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 |
| |||
| 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 get what your point is OP... are you trying to dredge up anti feminist sentiments? " My interpretation was "those people are cunts, but those other people are also cunts, making the first group of cunts acceptable". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm saying that one group of cunts shouldn't complain about another bunch of cunts who exhibit very similar behaviour patterns and not see the irony " How do you know the writer of the article is a hard core feminist? Anyway, that's journalism for you: public complaining. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't get what your point is OP... are you trying to dredge up anti feminist sentiments? My interpretation was "those people are cunts, but those other people are also cunts, making the first group of cunts acceptable"." Yeah, that's what I got too! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. " . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm saying that one group of cunts shouldn't complain about another bunch of cunts who exhibit very similar behaviour patterns and not see the irony " But is the writer an aggressive hardcore feminist? It's not compulsory, to write for the guardian, as far as I'm aware. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm saying that one group of cunts shouldn't complain about another bunch of cunts who exhibit very similar behaviour patterns and not see the irony " And the journalist is one of those mental hardcore feminist cunts? Or is that just an assumption made because you think all female journalists complaining about men must be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist "Would you accept a piece about the manosphere that didn't reference extreme feminism, if it was written by a man? I'm not sure how the gender of the journalist is relevant. I generally get infuriated by pieces in the Guardian, so I tend not to read them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm saying that one group of cunts shouldn't complain about another bunch of cunts who exhibit very similar behaviour patterns and not see the irony And the journalist is one of those mental hardcore feminist cunts? Or is that just an assumption made because you think all female journalists complaining about men must be?" I'm not calling her a cunt BTW.... Pointing out shit journalistic standards | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a grand assumption based on the tone of the article " How does grand assumption fit with truth and objective? That's what you're all about, isn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Far too much foul language in this thread.  "Yeah, I probably started that. Very unladylike of me, clearly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist
Would you accept a piece about the manosphere that didn't reference extreme feminism, if it was written by a man? I'm not sure how the gender of the journalist is relevant.
I generally get infuriated by pieces in the Guardian, so I tend not to read them. "No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist
Would you accept a piece about the manosphere that didn't reference extreme feminism, if it was written by a man? I'm not sure how the gender of the journalist is relevant.
I generally get infuriated by pieces in the Guardian, so I tend not to read them.
No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that "You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a grand assumption based on the tone of the article How does grand assumption fit with truth and objective? That's what you're all about, isn't it?" Am I wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a grand assumption based on the tone of the article How does grand assumption fit with truth and objective? That's what you're all about, isn't it? Am I wrong? " I don't know, I haven't read it. I have no intention of reading it, I don't like the Guardian. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Newspapers, emergency toilet paper. Nothing more. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist
Would you accept a piece about the manosphere that didn't reference extreme feminism, if it was written by a man? I'm not sure how the gender of the journalist is relevant.
I generally get infuriated by pieces in the Guardian, so I tend not to read them.
No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that
You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. "You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Mr ddc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should she? If I wrote an article about, for example, a university wanting to ban certain right wing newspapers, would I also have to chuck in a few derogatory remarks about far right political movements, for "balance"? A piece can be about something without having to reference something else. . If you are a journalist of any value you prerogative should be truth and objective Yes I'm an eternal optimist
Would you accept a piece about the manosphere that didn't reference extreme feminism, if it was written by a man? I'm not sure how the gender of the journalist is relevant.
I generally get infuriated by pieces in the Guardian, so I tend not to read them.
No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that
You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post.
You are in deep....
That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias "I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am interested in the fact that anyone believes that truth and objectivity plays any part in modern journalism these days. Castigating someone for writing an article in a known left wing newspaper that may have a pro-woman slant is like telling off a Sun journalist for going on about boobs." Book talk is a lot less devisive The tag line was something about 'ratification of white men'.... She even went to the effort of bringing race into the equation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The manosphere should be referred to as the moronsphere as a matter of course. The term is more aptly descriptive." that's all there is to it. They also believe Trump won the election because of meme magic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion." Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me " I'm not disputing any of that. You said "no one brought up her gender" which was clearly untrue because in your opening post you had brought up her gender repeatedly. It may seem like I'm labouring the point but objective and truth are important, no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"but sadly, when ever the word 'feminism' is mentioned, people just envisage bitter fat women, ranting via The Guardian/Buzzfeed/HuffPost about men because they have always been the third wheel. " They do? Not if they are remotely intelligent, one suspects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it this you're on about: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart The article is about alt-right and other incredibly unsavoury websites that are some kind of mansplaining knee jerk reaction to us uppity bitches leaving the kitchen. Any right thinking bloke would be against these dangerous idiots, so why you are saying she is 'whinging' is beyond me." Simply for her omission of their counterparts from the article and for being over dramatic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it this you're on about: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart The article is about alt-right and other incredibly unsavoury websites that are some kind of mansplaining knee jerk reaction to us uppity bitches leaving the kitchen. Any right thinking bloke would be against these dangerous idiots, so why you are saying she is 'whinging' is beyond me. Simply for her omission of their counterparts from the article and for being over dramatic " it's a 'Comment is Free' article. It doesn't have to be balanced, or restrained. It's their 'anyone can write something' section. Why don't you submit something about over dramatic women moaning about dangerous extreme right wing misogynists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me I'm not disputing any of that. You said "no one brought up her gender" which was clearly untrue because in your opening post you had brought up her gender repeatedly. It may seem like I'm labouring the point but objective and truth are important, no? " You are labouring a broken point I 'brought up' the article as something to discuss. I did not bring up her gender. The sex of who wrote the article is immaterial but remains a fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me I'm not disputing any of that. You said "no one brought up her gender" which was clearly untrue because in your opening post you had brought up her gender repeatedly. It may seem like I'm labouring the point but objective and truth are important, no? You are labouring a broken point I 'brought up' the article as something to discuss. I did not bring up her gender. The sex of who wrote the article is immaterial but remains a fact. " Ok. If immaterial, why mention it several times then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it this you're on about: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/alt-right-manosphere-mainstream-politics-breitbart The article is about alt-right and other incredibly unsavoury websites that are some kind of mansplaining knee jerk reaction to us uppity bitches leaving the kitchen. Any right thinking bloke would be against these dangerous idiots, so why you are saying she is 'whinging' is beyond me. Simply for her omission of their counterparts from the article and for being over dramatic it's a 'Comment is Free' article. It doesn't have to be balanced, or restrained. It's their 'anyone can write something' section. Why don't you submit something about over dramatic women moaning about dangerous extreme right wing misogynists?" Oh they're always a load of shite, I thought the OP was saying it was an actual proper article. Ok this is even more pointless now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's an article that appeared on the top three trending stories from all news sources. Therefore it has momentum... It's sub section of the newspaper doesn't reduce its ability to divide people and incite fear Oh no the big bad misogynists are coming to get us is the message.....Are the really? Nope in reality they are a bunch of losers too busy wanking in the bedrooms It's about perception vs reality via what the media tell us It's a case of a biased journalist with a big enough soapbox " No, it's about a guy getting his Y fronts in a twist about a woman writing an subjective article about something she believes is dangerous. She has that right, and you have the same right to refute her. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you. She certainly won't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"guardians comment is free is not free, i got censored for saying Theresa may often sports a large pearl necklace. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me I'm not disputing any of that. You said "no one brought up her gender" which was clearly untrue because in your opening post you had brought up her gender repeatedly. It may seem like I'm labouring the point but objective and truth are important, no? You are labouring a broken point I 'brought up' the article as something to discuss. I did not bring up her gender. The sex of who wrote the article is immaterial but remains a fact. Ok. If immaterial, why mention it several times then? " Take a deep breath and think please You are saying that if I use any word in a sentence that I am bringing up the subject of that word as the subject of discussion... Nonsense If it was written by a man... And there are plenty with the same viewpoint... My opening post would be the very same with he instead of she and and him instead of her and in that case I wouldn't be bringing up that the article was written by a man... I would be bringing up the article | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No, and no one brought up her gender. Don't try to reduce it to that You did, where you referred to her as a "lovely lady whinging" in your opening post. You are in deep.... That isn't bringing up anything.... You are reading through a lens of bias I'm not in anything deep. You just said "no one brought up her gender". But you'd brought it up, repeatedly, in your opening post. And it was a question, because I didn't understand why it was relevant unless you thought it *did* have an impact on her opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was in fact written by a woman and the English language does have masculine and feminine pronouns for the subject which I used correctly.... You brought it up, not me I'm not disputing any of that. You said "no one brought up her gender" which was clearly untrue because in your opening post you had brought up her gender repeatedly. It may seem like I'm labouring the point but objective and truth are important, no? You are labouring a broken point I 'brought up' the article as something to discuss. I did not bring up her gender. The sex of who wrote the article is immaterial but remains a fact. Ok. If immaterial, why mention it several times then? Take a deep breath and think please You are saying that if I use any word in a sentence that I am bringing up the subject of that word as the subject of discussion... Nonsense If it was written by a man... And there are plenty with the same viewpoint... My opening post would be the very same with he instead of she and and him instead of her and in that case I wouldn't be bringing up that the article was written by a man... I would be bringing up the article " Thanks for eventually answering my original question. And no need to patronise, eh pet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's an article that appeared on the top three trending stories from all news sources. Therefore it has momentum... It's sub section of the newspaper doesn't reduce its ability to divide people and incite fear Oh no the big bad misogynists are coming to get us is the message.....Are the really? Nope in reality they are a bunch of losers too busy wanking in the bedrooms " So you missed one of the main points of the article was the appointment of Steve Bannon from Breitbart as Trump's Chief Strategist? Sorry, but that goes quite well beyond bunch of losers wanking in their bedrooms. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What original question? " Whether you'd have been equally outraged by lack of mention of extreme feminism in the article if written by a male writer. Which I only asked because of the "whinging lady" statement in the OP. It only took you 4 posts to answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's an article that appeared on the top three trending stories from all news sources. Therefore it has momentum... It's sub section of the newspaper doesn't reduce its ability to divide people and incite fear Oh no the big bad misogynists are coming to get us is the message.....Are the really? Nope in reality they are a bunch of losers too busy wanking in the bedrooms So you missed one of the main points of the article was the appointment of Steve Bannon from Breitbart as Trump's Chief Strategist? Sorry, but that goes quite well beyond bunch of losers wanking in their bedrooms. -Matt" You have a point but it is conflating too different things... Aka a powerful person and an impotent 'movement' that were tagged on for impact | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What original question? Whether you'd have been equally outraged by lack of mention of extreme feminism in the article if written by a male writer. Which I only asked because of the "whinging lady" statement in the OP. It only took you 4 posts to answer. "
The clue was in my first rebuttal that it has anything to do with her gender... Until you kept trying to put words in mouth for 4 posts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's an article that appeared on the top three trending stories from all news sources. Therefore it has momentum... It's sub section of the newspaper doesn't reduce its ability to divide people and incite fear Oh no the big bad misogynists are coming to get us is the message.....Are the really? Nope in reality they are a bunch of losers too busy wanking in the bedrooms So you missed one of the main points of the article was the appointment of Steve Bannon from Breitbart as Trump's Chief Strategist? Sorry, but that goes quite well beyond bunch of losers wanking in their bedrooms. -Matt You have a point but it is conflating too different things... Aka a powerful person and an impotent 'movement' that were tagged on for impact " I would say Bannon is quite powerful yes, but I wouldn't refer to the Republicans as 'impotent' quite yet 
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ruby you have a nasty habit of misquoting out of context for effect I said 'lovely lady (who is) whinging' not 'whinging lady' Eats, shoots and leaves " Shoot me now. Original point still stands. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ruby you have a nasty habit of misquoting out of context for effect I said 'lovely lady (who is) whinging' not 'whinging lady' Eats, shoots and leaves Shoot me now. Original point still stands. " Oh God... What original point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh God now all this shit is going mainstream Google threw some trending guardian story at me today from written by a lovely lady whinging about the dark corner of the Internet called the manosphere. I agree that they are mostly dweebs and losers but also I think they are more of a danger to themselves than society at large (talk about being dramatic...) But and it's a big but... She should have at least nodded her cap to their opposite force.... The equally mental hardcore feminists... Discuss " There is a real radicalisation of white young males happening, its patterns are very similar to the radicalisation of young muslim males. . There is no comparison with cliques of "radfems" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ruby you have a nasty habit of misquoting out of context for effect I said 'lovely lady (who is) whinging' not 'whinging lady' Eats, shoots and leaves Shoot me now. Original point still stands. Oh God... What original point? " That you had indeed referred to the writer's gender several times in your opening post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch out. The majority on here share the retarded views pedalled by The Guardian. " Whereas I believe you are a demented god-squadder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ruby you have a nasty habit of misquoting out of context for effect I said 'lovely lady (who is) whinging' not 'whinging lady' Eats, shoots and leaves Shoot me now. Original point still stands. Oh God... What original point? That you had indeed referred to the writer's gender several times in your opening post." OK then
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
