• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: General UK Politics V Suella Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't read it, the free-speech warrior snowflake blocked me, apparently. From your vague description I doubt that it was on topic
 
The Don said:
It's very easy to work oneself into a lather about new laws when one wilfully and deliberately misrepresents those laws. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The polis are required to deploy resource to investigate Sophie Sparkle vs Graham Linehan on April 1.
Glinner limits his criticism to medicating children, and the related subjects too tiring to keep listing, but essentially women's rights as weak bodies.
He toured New Zealand last week, there was no media coverage.
The polis can seize his phones for an indefinite period according to the letter of the new law, nothing to see there of course
 
Filippo Lippi said:
Can't read it, the free-speech warrior snowflake blocked me, apparently. From your vague description I doubt that it was on topic
Click to expand...

It's quoting someone giving a list of names of people they claim to have been harassed by, and promising to "dob them all in" on April 1st.

I'm struggling a bit with this particular free speech issue. You have two groups of people with sincerely held but opposing beliefs, both of whom want to impose their belief on the other group. Take the Willoughby/Rowling misgendering case: Willoughby sincerely believes they are female, and insists Rowling refers to them accordingly; Rowling sincerely believes Willoughby to be male, and refuses to pretend otherwise.
 
Pixel42 said:
It's quoting someone giving a list of names of people they claim to have been harassed by, and promising to "dob them all in" on April 1st.

I'm struggling a bit with this particular free speech issue. You have two groups of people with sincerely held but opposing beliefs, both of whom want to impose their belief on the other group. Take the Willoughby/Rowling misgendering case: Willoughby sincerely believes they are female, and insists Rowling refers to them accordingly; Rowling sincerely believes Willoughby to be male, and refuses to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

And the new law won't effect either of them. They can both continue expressing their differences online and offline.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
As with Starmer's perfectly legal curry they want to keep it in the headlines & equate the £1,500 maximum liability on Rayner's house with the £7,000,000 Zahawi avoided or the six flats that Hunt 'forgot about'.
Click to expand...

This. Already heard the "they are all the same", which is the goal of the Tories.
 
The NYT has described life under the Tories with Dicken's phrase "nasty, brutish & short", ironically that's also the name of Braverman, Gullis & Sunak's Greenday tribute act for the Party Conference.
 
Pixel42 said:
It's quoting someone giving a list of names of people they claim to have been harassed by, and promising to "dob them all in" on April 1st.

I'm struggling a bit with this particular free speech issue. You have two groups of people with sincerely held but opposing beliefs, both of whom want to impose their belief on the other group. Take the Willoughby/Rowling misgendering case: Willoughby sincerely believes they are female, and insists Rowling refers to them accordingly; Rowling sincerely believes Willoughby to be male, and refuses to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Rowling, the nazi apologist, refuses to respect the wishes of another human being. She is 100% in the wrong.
 
Matthew Best said:
Maybe it's just me, but when I read the words "Nazi apologist" I think that it means someone who speaks or writes in defence of Nazism. I guess not, because nothing on that page says anything about Rowling defending Nazism - or Nazis, for that matter.
Click to expand...

A few men on this skeptics forum have found the need to make up lies about Rowling. Calling her a transphobe for example
 
I don't know if this is what Gulliver was referring to, but here's Council of Geeks on Rowling's Nazi crime denial:



While I wouldn't go so far as to call it Nazi apologism, it's still pretty bad.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom