Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,716
Trolling is bad faith posting. You're a hypocrite.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
Except, he wasn't intentionally trolling. He was simply doubling down on his misunderstanding of the DM article, and when he couldn't sustain that position any more, claimed he was engaging in some sort of performance art. It's that last part that's the bad faith posting.
Thermal
August Member
Not a hypocrite, because I acknowledged that it was wrong. You might not have noticed while you were taking the extra time to snip that out. What were you saying about bad faith posting?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,716
You acknowledged it was wrong to troll people? When did you do that? Not in the post I just quoted.
Thermal
August Member
I'll take up further discussion of any counter/trolling I've done when the Troll Brigade here catches up and owns up to their part. I ain't gonna be the only one called to the carpet, when the crew here has years of head start on me.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You may read, but you are not good at reading for comprehension.
Whenever I post something for discussion that goes against your trans-ally worldview, you declare that it's untrue, call me a deliberate liar, and make ◊◊◊◊ up to support your dishonest position. It's been going on for months if not years. Anything you think shows your trans darlings in a good light, you immediately believe without question. Anything that shows the reality of the fetishism, the pornified behaviour, the child grooming and abuse, the violence, the attacks on women and the outright criminality is dismissed as lies. I am accused of deliberate lying simply for posting an article or a tweet for discussion. Your "receipts" are laughable, just flat denials, made-up objections and demands for evidence that can't be acquired. Your desperation to defend the trans perverts at every turn is pathetic, and your willingness to insult fellow-members here is highy unedifying.
I'll repost your initial response to the Daily Mail article again, just to remind us all.
You didn't "make an inconsequential mistake". You completely misread the article, claiming that
- the main, organised, peaceful protest was the trans demonstration and the violent counter-protest was the women's rights group (it was the other way around)
- that two people were arrested (there were three arrests), one TRA and one women's rights protester (all three arrests were of TRAs)
- that this happened in Scotland (it was clearly reported as happening in London, complete with a statement from the London police)
- that because you couldn't find any record of any arrests in Edinburgh, then the Daily Mail and GB News had invented the whole thing and none of it happened at all
You then continued to misrepresent, misunderstand and generally dig yourself into a deeper and deeper hole, until all you could do was claim that you were indulging in some weird sort of trolling.
It's pathetic.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
The only one trolling here is you. If that, even, given that I don't believe your "performance art" excuse for doubling down on your misunderstandings for one second.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
It is almost entirely counterproductive to our discussion here to focus on who has been trolling and demand concessions.
Better to behave as if your interlocutors are presenting facts and arguments in good faith and let the chips fall as they may; that approach costs us nothing and may well lead to a productive and topical exchange.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, he did.
The reporter says nothing of the sort. The Met spokesman quoted in the article confirmed three arrests, all at the counter-demonstration, which was the TRA event.
This is not about trolling, as far as I am concerned. It's about Thermal posting something that was so full of errors I have to use bullet points. Then, after some time doubling down on all this he claimed he was actually trolling and not posting what he believed to be true. He's now trying to handwave away his gross misunderstanding, which sparked all this off, as "an inconsequential mistake". There will be no productive exchange while he's posting like this.
Every single time bad behaviour of TRAs is highlighted, Thermal says it didn't happen, or the person wasn't trans, or it was actually a women's rights campaigner who did it, or some such justification. (And accuses other members of deliberate lying.) This is just another one. He has entirely failed to acknowledge the true sequence of events, which is that a women's rights demonstration which had been arranged some time ago and had permission to go ahead, with invited speakers, was subjected to the (usual) attack by violent, abusive trans activists (some samples of the behaviour posted in a recent post). The police kept the TRAs away from the authorised women's event, but in the course of this some of the TRAs became violent and three of them were arrested.
And that's the productive and topical exchange we should be having. That this happens almost every time a women's group holds an event, TRAs come to disrupt and shout the speakers down, and that they're liable to turn violent. Yes it would be nice if we could get back to discussing this.
Rolfe
Adult human female
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
You have already thoroughly corrected their factual mistakes, which is all to the good. Anyone reading along here can tell which side is initiating violence whenever protestors and counter-protestors show up to demonstrate around TQ+ rights issues in the UK. It has been so well-established by now that we may as well move on to speculation as to why the "DIE CIS SCUM" folx are so reliably inclined towards taking violent approach, especially since that approach significantly predates recent setbacks for them in the courts.
(Alternatively, we could ask why middle-aged old-school feminists seem content with taking a nonviolent approach, but that question almost answers itself.)
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Bull ◊◊◊◊. Look at the most recent challenge I made to your tranny bashing retweets. Mobile Alabama ring a bell? What you reposted didn't even jibe with the report: no one reported that Todd Anthony was so hideous and terrifying, nor that he was trans (he is reported as a cross dresser and never once claimed to be trans).
That's representative of the dozens of factual challenges I have put to your postings. You don't even show the integrity to address the factual errors. Sound familiar?
Points 1 ,3, and 4 err the same error on my part. While fact checking, I mixed up the references with other reporting of three arrests in Edinburgh. That was my bad.
Point 2 is a lie. I was directly quoting the Mail reporter in the video who said there were three arrests, and he claimed they confirmed one was a trans protester, and one anti trans. Go ahead, check. it's still there.
So you are lying, while spending multiple pages crowing about me. Have you engaged this much when your teanny bashing tweets from Twitter and Reduxx get criticized? No. You go silent. Because you know they are lies. Why ever would I counter trolled in the face of this utter contempt for the truth (which you might have heard me point out on occasion)?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I just did check - I hadn't watched the video before.
You are incorrect. There is no Mail reporter in a video, only a GB News reporter who says that one trans activist was arrested after attacking another broadcaster's equipment, presumably because at the time he was speaking the other two arrests hadn't yet happened.
Thermal
August Member
Jesus Christ dude. I just said, in the post you are quoting, that it is from the Mail article, the first mention of this event posted by smartcooky.
Here is the link again. The first thing you see under the banner is a video link. The reporter says that one trans protester and one counter protester had been arrested, going on to mention that it was for attacking camera equipment.
Three arrests as trans rights activists clash women's rights groups
Three people have been arrested after women's rights groups and trans rights activists clashed 199 days after the Supreme Court's transgender ruling.
Eta: if you are getting so petty now that my saying the reporter in the Mail article (to differentiate it from any written text) was actually from the GB Seig Heil reporter, you're at full tilt trolling. Again.
Also, it confirms that when the story was first reported, it relied entirely on the same low credibility source, calling into question any and all reporting that was not strongly evidenced.
Eta2: I'll give you this much: the reporter, on listening again, is unclear. He first says one protester has been arrested, and one counter protester, etc. It may be that he was talking about the same person, or two different ones.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As far as I can tell, the reporter mentions only one arrest, of a trans-activist counter-protester (he says, "protester being arrested", then appears to clarify that it was one of the counter-protesters). This interpretation is supported by the final paragraphs of the article, which state:Jesus Christ dude. I just said, in the post you are quoting, that it is from the Mail article, the first mention of this event posted by smartcooky.
Here is the link again. The first thing you see under the banner is a video link. The reporter says that one trans protester and one counter protester had been arrested, going on to mention that it was for attacking camera equipment.
Three arrests as trans rights activists clash women's rights groups
Three people have been arrested after women's rights groups and trans rights activists clashed 199 days after the Supreme Court's transgender ruling.www.dailymail.co.uk
'The "199 Days Later" protest, organised by Grassroots Women, formed up at Parliament Square before concluding with a rally at Richmond Terrace.
'A static counter-protest, led by Trans Kids Deserve Better, took place in Victoria Embankment Gardens. Conditions were put in place under s.14 Public Order Act to prevent serious disruption.
'Officers made three arrests at the counter-protest, one on suspicion of criminal damage and two for breaching the Public Order Act conditions.
'No further incidents were reported, both groups were kept apart at all times. The protestors have since dispersed.'
Notwithstanding what the reporter says in the moment, the final arrest tally recorded by the Mail is 3 trans-activist counter-protestors, and 0 women's rights protestors.Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
No he doesn't. You're lying again. Or deluded.Jesus Christ dude. I just said, in the post you are quoting, that it is from the Mail article, the first mention of this event posted by smartcooky.
Here is the link again. The first thing you see under the banner is a video link. The reporter says that one trans protester and one counter protester had been arrested, going on to mention that it was for attacking camera equipment.
Three arrests as trans rights activists clash women's rights groups
Three people have been arrested after women's rights groups and trans rights activists clashed 199 days after the Supreme Court's transgender ruling.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Can't you get anything right?
Rolfe
Adult human female
And once more you resort to accusations of lying. I have no interest in bandying words with you when you simply declare that any incident that doesn't suit your world-view is fabricated.
You're also still wildly misreading the Mail article even as you begin to acknowledge errors. Fact checking? Don't make me laugh. There was no "other reporting" of "three arrests in Edinburgh". That is simply you making stuff up. There were no arrests in Edinburgh.
Point 2 is absolutely correct. You said...
The Mail report says no such thing, not even in the short video clip, which I have now watched for the first time. Leaving aside the egregious claim that "there was a trans demonstration, which sparked a violent counter protest," there is absolutely nothing about anyone from the women's event being arrested.
Look, the actual headline of the article is "Three arrests..." The factual reporting of the Met spokesman gives the detail that these were all of TRAs, people from the violent, abusive counter-protest organised by "Trans Kids Deserve Better". The headline also repeats the misconception reported by GB News, that "trans rights activists clash[ed] with women's rights groups". We know from multiple eyewitnesses that that's not what happened, that the two groups were never in contact because the police kept the violent, abusive TRAs away from the women, and that the clash was actually between the TRAs and the police themselves (as you can more or less see in the video), but that's not really relevant, as it's not a point you picked up on.
Turning to the video clip itself (which features a GB News reporter, it's not the DM's own footage), here is a transcript of the sound track.
He's only talking about one arrest. It's absolutely clear from what he says, especially listening to it live. "... one of the protestors being arrested." Then without even drawing breath, "So far we believe just one counter-protester from these trans-activists being arrested..." He's talking about that one arrest that's happening on camera as he speaks. Surely, please, tell me you weren't assuming that this was two separate arrests from the two sides of the argument that was being reported, that's absolutely not what he's saying.
Note also the rest of what he says. The TRAs were aggressive, calling on people to come masked and to "bring their rage", which contrasted starkly with the approach of the women (which isn't discussed in the clip, but which was in fact entirely peaceful and non-violent). He's also quite clear that the TRAs were the counter-protest, which you persistently insisted was not the case. How you came to that belief utterly baffles me.
Why are you so intent on parsing this to indicate that someone on the women's rights side was arrested? There is nothing in that clip to suggest that, and the full text of the article confirms that all the arrests were of TRAs. You are not reading for comprehension, you view everything in the hope you can get some woman-bashing out of it.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Let's not forget that he's already told us it's his normal practice to lie, exaggerate and indulge in what he calls "fact-switching" when his mistakes are pointed out. So I suppose it's just as likely that he's still doing that now.