Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's too complicated for me to articulate but whenever censorship of comedy is mentioned people argue against it. Yet here we are I don't know the answer " I mean nobody wants to go out and cause offence but then theres the balancing act of whose rights are more important. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's too complicated for me to articulate but whenever censorship of comedy is mentioned people argue against it. Yet here we are I don't know the answer I mean nobody wants to go out and cause offence but then theres the balancing act of whose rights are more important. " Nobody has more important rights. However I'd say there is a case of withholding what you want to say (especially none critical/joke stuff) vs having to have yourself be made fun off. In this particular case, the festival doesn't want to associate with such jokes or comedy at this time. He isn't censored, they just don't want to promote him or endorse his act. A unopia of everyone agreeing just won't ever exist, one opinion will always clash with another's for whatever reason. One side or the other will push their view toward and on to the other, regardless of morality of being right or wrong. There will always be punching down or somebody being the oppressor and somebody being the oppressed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rights are a balancing act, and none are absolute. The rights of various groups to live in a society peacefully The rights of a person to say what they want The rights of an organisation to cultivate and protect a reputation" Your profile pic is hot | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience. "Agee it’s nothing to do with rights. A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Agee it’s nothing to do with rights.
A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated
"Joanna Cherry went after a venue for the same thing and they apologised and reinstated the event. I fail to see how words are so dangerous that people have to be protected from them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience. "Exactly. It still shocks me how people don't get this. Same goes for being moderated on Facebook and other privately owned social media, regardless of what their rules are, it is their rules and they can align with any view they wish, they don't have to allow "your view" if they don't want it seen on their platform. Obviously there are certain laws etc that need to be followed as part of their rights to operate but overall they can censor you however you wish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience. "Thank you for your insightful points. To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate. Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Exactly. It still shocks me how people don't get this. Same goes for being moderated on Facebook and other privately owned social media, regardless of what their rules are, it is their rules and they can align with any view they wish, they don't have to allow "your view" if they don't want it seen on their platform.
Obviously there are certain laws etc that need to be followed as part of their rights to operate but overall they can censor you however you wish. "It's been surprising to me to see this oversimplification of what speech means. It derives from the US first amendment, which obviously only applies in the... US. And then all the exceptions within the first amendment get thrown away, and everything from "I don't like you saying that" to social media banning illegal content gets chucked into "the government has thrown me in prison for having an opinion". The discourse is a bit broken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?"No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along). Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?
No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along).
Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister "So only one opinion is allowed? Jk Rowling and Graeme Linehan are not allowed to voice an opinion? The freedom that allows them to articulate their opinion is the same freedom that allows people to articulate disagreement.Opinions are neither right nor wrong they are just opinions. When you stop someone from expressing an opinion you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,you are showing the world you are terrified of what they might say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252" burn all the books is their cry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?
No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along).
Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister
So only one opinion is allowed?
Jk Rowling and Graeme Linehan are not allowed to voice an opinion?
The freedom that allows them to articulate their opinion is the same freedom that allows people to articulate disagreement.Opinions are neither right nor wrong they are just opinions.
When you stop someone from expressing an opinion you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,you are showing the world you are terrified of what they might say."Or just that you don’t agree or endorse it? As brands and businesses are allowed to do. If I don’t agree with someone’s views, I don’t need to give them a platform and not giving them isn’t infringing on their freedom of speech  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?
No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along).
Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister
So only one opinion is allowed?
Jk Rowling and Graeme Linehan are not allowed to voice an opinion?
The freedom that allows them to articulate their opinion is the same freedom that allows people to articulate disagreement.Opinions are neither right nor wrong they are just opinions.
When you stop someone from expressing an opinion you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,you are showing the world you are terrified of what they might say."…did you even read a single word of my previous comment, no? Clearly no. I’ll try again. I never said they aren’t allowed to express their opinions, of course they are. They can voice whatever opinions they want. They aren’t entitled to an audience nor a paid audience at that to host them. I believe their opinions will one day be regarded with shame. That’s my OPINION 
Notice how I’m not demanding everyone agree with me nor crying my eyes out that I’m not being offered a paid podcast slot to talk about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 burn all the books is their cry." You mean like the LGBT-friendly books being actually banned in Florida right now? Or is this a scenario you’ve just imagined? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?
No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along).
Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister
So only one opinion is allowed?
Jk Rowling and Graeme Linehan are not allowed to voice an opinion?
The freedom that allows them to articulate their opinion is the same freedom that allows people to articulate disagreement.Opinions are neither right nor wrong they are just opinions.
When you stop someone from expressing an opinion you are not showing the world they are wrong or a liar,you are showing the world you are terrified of what they might say.
…did you even read a single word of my previous comment, no? Clearly no. I’ll try again.
I never said they aren’t allowed to express their opinions, of course they are. They can voice whatever opinions they want. They aren’t entitled to an audience nor a paid audience at that to host them.
I believe their opinions will one day be regarded with shame. That’s my OPINION
Notice how I’m not demanding everyone agree with me nor crying my eyes out that I’m not being offered a paid podcast slot to talk about it."Yes I did "read",even the bit about "people like"..… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Thank you for your insightful points.
To the OP. As a full time, and proud Trans Woman, since JK Rowling and the likes of Linehan, transphobia crime has increased. I have noticed people openly scowling at me. This kind of stance legitimises hate.
Would you say a white supremacist racist view is legitimate free speech? Or don't you think trans people should have right to be?
No problem. I’m sorry to you for the horrendous rhetoric the trans community is enduring at the moment. I firmly believe one day we will look back on this period with horror and shame (and people like Graham Linehan will desperately try to atone for their past once they see they were on the wrong side of history all along).
Until then, there are many of us who support you, sister "100% agree! Another sister supporter here!  xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 burn all the books is their cry. You mean like the LGBT-friendly books being actually banned in Florida right now? Or is this a scenario you’ve just imagined?" Yeah. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience. "So you agree with private business being able to freely deny access to their services without consequence regardless of the reason or without reason given? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My only addendum to the above comment, since the reply was given to my reply to a trans woman. If you “voicing your opinion” means being abusive or unpleasant to trans people, or spreading lies about them in order to feed the current moral panic, no I don’t believe you should be voicing your opinion. I believe you should be reading a book, getting some therapy, leaving others alone and wising the fuck up. " Being abusive to anyone or spreading lies is not voicing an opinion.Read a thesaurus to discover the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 burn all the books is their cry." Guess with the cost of living crisis and the hike in oil and gas prices, burning old books may be the solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My only addendum to the above comment, since the reply was given to my reply to a trans woman. If you “voicing your opinion” means being abusive or unpleasant to trans people, or spreading lies about them in order to feed the current moral panic, no I don’t believe you should be voicing your opinion. I believe you should be reading a book, getting some therapy, leaving others alone and wising the fuck up. Being abusive to anyone or spreading lies is not voicing an opinion.Read a thesaurus to discover the difference." …yes. I know. That’s why I put it in quotation marks. All this talk of book burning, is there anyone here with any reading comprehension? Anyone?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
So you agree with private business being able to freely deny access to their services without consequence regardless of the reason or without reason given?"Different thing entirely really isn’t it. But you knew that anyway Mr Strawman  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Bess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rights are a balancing act, and none are absolute. The rights of various groups to live in a society peacefully The rights of a person to say what they want The rights of an organisation to cultivate and protect a reputation Your profile pic is hot" Top tier response
Ded | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Agee it’s nothing to do with rights.
A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated
Joanna Cherry went after a venue for the same thing and they apologised and reinstated the event. I fail to see how words are so dangerous that people have to be protected from them. "This is surely the issue isnt it? If the only views permitted to be aired are in complete agreement with the noisiest people then culture and discussion is closed down. Thats quite a threatening prospect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Agee it’s nothing to do with rights.
A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated
"That’s an interesting point re the contract for sure, I would be curious to hear if anything comes of it. Think it was definitely a failure on the venue’s part to not do research or (more likely) better understand how to mitigate the risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Agee it’s nothing to do with rights.
A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated
That’s an interesting point re the contract for sure, I would be curious to hear if anything comes of it. Think it was definitely a failure on the venue’s part to not do research or (more likely) better understand how to mitigate the risk."It'll depend on what the contract says, I imagine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's a really combative thread title that immediately pitches this as a battle. You could have chosen to word it neutrally, OP. " I didn't though. The topic is about opinions and some people closed down without good reason. If you read that differently than intended i cant help that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's a really combative thread title that immediately pitches this as a battle. You could have chosen to word it neutrally, OP. I didn't though. The topic is about opinions and some people closed down without good reason. If you read that differently than intended i cant help that. " We can agree to disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how initially they said his views did not align with theirs but now say it was a commercial decision as they were worried about future sales. " I wonder if every single person they platform has views that align with theirs? It seems unlikely for a venue. The Strand did the same thing to Joanna Cherry MP (she's gender critical). They said their staff wouldn't work her event. They took legal advice, and did a U-turn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
So you agree with private business being able to freely deny access to their services without consequence regardless of the reason or without reason given?
Different thing entirely really isn’t it. But you knew that anywy Mr Strawman "Nice dodge,but as usual you mistake logical fallacies for clarification. They are the same thing, platforming as you put it is nothing more than the rental of commercial space, a service. But hey, you knew that already  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting how initially they said his views did not align with theirs but now say it was a commercial decision as they were worried about future sales. I wonder if every single person they platform has views that align with theirs? It seems unlikely for a venue. The Strand did the same thing to Joanna Cherry MP (she's gender critical). They said their staff wouldn't work her event. They took legal advice, and did a U-turn. " Yes I read that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
So you agree with private business being able to freely deny access to their services without consequence regardless of the reason or without reason given?
Different thing entirely really isn’t it. But you knew that anywy Mr Strawman
Nice dodge,but as usual you mistake logical fallacies for clarification.
They are the same thing, platforming as you put it is nothing more than the rental of commercial space, a service.
But hey, you knew that already "It’s not the same thing at all…? Being denied access to Tesco isn’t the same thing as say, having a TV appearance cancelled. Platforming does not mean renting a space lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252" Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. " This way round is "that simple", but what if was the other way round and a trans-activist was barred from speaking? Without doubt, because it's their usual MO (ask Sharon Davies, JK Rowling et al) trans-activists would already be threatening violence against their children on social media, and threatening to burn down the venue. It's what they do. Bess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. This way round is "that simple", but what if was the other way round and a trans-activist was barred from speaking? Without doubt, because it's their usual MO (ask Sharon Davies, JK Rowling et al) trans-activists would already be threatening violence against their children on social media, and threatening to burn down the venue. It's what they do. Bess" Isn't it remarkable that trans activists are never barred from speaking? Curious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. This way round is "that simple", but what if was the other way round and a trans-activist was barred from speaking? Without doubt, because it's their usual MO (ask Sharon Davies, JK Rowling et al) trans-activists would already be threatening violence against their children on social media, and threatening to burn down the venue. It's what they do. Bess Isn't it remarkable that trans activists are never barred from speaking? Curious. " It is indeed remarkable, and very noticeable. What actually shocks me to the very core, are the fortunately few biologically born female women who support this nonsense. Bess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. " It's about self definition vs legitimate piece of government issued paper. So it is connected. So the Windrush saga is a parallel. They've lived in UK for almost all their lives and self define as British. Their papers says they are not British so they are not legally recognised due to mistakes and cumbersome legal issues. The government has backed down and apologised. I am woman. I don't need Rowling et al to tell me I cannot be myself. Take a look at my profile and see if I am a danger to women? I know there are predatory trans women, so deal with the predators. Sledge hammer to walnut? I would wager these writers are past their best and desperately need a headlining publicity stunt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. " Are we talking about a non commercial interview on TV? No we are talking about a commercial contracted agreement between a venue and a performer. A contract to rent the space to the performer. A contract. This is not a tweet, it is not a Facebook post, it is not a media appearance. It is a commercial contract. But hey, False Analogy and Moving the Goalposts with a touch of whataboutism. I asked a simple question, that you are doing mental gymnastics to avoid answering is telling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. It's about self definition vs legitimate piece of government issued paper. So it is connected. So the Windrush saga is a parallel. They've lived in UK for almost all their lives and self define as British. Their papers says they are not British so they are not legally recognised due to mistakes and cumbersome legal issues. The government has backed down and apologised. I am woman. I don't need Rowling et al to tell me I cannot be myself. Take a look at my profile and see if I am a danger to women? I know there are predatory trans women, so deal with the predators. Sledge hammer to walnut? I would wager these writers are past their best and desperately need a headlining publicity stunt." Sorry, Rowling past her best? She's got another book out next month which no doubt will be another bestseller. And what you've mentioned would benefit from at least one other separate thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For anyone on this thread trying to say the venue is wrong, genuinely go and take a look at some of Glinners tweets about Transpeople…..he has *literally* said….. “Almost every central trans figure is a nonce” “The trans movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” “Can’t wait until this shitty, perverted, paexxxxxx movement is dead. Check out all the images in this thread.” Plus plenty more that are aggressive and drive hate towards the trans community. This is more than just his views on Self ID…..everyone has their right to an opinion, just as it’s my right to ignore it. However, change the reference to Trans people in the quotes above to Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim, etc…..essentially any other minority. Do you still think that’s ok and you’d defend the above!? Would you be defending a venue that has agreed to show someone who has said: “Almost every central Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim figure is a nonce” “The Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” Im assuming that to most people, the response to the above question would be a resounding “No”……then why is it ok for him to say that about the trans community? "
Don’t forget about when he created a fake profile on Gr**dr in order to mine images of trans people from their profiles and post them online, potentially putting their safety at risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thab yours... Heres another example at the fringe festival. What are your views on the irony of infringing one persons rights because there is a chance another persons rights might be infringed? Can they co exist happily? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66516252 Here’s my take on it: He has the right to express his views. The festival has the right not to platform him should they choose to. It’s that simple. " Well yes thats taken as read and isnt the issue. Which is if only one side of a discussion is allowed to air... Then becomes one sided and dictated to. Which surely isnt desirable. Or are people with differing opinions allowed to engage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. It's about self definition vs legitimate piece of government issued paper. So it is connected. So the Windrush saga is a parallel. They've lived in UK for almost all their lives and self define as British. Their papers says they are not British so they are not legally recognised due to mistakes and cumbersome legal issues. The government has backed down and apologised. I am woman. I don't need Rowling et al to tell me I cannot be myself. Take a look at my profile and see if I am a danger to women? I know there are predatory trans women, so deal with the predators. Sledge hammer to walnut? I would wager these writers are past their best and desperately need a headlining publicity stunt." How is it a publicity stunt. Its reporting the facts. Is that a stunt? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For anyone on this thread trying to say the venue is wrong, genuinely go and take a look at some of Glinners tweets about Transpeople…..he has *literally* said….. “Almost every central trans figure is a nonce” “The trans movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” “Can’t wait until this shitty, perverted, paexxxxxx movement is dead. Check out all the images in this thread.” Plus plenty more that are aggressive and drive hate towards the trans community. This is more than just his views on Self ID…..everyone has their right to an opinion, just as it’s my right to ignore it. However, change the reference to Trans people in the quotes above to Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim, etc…..essentially any other minority. Do you still think that’s ok and you’d defend the above!? Would you be defending a venue that has agreed to show someone who has said: “Almost every central Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim figure is a nonce” “The Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” Im assuming that to most people, the response to the above question would be a resounding “No”……then why is it ok for him to say that about the trans community? " I signed up to his newsletter (after he was banned from X) so I could see what all the fuss was about. He's very unpleasant. He said abhorrent things and I don't agree with them. But why is it ok for a comedian last year to have a fringe talk which included "is JKR a Nazi?" but Glinner can't speak? Joanna Cherry can't speak without legal threats? Kathryn Stock needs protection to speak? Why is it ok to call anyone who thinks men can't be women a bigot or a Nazi? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For anyone on this thread trying to say the venue is wrong, genuinely go and take a look at some of Glinners tweets about Transpeople…..he has *literally* said….. “Almost every central trans figure is a nonce” “The trans movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” “Can’t wait until this shitty, perverted, paexxxxxx movement is dead. Check out all the images in this thread.” Plus plenty more that are aggressive and drive hate towards the trans community. This is more than just his views on Self ID…..everyone has their right to an opinion, just as it’s my right to ignore it. However, change the reference to Trans people in the quotes above to Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim, etc…..essentially any other minority. Do you still think that’s ok and you’d defend the above!? Would you be defending a venue that has agreed to show someone who has said: “Almost every central Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim figure is a nonce” “The Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” Im assuming that to most people, the response to the above question would be a resounding “No”……then why is it ok for him to say that about the trans community? " You know better than I do that the trans people are a soft target and exploited by the right wing. It's a unholy alliance they (trans) face. It's acceptable to portray them as a danger to society. Whereas society is actually the danger to them. Glinner has gone off the deep end in his own crusade. Cancelling doesn't normally sit easily with me but this pos can cry me a river. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For anyone on this thread trying to say the venue is wrong, genuinely go and take a look at some of Glinners tweets about Transpeople…..he has *literally* said….. “Almost every central trans figure is a nonce” “The trans movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” “Can’t wait until this shitty, perverted, paexxxxxx movement is dead. Check out all the images in this thread.” Plus plenty more that are aggressive and drive hate towards the trans community. This is more than just his views on Self ID…..everyone has their right to an opinion, just as it’s my right to ignore it. However, change the reference to Trans people in the quotes above to Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim, etc…..essentially any other minority. Do you still think that’s ok and you’d defend the above!? Would you be defending a venue that has agreed to show someone who has said: “Almost every central Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim figure is a nonce” “The Black/Asian/Gay/Jewish/Muslim movement is evil. We can never stop fighting this. Read this.” Im assuming that to most people, the response to the above question would be a resounding “No”……then why is it ok for him to say that about the trans community? You know better than I do that the trans people are a soft target and exploited by the right wing. It's a unholy alliance they (trans) face. It's acceptable to portray them as a danger to society. Whereas society is actually the danger to them. Glinner has gone off the deep end in his own crusade. Cancelling doesn't normally sit easily with me but this pos can cry me a river. " Very very sad! But very very true unfortunately!  x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. It's about self definition vs legitimate piece of government issued paper. So it is connected. So the Windrush saga is a parallel. They've lived in UK for almost all their lives and self define as British. Their papers says they are not British so they are not legally recognised due to mistakes and cumbersome legal issues. The government has backed down and apologised. I am woman. I don't need Rowling et al to tell me I cannot be myself. Take a look at my profile and see if I am a danger to women? I know there are predatory trans women, so deal with the predators. Sledge hammer to walnut? I would wager these writers are past their best and desperately need a headlining publicity stunt." How do you deal wit the predatory trans women if you can self certify anytime you want. The danger is unlikely to be from predatory trans but a male sexual predator who will use the self certification for the sole purpose of gaining access to a opportunity to commit an offence against women. The self certification not only makes a mockery of the dedication and sacrifice genuine trans women show in the transitioning process. But places women at genuine risk from such males. Dealing with these individuals means waiting for them to offend and by that time its too late for the victim. Ues the current process is probably too stretched out. But concentrate on making that easier for genuine trans women rather than a open door policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to an article in the Grauniad, a few venues have now offered to host his act, and he has accepted one. He has also stated that he will commence legal action against the original venue for unlawful discrimination. I sincerely hope he wins. Bess" Yawn. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My only addendum to the above comment, since the reply was given to my reply to a trans woman. If you “voicing your opinion” means being abusive or unpleasant to trans people, or spreading lies about them in order to feed the current moral panic, no I don’t believe you should be voicing your opinion. I believe you should be reading a book, getting some therapy, leaving others alone and wising the fuck up. " This. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a private company doesn’t want to platform you, that isn’t a violation of your rights, deary me. No one has the “right” to a paid public appearance. Freedom of speech means the government can’t arrest you for your views. It doesn’t offer you entitlement to an audience.
Agee it’s nothing to do with rights.
A contract is a contract though, unless they can justify it they will have to pay him and they might be acting criminally if he’s being discriminated
Joanna Cherry went after a venue for the same thing and they apologised and reinstated the event. I fail to see how words are so dangerous that people have to be protected from them. "ahhhh but we have to protect the inept  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think JK Rowling or Lineman have said Trans don't have the right to be. They have voiced opposition to the self certification process. Is that not 2 different debates. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected. It's about self definition vs legitimate piece of government issued paper. So it is connected. So the Windrush saga is a parallel. They've lived in UK for almost all their lives and self define as British. Their papers says they are not British so they are not legally recognised due to mistakes and cumbersome legal issues. The government has backed down and apologised. I am woman. I don't need Rowling et al to tell me I cannot be myself. Take a look at my profile and see if I am a danger to women? I know there are predatory trans women, so deal with the predators. Sledge hammer to walnut? I would wager these writers are past their best and desperately need a headlining publicity stunt. How do you deal wit the predatory trans women if you can self certify anytime you want. The danger is unlikely to be from predatory trans but a male sexual predator who will use the self certification for the sole purpose of gaining access to a opportunity to commit an offence against women. The self certification not only makes a mockery of the dedication and sacrifice genuine trans women show in the transitioning process. But places women at genuine risk from such males. Dealing with these individuals means waiting for them to offend and by that time its too late for the victim. Ues the current process is probably too stretched out. But concentrate on making that easier for genuine trans women rather than a open door policy. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How do you deal wit the predatory trans women if you can self certify anytime you want. The danger is unlikely to be from predatory trans but a male sexual predator who will use the self certification for the sole purpose of gaining access to a opportunity to commit an offence against women. The self certification not only makes a mockery of the dedication and sacrifice genuine trans women show in the transitioning process. But places women at genuine risk from such males. Dealing with these individuals means waiting for them to offend and by that time its too late for the victim. Ues the current process is probably too stretched out. But concentrate on making that easier for genuine trans women rather than a open door policy. " Well said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a bit of a weird situation. I personally hate comedians being censored. At the same time, venues do have the right to decide who they host. It's one of those things which I find legally right but morally wrong. Given the number of comedians who have been cancelled for various reasons, I would expect someone to actually start a show specifically with these comedians. I would pay money to support it." The reality is that comedians are not cancelled. People that like their comedy aren’t bothered by any of their jokes that may cause offence. Those that are bothered and that complain aren’t fans usually so they’re not losing anything. They’re just getting attention for a joke that people don’t like. And as you say if their views Aren’t in alignment with a private business, that’s not cancelling them either, that’s the business just exercising their right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
