Right Wing Grifters

blanch152

20Cent wrote: »

Whats it yo you anyway if someone wants to change gender?
How does it effect your life?
Why do you care so much?

.

This is why it is so hard to discuss anything with ideologues of the left in Ireland. The goalposts keep moving, the arguments keep shifting and we get one long disingenuous monologue that everyone else is wrong.

See how we are now talking about gender.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

A trans person doesn't change their sex. You cannot change from male to female. Look up the definitions of the word if you want to understand why.

They are words based in biological fact. Actually here, I'll give you the definitions:

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

You cannot change sex, it's debatable whether you can really change gender, as opposed to the mere outward appearence of your body.

20Cent wrote: »

Science would disagree.

The original discussion was about changing sex, not gender.

When that argument was lost by 20 cent, he shifted into attack mode on a completely different premise. The aim was to make people feel bad about genuine science, even making it up.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

This is why it is so hard to discuss anything with ideologues of the left in Ireland. The goalposts keep moving, the arguments keep shifting and we get one long disingenuous monologue that everyone else is wrong.

See how we are now talking about gender.







The original discussion was about changing sex, not gender.

When that argument was lost by 20 cent, he shifted into attack mode on a completely different premise. The aim was to make people feel bad about genuine science, even making it up.

Yeah, it is an all to common tactic. When backed into a corner with questions that would expose his hypocrisy no matter how he answers, questions are ignored, goalposts are moved and ad hominems appear.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

Lefty Bicek

Gynoid wrote: »

Under Jeremy Corbyns direction there are numerous transwomen occupying places on Womens shortlists for parliamentary seats. Under his direction Lily Madigan, a spiteful, vicious person, a transwoman, who has made many rape / death threats to women, publicly gloated over Magdalen Berns' (a lesbian activist) death from brain cancer and has been repeatedly accused of sexual assault, is the Labour Partys Womans Officer.
I kid you not.
Keep up, 20 cents.

This is as good a moment as any to introduce the UK's first 'sex change parliamentarian'...

Nikki Sinclaire MEP.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/344347/im-nikki-the-first-sex-swap-mep-in-britain/

I see Nikki there, gladhanding with Thatcher, Cameron, and... Nigel Farage.

Imagine that.

20Cent

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

This is as good a moment as any to introduce the UK's first 'sex change parliamentarian'...

Nikki Sinclaire MEP.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/344347/im-nikki-the-first-sex-swap-mep-in-britain/

I see Nikki there, gladhanding with Thatcher, Cameron, and... Nigel Farage.

Imagine that.

What's this issue with this?

Slowyourrole

20Cent wrote: »

So in another thread I keep seeing people posting content from these right wing sources that are such obvious grifters, there to cash in.
The king of them was of course Alex Jones who lead the way with fake news and fake controversies in order to sell junk like vitamin pills to people. There are now loads of them, his protege Paul Joseph Watson for example. There is a whole mini industry out there. All they do is spread what they think their audience wants to hear and they lap it up. No lie or exaggeration is too much. They will still get the clicks, likes and sales. Have asked before but not seeing similar behaviour on the left.

Why are such obvious frauds and misinformation so popular with right wingers?
Why aren't they calling them out themselves?

Because they rarely hold the moral or research based high ground and people like Alex Jones help them feel their bigoted views are acceptable and logic based..

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Because they rarely hold the moral or research based high ground and people like Alex Jones help them feel their bigoted views are acceptable and logic based..

Jesus. You're responding to 20cent saying that his side has the logical and moral highground?

Wouldn't be a fan of Alex Jones myself but apart from him what bigoted views are you talking about?

Very interested in hearing because I will know how to tailor my reponse based on your answer.

Odhinn

Gynoid wrote: »

Under Jeremy Corbyns direction there are numerous transwomen occupying places on Womens shortlists for parliamentary seats. Under his direction Lily Madigan, a spiteful, vicious person, a transwoman, who has made many rape / death threats to women, publicly gloated over Magdalen Berns' (a lesbian activist) death from brain cancer and has been repeatedly accused of sexual assault, is the Labour Partys Womans Officer.
I kid you not.
Keep up, 20 cents.

Would you have a source for that, by any chance?

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus. You're responding to 20cent saying that his side has the logical and moral highground?

Wouldn't be a fan of Alex Jones myself but apart from him what bigoted views are you talking about?

Very interested in hearing because I will know how to tailor my reponse based on your answer.

Your question isn't clear. Are you looking to know what views are bigoted or what sources spout them?

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Your question isn't clear. Are you looking to know what views are bigoted or what sources spout them?

My apologies. I wasn't very clear at all.

What bigoted views do you think that the majority of the people that 20Cent class as (shudder) grifters spout?

I think we can all pretty much discount Alex Jones as we all agree that the majority of what he comes out with is pantomime and showmanship, and can all agree that some of his stuff has been very damaging (sandy hook et al)

Tommy Robinson is another that I don't need an explanation about as because of his dodgy past and the fact that he mainly targets muslims in his "investigations" he has been discussed to death at this stage

I'm more interested in what views/opinions do you class as bigoted.

For example, is my stance that trans women should not be allowed access to women-only spaces bigoted? Is my view that there are a signifigant amount of people who follow the Antifa who are violent thugs prevent me from having a moral high ground? Is it bigoted to hold an opinion that borders should be tightly regulated? Does being against modern feminism (toxic misandry if you will) make me a bigot?

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

My apologies. I wasn't very clear at all.

What bigoted views do you think that the majority of the people that 20Cent class as (shudder) grifters spout?

I think we can all pretty much discount Alex Jones as we all agree that the majority of what he comes out with is pantomime and showmanship, and can all agree that some of his stuff has been very damaging (sandy hook et al)

Tommy Robinson is another that I don't need an explanation about as because of his dodgy past and the fact that he mainly targets muslims in his "investigations" he has been discussed to death at this stage

I'm more interested in what views/opinions do you class as bigoted.

For example, is my stance that trans women should not be allowed access to women-only spaces bigoted? Is my view that there are a signifigant amount of people who follow the Antifa who are violent thugs prevent me from having a moral high ground? Is it bigoted to hold an opinion that borders should be tightly regulated? Does being against modern feminism (toxic misandry if you will) make me a bigot?

Those seem pretty central views.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Those seem pretty central views.

Grand. Just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page. With a lot of posters on here, those opinions alone would be enough to class you as an Alt-Right bigot.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand. Just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page. With a lot of posters on here, those opinions alone would be enough to class you as an Alt-Right bigot.

I guess it comes down to how you try to justify those opinions. For example, iIf you want to tightly regulate immigration because of the homeless crisis or overburdened health care system then that's reasonable and fair. If you want to do it because you think it will bring a flood of rapists or Muslims are violent then that's fairly bigoted.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

I guess it comes down to how you try to justify those opinions. For example, iIf you want to tightly regulate immigration because of the homeless crisis or overburdened health care system then that's reasonable and fair. If you want to do it because you think it will bring a flood of rapists or Muslims are violent then that's fairly bigoted.

I agree with you on the most part.

I don't agree that preventing undocumented refugees coming in for safety reasons is bigoted. It would be bigoted in my opinion if the reason was solely because they were muslim. Undocumented migrants or refugees, regardless of their creed should be subject to the highest degree of vetting.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with you on the most part.

I don't agree that preventing undocumented refugees coming in for safety reasons is bigoted. It would be bigoted in my opinion if the reason was solely because they were muslim. Undocumented migrants or refugees, regardless of their creed should be subject to the highest degree of vetting.

Why?

The vast vast majority of foreign people who enter the state and commit crime are not asylum seekers.

Surely if you are so paranoid about foreigners and what they might be up to you would want them all subjected to "highest degree of vetting".

And if not, why not?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Why?

The vast vast majority of foreign people who enter the state and commit crime are not asylum seekers.

Surely if you are so paranoid about foreigners and what they might be up to you would want them all subjected to "highest degree of vetting".

And if not, why not?

Well, ignoring your unwarranted passive aggression, it is my opinion that if someone is undocumented and entering the country, we have no way of immediately verifying who they are and where they come from so therefore would need higher vetting to establish they are who they say they are before being granted admission.

I'm not paranoid about foreigners and the claim that I am is ridiculous. I just want a secure border. Sorry if you don't find that palatable.

rgossip30

There is a lack of Stats for crimes committed by foreigners . I assume its a cover up but its a larger figure in other EU countries given their lower numbers than the native population .

I doubt this article from 2002 would be accepted now but regarded as racist hate speech today .
https://www.google.com/search?q=crimes+non+nationals+ireland&rlz=1C1CHBF_enPH872PH872&oq=crimes+non+nationals+ireland&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.12260j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, ignoring your unwarranted passive aggression, it is my opinion that if someone is undocumented and entering the country, we have no way of immediately verifying who they are and where they come from so therefore would need higher vetting to establish they are who they say they are before being granted admission.

I'm not paranoid about foreigners and the claim that I am is ridiculous. I just want a secure border. Sorry if you don't find that palatable.

You are just paranoid about one type of foreigner?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

You are just paranoid about one type of foreigner?

Are you saying it's paranoid to know who is coming in or out of a country?

Get a grip.

**** sake. You do anything to paint anyone as a racist or a xenophobe. Documented immigration is now xenophobic? You heard it here first ladies and gents.

Boggles, the open borders paragon of virtue.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying it's paranoid to know who is coming in or out of a country?

No, I'm saying it's paranoid to focus on a group that make up a fraction of foreigners who come into our country.

Or do you think that someone who comes into the country with a passport is somehow background checked and vetted?

They aren't. Works the other way too.

Last I heard Larry Murphy was free to inter rail around Europe if he wants.

rgossip30

Boggles wrote: »

No, I'm saying it's paranoid to focus on a group that make up a fraction of foreigners who come into our country.

Or do you think that someone who comes into the country with a passport is somehow background checked and vetted?

They aren't. Works the other way too.

Last I heard Larry Murphy was free to inter rail around Europe if he wants.

At least they have ID unlike those who turn up for asylum without any documents .

Boggles

rgossip30 wrote: »

At least they have ID unlike those who turn up for asylum without any documents .

So because Larry Murphy has a drivers license you consider him "safer"?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No, I'm saying it's paranoid to focus on a group that make up a fraction of foreigners who come into our country.

Or do you think that someone who comes into the country with a passport is somehow background checked and vetted?

They aren't. Works the other way too.

Last I heard Larry Murphy was free to inter rail around Europe if he wants.

He sure is. But when he uses his passport, other countries know he is entering.

Focussing on the fraction of people who we know definitely have no documentation is not paranoid, its sensible.

Would you let someone you don't know into your house? If not, why not?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

He sure is. But when he uses his passport, other countries know he is entering.

Yeah, they know a Larry Murphy entered their country, but there is no background check or vetting done.

Deleted User wrote: »

Focussing on the fraction of people who we know definitely have no documentation is not paranoid, its sensible.

But as I have pointed out to you several time all ready, having documentation doesn't mean you are less likely to commit crimes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you let someone you don't know into your house? If not, why not?

Yeah, guy read my meter the other day, don't know him. You think I should have vetted him?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, they know a Larry Murphy entered their country, but there is no background check or vetting done.



But as I have pointed out to you several time all ready, having documentation doesn't mean you are less likely to commit crimes.



Yeah, guy read my meter the other day, don't know him. You think I should have vetted him?

Well yes!? Did you not ask him for ID? You should have.

Having documentation doesn't mean you won't commit a crime but it's a good way of identifying those who do commit a crime

When Larry Murphy applied for a passport he had to give identifying details so yes, checks were made.

ThunbergsAreGo

Boggles wrote: »

You are just paranoid about one type of foreigner?

Those who do not have identification documents?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Well yes!? Did you not ask him for ID? You should have.

I suppose you are right, statically Irish White Male, he was more likely to harm me then some fordiner.

I will in future thanks.

Deleted User wrote: »

Having documentation doesn't mean you won't commit a crime but it's a good way of identifying those who do commit a crime

So if you commit a crime, there is more chance of a conviction against you if you have a drivers licence?

Ah no. That's just nonsense isn't it?

Deleted User wrote: »

When Larry Murphy applied for a passport he had to give identifying details so yes, checks were made.

What checks?

I recently renewed my passport and no where did it ask me about criminal convictions.

Either way he got a passport, so we are all safer now right, because he has a bit of plastic with his picture on it?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose you are right, statically Irish White Male, he was more likely to harm me then some fordiner.

I will in future thanks.





So if you commit a crime, there is more chance of a conviction against you if you have a drivers licence?

Ah no. That's just nonsense isn't it?



What checks?

I recently renewed my passport and no where did it ask me about criminal convictions.

Either way he got a passport, so we are all safer now right, because he has a bit of plastic with his picture on it?

Oh here we go. Why are you talking about race? I don't care what race or nationality you are. If you don't have the correct legal documentation to enter a country, you should be investigated until it can be determined who you are.

If you don't have the right documentation to prove who you are, you can't come into my house uninvited either.

If you commit a crime and you have documentation, it is easier to determine who you are. That is the point.

Your obsession with Larry Murphy and race is worrying. As far as I know Larry Murphy is on a verifiable register for the crimes he committed.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose you are right, statically Irish White Male, he was more likely to harm me then some fordiner.

I will in future thanks.





So if you commit a crime, there is more chance of a conviction against you if you have a drivers licence?

Ah no. That's just nonsense isn't it?



What checks?

I recently renewed my passport and no where did it ask me about criminal convictions.

Either way he got a passport, so we are all safer now right, because he has a bit of plastic with his picture on it?

Also, if you are worried about Larry Murphy and his ease of travel, surely you should be advocating for MORE tightening of laws. Not less.

That's akin to saying, bollocks someone skimmed my ATM card. Best course of action would be to make all my bank details be public now.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh here we go. Why are you talking about race? I don't care what race or nationality you are.

I'm highlighting your paranoia by singling out another section of people.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't have the correct legal documentation to enter a country, you should be investigated until it can be determined who you are.

Sure, but that doesn't make anyone more safer does it?

Asylum Seekers could have documentation identifying them, but it may not be our definition of "legal".

Deleted User wrote: »

If you commit a crime and you have documentation, it is easier to determine who you are. That is the point.

You are not immune from prosecution if you fail to identify yourself.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your obsession with Larry Murphy and race is worrying. As far as I know Larry Murphy is on a verifiable register for the crimes he committed.

Yet he is free to come and go as he chooses.

There is a point there, surely you have twigged it by now?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, if you are worried about Larry Murphy and his ease of travel, surely you should be advocating for MORE tightening of laws. Not less.

That's akin to saying, bollocks someone skimmed my ATM card. Best course of action would be to make all my bank details be public now.

No it isn't.

I'm not worried about Larry Murphy or anyone, foreign or otherwise.

Largely because I am not an utter paranoid simpleton, which who these grifters pray on.