web analytics

I LIKE JOE BIDEN

By Pete Moore On January 23rd, 2021

There’s a new show in town. My new administration resolution is no jokes, no pretence, just honest comment. So yes, I like Joe Biden. I know you’re shocked that anyone might like the corrupt, dishonest girl-sniffer but it’s true. Hey he’s been in Washington for almost half a century. If he wasn’t loaded and had told a few porkies that would be suspicious.

I like his style and swagger. Joe Biden is alway impeccably turned out. His suits are perfect and he has a great eye for colour. I like his enormous grin. It’s an honest grin and it’s very attractive. He’s an actor but there’s no affectation with the grin. He looks like he genuinely thinks everyone’s pleased to see him.

He not too vain. Conservatives like to think that lefties are the effete ones, but it’s Trump who dyes his hair and paints his head orange and thinks it’s an improvement. Tough-guy prosecutor Giuliani dyes his hair too, badly. How he’ll live that down I don’t know. Tell Joe Biden that he’s grey and you’ll get “Of course I’m grey, I’m 78 years old, now get outta here”.

Biden punches back. Politicians should be as polite as possible but the rules don’t say they have to be punchbags (looking at Tories now). When someone swings at Biden he swings back. He speaks in plain English, outside of set-piece speeches. Maybe it’s the only English he knows, but he doesn’t use language to impress.

He’s tough and resilient. The tragedy he once suffered would have finished some men. He gathered himself and came right back. Years later he’s in no danger of succumbing to the presidential cult of personality. No matter how sycophantic the media will be (and it will be, let”s be honest) he’ll see through it.

So there you go. I like Joe Biden the man. I like a few politicians who would never bat for my team. I’d have a drink with George Galloway, for instance. I think he’d make interesting and warm company. So when I discuss what Biden or his administration does it won’t be coloured because I don’t like him, because I do.

72 Responses to “I LIKE JOE BIDEN”

  1. Biden is a decent human being with all that that means. But he’s also a shrewd and determined politician and he appears to have hit the ground running.

  2. I don’t like or dislike him overall.

    I’d keep an exceptionally close eye on him as respects all ethical issues, after the open influence peddling of Hunter Biden, behavior that Joe would have been well aware of.

    Trust, but verify.

  3. The part of the Democrat programme that I really dislike is its woke Trans policy. Biden has already signed an order which will give men access to women’s changing rooms as long as they “self-identify” as women. This denies women’s rights to privacy and safety. It’s not hard to see it becoming a rapists’ charter and no doubt we will not have to wait long for the first assault. It’s already happened in England where a “woman” used his penis to rape a real woman in a real women’s prison.

  4. Self identification is the law in several countries. Is there any evidence the suggest that attacks on women are higher in those countries than in the US or UK, or that they increased following the change in the law?

  5. no quarter…..

  6. great guy Biden
    O/T
    The thing about gun addicts is they’re too obsessed with gun scenarios to be able to perceive actual threats. They think they need a gun on the House floor for protection during a pandemic, but they don’t think they need a mask on the House floor for protection during a pandemic.

    les bonkers as we say in french, mc-cain would not be such a dick !

  7. Hi kurt

    Welcome back (again)

  8. Self identification is the law in several countries.

    Capital punishment is the law in many countries. Should we copy that?

  9. yes you should.

  10. “Should we copy that?”

    No because the death penalty creates identifiable harm. Does self identification? Can you show where self identification has caused an increase in attacks on women?

  11. Can you show where self identification has caused an increase in attacks on women?

    That’s not the question. That it has allowed and facilitated attacks on women is undeniable. It has also done great damage to the idea of womanhood because it negates the very idea of womanhood.

    This is a reminder that this whole nonsense was invented by a pervert and pedophile called John Money. He inflicted this nonsense on two boys, brothers, who committed suicide as a direct result.

    The root idea of “gender” is evil because it was invented by an evil man for evil purposes. Stop pandering to this obvious though sadly fashionable nonsense.

  12. “That’s not the question.”

    That is the question, and frankly the only thing that matters. The only reason for making something illegal is if said action causes actual harm. And Peter has said that it will. So I’m asking if there is any evidence of that.

    “It has also done great damage to the idea of womanhood because it negates the very idea of womanhood.”

    OK what is the “very idea of womanhood”?

  13. It has also done great damage to the idea of womanhood because it negates the very idea of womanhood.

    Exactly Pete

    The Trans Taliban now demands that real women should be described as “people with wombs” and anyone opposed to any part of their agenda is condemned and witch-hunted as transphobic, as JK Rowling found to her cost. This is the utterly intolerant woke mob in action.

    I’m with the women who don’t want to see male genitalia in women’s changing rooms. Why should they be subjected to that and the fear of attack, however unlikely it may be?

  14. So a rapist charter and an obvious recipe for assault has now become the fear of attack, however unlikely it may be?

    Nothing should be illegal unless it causes harm. Bringing violence (and I’m sure Pete will agree that the law is inherently violent) against someone just because of an irrational fear or hatred us the essence of bigotry.

  15. So a rapist charter and an obvious recipe for assault has now become the fear of attack, however unlikely it may be?

    So you would be happy for your teenage daughter (if you have one) to share a changing room with a “self-identified” woman of the same age. I wonder if your daughter would feel the same way.

    OK what is the “very idea of womanhood”?

    The very fact that you ask that question reveals how saturated you are in the Trans Taliban cult. I suggest you ask any woman if you feel you need guidance. And while you’re at it you could ask them how they feel about sharing changing rooms with biological males.

  16. “So you would be happy for your teenage daughter (if you have one) to share a changing room with a “self-identified” woman of the same age. I wonder if your daughter would feel the same way.”

    So people should be violently prevented from doing something because you wouldn’t be happy? If a white guy wouldn’t be happy getting changed beside a black guy should we kick the white guy out?

    “The very fact that you ask that question reveals how saturated you are in the Trans Taliban cult.”

    How about answering the question instead of being a cunt and throwing out insults?

  17. So people should be violently prevented from doing something because you wouldn’t be happy?

    I asked if you and your daughter would be happy. And I didn’t mention violence.

    How about answering the question instead of being a cunt

    I was wondering when we would get to the c word.

  18. “And I didn’t mention violence.”

    Yes but I did. You want to use the law, an inherently violent tool, to keep trans people out of women only spaces. And you can’t find a single actual harm to justify it.

    “I was wondering when we would get to the c word.”

    To be fair we only got to it when you started being a cunt. Instead of answering a question that you didn’t want to answer you simply threw out insults.

  19. You want to use the law, an inherently violent tool, to keep trans people out of women only spaces.

    I want to protect women from having to accept biological males in their changing rooms. Even if these males think they are females. And are the laws against rape or murder or assault “inherently violent”?

    And you can’t find a single actual harm to justify it.

    I already referred to the rape in the women’s prison. Did you miss that?

    Instead of answering a question that you didn’t want to answer you simply threw out insults.

    You didn’t answer the question I asked you at 10.58 PM. Instead you called me a cunt. But maybe in your world that’s not an insult?

  20. “I already referred to the rape in the women’s prison. Did you miss that?”

    Which wasn’t caused by self identification because the UK doesn’t have it. You also don’t seem to care about the more common problem of trans women being raped in men’s persons where you want to send them.

    “And are the laws against rape or murder or assault “inherently violent”?”

    Yes. And justifiably so.

    The law is a violent tool and should as such be limited to where it is necessary.

    “I want to protect women from having to accept biological males in their changing rooms.”

    They don’t need protecting, certainly not by bigots like you. There is no actual harm that you have identified. As such there is no need to take action.

    “You didn’t answer the question I asked you at 10.58 PM.”

    I did answer it. You just didn’t like the answer.

    “Instead you called me a cunt.”

    Yes because instead of having a discussion and a debate you decided to just throw out insults instead. So frankly you were being a cunt.

  21. I did answer it. You just didn’t like the answer.

    No, you didn’t even address it, never mind answer it. So let me repeat it. I suppose it’s really two questions:

    “So you would be happy for your teenage daughter (if you have one) to share a changing room with a “self-identified” woman of the same age. I wonder if your daughter would feel the same way.”

    They don’t need protecting, certainly not by bigots like you.

    Always with the name calling and playground insults. Do you ever wonder why you use them so much? Can you not debate without resorting to them every time?

  22. “Always with the name calling and playground insults. Do you ever wonder why you use them so much? Can you not debate without resorting to them every time?”

    Can you? Because you started it. And are once again crying like a little bitch because someone responded in kind.

    If you can’t take it then don’t dish it out in the first place.

    “No, you didn’t even address it, never mind answer it. So let me repeat it. I suppose it’s really two questions:”

    Firstly I did address it. Maybe in your haste to ruin the debate with insults you lost even basic reading ability.

    Secondly no I would have no issue with it. Amd I would hope that my daughter, if and when I have one, would be a caring, thoughtful, inclusive person and not a sad, petty bigot like you. So I would hope that she wouldn’t have a problem with it either.

  23. Because you started it.

    No, I have never called you a cunt or anything like it. But keep up with the childish name calling by all means. It’s clearly your go-to defence mechanism when you know you are losing the argument.

    So I would hope that she wouldn’t have a problem with it either.

    Good luck with that. Most women seem to have a problem with it. JK Rowling has been a feminist all her adult life and she has a problem with it. But I guess that doesn’t bother a petty-minded Trans Taliban bigot like you.

  24. “No, I have never called you a cunt or anything like it. But keep up with the childish name calling by all means. It’s clearly your go-to defence mechanism when you know you are losing the argument.”

    I’m not losing the argument. You insult me, I insult you back. You referred to me as a member of a “Trans Taliban cult”. Are you suggesting that wasn’t an insult?

    Either you are ok with insults or you aren’t. What your behaviour clearly shows is that you think it is ok for you to insult me but not ok for me to insult you. So clearly you can fuck away off.

    “Most women seem to have a problem with it.”

    Any evidence for that? Because most polling shows a majority of women are fine with it. Some bigots, like you, have problems with it. But most don’t.

    “JK Rowling has been a feminist all her adult life and she has a problem with it.”

    Jeremy Corbyn has been an anti-racist for his adult life. Still didn’t stop him being a bigot.

  25. You referred to me as a member of a “Trans Taliban cult”. Are you suggesting that wasn’t an insult?

    No, that’s a statement of fact. Because you clearly subscribe to an extreme view of Trans rights.

    So clearly you can fuck away off.

    Great stuff, keep it up.

    Because most polling shows a majority of women are fine with it.

    Really? No credible links? Or any links?

  26. “No, that’s a statement of fact. Because you clearly subscribe to an extreme view of Trans rights.”

    And it is a statement of fact that you a bigoted cunt. See we can both play this game.

    “Really? No credible links? Or any links?”

    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ai3h3xvf7o/Transgender%20data%202020.pdf

    Excluding don’t knows – 64% of women in the UK believe that trans women should be allowed to use women’s changing rooms, 69% that trans women should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms. You don’t speak for women on this issue. You speak for bigots.

  27. //The only reason for making something illegal is if said action causes actual harm. And Peter has said that it will. //

    If you mean causes actual harm to individuals, that’s a very limited view of society and its right to regulate behaviour. Every society has laws and regulations to protect what it considers protecting – from shop opening hours to keep Sunday a day of rest, certain extra liberties and/or extra restrictions at certain times, like Christmas, laws on who can and who may not marry, how and how not you can dress/undress. etc etc. Some of them are so close to us that we don’t even recognise them, but they’re there.

    None of this prohibited behaviour causes actual harm, but it’s restricted and, while people disagree on what restrictions on harmless behaviour should be, I don’t know anyone who says there should be no such restrictions at all.

    All of these laws and the behaviour they protect and encourage and restrict are part of that society’s culture. If they were all to disappear, in a vain attempt to appease the unappeasable, the world would be a very grey and grim place indeed.

    “Womanhood”, difficult and all as it is to explain, and how most males react to it are some of the things IMO worth protecting and, to some extent at least, this whole alphabet of gender shifts is undermining them.

  28. Sensible balanced comment Noel.

    There are two questions I think here for Seamus and Peter on opposite sides.

    Seamus, how do you think ‘self identification’ should work. Does it mean the right of any individual regardless of biological sex or how they present themselves to decide their own gender as they wish and change it as they wish without challenge ?

    Peter, how do you think a person who was born male but is genuinely now living and presenting in an obvious female identity permanently and may be undergoing surgical treatment should be treated if they wish to use female only public spaces ?

  29. I also think there are two issues here, one historic and one modern. The historic which most people realise needed addressing is the genuine legal and social discriminations faced by individuals who were born the ‘wrong’ sex and in later life have sought to take medical,psychological, social steps to live as the opposite sex which they feel is their true nature, the ‘traditional transgenders’ if you like who until recently had no legal recognition of their status other than their unalterable birth identity.

    The more controversial one is the very modern concept of gender identity , the creation of non binary genders , gender fluidity and the idea that you can present physically and biologically as one sex but your ‘gender’ is different and changeable and everyone must accept your own definition of it. That view is much less accepted by everyone and it’s wrong to claim anyone who has concerns about it is ‘transphobic’ or a bigot.

  30. “Every society has laws and regulations to protect what it considers protecting – from shop opening hours to keep Sunday a day of rest, certain extra liberties and/or extra restrictions at certain times, like Christmas, laws on who can and who may not marry, how and how not you can dress/undress. etc etc. Some of them are so close to us that we don’t even recognise them, but they’re there.”

    And are also things that I am broadly opposed to, unless real harm can be identified. Yes every society bans things that do not cause harm. I just don’t think they should.

    My general position on the law is the almost misnomer of libertarian paternalism. That if an action does not cause identifiable third party harm then it is not the role of the government to make the choice of doing that action illegal. That making things illegal should be reserved for truly harmful action. However that there is then a broad range of policy instruments that government can use to discourage people not to do the action.

    So to take smoking as an example (because it covers all three options) – I think it is legitimate for the government to use the law to limit second hand smoke in places. Because it causes third party harm. Thus the various smoking bans in place to do so are legitimate. I also think it would not be legitimate for the government to ban smoking altogether. However it is then acceptable for government to use other policy (taxation, education programmes, warning labels etc…) to encourage people not to smoke. That would broadly encompass my position on the role of government.

    “Seamus, how do you think ‘self identification’ should work. Does it mean the right of any individual regardless of biological sex or how they present themselves to decide their own gender as they wish and change it as they wish without challenge ?”

    Broadly no. And that is why self identification is probably a bad term for it. But it is what the term used is. Ultimately when the trans community say they want self identification what they are actually saying is that they want an end to the medical gatekeeper for transitioning. That a person born male can only become a woman, and vice versa, if a doctor says they can. Ending the medical gatekeeper doesn’t mean a free-for-all or some sort “Tonight Matthew, I’m going to be woman” type behaviour. Most trans people would be perfectly willing to accept an alternative, easier process for transition, that is still a legal, formalised process. For example declaring in court, or in a legal document, that you are ready to transition. But still one where they, not a doctor, are in control of their transition.

    “That view is much less accepted by everyone and it’s wrong to claim anyone who has concerns about it is ‘transphobic’ or a bigot.”

    Sure, but I’d like to know what the actual concerns are. And then determine if those concerns are legitimate. Which is why I asked Peter about his false “rapists’ charter” comment above. Because that is not a legitimate concern because it is not backed up by evidence.

  31. Seamus

    I think you make some fair points there, particularly in your refinement of the ‘self identity’ ethos. I do agree the fears of the “Epidemic of Men in skirts molesting girls in changing rooms “ claims are unjustifiably alarmist but I think there are some real concerns about simply the presence of people exposing clearly male bodies in female changing rooms even if they are perfectly innocent in behaviour . Expecting women and girls to just accept that is naive. It’s a tricky dilemma albeit a very minor one and is far from even being one of the main problems society needs to deal with.

    BTW , what is your view on the issue of how female identifying but biologically male individuals should be able to compete in female only sports competitions ?

  32. “BTW , what is your view on the issue of how female identifying but biologically male individuals should be able to compete in female only sports competitions?”

    I think that is a far more complicated issue as it does introduce the potential for harm, particularly in contact sports. But generally I think when a man who is an rather unimpressive athlete transitions to become a woman and becomes an extraordinary athlete then that can’t be fair. So I think for contact sports it certainly shouldn’t be allowed and there needs to be a lot of study done in non-contact sports to determine whether their position as a trans athlete gives them an unfair advantage. And if it is determined that it does, and I think in most sports it will, then they shouldn’t be allowed to compete.

  33. //And are also things that I am broadly opposed to, unless real harm can be identified. Yes every society bans things that do not cause harm. I just don’t think they should.//

    Seamus, do you honestly think people of all ages and shapes should be allowed go naked everywhere they want, regardless of who sees them, in supermarkets, restaurants etc.?

    Also, should a man be allowed marry multiple women, or a sheep or, short of that, at least have sex with one, if both are consenting mammals of course?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzr5Cubph9Y

  34. “Also, should a man be allowed marry multiple women, or a sheep or, short of that, at least have sex with one, if both are consenting mammals of course?”

    Well given that a sheep can’t consent then no I don’t believe that they should be allowed to either marry or have sex with a sheep. Personally I’d have no issue with legalised polygamy, as long as it is between consenting adults.

    “Seamus, do you honestly think people of all ages and shapes should be allowed go naked everywhere they want, regardless of who sees them, in supermarkets, restaurants etc.?”

    It would depend on the situation. Firstly it would also in those circumstances for supermarkets and restaurants to say that those people wouldn’t be allowed in to their premises. Many places have dress codes. And obviously there are issues around children and schools etc… and things would need to be things in place to prevent abuse (around schools for example).

  35. //Well given that a sheep can’t consent then no I don’t believe that they should be allowed to either marry//

    It doesn’t consent to be shorn or slaughtered either, but that doesn’t stop us.

    //Many places have dress codes. And obviously there are issues around children and schools etc… and things would need to be things in place to prevent abuse //

    How about walking naked through town, or down the street where you live? It doesn’t do anyone any harm.

  36. Would probably be a tad chilly, and unimpressive as a result, and would likely cause you issue with your neighbours but I don’t believe it should be a policing situation.

  37. Of course the general principle should be that the law should only intervene to prevent harm to other individuals, but the debate is obviously around what is considered harm. To stretch the public nudity argument, how about people having sex wherever they want. Technically no one else is harmed by seeing a couple having intercourse in the middle of the street or in the aisle of a supermarket , but no civilised society would refuse to have restrictions against such behaviour. There can be no absolutes when it comes to what is allowed or not, just an increasing and sometimes decreasing battle between what is considered social progress and reaction.

  38. Public sexuality as opposed to public nudity (nudity not necessarily being sexual) is potentially harmful, particularly if there are children around.

  39. Seamus

    But isn’t that subjective. An argument could be made that it is only harmful because we have developed a moral code around sexual behaviour and privacy. If we changed our attitudes and saw sex as a perfectly healthy natural activity that people could consentingly do whenever and wherever they want, it could be regarded as no more harmful than seeing two people dancing !

  40. Self ID is very very wrong and I believe will be reversed in the fullness of time. It leads to grotesque situations like the one in Limerick Prison where a dangerous man identifying as a woman was placed in the women’s prison.

    https://gript.ie/photo-barbie-kardashian-irelands-homicidal-girl/

  41. There are two possible outcomes. First is that this person is place in a men’s prison. The second is that she is placed in a women’s prison. The first has been proven to be far, far more likely to result in a sexual assault than the second. If the policies are designed to reduce the risk of sexual assault then she should be placed in a women’s prison.

  42. So he (he has a cock and balls) should be placed in a facility full of tramatised women, many of whom are survivors of sexual violence? Quite incredible, this ideology.

  43. And if this individual is still fully biologically male with the impulses and acknowledged sexually violent desires towards other women .. ?

  44. “And if this individual is still fully biologically male with the impulses and acknowledged sexually violent desires towards other women .. ?”

    Take all adequate steps to protect other inmates. If that includes not putting this person into general population then so be it. But throwing her to the wolves in a male prison would be the state effectively participating in her rape.

    “So he (he has a cock and balls) should be placed in a facility full of tramatised women, many of whom are survivors of sexual violence? Quite incredible, this ideology.”

    The state have a duty of care to those women. They also have a duty of care to this woman as well, who’s rape you seem to be encouraging.

    “Quite incredible, this ideology.”

    What, general decency? It is quite incredible yes.

  45. I agree with you Seamus, that throwing this individual in a men’s prison is not the answer. It may seem impractical to suggest creating prison facilities for Trans prisoners but if that is not feasible then this person may require solitary confinement , although that in itself would no doubt lead to legal challenges.

  46. Quite incredible, this ideology.

    It sure is Petr, and if you challenge it you run the risk of being called a cunt.

  47. “It sure is Petr, and if you challenge it you run the risk of being called a cunt.”

    Challenge away. You didn’t challenge, just throw out insults. Hence your were called a cunt – because you were acting like a cunt. This isn’t complicated.

  48. Peter and Seamus

    You can both strongly debate your perfectly valid differences of opinion on this matter without the need to call each other a cunt a bigot or a Taliban style extremist. It can be done. Try it 😁

  49. Colm

    I take exception to that. The name-calling is only from one side, not from me. And the individual concerned has plenty of previous form. Cunt seems to be one of his favourite words.

  50. Peter

    What’s in a word ? I guess Seamus really takes strong exception to your comparison of his views with the Taliban. He is as annoyed by that as you are by him calling you a cunt. I’m just saying seeing as you both now know this it’s just better to avoid using those accusations in debate.

  51. I’d be perfectly fine with that Colm. In fact the last time Peter started this sort of name calling and then got upset when I responded, I made that very offer to Peter. He said no. He wants to be able to insult me with impunity without me being allowed to respond.

  52. This is worth reading if you want to understand feminist opposition to the Trans lobby and its demand for the replacement of biological sex by the concept of gender. And the serious consequences of opposing that lobby in public. It’s written by a trans-gender woman:

    “Now aged 85, Falcón – who is president of the Feminist Party of Spain (PFE) – is back on the frontline of Spanish politics – and her latest detractors are the transgender mob who tolerate no dissent on the discussion of gender. The PFE are vocal in their opposition to new ‘trans laws’ in Spain. That has put them at odds with other left-wing parties, and last year they were thrown out of the United Left…

    The Spanish women’s rights group Against the Erasure of Women (CEBM) told me that the government proposes to remove the checks and balances to allow anyone to choose their registered sex, whether or not they are transsexual. ‘In general terms, the aim is to replace the concept of ‘sex’ by ‘gender’, which will reinforce sexist stereotypes and jeopardise what has been achieved in terms of equality,’ a representative of the group said.

    In Catalonia, the law on male violence has already been reformed. Campaigners say that this change now means that men who identify as women may be able to enter domestic violence shelters for victims. This is a worrying precedent and could put some of the most vulnerable women in society at further risk of harm. Yet in Spain, as in Britain, few are willing to go public against this emerging trans orthodoxy.

    It’s not hard to see why this reluctance exists. Spanish author Lucía Etxebarria, who did speak out in defence of JK Rowling, has faced intimidation, harassment and abuse: ‘There was a defamation campaign, then they started accusing me of plagiarism. There were death threats but the worst was that they found a picture of my 17-year-old daughter and circulated it. Suddenly my daughter received millions of messages in her Instagram account. Even at school she was receiving threats.’ As with many women in Britain, Etxebarria is not anti-transgender, she is just worried about the practical implications of getting rid of the concept of sex.

    Etxebarria is concerned that the law is being changed quietly because people are too frightened to speak out. ‘So many people here stopped the fight because every time they talk, they receive so much harassment,’ she told me. And that brings us back to the formidable Lidia Falcón. Nearly 50 years after she was tortured by Franco’s regime, she faces a new form of totalitarianism. The Barcelona prosecutor’s office against hate crimes has opened proceedings against her. This came about after the Trans Platform Federation complained about her denying the identity of trans people. Falcón is unperturbed: she says that hate crime is a political crime ‘because it persecutes expressions. It does not chase facts…The moment we open the door to policing opinions, who knows where we’ll end up?’

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spain-s-transgender-wars-are-turning-nasty

  53. I’d be perfectly fine with that Colm. In fact the last time Peter started this sort of name calling and then got upset when I responded, I made that very offer to Peter. He said no. He wants to be able to insult me with impunity without me being allowed to respond.

    Bullshit

  54. You seemed to have left out that Lidia Falcón is not being prosecuted for being opposed to trans rights but because she called trans people (and homosexuals) paedophiles. Now I’m not a fan of hate speech laws but it is disingenuous if not just a downright lie to suggest she is being prosecuted for being opposed to trans rights.

  55. “Bullshit”

    https://www.atangledweb.org/?p=84644

    Seamus, on July 31st, 2020 at 11:37 PM Said:

    If you don’t insult me then I won’t insult you. Is that acceptable? Simple yes or no.

    Peter, on July 31st, 2020 at 11:57 PM Said:

    Are you looking for a “safe space” by any chance? If so, you won’t find it here.

    So I’ll make the same offer. If you don’t insult me then I won’t insult you. Is that acceptable?

  56. These tactics are typical of the Trans Taliban. As JK Rowling and others can confirm, if you dare to challenge them publicly you can expect a hate-mob on social media, demands that yor employer fires you, and the rest. This is witch-hunting:

    “It’s not hard to see why this reluctance exists. Spanish author Lucía Etxebarria, who did speak out in defence of JK Rowling, has faced intimidation, harassment and abuse: ‘There was a defamation campaign, then they started accusing me of plagiarism. There were death threats but the worst was that they found a picture of my 17-year-old daughter and circulated it. Suddenly my daughter received millions of messages in her Instagram account. Even at school she was receiving threats.’ As with many women in Britain, Etxebarria is not anti-transgender, she is just worried about the practical implications of getting rid of the concept of sex.”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/spain-s-transgender-wars-are-turning-nasty

  57. So are you now saying it is acceptable to call transpeople and homosexuals paedophiles? Because that is who you are defending. That isn’t a witch hunt.

  58. So are you now saying it is acceptable to call transpeople and homosexuals paedophiles? Because that is who you are defending. That isn’t a witch hunt.

    No and no. Read the full extract at 8.57 PM, it’s two different women.

  59. “No and no. Read the full extract at 8.57 PM, it’s two different women.”

    Indeed. And one of them called transpeople and homosexuals paedophiles. And the author of your story is saying that is part of a pattern. So is it part of that pattern or was the author wrong? Is prosecuting people for calling transpeople and homosexuals paedophiles and attempt to limit opposition to trans rights?

  60. The point of the piece is to show up the utter intolerance of the Trans Taliban, including outing a 17 year old girl because her feminist mother stood up to them. But I guess for you those tactics are acceptable, because the feminist mother is just another transphobic bigot, as is anyone who dares question the Trans programme in the slightest way.

  61. It is also not true that Lucía Etxebarria was accused of plagiarism for speaking out in defence of JK Rowling. She was sued for plagiarism in 2006, well over a decade before Rowling made her comments. She has also made insulting comments on social media about Elliot Page after he transitioned so I don’t think she gets to gurn about comments on social media.

    Did you fact check any of that article before you posted it? You are going full Troll on this thread.

  62. In fact not only was she first accused of plagiarism in 2006. In 2007 she admitted it and paid compensation.

    https://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/02/22/cultura/1172153941.html

    So apaprently now the truth is a witch hunt.

  63. So you’re cool with the 17 year old being outed as part of the witch hunt of her mother, thought so.

  64. “So you’re cool with the 17 year old being outed as part of the witch hunt of her mother, thought so.”

    No I wouldn’t find that acceptable. Is there any evidence that is true? Because there are a lot of lies in your article. And so without additional evidence I’d treat it with a pinch of salt.

  65. The article is written by a trans woman. But no doubt to you she is just another traitor to the cause. The screaming intolerance of the Trans Taliban is truly something to behold, but it is far from a pretty sight. What they are seeking to do is to shut down all debate by an organised campaign of mass-intimidation against anyone who questions anything in their programme. And so far they have been remarkably successful. As the article indicates, Spanish politicians are opting for the quiet life by giving them 100% of what they demand with no debate and no questions asked.

  66. “The article is written by a trans woman.”

    I don’t care who wrote it. I looked into for about five minutes and found multiple lies in it. Have you any evidence or just like Troll you present your propoganda and then cry if anyone points out that it isn’t true (and then start throwing around insults)?

  67. Have you any evidence or just like Troll you present your propoganda and then cry if anyone points out that it isn’t true (and then start throwing around insults)?

    I quoted from an article by a respected writer in a respected magazine. It is not “propaganda” unlike what you and the Trans Taliban constantly pump out in a blatant attempt to intimidate opponents as “transphobes” and shut down all debate. Your postings on this subject confirm that are very much a fellow-traveller and your endorsement of their totalitarian mindset is blatant. If the cap fits, wear it. Or better still, just **** off. You will not be missed.

  68. “I quoted from an article by a respected writer in a respected magazine.”

    You quoted an article full of lies because you couldn’t even bother to do even the most basic of fact checks. And instead of putting your hand up and admitting your error you are deciding to just continue throwing out insults.

    “If the cap fits, wear it. Or better still, just **** off. You will not be missed.”

    As I said full Troll. Post lies. Post propoganda. And when you get called out on it you throw out insults and try to get the people pointing it out to leave the site. So I will tell you the same thing I tell him when he pulls this shit. Go fuck yourself.

    And also like Troll if you had evidence you’d present it. The fact that you haven’t, the fact that you only have “opinion” and not facts or evidence is evidence in itself that you have nothing.

  69. an interesting debate. Any credibility you have though Seamus is negated because you can’t be opposite anyone on any issue without calling them a cunt or telling them to go fuck themselves.

    Your intelligence just can’t surpass your natural ignorance.

    Just an observation.

  70. It sure is Petr, and if you challenge it you run the risk of being called a cunt.

    When Seamus said I was encouraging rape I elected to call it a night. You lose the argument when you start throwing around invective and smears.

  71. “When Seamus said I was encouraging rape I elected to call it a night. You lose the argument when you start throwing around invective and smears.”

    Not invective or a smear but the natural result of a policy you support.

    “Any credibility you have though Seamus is negated because you can’t be opposite anyone on any issue without calling them a cunt or telling them to go fuck themselves.”

    Simply not true (though that is par for the course with you). I can, and more often than not, do go without any sort of bad feeling or choice language. I have discussed this issue on this thread with Peter, Petr, Noel and Colm. And yet it was only Peter (who insulted me) who I insulted. And it is only Peter (who asked me to leave the site) who I told to go fuck themselves. If people don’t insult me then I won’t insult them back. This isn’t complicated.

  72. Patrick

    an interesting debate. Any credibility you have though Seamus is negated because you can’t be opposite anyone on any issue without calling them a cunt or telling them to go fuck themselves.

    Your intelligence just can’t surpass your natural ignorance.

    Just an observation.

    At least Seamus and Peter had an interesting and interlectual debate.

    Unlike debating with you.
    You’ve nearly always the first to resort to insults.
    You fail to provide any evidence at all for most of your claims and assertions, despite many of them being completely outrageous.
    You threaten to ban people when you don’t get your own way or they make you look stupid.
    You’ve driven many good people away from this site, and are single-handedly destroying it.

    Just an observation.