ISME getting in bed with the far right

Purple is a Fruit

Taken from the article posted by the person being told they don't understand actual violence against women: "Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail" - how is that not actual violence against women?

Danzy

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

Taken from the article posted by the person being told they don't understand actual violence against women: "Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail" - how is that not actual violence against women?

Maybe he does not consider rape an act of violence? Or a lesser act of violence when it is committed by a trans woman.

Other activitists on boards have spoken of such rapes as "societal oppression turning in on itself".

Only he can give his nuanced views on it.

Purple is a Fruit

Danzy wrote: »

Other activitists on boards have spoken of such rapes as "societal oppression turning in on itself".

And if some auld Republican party dinosaur said some eejitry about rape not being real rape, the same people would be up in arms. And yet... it's the same thing: downplaying of sexual violence.

I swear, through the looking glass...

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would seem to me that you don't understand about actual violence to women.

Only someone who is far right would view a women being sexually assaulted as non-violent. I presume they were asking for it were they? Maybe they were wearing short skirts at the time.

Of course, misogyny is a tenet of the far-right and of those who adhere to such ideology, so your response is ofcourse no real surprise.

We can add sexual assault isn't 'actual violence' to the evidence list you've now built up.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

That's rich for someone who is haphazard with the definition of what a woman actually is.

I'm fairly sure that I've never set out any definition here on Boards of what a women actually is. What definition are you arguing about here?

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest Andrew, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

You do give the impression that most of your circle of friends are people who feel the need to announce their preferred pronouns

No, it does seem to be a very hot issue among the usual suspects here on Boards though. I don't thing I've ever seen or heard the issue coming up in real life, and I've worked with transgender people and had transgender people in the extended family.

But the serious furrowed brow concerns that we hear about defintions of women and violence against women here on boards have never manifested themselves in the real world.

The concerns that I see in the real world are the people who worry about the regular 99.99% of violence against women from men, often their husbands, spouses or close relative, not the mythical bogey man in the toilet. That's the kind of thing that seems to concern people in the real world, unlike here on Boards.

Deleted User wrote: »

Essentially yes. I would be afraid that children would be taught subject matter that children shouldn't learn and will confuse them

Children shouldn't be taught that they can identify as whatever they wish and that people who don't ascribe to a biological fallacy are bigots.

You are one of the vocal minority that view every opposing voice as aggressors and perpetrators of hate crimes for not believing what you believe.

You'd scream and have a hissy fit if biological sex and the undoubted fact that men cannot be women was taught in schools but within the same breath, champion queer gender theory to be made available through drag queen story time in your local library.

Truly, the people like yourself who define themselves as progressive are the most self congratulatory and unashamedly factually vacuous groups that exist.

Perpetual victims whose only enemy is reality

It's amazing to see how you attribute views to me that I'm reasonably confident that I've never set out here on boards. Some variation on the victim mentality that you tend to ascribe to others, but you're happy to pull on that suit yourself when it suits.

It's also fascinating to see your Schrodinger's oppressors, who while simultaneously part of a tiny minority, while also apparently in total control of our schools, our media and our social services.

Deleted User wrote: »

An example of your level of discourse

Have a look at what it was in response to. My discourse is like a PhD theses relative to what it was responding to.

Geuze wrote: »

Correct.

All identity politics / grievance studies / etc. has no place in schools.

Coming from the person who robustly defended the rights of churches to run schools, this is quite hilarious.

Hhhhh wrote: »

Only someone who is far right would view a women being sexually assaulted as non-violent. I presume they were asking for it were they? Maybe they were wearing short skirts at the time.

Of course, misogyny is a tenet of the far-right and of those who adhere to such ideology, so your response is ofcourse no real surprise.

We can add sexual assault isn't 'actual violence' to the evidence list you've now built up.

Extreme level strawmanning here - I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that I've never set out any definition here on Boards of what a women actually is. What definition are you arguing about here?

That a biological man can be a woman. Do you agree that's not true?

No, it does seem to be a very hot issue among the usual suspects here on Boards though. I don't thing I've ever seen or heard the issue coming up in real life, and I've worked with transgender people and had transgender people in the extended family.

But the serious furrowed brow concerns that we hear about defintions of women and violence against women here on boards have never manifested themselves in the real world.

Maybe not in your experience, but they have happened in the real world.

It's amazing to see how you attribute views to me that I'm reasonably confident that I've never set out here on boards. Some variation on the victim mentality that you tend to ascribe to others, but you're happy to pull on that suit yourself when it suits.

It's also fascinating to see your Schrodinger's oppressors, who while simultaneously part of a tiny minority, while also apparently in total control of our schools, our media and our social services.

Now now, it's a small minority but exceptionally vocal and those that oppose them often find themselves subject of a litany of abuse and risk their jobs.

Do you not agree that aul jk Rowling's views got her in trouble? Do you not think that coming out with anything considered right wing is tantamount to career suicide in the entertainment industry?

And really Andrew? Victim complex? Coming from you? G'way outta that.

But back on topic, can you admit that GRIPT is by no metric far right?

Purple is a Fruit

Good god, the story is about actual assaults and he says of such a situation that it "never manifested itself in the real world". I wish people wouldn't use that 99.9999whatever thing too. Use real stats.

Yes I know the majority of transwomen wouldn't assault women, but women are worried about the tiny minority of men who claim they "identify as" women abusing the bizarre amount of leverage this gives them, when it comes to women's toilets, changing rooms and prisons. As Andrew said, the majority of violence against women is carried out by men. A small number is still a number. To deny/dismiss this concern is at odds with supporting women. It's incompatible with feminism.

AndrewJRenko

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

Good god, the story is about actual assaults and he says of such a situation that it "never manifested itself in the real world". I wish people wouldn't use that 99.9999whatever thing too. Use real stats.

Yes I know the majority of transwomen wouldn't assault women, but women are worried about the tiny minority of men who claim they "identify as" women abusing the bizarre amount of leverage this gives them, when it comes to women's toilets, changing rooms and prisons. As Andrew said, the majority of violence against women is carried out by men. A small number is still a number. To deny/dismiss this concern is at odds with supporting women. It's incompatible with feminism.

Hilarious again how you have to twist my words to build up a strawman to argue with.

I won't be taking any lectures on feminism and supporting women from your good self and those who choose to deliberately ignore the causes of the vast overwhelming majority of violence against women. It's amazing how many sudden advocates to "supporting women " emerge when some think they can use this bandwagon to take a swipe at those whose lifestyle confuses them a bit.

Purple is a Fruit

I am a woman and I find it despicable that there are terms being used like "birthing people" now, and that I am deemed a bigot for disagreeing that others besides biological adult females are women.

And I never ignored the majority causes of violence against women whatsoever - that's something which you have made up. I certainly won't tolerate being lectured about women's rights by a man.

And oh I'm fully aware of the situation regarding violence against women and girls around the world - it is sex based, due to them being biologically female that they are raped and subjugated.

AndrewJRenko

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

I find it despicable that there are terms being used like "birthing people" now, and that I am deemed a bigot for disagreeing that others besides biological adult females are women.

I can only suggest that you take up your concerns with whoever used terms like 'birthing people' and whoever deemed you a bigot. I've no idea why you're bringing up those matters here on a thread about ISME and Grift.

Purple is a Fruit wrote: »

And I never ignored the majority causes of violence against women whatsoever - that's something which you have made up. I certainly won't tolerate being lectured about women's rights by a man.

And oh I'm fully aware of the situation regarding violence against women and girls around the world - it is sex based, due to them being biologically female that they are raped and subjugated.

Except that you have ignored exactly that issue here (the very serious issue of violence against women and girls, mostly by their own family members), while banging your drum about a tiny niche issue, dragging up a tiny number of niche issues that happened in other countries at other times, in order to impose your own narrow views on the world on others.

Deleted User wrote: »

That a biological man can be a woman. Do you agree that's not true?

So can we just agree that your claim that I'm "someone who is haphazard with the definition of what a woman actually is" was total fiction?

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe not in your experience, but they have happened in the real world.

A tiny number of issues have happened in a tiny number of cases in other countries, and some people seem absolutely determined to import those particular issues (while ignoring all the other issues that happened in those countries, and ignoring all the issues of violence against women in Ireland).

Deleted User wrote: »

Now now, it's a small minority but exceptionally vocal and those that oppose them often find themselves subject of a litany of abuse and risk their jobs.

Do you not agree that aul jk Rowling's views got her in trouble? Do you not think that coming out with anything considered right wing is tantamount to career suicide in the entertainment industry?

Amazingly powerful for such a small minority, eh? How exactly did this small minority get that power against all the well established owners and operators in the entertainment industry? Do you think they changed their minds after seeing a few tweets from a 'small minority' or do you think they actually gave the issue some serious consideration, opened their minds, dropped their historical prejudices and moved on in a tolerant manner.

Deleted User wrote: »

And really Andrew? Victim complex? Coming from you? G'way outta that.

That's your only answer? That's exactly what's going on here - you (and some others) playing the victim because your 1970s opinions no longer rule the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

But back on topic, can you admit that GRIPT is by no metric far right?

Except for the far right bits, which are of course most of the bits on Grift, you could be right.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except for the far right bits, which are of course most of the bits on Grift, you could be right.

Andrew, please stop.

You have already brought this thread around the houses.

Tell me what articles on GRIPT make it far right, tell me why you consider Peterson far right, or admit that you are talking out of your backside and just consider anything that you are opposed to as racist, homophobic, punching down or whatever ****ing lunacy you want to tar people with.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have a look at what it was in response to. My discourse is like a PhD theses relative to what it was responding to.

And you still haven't denied that you are far-right, because you are.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Extreme level strawmanning here - I never said any of the things that you're attributing to me.

You responded with this:

'It would seem to me that you don't understand about actual violence to women.'

in response to an article in which women were seriously sexually assaulted. What else can one infer from your response? Maybe it's a case that such criminality isn't violent when committed by a trans-person, is it?

The only person here who doesn't seem to understand what 'actual violence to women' is, is you. Rape and sexual assault are violent acts.

AndrewJRenko

Hhhhh wrote: »

And you still haven't denied that you are far-right, because you are.

Correct. And I won't be denying that I'm far right or far left or playing any other of your denial games.

Hhhhh wrote: »

You responded with this:

'It would seem to me that you don't understand about actual violence to women.'

in response to an article in which women were seriously sexually assaulted. What else can one infer from your response? Maybe it's a case that such criminality isn't violent when committed by a trans-person, is it?

The only person here who doesn't seem to understand what 'actual violence to women' is, is you. Rape and sexual assault are violent acts.

You could have inferred that, perhaps, my point was that the vast majority of violence against women has nothing to do with trans people, and the hypocrisy of those who choose to use violence against women as an excuse for imposing their own narrow minded 1970s views on the rest of the population is quite obvious.

Deleted User wrote: »

Andrew, please stop.

You have already brought this thread around the houses.

Tell me what articles on GRIPT make it far right, tell me why you consider Peterson far right, or admit that you are talking out of your backside and just consider anything that you are opposed to as racist, homophobic, punching down or whatever ****ing lunacy you want to tar people with.

I'm not the one who brought the thread round the houses. Others wanted to drag up all tired out far-right tropes and then seem to get offended when someone points out a few facts for them.

But anyway, with Grift, it's the whole thing - it isn't any one article, it is the whole thing, the leadership of the faker McGuirk, the constant hammering of immigrants, trans people, black people and others - it really is Breitbart.ie.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not the one who brought the thread round the houses. Others wanted to drag up all tired out far-right tropes and then seem to get offended when someone points out a few facts for them.

But anyway, with Grift, it's the whole thing - it isn't any one article, it is the whole thing, the leadership of the faker McGuirk, the constant hammering of immigrants, trans people, black people and others - it really is Breitbart.ie.

Andrew, please point out a few news articles where there are lies told in order to "hammer" immigrants, trans people, black people or others.

You put up screenshots of nchencko related articles. Now if you are using him as an example of hammering black people, you are being purposely misrepresentative because he was being hammered for attacking people with knives, not his skin colour

You put up screenshots of a search for immigrants and the results were overwhelmingly about ILLEGAL immigration and again, ILLEGAL immigrants deserve to be hammered.

You put up a screenshot of a search for trans and it came up with articles about trans people which didn't include any lies as far as I could see. But you are of the opinion that not believing they are a different biological sex is hatred towards them so your bias discounts that.

You have only to point to a handful of news articles and explain why it is false, why it is far right and why you believe it is hate filled.

You haven't done any of that so any reasonable person can deduce that you just simply don't like the news they report, even if it's truthful, and you label it with a disgusting pejorative in order to turn people away from agreeing with it for fear of being labelled far right.

It's a disgusting and well worn tactic that you use throughout different threads.

MarkEadie

Is there anyone willing to admit that they are far right in their views? There's does seem to be some cowardice amongst people who are far right in terms of owning their own far right stance. Not saying that applies to anyone here of course. Just wondering on the off chance that there is a far right member, which there doesn't seem to be on the forum it would appear.

ThunbergsAreGo

MarkEadie wrote: »

Is there anyone willing to admit that they are far right in their views? There's does seem to be some cowardice amongst people who are far right in terms of owning their own far right stance. Not saying that applies to anyone here of course. Just wondering on the off chance that there is a far right member, which there doesn't seem to be on the forum it would appear.

I still don't really know what far right is (or the media /current definition) ?

Genuinely think apart from a few nutter at either end, most in Ireland don't lean to far one way or the other

Id be left on most issues and right on some economic issues, suspect alot are similar (a mix of both)

MarkEadie

MarkEadie wrote: »

Is there anyone willing to admit that they are far right in their views? There's does seem to be some cowardice amongst people who are far right in terms of owning their own far right stance. Not saying that applies to anyone here of course. Just wondering on the off chance that there is a far right member, which there doesn't seem to be on the forum it would appear.

Well there is one who is steadfast in his refusal to deny he is far-right. It's quite telling.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Correct. And I won't be denying that I'm far right or far left or playing any other of your denial games.


You could have inferred that, perhaps, my point was that the vast majority of violence against women has nothing to do with trans people, and the hypocrisy of those who choose to use violence against women as an excuse for imposing their own narrow minded 1970s views on the rest of the population is quite obvious.

Who said the vast majority of violence against women does have to do with trans people? Not sure anyone has.

The point raised is that their is a bizarre and insidious ideology that has popped up surrounding trans-people, many of whom reject said ideology, and were many, if not the majority, of the cheerleaders behind this ideology are not themselves trans. That has lead to situations were male sex offenders are now placed in prisons with women. Karen White is an example of why that should not occur. The fact that you are attempting to downplay what 'she' did to those women, by suggesting that it's not actual violence, is frankly quite disgusting.

MarkEadie

MarkEadie wrote: »

Is there anyone willing to admit that they are far right in their views? There's does seem to be some cowardice amongst people who are far right in terms of owning their own far right stance. Not saying that applies to anyone here of course. Just wondering on the off chance that there is a far right member, which there doesn't seem to be on the forum it would appear.

I'll admit that I am against illegal immigration, believe that men can't be women (and vice versa), abhor BLM and oppose third wave feminism and critical race theory.

Now, can we please have someone who regularly shouts about "far right" to "own" their own stance by calling these views far right.

It's hard to own up to something that your accuser can't/won't define.

If the above makes me far right in your eyes, then I'll happily agree with you.

Purple is a Fruit

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that you have ignored exactly that issue here (the very serious issue of violence against women and girls, mostly by their own family members), while banging your drum about a tiny niche issue, dragging up a tiny number of niche issues that happened in other countries at other times, in order to impose your own narrow views on the world on others.

I never indicated ignoring of the broader picture regarding violence against women whatsoever. I was talking about one topic within it - does a person have to bring the broader picture into everything to show they're not ignoring it? Who am I imposing my view on by simply expressing an opinion? It is you who's doing that.

These men lecturing women on their take regarding women's rights... have lost the plot.

Purple is a Fruit

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll admit that I am against illegal immigration, believe that men can't be women (and vice versa), abhor BLM and oppose third wave feminism and critical race theory.

Now, can we please have someone who regularly shouts about "far right" to "own" their own stance by calling these views far right.

It's hard to own up to something that your accuser can't/won't define.

If the above makes me far right in your eyes, then I'll happily agree with you.

You certainly aren't far right. Neo nazis are far right.

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

This is center right, not right or far right!

I'd have thought so.

But these are the topics of news articles on GRIPT which are being used as proof they are far right.

It's almost as if the people claiming that GRIPT are far right are inconsistent in their views....

That can't be it....

Purple is a Fruit

Far right loons would hold those views but:

Anti semitic people (who can be far left) are opposed to the Israeli military's level of force, but that doesn't mean opposition to the Israeli military's level of force is anti semitism.

Misogynists will obviously despise third wave feminism but that doesn't mean criticism of third wave feminism = misogyny. I'm a critic of third wave feminism. A lot of old school feminists are.

There are black and brown people who hold your views on BLM and CRT also. These are their sincerely held beliefs, and white people telling them they're race traitors, useful idiots and "coons" (a term of racist abuse back in the day against Afro Caribbean immigrants in England)... well that's just white people telling people of colour that they know better than them. Again.

AndrewJRenko

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

I still don't really know what far right is (or the media /current definition) ?

Have a look at Grift.ie Gript.ie and that'll put you in the right ballpark.

Purple is a Fruit

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

I still don't really know what far right is

Neo nazis, KKK - well no maybe they're extreme right. Far right is the likes of the English Defence League and Britain First and Richard Spencer.

Feck the media definition of far right. The media definition of a hate filled bigot is a woman disagreeing that biology can be denied.

Geuze

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But anyway, with Grift, it's the whole thing - it isn't any one article, it is the whole thing, the leadership of the faker McGuirk, the constant hammering of immigrants, trans people, black people and others - it really is Breitbart.ie.

I don't read Grift very often, but I do read McGuirk on Twitter.

I have never seen any "hammering of immigrants".


I myself have stated on many occasions that the majority of asylum-seekers are bogus, they are illegal immigrants.

Perhaps Grift state the same?

If so, then that is good reporting, as it is reporting the truth.

That is their job, and they are doing their job, reporting the truth.


There may be some people out there who are against EU migration. I am not, I welcome it, and I think people who oppose it are mad.

I don't think McGuirk opposes EU migration?

Geuze

MarkEadie wrote: »

Is there anyone willing to admit that they are far right in their views? There's does seem to be some cowardice amongst people who are far right in terms of owning their own far right stance. Not saying that applies to anyone here of course. Just wondering on the off chance that there is a far right member, which there doesn't seem to be on the forum it would appear.

What are the main tenets of far right views?

Geuze

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have a look at Grift.ie Gript.ie and that'll put you in the right ballpark.

I will have a quick look now, and check.

About 12 headlines, nothing sticks out as "far-right"?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Andrew, please point out a few news articles where there are lies told in order to "hammer" immigrants, trans people, black people or others.

You put up screenshots of nchencko related articles. Now if you are using him as an example of hammering black people, you are being purposely misrepresentative because he was being hammered for attacking people with knives, not his skin colour

You put up screenshots of a search for immigrants and the results were overwhelmingly about ILLEGAL immigration and again, ILLEGAL immigrants deserve to be hammered.

You put up a screenshot of a search for trans and it came up with articles about trans people which didn't include any lies as far as I could see. But you are of the opinion that not believing they are a different biological sex is hatred towards them so your bias discounts that.

You have only to point to a handful of news articles and explain why it is false, why it is far right and why you believe it is hate filled.

You haven't done any of that so any reasonable person can deduce that you just simply don't like the news they report, even if it's truthful, and you label it with a disgusting pejorative in order to turn people away from agreeing with it for fear of being labelled far right.

It's a disgusting and well worn tactic that you use throughout different threads.

Who mentioned lies? I didn't mention lies so you seem to be arguing against something that I never said.

We all know that McGuirk has a reputation for being, eh, 'flexible' with the facts when it suits him.

It's a bit difficult to believe that they only reported the Nchenko incident because of the knives involved, when the don't go reporting every incident with knives involved around the country - just the ones that suit their hate-filled riling up agenda.

AndrewJRenko

Hhhhh wrote: »

Well there is one who is steadfast in his refusal to deny he is far-right. It's quite telling.

It's quite telling that you keep trying and failing to back me into a corner where I have to deny your fictional claims. It's getting just a tad tedious now.