a song that causes unpleasant memories of a particular situation (rape in this case). Person makes an comment about it to the dj and leaves the premises. Dj sees himself as edgy and responds aggressively, then says they should not be allowed back in.

All of this could have happened in any club/pub/dancehall etc.

It only became a gender issue when this person brought up a completely irrelevant point about how they were addressed/referred to. Given that they - according to the photograph - they choose to dress and present themself as female it was not unreasonable that they be referred to as female.

The gender argument was entirely based on this bit of irrelevant, self-absorbed silliness and consequently it has not been taken seriously. This thread is not the place to have a serious conversation about gender.

pmasterson95

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you be unsure if a woman who looks like a woman is a woman?

Again, in all caps to be clear:

ASK IF IT'S NOT OBVIOUS. IF IT'S OBVIOUS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK.

Googled this crackpot. It/they/creature looks like a her. But it takes offence to being called her. Your judging book by its cover philosophy is flawed.

Kev W

My name is URL wrote: »

Her entire Twitter feed makes me want to punch a duck



Spends most of her time complaining about people making narrow generalisations and the rest of it doing the very same thing herself.

Where's her generalisation there?

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When I've really seen it annoy women (and where I've pointed out that as a man, such SJW enforcement has actually caused me to have more freedom online when asking questions than the average woman on some websites) is when they ask for advice about something and because it ticks some oppression box, instead of advice, they get lectures. For instance, "my bf really likes it when my hair is long, but how do I do that without the ends getting frazzled" or something like that. This on forums like Reddit is often met with a chorus of "eh, since when does your bf dictate your hairstyle? Tell him to f*ck off or better yet break up with him, he sounds like a dick!"

And lord forbid any woman asks a similar question about losing weight or trying something new in bed.

Whereas, as a man, I can go onto such websites and say "My gf wants to tie me up but I'm a little nervous, any advice on what to expect?" and get genuine, helpful answers as opposed to "THAT OPPRESSIVE B!TCH, DUMP HER ASS!", or "I've put on a lot of weight lately, any advice for losing it but keeping my muscle gains from last winter?" and get a bunch of useful bodybuilding information as opposed to "Don't let SOCIETY tell you how to look, just be happy with who you are!"

Like... There are half-truths in all of those answers, but they all totally ignore the fact that the person asking the question has chosen, themselves, to walk down a particular road. If I was seen reading FemDom erotica, nobody would accuse me of betraying all men by buying into oppression. If I decide to go to the gym because the woman I'm with has a fetish for muscles, I'm just a lad doing something nice for his girlfriend. So in fact, right now, as a man, these SJW types afford me far, far more freedom than if I were a woman.

That's just my two cents anyway.

This is because the cackling feminists are always vying to script other women's desires. So much for respecting autonomy.

Bunch of nuns cutting off your hair....

Carlos Orange

speedboatchase wrote: »

In the past few hours the story has been picked up by Yahoo and the Daily Mirror, and the complainant has said they have been interviewed by BBC Radio. It's an interesting story and I imagine it'll properly go viral within the next day. Plus, there is room for follow-up pieces based on the club or DJ's response to the coverage.

It has been deleted on the Daily Mirror. I really wish sites didn't do that. Much better to update the story with what ever has changed. If the whole thing was made up I'd prefer to know that.

galljga1

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Googled this crackpot. It/they/creature looks like a her. But it takes offence to being called her. Your judging book by its cover philosophy is flawed.

Agreed. I don't think the saying "what's your preferred pronoun" is going to take off anytime soon.

pmasterson95

My name is URL wrote: »

Her entire Twitter feed makes me want to punch a duck



Spends most of her time complaining about people making narrow generalisations and the rest of it doing the very same thing herself.

She also made a change.org petition against another nightclub 2 years ago. Dont know why she goes clubbing at all. The clubbing culture is not for her. Best stay at home being outraged on social media. The real world outside aint for some.

hatrickpatrick

To be fair, calling a person "it" is pretty f*cked up by anyone's standards, no?

EDIT: It's a bit like the understandable backlash over "he" being used as a default pronoun, so a lot of left-leaning news orgs now referring to every unidentified gender as "she". What's wrong with "they"? That's what I've always used, grammar be fecked.

speedboatchase

psinno wrote: »

It has been deleted on the Daily Mirror. I really wish sites didn't do that. Much better to update the story with what ever has changed. If the whole thing was made up I'd prefer to know that.

So it has. Very odd

galljga1

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is because the cackling feminists are always vying to script other women's desires. So much for respecting autonomy.

Bunch of nuns cutting off your hair....

You seem to be a lot more effected by feminists than me or maybe I have already been castrated and emasculated. Even so, life's not bad.

amacca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

She also made a change.org petition against another nightclub 2 years ago. Dont know why she goes clubbing at all.

my guess

"She" is desperately afraid she has little or no relevance....doesn't like going to clubs and not being treated like something special....nothing worse than being ignored or treated like everyone else to some people.

OneOfThem

OK. Blurred Lines is a song about a girl that likes rough nasty sex, and being dominated a bit in bed (there are plenty of them btw), and a man letting her know it's OK to be into that. That she shouldn't allow 'that man', be it her (ex)partner, or society at large, to dictate to her what is acceptable in terms of her sexuality, that she must be a "good girl", or to make her feel ashamed of her desires - rather she should celebrate them. It's not a song about sexual assault or one that suggests ignoring a woman's right to consent or not.

Robin Thike and Pharell Williams aren't Roger Waters and Bob Dylan, they're writing process is "will this rhyme with the last line I sang? It will? Sing it", so analysing what is just something with a catchy rythm to dance to while throwing back shots in a club too much, feels a bit silly. But that's what the song is about.

If you really want to go digging for deep meaning in it, it is much closer to being empowering of female sexual freedom, than it is misogynistic. But any message is just a tack on to a catchy beat and a video with pretty girls with their tits out.

So that's that sorted and put to bed for good. You're welcome.

Now this triggering business. We'll be having no more of this silliness. You know why this girl (or whatever) was upset by hearing that song? Because a bunch of clowns made a big fuss over it and started saying it would upset her. If she got upset, it's not the fault of the lads that made the song, and it's not a fault of the DJ that played the song. Any blame, if blame is to be apportioned at all, rests with the wackos that are running around talking up all this triggering sh1te.

So that'll be an end to it. No more of that crap.

So in summary, everyone toughen up. Be grand.

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Googled this crackpot. It/they/creature looks like a her. But it takes offence to being called her. Your judging book by its cover philosophy is flawed.

A lot of people saying that but according to the original story:

“The manager didn’t even use the right pronouns for Georgia”.

Georgia identifies as “gender non-conforming” and prefers to use both “she and “they” pronouns

So it sounds like she would have preferred to be called "her" but was called something else.

Alarming considering she, as you correctly point out, looks like a "her".

CruelCoin

Kev W wrote: »

Why would you be unsure if a woman who looks like a woman is a woman?

Again, in all caps to be clear:

ASK IF IT'S NOT OBVIOUS. IF IT'S OBVIOUS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK.

Even if its not obvious i wouldn't ask. Why? Because it would be absolutely obnoxious to do so.

An old friend of mine (old, as we drifted apart prior to the rest of this tale) decided to become something other than a man. The next time i saw "her" was two years later, and he now had tits. Now, despite the weirdness, it didn't even occur to me to ask "What is your preferred pronoun?". He/She didn't look particularly feminine, but i addressed her as her, and gave a hug for greeting instead of my usual handshake, out of respect for her new chosen identity.

Treating someone as a normal person, and not making a meal of things is the greatest respect you can give anyone.

Likewise with people with dwarfism. Is it better to ask them how they identify? "Short person, little person, height challenged?" Or i dunno, just as any other person like you or me? Which is more respectfull? Most people would argue the latter.

ISIS are sound

Kev W wrote: »

If it's not obvious when meeting, the phrase "what's your pronoun preference?" works.

Can't think of anything more awkward tbh.

hatrickpatrick

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Dont know why she goes clubbing at all. The clubbing culture is not for her.

Pretty much, it's like a parent putting their kid on a school rugby team and then writing a letter to the school saying "Now now, there'll be no more of this dangerous "scrummage" business, and if you think there'll be any more mauling while my kid is on your team, think again! DO YOU WANT ME TO ENGAGE THE TWITTERATI TO F*CK YOU UP, YOU ASSHOLES?!"

zeffabelli

amacca wrote: »

my guess

"She" is desperately afraid she has little or no relevance....doesn't like going to clubs and not being treated like something special....nothing worse than being ignored or treated like everyone else to some people.

Maybe it's histrionic disorder.

Typically an attention seeking disorder applied to women who dress extravagantly for attention.