Thermal
August Member
I did consider that. I am not the best member at making my point clear, conceded. Based on the responses, though, I'm confident it is more of a 'That Thread' issue.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it's everybody else who's wrong.
But I'm afraid I'm going to need to see an arrest report from the Scottish police before I believe that.
But I'm afraid I'm going to need to see an arrest report from the Scottish police before I believe that.
Thermal
August Member
Soory, Matthew. Play dumb all you like, but behold my bag of Troll Chow, and see that it is barren.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
This thread is surely deranging and disorientating, but that's bound to happen whenever the basic rules of the social contract are being actively rewritten on anything as fundamental as the nature of sex.
Imagine how crazy-making it would be to argue with people who want to abolish lightweight boxing classes on the grounds that people should not be required to identify with their actual weight because that would be bad for their mental health. Imagine further that the weight-class abolitionists insist that they "trust the science" and have all the major medical establishments on their side. When you complain that this will effectively limit competitive boxing to heavyweights, they shrug and say that they never watch sports and are exclusively concerned with promoting civil rights, regardless of what might be lost in the process. You ask why it's a civil rights issue to think of oneself as a few stone lighter than you really are going by the scale, they start making screwball comparisons to racial apartheid, as if skin color is somehow just as relevant as muscle mass to the art of hitting other people in the face.
When discussing such matters as these with people who are committed to eluding and denying reality, one is constantly struck by the need to glance about for Rod Serling lurking just around any given corner. That will always be part of what makes this thread uniquely interesting, it's the place where self-professed skeptics come to divest themselves of commitment to scientific inquiry in favor of an identity-first approach.
Thermal
August Member
I get that, and I agree, but my observation was more base than that. In This Thread, posters backslap each other and ignore 'their sides' logical absurdities in order to stay on message and in lockstep. Remember the Big 5 post? It's that, writ large.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Was it recent? I've been out of town and mostly out of pocket for at least five days.
Thermal
August Member
No, a while back. A poster tried their hand at probability formulas, and ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up so bad that the result was off by two orders of magnitude, and was utterly absurd on its face. Five posters (of which you were one) gave it a big thumbs up. I asked why, seeing as it was comically wrong, five posters would like that, and invited explanation. None responded (including you). It stuck with me because it was so representative of the mentality here.
Doesn't matter, though.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
It wasn’t wrong - it was just sledgehammering the delivery. I’m surprised you didn’t recognise it.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Thermal, this is your first response to the posting of the DM article.
The DM says clearly that protests were organised by pro women's rights groups in both London and Edinburgh. (They didn't mention the third event in Cardiff.) It then says that these sparked counter-demonstrations. So far, so accurate, and perfectly clear.
(There has never been an example of the TRAs organising their own event and women's rights activists turning up to mount a counter-demonstration. Let alone one in which the woman were violent. We let them get on with whatever they want to do. They are the ones who regularly show up to organised women's events, screaming abuse and trying to drown out the words of the speakers at the women's event.)
The article then continues.
So, pretty clear this was "In London", and no information at all about the affiliations of the people who were arrested. Nevertheless you shot off and asked an AI about arrests at a trans protest in Edinburgh, unsurprisingly drawing a blank because there were no arrests at the Edinburgh event.
In the online article there are some pictures interpolated within this text. The first caption is "Trans Rights activists hold placards and display banners while taking part in a counter protest", which again makes it perfectly clear that the counter-protest was mounted by the TRAs, not by the women.
There was then some reporting covering the Edinburgh event, but at no point saying anything about arrests, which isn't surprising because there were no arrests in Edinburgh.
Then the article returns to the situation in London.
It's entirely clear that the police force involved in the arresting situation was the Met, that is the Metropolitan Police, who operate in London. It is also entirely clear that the protest was organised by women demanding implementation of the SC ruling from last April, and the counter-protest was the pro-trans affair.
The article then concludes by remarking that "Trans Kids Deserve Better" has been approached for comment. It appears that they declined to give any comment, in contrast to the women's groups, whose comments are reported in the body of the article.
So, Thermal, please explain why you chose to interpret this as a report of a peaceful trans protest which was disrupted by a violent counter-protest mounted by the women's rights side? Why you chose to interpret it as reporting that arrests happened in Edinburgh? Why you declared that "one protestor and one counter protestor were confirmed as arrested," when the police statement says that "'Officers made three arrests at the counter-protest, one on suspicion of criminal damage and two for breaching the Public Order Act conditions." The counter-protest. You know, the one mounted by "Trans Kids Deserve Better", the pro-trans organisation.
When Matthew tried to explain this to you, you doubled down.
The truth was that the PRO-TRANS counter-protestors brought violence to their counter-protesting, as they usually do. It was the trans activists who came to an event to which they were not invited and who brought violence with them. Exactly as Matthew said, which you then embarrassingly tried to "correct" to claim that it was the women who had been violent.
Why do you dismiss the verbatim reports from the spokesperson from the Metropolitan Police, stating absolutely clearly that three people were arrested at the counter-protest? Why do you pretend that every reference to "counter-protest" is talking about the women's event (which was the main protest, for which official permission had been granted), when it's absolutely clear that the counter-protest was the ad-hoc disruption instigated by "Trans Kids Deserve Better"?
Because if this is some sort of performance art intended to convey the impression that you're cleverly manipulating the conversation, rather than grabbing the wrong end of the stick and holding on to it with grim determination despite multiple people pointing out that you're wrong, I for one am not getting it.
It then got worse.
There were demonstrations in both Edinburgh and London. These were protests by women's groups demanding implementation of the April SC ruling. They had official permission to mount these protests. In both cases pro-trans counter-protestors tried to disrupt the organised women's meetings. In Edinburgh they were prevented from doing this. In London, when they were prevented from doing this, they turned violent, pushed against the police cordon and tried to break through to disrupt the women's meeting. They were not successful, but in the course of this altercation three TRAs were arrested. (And yes, "as usual". It is absolutely inevitable that the pro-trans side will show up to any event organised by women, and bring violence. I go to these events, I've seen it. The people who "brought violence to another event in London" were indeed the trans demonstrators, as absolutely bloody usual.)
It's not complicated at all, but you consistently insisted that what happened was the opposite of what had actually happened. Are you seriously trying to claim this is some sort of performance art aimed at persuading us of something, I know not what?
Then we had this blustering nonsense.
Insulting other posters, dismissing verbatim reporting of the words of a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police as not credible - it's not a good look you know. If you're trying to impress us with your intellect and superior debating skills, it's not working. In particular, this gem.
First, it was made absolutely clear by the Met spokesman that the three arrested people were part of the counter-demonstration, that is the abusive and violent eruption organised by "Trans Kids Deserve Better", the pro-Trans side. And second, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, it's the pro-Trans side who wear the masks and often dress in black. We actually call them the "Black Pampers". You completely failed to acknowledge any of this.
So I'm confused. What does "sledgehammering the delivery" mean in this context? How does repeatedly misrepresenting and misquoting what has been reported about this event, and doubling down with insults when it's pointed out to you that you got it completely wrong, do to support your position? I have, as you can see, re-read the relevant postings, and I can see nothing other than you getting it embarrassingly wrong, then doubling down and digging an even bigger hole for yourself, then introducing something you term "sledgehammering the delivery" which in some unexplained way is supposed to prove you were right all along.
Enlighten me.
The DM says clearly that protests were organised by pro women's rights groups in both London and Edinburgh. (They didn't mention the third event in Cardiff.) It then says that these sparked counter-demonstrations. So far, so accurate, and perfectly clear.
(There has never been an example of the TRAs organising their own event and women's rights activists turning up to mount a counter-demonstration. Let alone one in which the woman were violent. We let them get on with whatever they want to do. They are the ones who regularly show up to organised women's events, screaming abuse and trying to drown out the words of the speakers at the women's event.)
The article then continues.
So, pretty clear this was "In London", and no information at all about the affiliations of the people who were arrested. Nevertheless you shot off and asked an AI about arrests at a trans protest in Edinburgh, unsurprisingly drawing a blank because there were no arrests at the Edinburgh event.
In the online article there are some pictures interpolated within this text. The first caption is "Trans Rights activists hold placards and display banners while taking part in a counter protest", which again makes it perfectly clear that the counter-protest was mounted by the TRAs, not by the women.
There was then some reporting covering the Edinburgh event, but at no point saying anything about arrests, which isn't surprising because there were no arrests in Edinburgh.
Then the article returns to the situation in London.
It's entirely clear that the police force involved in the arresting situation was the Met, that is the Metropolitan Police, who operate in London. It is also entirely clear that the protest was organised by women demanding implementation of the SC ruling from last April, and the counter-protest was the pro-trans affair.
The article then concludes by remarking that "Trans Kids Deserve Better" has been approached for comment. It appears that they declined to give any comment, in contrast to the women's groups, whose comments are reported in the body of the article.
So, Thermal, please explain why you chose to interpret this as a report of a peaceful trans protest which was disrupted by a violent counter-protest mounted by the women's rights side? Why you chose to interpret it as reporting that arrests happened in Edinburgh? Why you declared that "one protestor and one counter protestor were confirmed as arrested," when the police statement says that "'Officers made three arrests at the counter-protest, one on suspicion of criminal damage and two for breaching the Public Order Act conditions." The counter-protest. You know, the one mounted by "Trans Kids Deserve Better", the pro-trans organisation.
When Matthew tried to explain this to you, you doubled down.
Then why did you say...
...when the TRUTH was that the counter protesters had brought the violence to their counter protesting?
Still waiting on credible reporting of these supposed arrests. See below.
You're right on one point- I forgot to attribute it when pasting the quoted section.
You are more typically wrong on it being a breach of the MA, though. I wasn't posting them as my own words or attributing them to anyone else, so not an MA breach. We both know you reported it already, so we'll see if it gets actioned.
GBNews, rated (surprise, surprise!) as extreme right wing and low credibility. You just get funnier with each floundering attempt at credibility.
GB News UK - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or nomediabiasfactcheck.com
In case you and the other guy haven't figured it out yet, I'm riding on your botched line quoted above. If you meant to say "It is thetrans activistsanti trans counter protesters who bring the violence toproteststheir counter protesting', then you should have said so.
The truth was that the PRO-TRANS counter-protestors brought violence to their counter-protesting, as they usually do. It was the trans activists who came to an event to which they were not invited and who brought violence with them. Exactly as Matthew said, which you then embarrassingly tried to "correct" to claim that it was the women who had been violent.
Why do you dismiss the verbatim reports from the spokesperson from the Metropolitan Police, stating absolutely clearly that three people were arrested at the counter-protest? Why do you pretend that every reference to "counter-protest" is talking about the women's event (which was the main protest, for which official permission had been granted), when it's absolutely clear that the counter-protest was the ad-hoc disruption instigated by "Trans Kids Deserve Better"?
Because if this is some sort of performance art intended to convey the impression that you're cleverly manipulating the conversation, rather than grabbing the wrong end of the stick and holding on to it with grim determination despite multiple people pointing out that you're wrong, I for one am not getting it.
It then got worse.
There were demonstrations in both Edinburgh and London. These were protests by women's groups demanding implementation of the April SC ruling. They had official permission to mount these protests. In both cases pro-trans counter-protestors tried to disrupt the organised women's meetings. In Edinburgh they were prevented from doing this. In London, when they were prevented from doing this, they turned violent, pushed against the police cordon and tried to break through to disrupt the women's meeting. They were not successful, but in the course of this altercation three TRAs were arrested. (And yes, "as usual". It is absolutely inevitable that the pro-trans side will show up to any event organised by women, and bring violence. I go to these events, I've seen it. The people who "brought violence to another event in London" were indeed the trans demonstrators, as absolutely bloody usual.)
It's not complicated at all, but you consistently insisted that what happened was the opposite of what had actually happened. Are you seriously trying to claim this is some sort of performance art aimed at persuading us of something, I know not what?
Then we had this blustering nonsense.
Insulting other posters, dismissing verbatim reporting of the words of a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police as not credible - it's not a good look you know. If you're trying to impress us with your intellect and superior debating skills, it's not working. In particular, this gem.
First, it was made absolutely clear by the Met spokesman that the three arrested people were part of the counter-demonstration, that is the abusive and violent eruption organised by "Trans Kids Deserve Better", the pro-Trans side. And second, as was pointed out to you repeatedly, it's the pro-Trans side who wear the masks and often dress in black. We actually call them the "Black Pampers". You completely failed to acknowledge any of this.
So I'm confused. What does "sledgehammering the delivery" mean in this context? How does repeatedly misrepresenting and misquoting what has been reported about this event, and doubling down with insults when it's pointed out to you that you got it completely wrong, do to support your position? I have, as you can see, re-read the relevant postings, and I can see nothing other than you getting it embarrassingly wrong, then doubling down and digging an even bigger hole for yourself, then introducing something you term "sledgehammering the delivery" which in some unexplained way is supposed to prove you were right all along.
Enlighten me.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
He got it wrong when he misread the article (as you have clearly shown in this post)
He got called out on his misread.
His ego can't stand being called out for getting it wrong.
Therefore, he doubled down - again and again and again.
Its that simple
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's how it appears to my simple mind.
I am absolutely and completely baffled by what he means by "sledgehammering the delivery" and what this is all about.
There are other people reading this, and they can see whatever it is that Thermal means, which is "obvious", even though those of us actually participating in the thread have no idea what he's claiming to be achieving?
Could I appeal to one of these other people reading this, who entirely understands what Thermal is doing, to come and explain it to us?
I am absolutely and completely baffled by what he means by "sledgehammering the delivery" and what this is all about.
There are other people reading this, and they can see whatever it is that Thermal means, which is "obvious", even though those of us actually participating in the thread have no idea what he's claiming to be achieving?
Could I appeal to one of these other people reading this, who entirely understands what Thermal is doing, to come and explain it to us?
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
“Sledgehammering the delivery” is a phrase he made up which means “doubling down on an error in the hope that people will give up correcting me”. Then you add “you’re proving my point” if people are rude enough to continue correcting you.
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's how it appears, but I still don't understand what he imagines he's achieving by this.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
For some people, admitting you are wrong is incredibly damaging to your ego.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You know, this "demand for police reports from Scottish police for things that happened in London" thing is starting to take on similar proportions to the "but what was the murder victim's mile time" thing
Rolfe
Adult human female
Lying to yourself (and others) isn't too great either. This from someone who repeatedly accuses other members of lying whenever they post something he doesn't happen to agree with.
The facts as known, from the article Thermal was initially prepared to accept uncritically when his cursory glance led him to believe the article supported his world-view, but which then became utterly unreliable and biassed when he realised it didnt.
- The "counter-demonstration" was the trans-activists
- There were three arrests, not two
- All three people arrested were at the counter-demonstration, that is they were TRAs
- The arrests happened in London (which is not in Scotland)
And no amount of bluster about sledgehammers is going to change any of that.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I wonder which "sledgehammer" he's referring to? This one perhaps...
...certainly fits the profile!
Rolfe
Adult human female
More detail about the pro-trans bias in the BBC.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Also the details about how the Panorama programme distorted its reporting of that Trump speech, although that would be better discussed in its own thread.
You may need to use "Reader View" to see this one, but it's worth it, the details are shocking. If you can access the native version of the article it shows unedited clips beside the Panorama footage, and it's absolutely damning.
BBC trans coverage ‘censored’ by its own reporters
Corporation’s LGBT desk ‘keeps other perspectives off air’, leaked internal dossier claims
www.telegraph.co.uk
Also the details about how the Panorama programme distorted its reporting of that Trump speech, although that would be better discussed in its own thread.
You may need to use "Reader View" to see this one, but it's worth it, the details are shocking. If you can access the native version of the article it shows unedited clips beside the Panorama footage, and it's absolutely damning.