Dave Chappelle vs the Woke

[BoldonLad]

And of course, as with any movie or programme that is censored, banned or "cancelled", all that the outrage has done is *increased* the number of viewers. I wouldn't have watched it had I not seen the news article that piqued my curiosity. The publicity for this now is huge. As Eric Idle has often said - the best thing about Life of Brian being banned was that it made it incredibly commercially successful. *Everyone* wanted to see it.

Exactly!, no such thing as bad publicity, so they say.

I had never heard of Dave Chappelle, so, would have been unlikely to search him out on Netflix, but, this thread has made me aware he exists, and, I may well search him out, next time I run out of old films to watch

 

[AuroraSaab]

Demo at Netflix. Much like those demonstrating outside a UK women's conference the other day, they do their cause more harm than good when they behave like this. Breaking the lone guy's sign, leaving him with a stick, then yelling 'He's got a weapon', was dangerous when there were presumably armed police around. Screaming 'Repent' in someone's face isn't a good look either.


View: https://mobile.twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1450894069601914894

 

[icowden]

Demo at Netflix.

It's interesting that a Trans Woman with a documented past history of racism and homophobia is the person "organising the rally".
https://www.businessinsider.com/act...-racist-misogynistic-tweets-2019-10?r=US&IR=T

It's OK for her to ask for tolerance and understanding of her own past behaviour, but not to tolerate other people having a different opinion, it would seem.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's interesting that a Trans Woman with a documented past history of racism and homophobia is the person "organising the rally".
https://www.businessinsider.com/act...-racist-misogynistic-tweets-2019-10?r=US&IR=T

It's OK for her to ask for tolerance and understanding of her own past behaviour, but not to tolerate other people having a different opinion, it would seem.

How unusual.

 

[Pale Rider]

How unusual.

Another one who can't hack anyone with a different view.

Is she a member on here?

 

[BoldonLad]

Another one who can't hack anyone with a different view.

Is she a member on here?

Yes, I wondered that, she would fit in a treat, perhaps, we should invite her?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Yes, I wondered that, she would fit in a treat, perhaps, we should invite her?

I've already got her on 'Ignore'....

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'm gonna ask these questions again with an addition:

Are all gender rights equal?
Who arbitrates when 2 'rights' collide?
When does principle override pragmatism (or vice-versa)?

 

[mudsticks]

I'm gonna ask these questions again with an addition:

Are all gender rights equal?
Who arbitrates when 2 'rights' collide?
When does principle override pragmatism (or vice-versa)?

All gender rights are supposed to be equal .

But clearly aren't yet.

The courts have decided on lots so far.

The principal versus pragmatism thing is being thrashed out ATM .

Hence all the hoo ha*..

* Understated and overgeneralised catch all term for present controversies .

 

[Unkraut]

Are all gender rights equal?

There are only two genders (except in linguistics). There may be a variety of temperament or outlook within the two, but if gender really were a social construct and almost impossible to define, what exactly are people transitioning from and to?

Who arbitrates when 2 'rights' collide?

Would it not help to consider what responsibilities or duties (to use a very old fashioned word) accompany such claimed rights? Where do rights come from in the first place? The state? The state giveth and the state taketh away. Consensus? What if the consensus changes over time?

If you are going to love your neighbour as yourself this might entail having to forgo some of your own rights for the benefit of someone else. If you aren't prepared to do this, then all you have left is self-love, the assertion of your own rights even to the detriment of others, which is why you get conflict over this and abuse heaped on those who dare to assert a dissenting opinion like J K Rowling.

When does principle override pragmatism (or vice-versa)?

Doesn't the responsibility to safeguard women override that of the feelings of those who have supposedly transitioned? Which of the two is more important?

I am not remotely suggesting that those with genuine gender confusion shouldn't be treated with compassion, but I really don't have any time for the ideologues who vent anger rage and abuse in social media and would be prepared to wreck the lives of those they disagree with.

 

[icowden]

Doesn't the responsibility to safeguard women override that of the feelings of those who have supposedly transitioned? Which of the two is more important?

This is the big issue. Many of the "Ls" in LGBTQ+ are unhappy with the way that Stonewall is supporting the "TQ+" at the expense of "L" rights as I understand it. Anyone disagreeing with the mantra "Trans Women are women " and not embracing that they should have the same rights as a women without question, is characterised as a "hater" or "Terf". There is no room for discussion, no room for the middle ground. It's a very toxic area.

Hence you must not invite "Women" for smear tests but people with cervixes.

 

[Bromptonaut]

This is the big issue. Many of the "Ls" in LGBTQ+ are unhappy with the way that Stonewall is supporting the "TQ+" at the expense of "L" rights as I understand it. Anyone disagreeing with the mantra "Trans Women are women " and not embracing that they should have the same rights as a women without question, is characterised as a "hater" or "Terf". There is no room for discussion, no room for the middle ground. It's a very toxic area.

Hence you must not invite "Women" for smear tests but people with cervixes.

My observation is that the bolded bit works both ways. I'm not going with the L bit as although they're represented amongst those saying sex is immutable and transwomen cannot be women there are also plenty of straight women on the same bus. That's by the by, simply making the point that it's not just lesbians in that cohort.

I cannot access the old NACA but I've a clear memory that one of the advocates of the 'only those born female are women' line would wind back the existing Gender Recognition Act. At the time that seemed a progressive and liberal piece of legislation but in the intervening years it's come to be seen as both heavily beurocratic (can never spell that word!) and far to medicalised. The current scrap arises from proposals to make transition easier. The question is where the new line is drawn.

There is, off course, a legitimate argument about women only spaces. Women (or men) in refuges or changing rooms need to safe from those with ill intent. But how do we finesse that with people who have transitioned including the former colleague I mentioned upthread who have had the full surgery?

While both sides shout from entrenched positions we'll make no progress.

 

[AuroraSaab]

When you have a clash of rights, you negotiate and discuss until you reach a consensus. This has been made impossible on issues where women's rights and transgender views conflict because Stonewall and some parts of the trans community have insisted on No Debate and that people simply acquiesce to their demands.

The fact that Stonewall have widened the definition of 'transgender' to include everyone from those who have genuinely suffered from body dysphoria for years to 'anyone who says 'I'm a woman'' is a huge part of the problem. They have had undue influence on public bodies for the last decade, as have the charities Gender ID and Mermaids. Between them they train everyone from schools, the NHS, to the judiciary and police, to adoption agencies.

This includes Stonewall promoting a misinterpreted version of the Equality Act. Their own stated aims are to do away with all single sex exemptions and they have redefined 'homosexual' as same gender attracted, not same sex attracted.

Many organisations are withdrawing from the Stonewall champions and their lobbying activities are coming under closer scrutiny. A couple of years ago it would have been unthinkable for there to have been an investigation into Stonewall's undue influence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yjmph

At the back of all this is the push for self id, under the undue influence of Stonewall and trans lobbyists, all done out of public gaze. Self id was pushed through in Ireland on the back of gay marriage, without public discussion. Same in Scotland - only prevented by the 'Sex Not Gender' ammendment to legislation which women lobbied for.

It was the Filia Women's Conference in Portsmouth the other day. Whilst attendees were inside listening to speakers talking about the war in Tigray or violence against women in India, this is how the trans lobby chose to protest:




When a movement has said there can be No Debate, yet seeks to demand the political erasure of sex, the erasure of female words like woman and mother, for the law to be changed to do away with all single sex exemptions in prisons, refuges, sport etc, and which promotes the medicalisation of children, I don't think objecting to all those things is an entrenched position.

The compromises that have been suggested by women - third spaces for changing, an Open sex class in sports, separate refuges etc.- have all been rejected. It's total capitulation or nothing.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In other news, Tunnucks teacakes are also cancelled. Trans activism is so utterly joyless.

 

[BoldonLad]

In other news, Tunnucks teacakes are also cancelled. Trans activism is so utterly joyless.

Oh dear Mrs @BoldonLad would be gutted, if she knew