Hate crime investigation after Caitlyn Jenner 'suffers vile transphobic abuse'

sbsquarepants

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Bruce Jenner put transgender rights back about a century. He is clearly just a deranged idiot that lost the plot after he killed a person. He should be differentiated from people who felt like that from birth.

Giving him "bravery" award too is completely regressive

I have to admit I don't know a whole lot about his story or any kardashian shít of any description - but my take is if he wants to be a woman and it's physically possible for him to be a woman - what the fúck concern is it of anyone else. His (her) body, what he(she) does with it, is none of my concern....or yours!

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Who will pay for the 3rd tier toilet they should use? I certainly would not want to share a toilet with someone who from birth build was x but is now y, where are my rights in this bull**** PC world?

I'm going to file this away in the "retarded shít I've seen on the internet" compartment of my mind.

If your old mate Albert, spent a few quid and now wants to be called Alison and sit down to piss, it's not going to effect you or your toilet. If anything, Alison will probably dribble less piss on your floor!

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Iv nothing against Trans enders or anyone for that matter, each to there own and all that and if your a nice person your a nice person regardless off sex or gender , but my question is why is it she ?
I'm not being smart but surely even if he has had surgery he is still not a male ? I'm actually asking the question here iv no idea but would his DNA not still be that of a male , or is it just she cause that's what Caitlin like to be called ?
Again I don't mean to offend anyone just asking the question

Ush1

I laughed.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Phoebas wrote: »

The police investigating this has attracted you to the far right?

Seems a bit extreme; the far right are a bit like that 'tho.

Dude you should have been competing with the then Bruce Jenner in the Olympics, because you've just made a world class leap :rolleyes:

How did you manage to come to that conclusion? I simply pointed out that ludicrous politically motivated uses of 'hate crimes' are causing a large number of people to reject left wing politics, and in some cases are driving them into the arms of the far right.

I'll try give you another example. The excesses of reckless Capitalism have resulted in some people turning to Socialist or Communist ideas in some countries.
This statement does not mean I am not a Communist. Can we try and discuss things like grown ups now?
Or is this the new tactic of smearing everyone who dissents in an attempt to de-rail any open discussion...

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Iv nothing against Trans enders or anyone for that matter, each to there own and all that and if your a nice person your a nice person regardless off sex or gender , but my question is why is it she ?
I'm not being smart but surely even if he has had surgery he is still not a male ? I'm actually asking the question here iv no idea but would his DNA  not still be that of a male , or is it just she cause that's what Caitlin like to be called ?
Again I don't mean to offend anyone just asking the question

Hey, didn't you get the message? If enough hysterical sentiment is whipped up, you have to surrender and immediately pander to the loudest mob. Don't you realise it has already been decided for you what you are supposed to think?
That's like, the biggest rule on the internet man. Take your rational logic, critical thinking, and non-bandwagon mentality somewhere else.
And don't even dare try and tip toe around the whole gender fluid mine field. No matter what pronoun you use, you're gonna get accused of hate crimes anyway.

ScumLord

Caitlyn and the rest of her coven probably hired the guy to shout something controversial so she would make the news.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

ScumLord wrote: »

Caitlyn and the rest of her coven probably hired the guy to shout something controversial so she would make the news.

You know what, you're probably closer to the truth than you realise. After all, this was the family where the Mom arranged the release of her daughters sex tape. It wouldn't surprise me if the younger daughters have been 'contracted' to Hollywood executives to 'discuss' career opportunities.

conorhal

She should have just rummaged about in her handbag for a few seconds and then said to the bloke, 'ok give me a minute, it's in here somewhere'.

Really Interested

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Iv nothing against Trans enders or anyone for that matter, each to there own and all that and if your a nice person your a nice person regardless off sex or gender , but my question is why is it she ?
I'm not being smart but surely even if he has had surgery he is still not a male ? I'm actually asking the question here iv no idea but would his DNA  not still be that of a male , or is it just she cause that's what Caitlin like to be called ?
Again I don't mean to offend anyone just asking the question

Many countries allow a person to change their name and now many also allow the legal change of their Gender. If any one has issues with that fine but with all the stuff going on who really who cares if anyone want to be addressed as a man or women.

Really Interested

ScumLord wrote: »

Caitlyn and the rest of her coven probably hired the guy to shout something controversial so she would make the news.

Did she also hire someone to throw something at her?

suicide_circus

So ignorant. Her penis is now inside out and inside her body. How can she "get it out"

yourdeadwright

Really Interested wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Iv nothing against Trans enders or anyone for that matter, each to there own and all that and if your a nice person your a nice person regardless off sex or gender , but my question is why is it she ?
I'm not being smart but surely even if he has had surgery he is still not a male ? I'm actually asking the question here iv no idea but would his DNA  not still be that of a male , or is it just she cause that's what Caitlin like to be called ?
Again I don't mean to offend anyone just asking the question

Many countries allow a person to change their name and now many also allow the legal change of their Gender. If any one has issues with that fine but with all the stuff going on who really who cares if anyone want to be addressed as a man or women.

I don't care myself people can do as the please doesn't make a difference to me so as long as there happy all power to the, ,
I just wondered  why its offensive to call Caitlin a he if technically Caitlin's DNA is that of a male,
Is the tag line " I was born this way "  used by transexuals or just gay and lesbian's ?

pangbang

The internet was a mistake.

As I said in another post earlier, this kind of story is sensationalist, and it draws people to extremes. There will no doubt be people who cant stand the idea behind Bruce Jenner, and others who flock to the "cause".

If I were to put a sequence to the whole thing it would be one group instructing/demanding all other people to conform to their feelings, and then the backlash comes from people who couldn't disagree more. (who previously probably didn't give a sh*t)

Liberalism and progression are, in their current form, the instigators, the internet is the megaphone.

So take away either the megaphone, or the people holding it. All its doing is driving yet another wedge in society, one that didn't exist before.

If Bruce Jenner existed in an age without the internet, I imagine the person might be looked at strangely now and then, but that would GENERALLY be the worst of it. With liberals dictating via the internet, an army of "ready-to-go-off" people are being created who will react to that persons unusual disposition in a heartbeat, and not in a good way.

Ah shuuurrr, tis all coming apart at the seams anyway :P

circadian

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

When I am in someones house I generally know every single person there, in a public toilet scene I will know who I arrived at the venue with and even if it's my local pub possibly 10% of those in the place I will know. So if say some lad decides he wants to turn sides to be Jill instead of Bill and then in the womens toilet decides eh sorry I will change back, what happens then if he/she/neither has urges?

I've seen some drivel in AH but this is an exceptionally ridiculous post.

ScumLord

pangbang wrote: »

If Bruce Jenner existed in an age without the internet, I imagine the person might be looked at strangely now and then, but that would GENERALLY be the worst of it.

I'm pretty sure that in the past trans people were getting beat up and sometimes killed without a boo said in the press. I really don't think the pre internet world was as accepting as you think it was.

Really Interested

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I don't care myself people can do as the please doesn't make a difference to me so as long as there happy all power to the, ,
I just wondered why its offensive to call Caitlin a he if technically Caitlin's DNA is that of a male,
Is the tag line " I was born this way " used by transexuals or just gay and lesbian's ?

I am aware of no offence in saying to a person who is male or female by the other gender!

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

The internet was a mistake.

As I said in another post earlier, this kind of story is sensationalist, and it draws people to extremes. There will no doubt be people who cant stand the idea behind Bruce Jenner, and others who flock to the "cause".

If I were to put a sequence to the whole thing it would be one group instructing/demanding all other people to conform to their feelings, and then the backlash comes from people who couldn't disagree more. (who previously probably didn't give a sh*t)

Liberalism and progression are, in their current form, the instigators, the internet is the megaphone.

So take away either the megaphone, or the people holding it. All its doing is driving yet another wedge in society, one that didn't exist before.

If Bruce Jenner existed in an age without the internet, I imagine the person might be looked at strangely now and then, but that would GENERALLY be the worst of it. With liberals dictating via the internet, an army of "ready-to-go-off" people are being created who will react to that persons unusual disposition in a heartbeat, and not in a good way.

Ah shuuurrr, tis all coming apart at the seams anyway :P

Cause transgender people were subject to horrendous violence and discrimination before the internet came along... FFS

Really Interested

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Cause transgender people were subject to horrendous violence and discrimination before the internet came along... FFS

But those liberals shouting for rights and stuff are the reason people attack minorities, dont you know sure if those liberals not around then ordinary folk would never react to any minorities at all.

Ken.

conorhal wrote: »

She should have just rummaged about in her handbag for a few seconds and then said to the bloke, 'ok give me a minute, it's in here somewhere'.

Gotta admit, this made me chortle.

I was asked to do something a while ago and said no. I was then asked had I got no balls(jokingly). Before I could answer my missus opened her handbag and said "I've got them in here somewhere" Everyone fell around laughing.

General Butt Naked

You'd want to be a real commie to report someone for 'hate speech'.

'Well done on reporting your neighbour today comrade, rest assured he is on his way to the gulag. And as a sign of the party's benevolence we've doubled your weekly tobacco ration.'

Kimbot

Barbie! wrote: »

Gotta admit, this made me chortle.

I was asked to do something a while ago and said no. I was then asked had I got no balls(jokingly). Before I could answer my missus opened her handbag and said "I've got them in here somewhere" Everyone fell around laughing.

Your missus deserves a high 5 for that

pangbang

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that in the past trans people were getting beat up and sometimes killed without a boo said in the press. I really don't think the pre internet world was as accepting as you think it was.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that in the past trans people were getting beat up and sometimes killed without a boo said in the press. I really don't think the pre internet world was as accepting as you think it was.

Dont me wrong, I'm not saying life would have been a breeze. Hypothetical scenario, Bruce Jenner walks through a small village on the weshhht coasht of Ireland. Plenty of strange looks, perhaps, from a population of people that didn't know much about anything transgender. But I doubt anything crazy would happen.

Nowadays, the antagonisation brought through liberalism and progressivism has "armed" the people of that small town with "everything" they need to know, and most, I'm guessing, would be against the "idea" of Bruce Jenner. And yeah, I think seeing the personification of something you don't agree with is far more likely to illicit a violent/aggressive reaction.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, for all concerned. Of course, all that both of us can do is theorise (unless you have a time machine handy!). I think things would have been better, in some regards, for someone like Bruce Jenner out and about in society WITHOUT liberalism and progressivism.

I mean even in this very thread, the mods have categorically stated that the word "she" MUST be used. What do you think that does to someone who doesn't agree with the general idea of transgender anything? Will they change their complete mindset all of a sudden, or will it just entrench them further in their beliefs, inflaming them into the bargain? It would be very easy to dismiss such people as "backward" and yadda yadda, sweep it under the carpet. But I would say that the vast majority, right or wrong, are not fans of transgender "stuff" (for want of a better word). What can you do?!

pangbang

Really Interested wrote: »

But those liberals shouting for rights and stuff are the reason people attack minorities, dont you know sure if those liberals not around then ordinary folk would never react to any minorities at all.

Don't be like that man, don't try to shut down a valid point by being facetious. It only adds to my point....

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

Dont me wrong, I'm not saying life would have been a breeze. Hypothetical scenario, Bruce Jenner walks through a small village on the weshhht coasht of Ireland. Plenty of strange looks, perhaps, from a population of people that didn't know much about anything transgender. But I doubt anything crazy would happen.

Nowadays, the antagonisation brought through liberalism and progressivism has "armed" the people of that small town with "everything" they need to know, and most, I'm guessing, would be against the "idea" of Bruce Jenner. And yeah, I think seeing the personification of something you don't agree with is far more likely to illicit a violent/aggressive reaction.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, for all concerned. Of course, all that both of us can do is theorise (unless you have a time machine handy!). I think things would have been better, in some regards, for someone like Bruce Jenner out and about in society WITHOUT liberalism and progressivism.

I mean even in this very thread, the mods have categorically stated that the word "she" MUST be used. What do you think that does to someone who doesn't agree with the general idea of transgender anything? Will they change their complete mindset all of a sudden, or will it just entrench them further in their beliefs, inflaming them into the bargain? It would be very easy to dismiss such people as "backward" and yadda yadda, sweep it under the carpet. But I would say that the vast majority, right or wrong, are not fans of transgender "stuff" (for want of a better word). What can you do?!

Her name is Caitlyn Jenner. A basic mark of respect for other people is to call them by their name. Again, not a PC-LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE-POLITICAL CORRECT agenda, not difficult, and at no cost to anyone (except perhaps close friends and family who knew Jenner as Bruce). Just basic manners. Just civility.

Your hypothesis meets a brick wall when confronted by the fact that transgender people have suffered brutal, real, physical violence and destructive discrimination for a lot longer than the internet has existed. This isn't up for debate it is a documented fact.

RayM

pangbang wrote: »

I mean even in this very thread, the mods have categorically stated that the word "she" MUST be used. What do you think that does to someone who doesn't agree with the general idea of transgender anything?

Is it too much to expect them to educate themselves?

Omackeral

Is it correct to say Bruce Jenner won the Olympic medal when he finished first?

Is it correct to say that Caitlyn Jenner won the Olympic medal when she finished first?

Are both considered correct?

ScumLord

pangbang wrote: »

Dont me wrong, I'm not saying life would have been a breeze. Hypothetical scenario, Bruce Jenner walks through a small village on the weshhht coasht of Ireland. Plenty of strange looks, perhaps, from a population of people that didn't know much about anything transgender. But I doubt anything crazy would happen.

Well, if Bruce Jenner walked through the town they'd probably just see/hear an American tourist and try and figure out how to get money out of him.

If Caitlyn Jenner walked through the town they'd probably she an American woman and also try to get money out of them. I don't think they'd be able to know for sure that someone dressed as a woman isn't a woman on brief encounters.

Nowadays, the antagonisation brought through liberalism and progressivism has "armed" the people of that small town with "everything" they need to know, and most, I'm guessing, would be against the "idea" of Bruce Jenner. And yeah, I think seeing the personification of something you don't agree with is far more likely to illicit a violent/aggressive reaction.

This is a pretty bizarre way of looking at things. You seem to think liberals are some organised group arming people with information for the express intention of creating conflict when it's only you highlighting people and ideas for contempt. It's hard to accept the people you're pointing at are the ones throwing stones while you're actively throwing stones at them.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, for all concerned. Of course, all that both of us can do is theorise (unless you have a time machine handy!). I think things would have been better, in some regards, for someone like Bruce Jenner out and about in society WITHOUT liberalism and progressivism.

I think you might find that position a lonely one.

jobbridge4life

Omackeral wrote: »

Is it correct to say Bruce Jenner won the Olympic medal when he finished first?

Is it correct to say that Caitlyn Jenner won the Olympic medal when she finished first?

Are both considered correct?

That is interesting. I don't know what the 'convention' is in that regard. I do know that Jenner has said that she is okay with still being referred to as Dad by her children and having seen some interviews with her she still occasionally refers to Bruce, and how 'he will always be a' part of her. So maybe both?

lertsnim

Brucie looking for headlines again. Prepare the woman of the year award again to make up for this.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Her name is Caitlyn Jenner. A basic mark of respect for other people is to call them by their name. Again, not a PC-LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE-POLITICAL CORRECT agenda, not difficult, and at no cost to anyone (except perhaps close friends and family who knew Jenner as Bruce). Just basic manners. Just civility.

Your hypothesis meets a brick wall when confronted by the fact that transgender people have suffered brutal, real, physical violence and destructive discrimination for a lot longer than the internet has existed. This isn't up for debate it is a documented fact.

Your lack of self-awareness is entertaining, a bit, anyway. I wasn't out to sneakily get a jab in by calling him/her a certain name. But YOU have to make a point of it....congratulations on proving my point that there a certain group of people that ram sh*t down peoples necks. Now consider this, hypothetically, do you think you INSTRUCTING me is gonna make me "check myself", or is it more likely to just leave yet another bad taste in my mouth about being told what I can and cant say, can and cant do, can and cant think?

And I didn't categorically state anything about the past, I simply put forward a sensible GUESS that in the past things could well have been better for a person like Bruce Jenner. (you see, NOW I'm doing it to annoy you and your fragile sensibilities ). Note the word "BETTER".....I didnt say bad things didn't happen in the past.

But you were in such a rush to ram your feelings through, you forgot to read what I said. Well done.

As an aside, what you say are common manners, are completely the opposite to others. Why, from a completely unbiased point of view, do you think you have the high-ground or are in the correct position to dictate manners? Don't you think that there is a lot of research that can contradict your position, and obviously vice versa? Take a step outside the hive and use your own head.

pangbang

ScumLord wrote: »

Well, if Bruce Jenner walked through the town they'd probably just see/hear an American tourist and try and figure out how to get money out of him.

If Caitlyn Jenner walked through the town they'd probably she an American woman and also try to get money out of them. I don't think they'd be able to know for sure that someone dressed as a woman isn't a woman on brief encounters.

This is a pretty bizarre way of looking at things. You seem to think liberals are some organised group arming people with information for the express intention of creating conflict when it's only you highlighting people and ideas for contempt. It's hard to accept the people you're pointing at are the ones throwing stones while you're actively throwing stones at them.

I think you might find that position a lonely one.

Well your first paragraph more or less adds to my point, right? That by taking away the hysteria stirred up by certain groups of people....then people don't really care.

As for your second paragraph, I'm only stating things the way I see them. From a general point of view, I think it pretty clear that the world is becoming a more divisive place, so I simply connect the dots to the group of people screaming about what you can and cant do/think/say as the main instigators. That's it, nothing more or less, a simple conclusion.

Like children, the more you DEMAND that people behave in a certain way, the more likely that they'll push back. I'm strictly on the other side of the coin.

ScumLord

pangbang wrote: »

Well your first paragraph more or less adds to my point, right? That by taking away the hysteria stirred up by certain groups of people....then people don't really care.

No, your statement seemed to assume that the people would know she was a transgender just by looking at her and be fine with it up until they were told to be offended that others were offended that she's a man masquerading as a woman.

It's nonsensical. Do you think that a small town in the 80s would be fine if they found out the American that's in town is actually a man dressed as a woman?

As for your second paragraph, I'm only stating things the way I see them. From a general point of view, I think it pretty clear that the world is becoming a more divisive place, so I simply connect the dots to the group of people screaming about what you can and cant do/think/say as the main instigators. That's it, nothing more or less, a simple conclusion.

Which is kind of funny. Conservatives have been telling everybody what the do for as long as they're around. Now they're upset that others are basically telling them not to tell everyone else what to do and saying their being discriminated against because they're not allowed to discriminate anymore.

You're presenting a fantasy that isn't real, it's entirely focused on one extreme, the liberal one. Your obsessed with condensing a wide range of politics, ideals, cultural issues into one caricature and pushing it all out into the extreme end and then debating that fantasy as if it's the norm.

There are for sure liberal extremists, but you're at the other end of the seesaw. You could do with some self reflection before you go demonising other people.

Extremism is the problem these days, it's not liberals or conservatives (which are myths of the political media industry), it's the extremists.

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

Your lack of self-awareness is entertaining, a bit, anyway. I wasn't out to sneakily get a jab in by calling him/her a certain name. But YOU have to make a point of it....congratulations on proving my point that there a certain group of people that ram sh*t down peoples necks. Now consider this, hypothetically, do you think you INSTRUCTING me is gonna make me "check myself", or is it more likely to just leave yet another bad taste in my mouth about being told what I can and cant say, can and cant do, can and cant think?

I'll ignore your ad-hominem. You have referred to Jenner by her previous name multiple times in more than one post. I don't accept that this is not deliberate. To say it isn't, when you used in the same post where you were whinging about a Mod instruction about the correct pronoun makes clear your intention.

pangbang wrote: »

And I didn't categorically state anything about the past, I simply put forward a sensible GUESS that in the past things could well have been better for a person like Bruce Jenner. (you see, NOW I'm doing it to annoy you and your fragile sensibilities ). Note the word "BETTER".....I didnt say bad things didn't happen in the past.

Yes I'm aware, which if take the time to actually read what I wrote rather than once again indulging in ad-hominem you note that I used the term 'hypothesis' and explained that it hit a brick wall against the evidence.

pangbang wrote: »

As an aside, what you say are common manners, are completely the opposite to others. Why, from a completely unbiased point of view, do you think you have the high-ground or are in the correct position to dictate manners? Don't you think that there is a lot of research that can contradict your position, and obviously vice versa? Take a step outside the hive and use your own head.

Nah, I don't accept that, I think the vast majority of people know that it is disrespectful and rude not to use a person's name and instead insist on calling them by name they don't want. I don't think I have the power to dictate, I just think basic manners matters and we'd all be better off if we tried to stick to it and I'm not afraid to put forward my positions.

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

Nowadays, the antagonisation brought through liberalism and progressivism has "armed" the people of that small town with "everything" they need to know, and most, I'm guessing, would be against the "idea" of Bruce Jenner. And yeah, I think seeing the personification of something you don't agree with is far more likely to illicit a violent/aggressive reaction.

So the liberal agenda, while it seems to support people like Caitlyn Jenner is actually driving a hate campaign? Can't fault that logic.

pangbang

ScumLord wrote: »

No, your statement seemed to assume that the people would know she was a transgender just by looking at her and be fine with it up until they were told to be offended that others were offended that she's a man masquerading as a woman.

It's nonsensical. Do you think that a small town in the 80s would be fine if they found out the American that's in town is actually a man dressed as a woman?

Which is kind of funny. Conservatives have been telling everybody what the do for as long as they're around. Now they're upset that others are basically telling them not to tell everyone else what to do and saying their being discriminated against because they're not allowed to discriminate anymore.

You're presenting a fantasy that isn't real, it's entirely focused on one extreme, the liberal one. Your obsessed with condensing a wide range of politics, ideals, cultural issues into one caricature and pushing it all out into the extreme end and then debating that fantasy as if it's the norm.

There are for sure liberal extremists, but you're at the other end of the seesaw. You could do with some self reflection before you go demonising other people.

Extremism is the problem these days, it's not liberals or conservatives (which are myths of the political media industry), it's the extremists.

Well if that's the way you read my initial post, then either I didn't make it clear enough, or you didn't comprehend it well enough.

As for the rest of what you say, yes, I am picking on the modern incarnation of liberalism and the antonym "progressive". What you'll see, if you actually read the posts Ive made in this thread, is that no where am I saying that people should act/think/speak in a certain way. I did not condone conservatism, or the alt-right, or anything else.

All I did, as I already stated, was to connect the obvious dots. There is one group of people that are attempting to police practically every facet of peoples lives, right down to their very thoughts. And I put the increasing divide in this world right at their door step.

But already I have been issued several instructions on what to do/think/say in this very thread, and why? I'm not even preaching anything else, I have been instructed simply for questioning the status quo!

What does that say to you? Is that a good thing? Do you imagine it drives people away, increases division?

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

So the liberal agenda, while it seems to support people like Caitlyn Jenner is actually driving a hate campaign? Can't fault that logic.

No, genius, I didn't say it was a hate campaign. If you read what I said, instead of trying to regurgitate the standard response (is their a handbook yet?)......what I said was that it is unintentionally creating divide.

Really Interested

pangbang wrote: »

Don't be like that man, don't try to shut down a valid point by being facetious. It only adds to my point....

A I forgot the libtards not entitled to an opinion.

Really Interested

pangbang wrote: »

No, genius, I didn't say it was a hate campaign. If you read what I said, instead of trying to regurgitate the standard response (is their a handbook yet?)......what I said was that it is unintentionally creating divide.

So you think a complaint of assault should not be investigated?

pangbang

Really Interested wrote: »

A I forgot the libtards not entitled to an opinion.

Are you some kind of reverse logic, manifested through the internet to continue proving my point? :P

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

Are you some kind of reverse logic, manifested through the internet to continue proving my point? :P

Guy it isn't always the best practice to repeatedly declare by yourself, that others are proving your point.;)

pangbang

Really Interested wrote: »

So you think a complaint of assault should not be investigated?

I'm not really addressing the specific incident in the thread, much more so the bigger picture.

Are you really asking me should a an assault not be reported? What do you think is going to happen, that I'm gonna slip up, jump into the street in my Nazi pyjamas and shout "no! crime should not be reported!"

Come on!

I'm more concerned with the sensationalism attached to such issues, and the unintended consequences of such. That's it.

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

No, genius, I didn't say it was a hate campaign. If you read what I said, instead of trying to regurgitate the standard response (is their a handbook yet?)......what I said was that it is unintentionally creating divide.

Nice.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Guy it isn't always the best practice to repeatedly declare by yourself, that others are proving your point.;)

Well what should I do when someone is repeatedly proving my point?

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

Nice.

Oh you got me! :P All argument made up to this point is now null and void!

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

Oh you got me! :P All argument made up to this point is now null and void!

I think other posters have done an excellent job at picking apart your arguments, to be fair.

pangbang

circadian wrote: »

I think other posters have done an excellent job at picking apart your arguments, to be fair.

Well this is interesting now. I doubt you even understand my arguments, let alone be able to read what I wrote.

So would you like to do a "tale of the tape" for everyone to see? A highlight reel of what I said, and how it was "excellently" rebutted?

I think I'll be waiting a long time, but expect the "cant be bothered, don't need to" response.

Not_A_Racist

Pangbang is correct to note that forcing people to behave in a particular way is often counter productive.

Look at the Irish language in Irish schools. Many people cannot speak a full sentence after 12 years of study. The reason for the poor performance is widely considered to be the fact that Irish is mandatory.


Insisting that people accept transgenderism is counterproductive. It is creating huge divides in society. Many people who at one stage were completely indifferent to gay rights and transgenderism are now completely against those things because of what they perceive as bullying by the liberal left.


Our societies have never been as polarised as they are now. That is not a good thing.

I don't think the situation described is a hate crime. The police are wasting their time and are bringing themselves into disrepute.

pangbang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'll ignore your ad-hominem. You have referred to Jenner by her previous name multiple times in more than one post. I don't accept that this is not deliberate. To say it isn't, when you used in the same post where you were whinging about a Mod instruction about the correct pronoun makes clear your intention.



Yes I'm aware, which if take the time to actually read what I wrote rather than once again indulging in ad-hominem you note that I used the term 'hypothesis' and explained that it hit a brick wall against the evidence.



Nah, I don't accept that, I think the vast majority of people know that it is disrespectful and rude not to use a person's name and instead insist on calling them by name they don't want. I don't think I have the power to dictate, I just think basic manners matters and we'd all be better off if we tried to stick to it and I'm not afraid to put forward my positions.

You are wrong, I did not refer to the person by that name to sneakily get a point across. I'll say it again, your presumption is wrong. I'm intelligent enough to get my points across without having to be underhand. Believe me or not, its on you.

Second bit of bolded text....so youre stating that there was no reason to make the statement. Great. Or as I was intimating, pointless.

Your acceptance of anything is neither here nor there. And again, you go toward proving my point that there is, according to liberal doctrine, "My way, or the high way". Be like that then, refuse to see both sides of everything, refuse to be centrist and understanding. Keep echoing that doctrine though :P

circadian

pangbang wrote: »

Well this is interesting now. I doubt you even understand my arguments, let alone be able to read what I wrote.

So would you like to do a "tale of the tape" for everyone to see? A highlight reel of what I said, and how it was "excellently" rebutted?

I think I'll be waiting a long time, but expect the "cant be bothered, don't need to" response.

You got me. Well played.

jobbridge4life

pangbang wrote: »

You are wrong, I did not refer to the person by that name to sneakily get a point across. I'll say it again, your presumption is wrong. I'm intelligent enough to get my points across without having to be underhand. Believe me or not, its on you.

Quite and as I said I don't and any cursory examinations of your posts in this thread should be quite sufficient for anyone to see why.

pangbang wrote: »

Second bit of bolded text....so youre stating that there was no reason to make the statement. Great. Or as I was intimating, pointless.

No, hon. I'm saying your hypothesis was nonsense, and flatly incorrect based on the evidence, which you haven't dealt with. So the only thing pointless here (aside from perhaps engaging with at all) is your useless attempts at obfuscation.

pangbang wrote: »

Your acceptance of anything is neither here nor there. And again, you go toward proving my point that there is, according to liberal doctrine, "My way, or the high way". Be like that then, refuse to see both sides of everything, refuse to be centrist and understanding. Keep echoing that doctrine though :P

That is really funny because I was responding to you when you said apropos of nothing that my view of manners was the opposite of most peoples. Sighburger.