Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Dwarven, don't be obtuse. This follows a very predictable and well trod trajectory. If they passed it they wouldn't just try and pass it again and be embarrassed by the fact that they forgot such a fundamental detail. They'd use its passage as a springboard, to show how they've been fighting for "real americans" against the muslim hordes trying to reshape our society. They'd use the fact that it passed as evidence of the severity of the threat and proof that Islam is - how is it that these fearmongers so often put it? Oh yes, "fundamentally incompatible with western values".
The only people arguing that Muslims want Sharia are the people pushing to codify into law that Sharia was a severe enough threat to warrant being specifically called out and banned. They are not going to stop if people roll their eyes and say "yeah, sure, whatever", they'll just use that as legal precedent to move on to the next step.
No but it does suggest that a massive fraud campaign would have been caught considering they found this tiny one.
Oh so we've gone from "There is no fraud" to "There's not enough fraud found yet to be worth suggesting maybe Biden would do good to say he wants to make sure his win was fair and make sure Trump is in no doubt he lost?"
Lack of evidence is one thing but realise those lawsuits can and will be refiled again and again if evidence is found and it's entirely possible it could well be found.
Not really when this was one person signing for 67 people. Some stuff will stick out like sore thumbs. More planned ones might take longer to find.
The fraud stuff is like russiagate, people trying to make excuses for losing. Pathetic in both cases.
Ah well, Biden won it seems which is great, now we can focus on policies and not on just electing someone just because we need to remove Trump.
Ah well, Biden won it seems which is great, now we can focus on policies and not on just electing someone just because we need to remove Trump.
Riding a Bicycle in a swimming pool in Florida?
So what does it say about women then?
Damn, the paranoia is strong with this one.
If I recall, the whole added aspect of "anyone saying not to is also a Nazi who should be punched, anyone refusing is a Nazi who should be punched" was less a thing leftists said, and more a thing nazi's convinced centrists that leftists were saying in order to sow fear into them. Basically, you've fallen for nazi-spread paranoia and propaganda that they full-on knew was false.
Y'know, kinda reminds me of Rowling's whole TERF manifesto, honestly. Y'know how one of her big things was "People are trying to say sex isn't real!"
And trans activists looked around at each other and were like "... Um, yeah? Nobody was saying it wasn't..."
One of Rowling's biggest positions was against an argument that no one was making. Y'know, playing on emotions, fear, tribalism, all that. Also kinda like when she tried to spin Maya Forstater getting fired for harassing her co-workers as a "The trans cult is coming for your free speech!!!" when... No, she was harassing her co-workers and got fired for it. More playing on those emotions and sparking fear, ehhhhh? On top of her arguing that there's going to be an epidemic of regretful detransitioners, which... Was also super unfounded, but it ceeeertainly sounds scary doesn't it? Really... Pokes those emotions, eh?
I dunno dude, feel like this goes both ways yet you're only concerned with poking a single side for some reason, and seem pretty willing to turn a blind eye to the side that's actually causing real harm.
Yeah and it was dumb. Yet, she's still standing strong, as are her defenders because ultimately her rhetoric and her defender's rhetoric was much stronger and more persuasive. Ergo, your fears about Twitter brainfarts are pretty demonstrably inflated. Likewise, I'm pretty sure Rowling's long TERF manifesto has also done more to embolden TERFs and other transphobic people moreso than randos making little transphobic and pro-TERF Tweets.
Again dude, it's fucking Twitter. No matter what position you can think of, you can find millions of tweets that'll make that position look bad. Far-right, far-left, centrist, pop-culture opinions... So, again, stop acting shocked that Twitter isn't a good place for discussion and rhetoric.
PFFFTTTTT
Haha, oh man, and the delusion is strong too."Mmm yes, I harken back to the good ol' days, when I and my fellow intellectuals of the Princeton Alumni Association would gather upon Twitter, and discuss the very condition of human nature over microscopic sips of 50-year-old scotch."
Get those rose-tinted glasses outta here, Twitter was always a place of high emotion and reaction-seeking.
Yeah kinda, which also makes it all the more funny that it's the wealthy and powerful who you're most keen on defending against slander and libel, even though as you say they're already protected. Rowling's hasn't been harmed in the slightest from the barrage of Tweets calling her a TERF; she's still a multi-millionaire and thus far there's little to no indication future sales of the media she produces have been harmed.
Caaaan't really say that though about trans people who might be harmed if people fall for Rowling's unsubstantiated claims and start supporting anti-trans legislation though, can we?
Trans people aren't the "wealthy and powerful". Rowling sure is though.
While it's true things could get this out of hand, generally speaking the claims still have to hold some degree of basis or at least believability for something to be taken as far as, say, even getting you fired from your job. I highly doubt "stealing and murdering babies" would get you very far. Y'know, people didn't start calling Rowling a TERF out of the blue just because. No, there were screengrabs of Tweets she liked, and people she followed, then came her actual statements that parroted things open-and-out transphobes say. That's not so much slandering someone, so much as, well... Reporting on their actual behaviour.
Look, if you're legitimately worried about people having their lives ruined by slander and libel, you might want to consider picking a different case study, and, y'know, not someone for whomst the shoe fits.
Well I'm not gonna dig forever for all of your debunking. Buuut, let's at least look at this Tweet which you once shared awhile ago referring to it as a "terf tweet" in what I'm assuming were sarcasm quotes.
So, y'know, I get it. She's just, y'know, concerned about the safety of women and girls in changing rooms. Honestly there's nothing wrong with that. In fact I'm not really in favour of the way things are being handled in the UK either. I don't think everyone should be consolidated into a single change room, I think it's perfectly valid to keep multiple, such as male, female, and unisex, so that people can use which one they feel most comfortable in. That's what we're doing in Canada.
So, why isn't the UK doing this? Well, in the article Rowling is citing there, the data is in regards to assaults and harassment reported at publicly-funded facilities that forego adding a unisex changing facility in favour of consolidating separate ones into a single unisex change room to save costs. Something I'm not super keen on either. But, the thing is, this is happening not because of "radical trans ideology", but because of austerity. I mean, you're in the UK, I don't think you need me to tell you that your government's been running austerity policies for more than a decade.
So, this is less a "radical trans ideology" issue, and more a "public facilities should be able to have the funding to add a unisex facility." With the latter, women can have their own changing room, and so can men too for that matter, and there'll be a separate facility for all who would prefer one where they don't have to feel excluded. Boom! We can find a solution that doesn't involve denigrating trans people or painting trans-rights activists as being the ones to blame when it's clearly a problem arising from austerity.
Buuuut, that's not the route Rowling took, was it?
She went the route that blamed trans people and trans-rights activists. She took the route where she could put the blame squarely on the shoulders of people who less power in society, instead of calling for the people who do have power in society to allow for funding to add a change room rather than take one away. She went the route that appealed to emotion and created fear, something you apparently advocate against.
You have a solution for your problem that doesn't involve harming trans people, but instead you decide to opt for a solution that blames trans people and inspires anger toward them. And that, to me, is pretty TERFy. This ain't it chief.
And then Democrats can go "Um we helped pass that bill so no you're not the only ones fighting for 'real Americans' "
Again another shut down of the narrative.
Also our Prime Minister Boris Johnson insulted Barack Obama by saying his removal of a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office was born from an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire" which probably did not endear him to anyone close to Obama, which includes Biden. The government has placed Britain into a very weak negotiating position which will give Biden lots of room to basically humiliate them for his own amusement, if he wants.
...You actually think this is about partisan political points and being able to claim credit?
No, Dwarven, no. The idea is not centered on who can be said to be doing more for "real Americans". It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about fighting the implication that Muslims are not "real Americans" but instead people who are gearing up to take over America and replace it with a Muslim theocracy.
Last edited:
So quick question why we talkin about Sharia law? This is a conversation that seems more and more out of place
No it was being said by leftist types.
Here's a recent lesser version of it.
This was in response to well known indie developer saying he would refuse to speak at conferences who deplatformed speakers in said fields for fairly mild political talk on social media that offended some people.
So no don't come at me with the gaslighting saying that it's just Nazis trying to gaslight people.
Also yes some Trans activists have been saying biological sex isn't real
Have a video from a Trans woman pointing out other Trans activists saying just that
The whole "Biological Sex isn't real" has been knocking around for years since the days of JJ talks on youube before whatever you want to claim the Breadtube collective are
As for detransitioning stuff well there was potential due to lets say inaccurate advice being given by certain charities etc.
Government issues gender identity guidance for teachers in England
Pupils must not be told they might be a different gender based on personality or clothes
www.theguardian.com
The UK government had to step in because of advice from one lobbying group / charity.
Which yes if that had gone ahead as the main advice you can hopefully see how non conforming people who transitioned might come to that.
Except it's not dead with Contrapoints and the push against her will keep happening and keep happening likely until enough people are there to push her out.
It may not be a good place for it but it seems like a good place for sociopaths to try and play on peoples positions.
No it still had a lot of sit posting and memes but there wasn't a mob trying to cancel people every 2 weeksPFFFTTTTT
"Mmm yes, I harken back to the good ol' days, when I and my fellow intellectuals of the Princeton Alumni Association would gather upon Twitter, and discuss the very condition of human nature over microscopic sips of 50-year-old scotch."
Get those rose-tinted glasses outta here, Twitter was always a place of high emotion and reaction-seeking.
Rowling hasn't been harmed but she's also not needed to deploy lawyers either. Others who were not rich and powerful have had to get lawyers involved due to claims spreading round like wildfire.
Also you know J.K. Rowling has actually had to have security gates fitting at her home now?
Yeh no I'm not playing progressive stack bullshit rules of "It's ok because they're the oppressor or more powerful". Because at some point the rich / powerful will choose to strike back and people will not like it. Hell no-one using social media will likely like the damage etc it causes.
Not really you only have to have the people making the claims be enough of a nuisance for a boss to get fed up or for the more zealous people to push certain buttons against bosses to get them to act.
Why the UK isn't doing it.
1) most places are old, like very old buildings for most public buildings with little space or room to really place additional toilets in. Some buildings have been around since the 60s or 70s and just updated slightly over the years to repair stuff.
2) There's a lot of things to consider round them not least the issues of how to deal with certain things that go on. I mean in club toilets in the UK in a lot of clubs they have toilet attendants because of issues that can happen due to people and alcohol.
3)The places that have done it (some have) are relatively new builds and they only have unisex toilets but to ensure there are no issues they take up rather a lot of space as in 6 stalls in the space that in some buildings would fit both Male and Female bathrooms in there.
4) Having to make the spaces equally sized or they may be claims of discrimination. It sounds dumb but it likely would happen
As for Rowlings comments.
This had recently happened at the time
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life
Karen White, 52, admitted sexually assaulting women in female prison and raping two other women outside jail
www.theguardian.com
Which is thought to have happened in part because people went with the position of self identifying without a dysphoria diagnosis. Hell in the case above it even suggests some degree of social transition happened but no diagnosis as such so shows how with even lesser standards such things could be abused. E.G."Wax my Ball Yaniv" who last I heard was suing a gynaecologist for refusing a gynaecology appointed and examination of their balls.
'Shocked, confused and hurt': Transgender woman's fury after gynaecologist refused to see her
Jessica Yaniv, 32, said she was told by a gynaecologist's office: 'We don't serve transgender patients.'
Now to be clear. THIS IS AN EDGE CASE. THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE EDGE CASES. However most people don't go round murdering one another either and laws are meant to stop edge cases. Thus we end up in some issues around laws etc.
Happened because it was brought up as an example of why Democrats can't work with republicans mostly.
Which is why I pointed out it would align with a number of points.
Because Sharia is one of those non-threats the right is always trying to save us from. It's a distraction, nothing more.
So what about the Muslims who would happily see sharia banned because they hate the more extreme members of their religion too and would see themselves as real Americans?...You actually think this is about partisan political points and being able to claim credit?
No, Dwarven, no. The idea is not centered on who can be said to be doing more for "real Americans". It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about fighting the implication that Muslims are not "real Americans" but instead people who are gearing up to take over America and replace it with a Muslim theocracy.
Which is working very well because it's letting the clog up legislation process with talk of it. It's letting them paint their opponents are being for it and it's lead to however many posts here.
The Distraction is working very well it would seem.
- Status