Nick Cave: 'cancel culture is bad religion run amuck'

Errashareesh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said she deserved the criticism she got. What I described is a good chunk of the criticism she received. And when pushed, people struggle to say what she said that was transphobic. Because acknowledging biological reality is not hateful or transphobic.

She is well insulated. But tell me this, if you were a young researcher or journalist starting out and you wanted to write about the erosion of sex-based rights like she did, would you? In the current climate, would you feel you could do that? The established journalist Suzanne Moore was heavily criticised by a huge number of her colleagues at the Guardian for writing about that topic. Young journalists must look on that and think "better keep my mouth shut". It has a chilling effect. So to say "Oh, what's the problem? Rowling is loaded" is to totally miss the point IMO. I think Rowling recognises her charmed position and I have great admiration for her for sticking her neck out on this topic. She realises she has a platform and she is using it. And at this point, I don't think she will capitulate. Bloody good for her.

I write a bit myself. I wouldn't dare put my name to an article sharing my views. A few legal eagles in my family advise me I'm right to see it that way. How bloody grim and (albeit unintentionally - well mostly unintentionally) misogynistic is that state of affairs? That a woman feels too intimidated to publish a piece appealing for non sidelining of the female sex?

That's why I'm glad of here for the anonymity. It can drive you mad - the Covid conspiracy lunacy caused me to close my last account in April, but it's actually a very good resource.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

So I accept that my film isn't going to be treated entirely fairly in the current climate as the price to pay for women feeling safe in their workplaces.

That's just scary, especially when the "feeling safe" has nothing to do with reality.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm happy for cis men to stay out of the conversation if we are ALL going to be doing that.

I don't think men should stay out of the conversation. On any societal topic, I think everyone should be able to contribute. But I do think people should think things through before they weigh in and on this topic, understandably, I think men maybe have a bit of a blindspot. I'm not a rabid feminist. I have huge problems with the movement. But I do think there are things that men will never understand about being a woman, just like there are things I will never understand about being a man. Women are aware of how much stronger men are. We have to cope with becoming public property at an unbelievably young age (seriously, ask any women in your life what age they were when they received their first lewd comment from a man. The ages will disgust you. I was 11 personally. That is not in any way unusual). So I am fine with any man living how they want and in whatever way they imagine living as a woman means to them. I am not okay with that resulting in the erosion of protections women put in place to protect themselves from the minority of the male sex class who want to harm them. Transgender women are no more dangerous than other males but it would be silly to think that none of them are bad eggs.

Memnoch

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said she deserved the criticism she got. What I described is a good chunk of the criticism she received. And when pushed, people struggle to say what she said that was transphobic. Because acknowledging biological reality is not hateful or transphobic.

She is well insulated. But tell me this, if you were a young researcher or journalist starting out and you wanted to write about the erosion of sex-based rights like she did, would you? In the current climate, would you feel you could do that? The established journalist Suzanne Moore was heavily criticised by a huge number of her colleagues at the Guardian for writing about that topic. Young journalists must look on that and think "better keep my mouth shut". It has a chilling effect. So to say "Oh, what's the problem? Rowling is loaded" is to totally miss the point IMO. I think Rowling recognises her charmed position and I have great admiration for her for sticking her neck out on this topic. She realises she has a platform and she is using it. And at this point, I don't think she will capitulate. Bloody good for her.

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two. And just because she got threats doesn't mean that the criticism wasn't justified.

There are lots of ideas that were considered mainstream and acceptable that would now result in you being rejected by society.

For example that women were inferior or had smaller brains or that a husband could not be legally convicted of raping his wife. Or that Jews secretly control the world. Or that white people are a superior master race or that black people should sit in the back of the bus or the Irish people should not be allowed into some restaurants etc. etc. etc. What was that phrase - “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”?

People might not want or like the idea of trans people being accepted and treated with equality, respect and dignity but that is the way society is going and those who wish to stick to antiquated ideology will inevitably find that their views are not acceptable. This is a standard part of social progress.

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

That's just scary, especially when the "feeling safe" has nothing to do with reality.

It absolutely does in my view.

2u2me

Memnoch wrote: »

It absolutely does in my view.

How does 'cancelling' your film lead to women actually being safer, and not just feeling safer?

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

Well I think the psychological, emotional and societal are covered by the term trans woman. And the recognition of self identification as being of the female gender.

But ignoring the biological is disrespectful and harmful to women - we deserve respect too.

Not disagreeing with you, but the people who do disagree with you also make the same claim that they deserve respect too. It’s obvious that you’re trying to be respectful to other people who don’t share your opinions, whereas when it comes to JK or Maya Forstater, it was obvious that they were intentionally trying to wind people up and provoke a reaction.

They got as much support for their opinions as they did a backlash, but it will be the people who try to stay away from all that shìte and out of the limelight who will still have to put up with the taunting and humiliation.

To go back to the example used by the OP - the Catholic Church doctrines regard people who are homosexual as being intrinsically disordered, (they ain’t too keen on transgenderism either). I certainly wouldn’t be defending their stance, because I see it as dehumanising.

I’d say the same as you said of racists (I did recently), and after that I unsubscribed from the thread because frankly I couldn’t be arsed entertaining a “debate” about migrants which is what the thread had been turned into.

JK as far as I could see wants to promote an agenda of free speech, and as an incredibly intelligent woman she knows exactly what buttons to press, and who she can insult in order to provoke a reaction that will work to her advantage. I don’t imagine for a minute she actually gives a shìte about who she offends, because she knows she has the support of the vast majority of people in society anyway.

She wasn’t bringing anything new to the table worth debating or discussing. It’s not as though she doesn’t have access to the mainstream media and isn’t articulate enough to write whole books on the subject, but no, instead she chose the medium with the greatest audience and the hairiest trigger fingers. She chose it with purpose, and I don’t believe for a minute it was because she cared about women’s welfare. She cares a great deal about her own image though, enough that when she doesn’t like people saying things about her, she threatens legal action -


J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Metro Vancouver transgender activist over tweets

Memnoch

2u2me wrote: »

How does 'cancelling' your film lead to women actually being safer, and not just feeling safer?

It's not a direct correlation. Just unfortunate collatoral damage. Yes it sucks "bigly" but I knew the risk when I made it. I still stand 100% behind it and am happy to defend it to anyone who has seen it.

Besides, many truly great artists aren't respected in their time.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

I write a bit myself. I wouldn't dare put my name to an article sharing my views. A few legal eagles in my family advise me I'm right to see it that way. How bloody grim and (albeit unintentionally - well mostly unintentionally) misogynistic is that state of affairs? That a woman feels too intimidated to publish a piece appealing for non sidelining of the female sex?

That's why I'm glad of here for the anonymity. It can drive you mad - the Covid conspiracy lunacy caused me to close my last account in April, but it's actually a very good resource.

It's mental. The treatment of Suzanne Moore was sickening and the "offending" article was so measured. It was about balancing transgender rights and women's rights. It was eminently sensible. And you are right. It IS bloody grim and misogynistic (and that's not a word I throw around lightly). If a well reasoned article gets such a backlash, we are royally effed in the A.

I hope the tide turns and people like you feel that you can speak out and write on the topic. We need more of that.

This is a minefield and I'm sorry if I am repeating what has already been said, but isn't cancel culture ****ing mental?

Each different person has a plethora of beliefs. You will never agree with all of them. Some may be offensive, some may be dangerous. None deserve the vitriol or hatred they get these days.

It's mad though. The media and the famous people seem to be conduits and somehow impervious. Sure, they get a little bit of lackery, but a couple of months later they are back in the domain.

I hate an awful lot of beliefs. Genuinely hate them. But I'm glad they can be heard. It helps me decide who I associate myself with.

Too many people are too afraid to talk these days, as it seems the media and a vocal minority have shot down public discourse on a social level.

Reality is different though. On most "hot button" topics, people pretend to go with the cause-de-jour but reality more often than not wins out in the end.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Memnoch wrote: »

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two. And just because she got threats doesn't mean that the criticism wasn't justified.

There are lots of ideas that were considered mainstream and acceptable that would now result in you being rejected by society.

For example that women were inferior or had smaller brains or that a husband could not be legally convicted of raping his wife. Or that Jews secretly control the world. Or that white people are a superior master race or that black people should sit in the back of the bus or the Irish people should not be allowed into some restaurants etc. etc. etc. What was that phrase - “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”?

People might not want or like the idea of trans people being accepted and treated with equality, respect and dignity but that is the way society is going and those who wish to stick to antiquated ideology will inevitably find that their views are not acceptable. This is a standard part of social progress.

This is hyperbole. Very few people don't want that. But refusing to acknowledge the clash with sex-based rights is not treating the female of the species with respect and dignity. Being accepted doesn't mean steamrolling over the rights of others.

Consider this: self ID was legal in Ireland before abortion (apart from the few exceptions). Whilst women did not yet have full rights, the rights we did have were being undermined.

Memnoch wrote: »

I said she deserved criticism. I did not say that she deserved threats. It is you who are choosing to conflate the two.

You said and I quote:

So her tweet is harmful and destructive and she deserves the criticism she got for that.

You did not differentiate on the criticism she received. And even the criticism that wasn't the most extreme was still complete overkill.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

Good thing I didn't advocate that then.

I didn’t say you did?

You made the point that respect is a two way street as though people aren’t acutely already aware of the fact that respect is a two way street. I was making the point that so too is the street where people disrespect each other and if JK wants to be disrespectful, then she’s going to attract disrespect from people who are of the same mentality that she is - if she imagines she has the right to say whatever she likes about whoever she likes, then that same right she thinks she has extends to everyone in society, whether they have 14.5 million followers on social media or whether they have none.

Errashareesh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but the people who do disagree with you also make the same claim that they deserve respect too. It’s obvious that you’re trying to be respectful to other people who don’t share your opinions, whereas when it comes to JK or Maya Forstater, it was obvious that they were intentionally trying to wind people up and provoke a reaction.

They got as much support for their opinions as they did a backlash, but it will be the people who try to stay away from all that shìte and out of the limelight who will still have to put up with the taunting and humiliation.

To go back to the example used by the OP - the Catholic Church doctrines regard people who are homosexual as being intrinsically disordered, (they ain’t too keen on transgenderism either). I certainly wouldn’t be defending their stance, because I see it as dehumanising.

I’d say the same as you said of racists (I did recently), and after that I unsubscribed from the thread because frankly I couldn’t be arsed entertaining a “debate” about migrants which is what the thread had been turned into.

JK as far as I could see wants to promote an agenda of free speech, and as an incredibly intelligent woman she knows exactly what buttons to press, and who she can insult in order to provoke a reaction that will work to her advantage. I don’t imagine for a minute she actually gives a shìte about who she offends, because she knows she has the support of the vast majority of people in society anyway.

She wasn’t bringing anything new to the table worth debating or discussing. It’s not as though she doesn’t have access to the mainstream media and isn’t articulate enough to write whole books on the subject, but no, instead she chose the medium with the greatest audience and the hairiest trigger fingers. She chose it with purpose, and I don’t believe for a minute it was because she cared about women’s welfare. She cares a great deal about her own image though, enough that when she doesn’t like people saying things about her, she threatens legal action -


J.K. Rowling threatens legal action against Metro Vancouver transgender activist over tweets

I cannot agree either Rowling or Forstater were just on a wind-up. They made valid points - the outrage was simply due to people not liking what they said. They are simply women who hold the views I do, and felt they needed to speak up for women - they are not advocating hatred of trans women for being trans women.

And I do respect the trans community, and ask that they do the same in relation to women (apart from women who are actually transphobic - refusing to redefine "woman" and pretend biological sex is subjective, is not same though).

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

Errashareesh

Yeah but the trans issue is a prime example of what you're talking about.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

I cannot agree either Rowling or Forstater were just on a wind-up. They made valid points - the outrage was simply due to people not liking what they said. They are simply women who hold the views I do, and felt they needed to speak up for women - they are not advocating hatred of trans women for being trans women.

It was the way in which they chose to make their points though, that drew the reaction they received. You’re making your points here which are essentially the same points, and you’re not drawing any anger because you’re not going out of your way to provoke people. Maya Forstater stated at the Equality Tribunal that she would refer to people how she wanted, and JK mocked an organisation who didn’t use their words. They both tried being clever about it, whereas at least you’re being honest about your opinions. I’d put them in the same bracket as Jessica Yanniv in terms of the people they claim to represent to be honest.

Errashareesh wrote: »

And I do respect the trans community, and ask that they do the same in relation to women (apart from women who are actually transphobic - refusing to redefine "woman" and pretend biological sex is subjective, is not same though).

I don’t doubt your sincerity, my own opinions on the politics of transgenderism would be a bit more nuanced, suffice to say I don’t think anyone regardless of their sex or gender has any right to make demands as to how anyone else should identify themselves. To the best of my knowledge anyway women aren’t being asked anything, because nobody needs their permission to identify themselves however they choose.

Of course there are people who find it upsetting that nobody asked them personally for their opinions before they chose to identify themselves as women, or men, or whatever the case may be. The whole point of the gender recognition act is that people who are transgender wouldn’t have to ask for JK Rowling or Maya Forstaters or anyone else’s opinions on how they should identify themselves.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

I'm happy to talk about other examples but it's a very germane case in point of cancel culture currently.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet again, we are back on the trans issue and away from what nick cave said.

No opinion is worth "cancelling"

Opinions, even ****ty and egregious ones, should be encouraged.

Stifling and shutting down of opinions is disgraceful.

It’s not disgraceful, it’s necessary!

Otherwise you’d have to entertain every gobshìtes stupid questions and every brain fart that enters their heads. Nobody should feel obligated to entertain that sort of torture :pac:

Errashareesh

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

I'm okay with transgender women calling themselves women but not female because that has a very specific meaning as you say rooted in biology.

Errashareesh

Errashareesh wrote: »

Yeah but the trans issue is a prime example of what you're talking about.

It is.

And it is an example of an opinion that people should be free to espouse.

Do you think avid merrion/leigh Francis should have had to apologise for his depiction of black characters in bo selecta?

Should someone who is anti abortion feel apologetic for their beliefs?

Should a BLM supporter feel apologetic for the grief people have done on their name?

No.... Is the answer any rational human should have.

I have my beliefs. I won't apologise for them. But my beliefs are malleable when confronted with facts and evidence. I won't apologise for what I believe in. And I won't apologise for changing my beliefs based on new information.

Yet people want to "cancel" people or make people apologise for past behaviour.

Leigh Francis made his career out of lampooning celebrity. Yet because BLM is in fashion, he has apologised for that aspect. What about people such as Alec Baldwin lampooning Trump? Body shaming I'm sure you'd agree. His appearance is consistently a focus of ridicule. That's ok though?

It does seem that only one side of the spectrum is "game".

Ben Shapiro? "Feminine voice" "can't make his wife wet"

Trump "orange man, racist"

Boris Johnson "trump lite"

The list goes on and on. And yes, all those insults are fine in my belief, just once the counter argument is allowed and other beliefs or points of view are allowed equal respect/publicity then fine.

The culture at the moment only wants to allow one narrative and is desperately trying to hush any conversation that they (and only they) deem problematic

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not disgraceful, it’s necessary!

Otherwise you’d have to entertain every gobshìtes stupid questions and every brain fart that enters their heads. Nobody should feel obligated to entertain that sort of torture :pac:

There you go.

Anything you deem a stupid question or a brain fart should not be entertained.

I'm assuming you feel that your questions or your ideas are not included in that sweeping statement?

Probably your white male privilege talking there.

Errashareesh

Deleted User wrote: »

It is.

And it is an example of an opinion that people should be free to espouse.

Do you think avid merrion/leigh Francis should have had to apologise for his depiction of black characters in bo selecta?

Should someone who is anti abortion feel apologetic for their beliefs?

Should a BLM supporter feel apologetic for the grief people have done on their name?

No.... Is the answer any rational human should have.

I have my beliefs. I won't apologise for them. But my beliefs are malleable when confronted with facts and evidence. I won't apologise for what I believe in. And I won't apologise for changing my beliefs based on new information.

Yet people want to "cancel" people or make people apologise for past behaviour.

Leigh Francis made his career out of lampooning celebrity. Yet because BLM is in fashion, he has apologised for that aspect. What about people such as Alec Baldwin lampooning Trump? Body shaming I'm sure you'd agree. His appearance is consistently a focus of ridicule. That's ok though?

It does seem that only one side of the spectrum is "game".

Ben Shapiro? "Feminine voice" "can't make his wife wet"

Trump "orange man, racist"

Boris Johnson "trump lite"

The list goes on and on. And yes, all those insults are fine in my belief, just once the counter argument is allowed and other beliefs or points of view are allowed equal respect/publicity then fine.

The culture at the moment only wants to allow one narrative and is desperately trying to hush any conversation that they (and only they) deem problematic

Did you mean to direct this to me? I never disputed it.

Exactly what you refer to applies to people who question some aspects of trans rights ideology.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There you go.

Anything you deem a stupid question or a brain fart should not be entertained.

I'm assuming you feel that your questions or your ideas are not included in that sweeping statement?

Probably your white male privilege talking there.

Of course they are? I say stupid shìt ALL the time, and I’m often told I say stupid shìt, which is fair enough IMO. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to entertain ideas they regard as nonsense.

Not sure what the white male privilege thing is about tbh.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course they are? I say stupid shìt ALL the time, and I’m often told I say stupid shìt, which is fair enough IMO. I don’t think anyone should be obligated to entertain ideas they regard as nonsense.

Not sure what the white male privilege thing is about tbh.

People are free to disregard opinions.

Unfortunately, people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel problematic.

That's what I take issue with.

One eyed Jack

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm fine with trans women identifying as female - or even with calling themselves women. Can't stop them. The line is the grossly disrespectful claim that trans women actually are women and that biology is an illusion.

Just blindly accepting that - because... reasons - is what's lacking in nuance.

Nobody has to blindly accept anything, I certainly don’t. Often times I regard something as so stupid it’s not even worth entertaining. The idea of “trans women” is one of those ideas that IMO isn’t worth entertaining, so I don’t. I also wouldn’t go hounding someone who does use the term because that would only be legitimising the idea IMO, not something I’m at all keen to encourage. Same thing regarding biology - there are some ideas I consider so daft they’re just not worth entertaining.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful to women though, I don’t think it’s even aimed at women, it’s aimed at people who are easily provoked by stupid ideas and feel there needs to be a debate on the matter.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Often times I regard something as so stupid it’s not even worth entertaining. The idea of “trans women” is one of those ideas that IMO isn’t worth entertaining, so I don’t.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful to women though, I don’t think it’s even aimed at women, it’s aimed at people who are easily provoked by stupid ideas and feel there needs to be a debate on the matter.

Your posting history betrays your "not worth entertaining" ethos, and leaves you a little exposed as dishonest.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People are free to disregard opinions.

Unfortunately, people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel problematic.

That's what I take issue with.

You hardly think it’s only now that’s happening? It’s been happening throughout history for as long as humans have existed. Martyrs nowadays aren’t all that different from martyrs throughout history, with the only difference being that martyrs were prepared to die for what they believed in, can’t really say the same of the people who portray themselves as victims nowadays.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your posting history betrays your "not worth entertaining" ethos, and leaves you a little exposed as dishonest.

If you think my posting history betrays my “not worth entertaining” ethos, you can only imagine the amount of shìte I don’t actually entertain

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You hardly think it’s only now that’s happening? It’s been happening throughout history for as long as humans have existed. Martyrs nowadays aren’t all that different from martyrs throughout history, with the only difference being that martyrs were prepared to die for what they believed in, can’t really say the same of the people who portray themselves as victims nowadays.

That's a misrepresentation of my arguement. What I clearly meant was that anyone who now goes against "social media/popular" opinion is now expected to shut up or to suffer social consequences.

It is a relatively new thing for people of a certain age as social media and social standing via the internet has never been so prevalent.

You knew I meant that but somehow tried to discount it and equate it to actual human sacrifice. Killing yourself and retweeting are hugely different, I agree. Yet for some, social media castigation is as bad due to the reliance of "likes and shares".

But again, you know I wasn't equating the two with regards severity.

Funny how you say people "portray themselves as victims". Who is that exactly? Are you talking about Black Lives Matters by any chance?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a misrepresentation of my arguement. What I clearly meant was that anyone who now goes against "social media/popular" opinion is now expected to shut up or to suffer social consequences.

It is a relatively new thing for people of a certain age as social media and social standing via the internet has never been so prevalent.

You knew I meant that but somehow tried to discount it and equate it to actual human sacrifice. Killing yourself and retweeting are hugely different, I agree. Yet for some, social media castigation is as bad due to the reliance of "likes and shares".

But again, you know I wasn't equating the two with regards severity.

Funny how you say people "portray themselves as victims". Who is that exactly? Are you talking about Black Lives Matters by any chance?

I wasn’t trying to misrepresent your argument at all. From what you’ve written above I can see now how I misread your argument when you said that “people now feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel are problematic”. I read it as though you were suggesting people didn’t feel entitled to stifle and mute opinions they feel are problematic before now.

That’s why I don’t understand why you’re saying it’s a relatively new thing for people of a certain age as though anything has actually changed. Social media hasn’t changed anything, people were always expected to shut up or face social consequences like ostracising from their communities, or in some cases yes, even death by public lynch mob, it’s where the term comes from.

For those people who feel that being ostracised on social media is in any way comparable to death, I’d suggest they were lacking perspective and frankly being melodramatic. That kind of neurosis and paranoia isn’t all that prevalent in society either, much as someone like Milo Yiannopoulos (remember him?) would want people to believe it is, just because he’s now banned off every popular social media platform and relegated to Telegram where he refers to himself as a “social media refugee”.

He’s just one victimhood complex shy of qualifying as ‘politically homeless’ like that one Posie Parker, conjures up a certain mental image when one claims homelessness of any sort really, as opposed to the reality that social media companies are under no obligation to entertain their bullshìt.

When I speak of anyone who portrays themselves as a victim, I mean literally anyone who portrays themselves as a victim, when in reality they aren’t a victim, people just don’t want to have to entertain their bullshìt and have every right to demand that they be ostracised and denied access to any platform. That’s not any different to when those people are calling for people to be ostracised themselves. It’s just when it happens to them they seem to take issue with it and run off to Quilette to cry about it.

Don’t think I’ve ever said anything about BLM, don’t really care much for it tbh, so I just don’t entertain it.

CroatoanCat

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't agree. I think that the cases of men dressing up as women to go into women's toilets and try some nonsense are going to be a very, very, very extreme minority. However, trans women getting the crap kicked out of them and being assaulted in male bathrooms is a very real and tangible threat to the majority of them and something that happens on a regular basis.

It is precisely because society is the way it is that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. But really this is a discussion for cis women to resolve among themselves and decide if they want to share their safe spaces with trans women on equal terms.

Right now, the debate seems to be in favor of protecting trans women.

Memnoch, thank you for conceding that women should, theoretically, have the right to fix their own boundaries as to who can access the limited number of environments that are segregated on the basis of their users being of the female sex. I am not being sarcastic here; it is more than a lot of people, male and female, who engage passionately in this debate would concede is due to women and girls.

I feel that you, like most people who engage in this debate, are coming from a place of good intentions and compassion. But I must point out the glaring fallacy in the point you are making. You assert that transwomen are in danger in male spaces, thereby acknowledging that the threat to them is mainly one of male violence, but you immediately move to placing the onus on women to accommodate transwomen in their sex-segregated spaces. Without wishing to be provocative in my terminology, do you not see that this is not women's "problem" to solve? Transwomen are a subcategory of the male biological sex. There are other categories of males who may be vulnerable to violence from other males in certain environments, but none of those cohorts of men is demanding access to women's sex-segregated spaces.

The thing I find particularly frustrating is that those of us women who assert our right to hold firm on the boundaries that maintain our safety, privacy and dignity are dismissed as TERFs and c*nts - really, the two words are functionally synonymous - and even misandrists. What could be more misandrist than asserting, in effect, that men are so inherently violent and incapable of self-control that they, or at least significant numbers of them, represent a clear and permanent danger to the subcategory of males who are feminine-presenting (to varying degrees)? In fact, the vast majority of men are kind and decent and, although they might give a second look, they absolutely would not threaten or inflict any violence on a transwoman in a male space. Likewise, all kind and decent men - again, to be clear, the vast majority - understand why some women and girls might feel vulnerable and intimidated when they encounter biological males, regardless of presentation, in their spaces.

AndrewJRenko

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Memnoch, thank you for conceding that women should, theoretically, have the right to fix their own boundaries as to who can access the limited number of environments that are segregated on the basis of their users being of the female sex. I am not being sarcastic here; it is more than a lot of people, male and female, who engage passionately in this debate would concede is due to women and girls.

I feel that you, like most people who engage in this debate, are coming from a place of good intentions and compassion. But I must point out the glaring fallacy in the point you are making. You assert that transwomen are in danger in male spaces, thereby acknowledging that the threat to them is mainly one of male violence, but you immediately move to placing the onus on women to accommodate transwomen in their sex-segregated spaces. Without wishing to be provocative in my terminology, do you not see that this is not women's "problem" to solve? Transwomen are a subcategory of the male biological sex. There are other categories of males who may be vulnerable to violence from other males in certain environments, but none of those cohorts of men is demanding access to women's sex-segregated spaces.

Are you planning on having bouncers at every ladies toilet and changing rooms to enforce these restrictions? What kind of documentation would be required to allow access?

It's really a nonsense issue, that ignores the reality of violence against women carried out by men - ordinary men. That's the real threat to the safety of women that is being quietly hushed up to create the bogeyman (or bogeywoman) of transwomen.

Re: CroatoanCat

I have to laugh. In all the times I have ever been in a male toilet area (in Europe, Russia, Asia), I've never felt threatened... There hasn't been any violence that wasn't brought in from outside the toilet area. Maybe two guys or a group who brought their issues into the toilet area to settle them, but I've never felt threatened by other users of a toilet area. (The US was the exception...)

I'm very tall, but I'm also very skinny and not strong. Most guys are far stronger than me.. but honestly, very few guys are ever that aggressive to be a problem. I've probably had more problems with aggressive women in male toilets, than the actual males themselves.

Male toilets aren't like female toilets. Men don't go there to socialise. They do their business, and get out fast, to continue whatever else they were doing outside. The Transgendered people talking about danger in male toilets are looking for trouble, that generally doesn't exist. Or they're going to places that specifically don't like transgendered people seeking to get a rise out of people. If they behave like other males, in doing their business, they're unlikely to have any problems.

The issue, though, is that like many "camp"/"expressive" gay men, they feel the need to advertise their situation to everyone, and expect a response... The expectation being acceptance, but life is not that simple. Anyway, waving your situation in front of other people, demanding "acceptance", is only going to increase the risk of negative reactions.

nthclare

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Re: CroatoanCat

I have to laugh. In all the times I have ever been in a male toilet area (in Europe, Russia, Asia), I've never felt threatened... There hasn't been any violence that wasn't brought in from outside the toilet area. Maybe two guys or a group who brought their issues into the toilet area to settle them, but I've never felt threatened by other users of a toilet area. (The US was the exception...)

I'm very tall, but I'm also very skinny and not strong. Most guys are far stronger than me.. but honestly, very few guys are ever that aggressive to be a problem. I've probably had more problems with aggressive women in male toilets, than the actual males themselves.

Male toilets aren't like female toilets. Men don't go there to socialise. They do their business, and get out fast, to continue whatever else they were doing outside. The Transgendered people talking about danger in male toilets are looking for trouble, that generally doesn't exist. Or they're going to places that specifically don't like transgendered people seeking to get a rise out of people. If they behave like other males, in doing their business, they're unlikely to have any problems.

The issue, though, is that like many "camp"/"expressive" gay men, they feel the need to advertise their situation to everyone, and expect a response... The expectation being acceptance, but life is not that simple. Anyway, waving your situation in front of other people, demanding "acceptance", is only going to increase the risk of negative reactions.

You've hit a lot of good points there, especially the type's who crave attention.
As the saying goes "you can't have it every way"

If someone wasn't interested in social media or the new SJWs and alt right then they would know no better and live their lives outside that bubble of insanity drama and theatre.

I'm intrigued by their behaviour both SJWs and the alt right and it's impact on society, but it only impacts themselves at the end of the day or people who are triggered from both sides of that divide. So what I'm saying is whether you're an SJW or Alt right you're just caught up in the bull**** that most of the population couldn't give a **** about in the first place.

Because these goon's will tell you to pick a side.

Myself and a few boardsies suggested Trump had the election in the bag a few years ago and I was lambasted by members in the political forum I even got a personal warning from a moderator because I was upsetting the decorum of the forum.

Funnily enough I was right.
And the republicans will romp home again whether it's Trump or someone else.

There's an old story about a tribe being indoctrinated into Christianity's by a preacher.

They then asked if they never knew about Christ would they be saved anyhow, the preacher said of course.

The tribal leaders then asked why did you tell me about it in the first place..

Same applies to the rubbish the alt right and SJWs argue about.
Most people don't care.

I know people from all walks of life and they steer clear of drama or martyrdom because they make the most of it.

I was at pride in Dublin there last year and I had a bunch of gay guys slagging me off about my rather flamboyant coloured Jean's they were red.
Funnily enough I turned around in my thick north Clare accent and suggested that they man up and come up with a better way to have banter, lets just say that didn't work out too well I was accused of being homophobic and I was a bisexual mam at pride FFS as I said you can't have it every way.
**** em I just gave back as good as I received lol

But the next phase of the knobs is going to be "yeah cancel culture is ****, I never liked it in the first place.
Even though they were in the thick of it.

Then it'll all go back to basics and be forgotten about, just like the whole Gretta Thornburg situation.

conorhal

Bowie wrote: »

I think 'cancel culture' is a bull**** term used by people uncomfortable with change, long needed change.
Each incident is taken on a case by case basis. You can't say 'we should stop doing X, because cancel culture'.
Using 'cancel culture' is like SJW or snowflake. It's ignorant and dismisses a conversation before it's started.
'Cancel culture' isn't a movement. The dam broke so we are seeing a lot of criticism on things and people. It's a lot because a lot of **** has been bubbling for generations.

People that open a tweet thread with 'we to need start a conversation about...' can eat a big bag of Gummy dicks, because you know damn well that the very last thing such people are interested in is a 'conversation'.

RWCNT

The issue I have with the term cancel culture is the net of what defines it is insanely wide. The term appears to cover everything from losing your job due to some sort of backlash, to having your social media account suspended for violating TOS, to having a handful of anonymous people getting angry at you on twitter with no real-life consequence whatsoever. When I hear that someone has been "cancelled" the term doesn't inform me in the slightest about what's actually happened to them.

nthclare

RWCNT wrote: »

The issue I have with the term cancel culture is the net of what defines it is insanely wide. The term appears to cover everything from losing your job due to some sort of backlash, to having your social media account suspended for violating TOS, to having a handful of anonymous people getting angry at you on twitter with no real-life consequence whatsoever. When I hear that someone has been "cancelled" the term doesn't inform me in the slightest about what's actually happened to them.

Lol better for them to be cancelled rather than gaining validation from the knobs that cancelled them.

I'm sure Jk Rowling isnt worried about a bunch of freaks not reading her books, or being a fan.

The stupid idiot's have already paid for the books in the first place, irony,own goal for the SJWs and slam dunk for Jk Rowling..

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

biko wrote: »

The only celeb I trust on the topic

Gene Simmons doesn't follow his own advice though. He's a well-known conservative and a big supporter of Israel.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Gene Simmons doesn't follow his own advice though. He's a well-known conservative and a big supporter of Israel.

Is he vocal on those topics? Because if he isn’t, his personal politics doesn’t detract from his point.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Is he vocal on those topics? Because if he isn’t, his personal politics doesn’t detract from his point.

Yes, he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Simmons#Political_views

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Yes, he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Simmons#Political_views

It seems the last time he spoke publicly on politics was 2012 and he attended some political event in 2015, five years ago. I mean, he could well have realised that celebs should not weigh in on this stuff.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It seems the last time he spoke publicly on politics was 2012 and he attended some political event in 2015, five years ago. I mean, he could well have realised that celebs should not weigh in on this stuff.

I doubt that. Here he is again in 2018.

https://loudwire.com/gene-simmons-predicts-landslide-victory-trump-2020/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Fair nuff

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.

Sonics2k

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.

Hell, to an awful lot of Americans (and people outside the US) they viewed Trump as a celebrity too, as most people knew him from The Apprentice and appearing on other shows.

tjhook

"Cancel Culture" - shutting people down or threatening their livelihoods and careers because they have an opinion you don't like, or because the say things you don't like.

If it's ok today, then it was also ok in 1950s Ireland when other people were doing it. It's hypocritical to say it's only ok when it supports *your* positions. (I'm not aiming at anybody in particular here)

CrankyHaus

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

A lot of the time when people say celebrities shouldn't comment on politics, they're just annoyed that they don't agree with them. Look at how conservatives embraced Kanye West when he backed Trump.

Did they really embrace him that much?
I mean the reaction from all quarters to West's outbursts in recent years is increasingly sympathetic more than anything else as it becomes clear that he's dealing with serious mental health issues.


I think people find celebrities commenting on politics to be annoying because they tend to do so in a superficial, insincere and attention seeking way.



For instance it wasn't long ago that the prevalent position in Hollywood was that Roman Polanski should be pardoned for the rape of a 13 year old girl whom he had drugged, and various celebrities took up this worthy cause. Now I'm supposed to take them seriously when they get on their high-horse about Me-Too?


Or what are people to make of Leonardo Dicaprio flying around the world on his private jet to accept awards and accolades as a Climate-Change grandee?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Did they really embrace him that much?
I mean the reaction from all quarters to West's outbursts in recent years is increasingly sympathetic more than anything else as it becomes clear that he's dealing with serious mental health issues.


I think people find celebrities commenting on politics to be annoying because they tend to do so in a superficial, insincere and attention seeking way.



For instance it wasn't long ago that the prevalent position in Hollywood was that Roman Polanski should be pardoned for the rape of a 13 year old girl whom he had drugged, and various celebrities took up this worthy cause. In fact from memory the only one who publicly disagreed was Whoopi Goldberg. Now I'm supposed to take them seriously when they get on their high-horse about Me-Too?


Or what are people to make of Leonardo Dicaprio flying around the world on his private jet to accept awards and accolades as a Climate-Change grandee?

Aaaaah, no. Whoopi said it wasn't "rape-rape".

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg#:~:text=Hollywood%20has%20rallied%20behind%20Roman,wasn't%20rape%2Drape.

CrankyHaus

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aaaaah, no. Whoopi said it wasn't "rape-rape".

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg#:~:text=Hollywood%20has%20rallied%20behind%20Roman,wasn't%20rape%2Drape.

Cheers, must have remembered it wrong. Who did go against the "Free Polanski" consensus at the time? From memory it was a fairly fringe position.