Hahahaha the Guardian

[Repat Van]

Mar 10, 2020 19:40:16 GMT perrykneeham said:

"A campaigner has lost a legal challenge against the government over gender-neutral passports.

Christie Elan-Cane argued a policy preventing someone from obtaining a passport with an unspecified gender was unlawful on human rights grounds.

But the Court of Appeal ruled the policy did not amount to an unlawful breach of the activist's human rights.

In a ruling on Tuesday, three senior judges dismissed the appeal, which was contested by the Home Office."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51823318

Good. Now go and get some psychiatric help. You have a mental health problem, that is all.

I still don’t understand why gender is required on passports. The “identification” argument doesn’t really hold true because at best at the airport they’re just looking at your (stereotypical) gender presentation.

It appears it’s not even a new thing:

“ At the moment UK passport holders have to indicate whether they are male or female. Several other countries, including Canada, Australia and Germany, now have a third option.”

I am not pro it but neither do I see why it’s required. I can not grasp the concept of feeling as if you don’t have a gender identity but that’s me.

*shrugs*

[mids]

I think you need to look up the word "random".

[Marshall]

When asked about how it felt to be forced to tick one box or another, the campaigner said: "It's really degrading, especially since I've been working so hard and for so long to try and persuade the UK government to change its discriminatory policy."

Things must be pretty good these days, when having to tick one box or another is seen as a form of state oppression.

[Repat Van]

Mar 10, 2020 22:08:52 GMT mids said:

I think you need to look up the word "random".

You’re the one suggesting going around having sex with random people based on nothing more than their gender identity.

[mids]

Now you're doing an Andy. And just look up random once more?

[Repat Van]

Mar 11, 2020 3:00:14 GMT mids said:

Now you're doing an Andy. And just look up random once more?

So you’re not suggesting people just go and randomly have sex with somebody based on their gender identity?

[Repat Van]

What was this nonsense then:

“ Simple test for the transphiles. Fcuk one.”

[mids]

"random people" "randomly have sex"

Oh dear.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Mar 10, 2020 21:59:19 GMT Repat Van said:

Mar 10, 2020 13:24:38 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Why should they? Bizarre question. because it's a valid opinion written by one of their columnists.

And it's not the newspaper deciding not to give it space, It clearly has given it space.
It's people trying to stop it publishing views they don't agree with:

But it's the same from you. No attempt to explain why they shouldn't publish the article. No attempt to engage. just shut it down.

Lots of people think lots of opinions are valid? Some would argue that racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism are all valid opinions. The Guardian already has comment policies that prevent certain things.

Why should they be required to host opinions like the one in the article? Why should people not be allowed to complain? And why are they required to engage? I wouldn’t engage with somebody who advocated that slavery was a good thing? Is it just because you personally like this opinion which is why you’re Taking issue with those who say the Guardian should be a space free if this kind of thing?

Also your question is bizarre. I am not one of the Guardian staff who has complained about this piece so why should I be required to explain a position I have not stated?


Although to go back you do realise that it’s still lot a case of “eradicating dissent.”

A strange business you and FA. Intent on just arguing stuff that isn't there. The Guardian aren't being required to host these opinions, they already are out of their own volition.
As the editor says “we will never shy away from difficult or divisive subjects” and pledge to represent “a wide range of views on many topics”.
They are doing this because they want to. However the babychams are trying to stop them.

I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.

And if you don't want to engage don't. I'll just substitute can't for won't because we can make stuff up these days.

[Repat Van]

Mar 11, 2020 6:11:29 GMT mids said:

"random people" "randomly have sex"

Oh dear.

That’s what you’re suggesting.

Or is there a very specific transgender person you are suggesting people have sex with? And why?

[Repat Van]

Mar 11, 2020 7:30:31 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Mar 10, 2020 21:59:19 GMT Repat Van said:

Lots of people think lots of opinions are valid? Some would argue that racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism are all valid opinions. The Guardian already has comment policies that prevent certain things.

Why should they be required to host opinions like the one in the article? Why should people not be allowed to complain? And why are they required to engage? I wouldn’t engage with somebody who advocated that slavery was a good thing? Is it just because you personally like this opinion which is why you’re Taking issue with those who say the Guardian should be a space free if this kind of thing?

Also your question is bizarre. I am not one of the Guardian staff who has complained about this piece so why should I be required to explain a position I have not stated?


Although to go back you do realise that it’s still lot a case of “eradicating dissent.”

A strange business you and FA. Intent on just arguing stuff that isn't there. The Guardian aren't being required to host these opinions, they already are out of their own volition.
As the editor says “we will never shy away from difficult or divisive subjects” and pledge to represent “a wide range of views on many topics”.
They are doing this because they want to. However the babychams are trying to stop them.

I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.

And if you don't want to engage don't. I'll just substitute can't for won't because we can make stuff up these days.

You are the one talking about people “eradicating dissent” by suggesting the Guardian does not cover certain views. I am asking why they should be required to? How does the Guardian deciding not to cover a certain view result in “dissent being eradicated”?

And this is highly ironic: “ I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.”

I am defending the staff member’s right to take exception to an article within the Guardian. A right you seem to take issue with. I am also questioning what makes a “valid opinion” and why this is anymore valid than any other topics the Guardian may choose / be lobbied to not offer a platform too.

I am also questioning how, if one publication were to choose not to cover a certain topic this would result in “eradicating dissent”.

I have no view on the particular article itself.

[mids]

It was 20% of staff by the by.

[mids]

Mar 11, 2020 8:59:48 GMT Repat Van said:

Mar 11, 2020 6:11:29 GMT mids said:

"random people" "randomly have sex"

Oh dear.

That’s what you’re suggesting.

Or is there a very specific transgender person you are suggesting people have sex with? And why?

"So what you're saying is...".

[Repat Van]

Mar 11, 2020 9:06:12 GMT mids said:

Mar 11, 2020 8:59:48 GMT Repat Van said:

That’s what you’re suggesting.

Or is there a very specific transgender person you are suggesting people have sex with? And why?

"So what you're saying is...".

Well it is what you’re saying. “f**k one” which one? Who? Unless there is a specific person you are referring to, then you are, necessarily suggesting that they f**k a random person who happens to be transgender because they are transgender?

Or when you said “test for the transphiles, f**k one” did you mean something entirely different?

[mids]

Eh? Sober up dude!

[Repat Van]

So you are suggested some unspecified person f**k somebody. Not a random person but not a specific person either.

Ok.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Mar 11, 2020 9:03:13 GMT Repat Van said:

Mar 11, 2020 7:30:31 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

A strange business you and FA. Intent on just arguing stuff that isn't there. The Guardian aren't being required to host these opinions, they already are out of their own volition.
As the editor says “we will never shy away from difficult or divisive subjects” and pledge to represent “a wide range of views on many topics”.
They are doing this because they want to. However the babychams are trying to stop them.

I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.

And if you don't want to engage don't. I'll just substitute can't for won't because we can make stuff up these days.

You are the one talking about people “eradicating dissent” by suggesting the Guardian does not cover certain views. I am asking why they should be required to? How does the Guardian deciding not to cover a certain view result in “dissent being eradicated”?

And this is highly ironic: “ I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.”

I am defending the staff member’s right to take exception to an article within the Guardian. A right you seem to take issue with. I am also questioning what makes a “valid opinion” and why this is anymore valid than any other topics the Guardian may choose / be lobbied to not offer a platform too.

I am also questioning how, if one publication were to choose not to cover a certain topic this would result in “eradicating dissent”.

I have no view on the particular article itself.

I'm not suggesting the Guardian doesn't cover certain views. I'm all for it. The clowns who wrote the letter are. They don't like certain views so they want them stooped. I don't really understand why you are having so much difficulty getting to grips with that.
And the staff can take exception to any view they want. Just don't expect people not to express it because you don't like it.

I take exception to men wearing a scarf like this but I don't try and ban it




Actually, no it should be banned or at least it should be carte blanche to punch them in the mouth.

[mids]

Link?

[Repat Van]

Mar 11, 2020 9:39:30 GMT Minge är en jävla besserwisser said:

Mar 11, 2020 9:03:13 GMT Repat Van said:

You are the one talking about people “eradicating dissent” by suggesting the Guardian does not cover certain views. I am asking why they should be required to? How does the Guardian deciding not to cover a certain view result in “dissent being eradicated”?

And this is highly ironic: “ I kind of get the impression it's not something you and FA can defend so you argue another point in the hope nobody will notice.”

I am defending the staff member’s right to take exception to an article within the Guardian. A right you seem to take issue with. I am also questioning what makes a “valid opinion” and why this is anymore valid than any other topics the Guardian may choose / be lobbied to not offer a platform too.

I am also questioning how, if one publication were to choose not to cover a certain topic this would result in “eradicating dissent”.

I have no view on the particular article itself.

I'm not suggesting the Guardian doesn't cover certain views. I'm all for it. The clowns who wrote the letter are. They don't like certain views so they want them stooped. I don't really understand why you are having so much difficulty getting to grips with that.
And the staff can take exception to any view they want. Just don't expect people not to express it because you don't like it.

I take exception to men wearing a scarf like this but I don't try and ban it




Actually, no it should be banned or at least it should be carte blanche to punch them in the mouth.

They’re not trying to “ban” certain views. Nor are they asking for certain views to be stopped. They are requesting that the Guardian, specifically, don’t give a platform to them. And given that there will be many things the Guardian does not provide a platform to, why should this request be seen as especially weird. It’s not remotely eradicating dissent and it doesn’t compare to your pretty crap scarf analogy.

You seem to be suggesting the Guardian be required to host certain views or at least taking issue with it.

I don’t see how this request is different to staff taking issue with anything else the Guardian may choose to give a platform to.

If they protested a platform given to articles espousing anti-vaccination rhetoric, or somebody arguing that interracial marriage is immoral, nobody would take issue. So why is this so different. It’s just staff asking for a particular viewpoint to not be given a platform. So what? There are plenty of things the Guardian would not give a platform to. Why should this be different?

[Repat Van]

I mean, given the Guardian is known for being a progressive publication - its staff requesting:

“ As employees across the Guardian, we are deeply distressed by the resignation of another trans colleague in the UK, the third in less than a year.
We feel it is critical that the Guardian do more to become a safe and welcoming workplace for trans and non-binary people.” isn’t really that odd.