F*ck the Tories: a Thread Dedicated to Suella Braverman

[monkers]

If you don't like rational argument you don't have to look at it, but don't keep passing it off as some sort of abuse. If you want an echo chamber, go find one.

How do you, know? You stopped reading it at the end of the first page,

It's possible but she is also poorly briefed or lazy. She demonstrates in the clips that she has a lack of understanding of the things she is working on, and when challenged her ignorance lets her down. She isn't quick enough to fall back on the traditional "not answering the question but answering a question that wasn't asked" defence.

Happily, she is no longer a cabinet minister although she is still agitating behind the scenes backed by other frothing swivel eyed loons.

Ask yourself why you thought this reply was necessary.

I skimmed some pages without reading - but we already know that my definition of reading is somewhat different to your own.

 

[icowden]

Ask yourself why you thought this reply was necessary.

Because you constantly do down other posters and try to stifle discussion when it isn't going in a direction that you like. You know very well that what you meant was "I stopped reading this thread because it was a discussion about Braverman's attitude to gender identity and @AuroraSaab made a post on the first page".

I skimmed some pages without reading - but we already know that my definition of reading is somewhat different to your own.

Well my definition of reading is to look at and understand words. Sometimes I even reply to those words. Sometimes, the writer of those words is unclear or contradicts themself. This is what discussion is about. Sometimes I learn things even from people that I disagree with. SOmetimes my viewpoint changes a little as I discuss and issue. That's the point of being here.

If you were skimming without reading, what on earth were you hoping to pick up? Background colours?

 

[monkers]

Because you constantly do down other posters and try to stifle discussion when it isn't going in a direction that you like. You know very well that what you meant was "I stopped reading this thread because it was a discussion about Braverman's attitude to gender identity and @AuroraSaab made a post on the first page".


Well my definition of reading is to look at and understand words. Sometimes I even reply to those words. Sometimes, the writer of those words is unclear or contradicts themself. This is what discussion is about. Sometimes I learn things even from people that I disagree with. SOmetimes my viewpoint changes a little as I discuss and issue. That's the point of being here.

If you were skimming without reading, what on earth were you hoping to pick up? Background colours?

Remember when you were so angry with tool? You had a hissy fit because he shortened your username. You called him a 'farking canute' among other things.

Yesterday you went off on one at me, making accusations for not including references even though you quoted me doing so. Saying that I quoted something that was just a report not a fact, when I had carefully typed 'according to reports'. You have a long history of not actually reading a post before bashing the keyboard for no reason. You sound like such an angry little man.

I haven't read this thread thoroughly by any means, but I have noticed your ongoing input of bigotry against trans people when that was not the topic. I didn't reply to any of it. You, AS, Dutchguy, UncleKraut were all left alone by me.

My post was the first to this thread (#659), and the first thing you do is jump on it with personal accusations without substance. I actually addressed the OP, and not the noise that you and others have been making.

Give it a rest Ian, you're looking clownish.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Looks more like you couldn't resist bringing up a discussion from 18 months ago when the thread had clearly moved on from the OP's original point after the first few pages and even though it's 9 months since I've posted on this thread at all.

Not sure I'm convinced that people having political views you disagree with, or who express those views in a way you don't like, is sufficient for a diagnosis of mental illness either. Though as usual, I'm sure you know best.

 

[monkers]

Looks more like you couldn't resist bringing up a discussion from 18 months ago when the thread had clearly moved on from the OP's original point after the first few pages and even though it's 9 months since I've posted on this thread at all.

Not sure I'm convinced that people having political views you disagree with, or who express those views in a way you don't like, is sufficient for a diagnosis of mental illness either. Though as usual, I'm sure you know best.

You posted post#3 saying you didn't want to derail the thread as trans rights had been 'done to death' and then proceeded with your usual epic rants against trans women, post after post of it. You made something like 60 posts in the first 20 pages browbeating everybody with your views. I said nothing.

Study your form in light of my comment, you can't fail to see it. Though I'm sure you'll deny it all the same.

[edit to add] After another skim of some comments, I see others were asking you stop.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The original post was about whether children in school should have their wish to change gender recognised so my posts were on topic. They weren't about transwomen. Not everything is funnily enough, though you see everything through that lens

You couldn't resist bringing them up 18 months later though because denigrating other posters was more important to you than simply giving us your views on Braverman.

It was your choice not to join in the discussion. Join in or don't join in. There's no medals for doing either. Nobody cares who does or doesn't post. If you could resist using threads just to abuse or moan about other people it would probably be appreciated though.

Perhaps you could expand on your medical diagnosis of Braverman a bit in order to avoid further thread drift. BPD? Psychopathy? DAMS? (Doesn't Agree with Me Syndrome).

 

[monkers]

The original post was about whether children in school should have their wish to change gender recognised so my posts were on topic. They weren't about transwomen. Not everything is funnily enough, though you see everything through that lens

You couldn't resist bringing them up 18 months later though because denigrating other posters was more important to you than simply giving us your views on Braverman.

It was your choice not to join in the discussion. Join in or don't join in. There's no medals for doing either. Nobody cares who does or doesn't post. If you could resist using threads just to abuse or moan about other people it would probably be appreciated though.

Perhaps you could expand on your medical diagnosis of Braverman a bit in order to avoid further thread drift. BPD? Psychopathy? DAMS? (Doesn't Agree with Me Syndrome).

Hush now, read these words carefully ...

I gave four example about why I consider Braverman sounding unhinged - there was nothing there about her views on trans rights.

If you want to discuss what I actually said, we could attempt to do that - but then I consider you just about as unhinged as Braverman, so I won't live in too much hope.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The original post was about whether children in school should have their wish to change gender recognised so my posts were on topic. They weren't about transwomen. Not everything is funnily enough, though you see everything through that lens

The original post, and I know this because I wrote it, was about Braverman being 'as thick as pig shoot' and either ignorant of law or choosing to disregard it, apparently to big up her political profile on the Tory party's right.

Not a good look from HMG's Senior Law Officer who is meant to act in a quasi judicial manner and keep her head down on matters of political controversy.

The issue happened to manifest itself around youngsters with gender incongruence and what they might be allowed to do at school. The key bit was her apparent belief that becuase, under the UK Gender Recognition Act, one cannot actually get a GRC under 18 one could not do the required living in the adopted gender thing while under 18.

As @monkers has pointed out that's just one of many examples of her being stumped by basic stuff. I only chose it because I was peripherally involved in the GRC process in a previous professional life.

You chose, not after the thread had begun to cool but at post #3, full tonto with blast of your views which are well known to any of us here or over on the Mothership. I understand where you are coming from but disagree fundamentally, as do others her.

You hijacked my thread.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your view was that she was ignorant of the law on allowing schools to recognise a pupil's gender identity. My point was that she wasn't. It doesn't need discussing again but it wasn't hijacking the thread to point out why.

I'm fully aware of your views on women's rights, thanks. Perhaps you could outline what people are and aren't allowed to discuss on your threads next time you start one.

Hush now, read these words carefully ...

God, you're pompous and arrogant lol.

I gave four example about why I consider Braverman sounding unhinged - there was nothing there about her views on trans rights.

I didn't say there was. It's you that brought up trans issues. You were characterising a politician who disagrees with you as properly mentally unwell though which I think says quite a lot about your tactics. There's plenty of things to criticise about her policies as a minister without taking it on yourself to diagnose mental illness.

If you want to discuss what I actually said, we could attempt to do that - but then I consider you just about as unhinged as Braverman, so I won't live in too much hope.

There you go again. You really cannot post without falling back on abuse.

 

[monkers]

Hush now, read these words carefully ...

God, you're pompous and arrogant lol.

I'm just desperate to get you to realise that you are the browbeater of the threads.

I didn't say there was. It's you that brought up trans issues. You were characterising a politician who disagrees with you as properly mentally unwell though which I think says quite a lot about your tactics. There's plenty of things to criticise about her policies as a minister without taking it on yourself to diagnose mental illness.

It was you post #3 of this thread. As Bromptonaut has told you, you jumped in and hijacked his thread immediately. You just took over with your own agenda. I have not posted anything about 'trans issues' anywhere in the thread. You are simply wrong to say so.

It's not simply a matter of disagreeing with Braverman. I think her quite mad! Take the four clips in turn, it isn't just presentation, she was drunk on power with ambition for more power. Imagine the country run by her!

There you go again. You really cannot post without falling back on abuse.

The record shows. I counted some 60 ranty posts of your on the first 20 pages and then after it was still ongoing. Very little was on topic, all voices of any disagreement or reminders that you were off topic were hastily slapped down. You are obsessed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was you post #3 of this thread.

18 months ago ....

I have not posted anything about 'trans issues' anywhere in the thread. You are simply wrong to say so.

You literally brought it up today .... 18 months after the event, 9 months after I last posted, long after the thread had moved on.

You simply couldn't miss a chance to drag me back into your histrionics, even if it involved referencing stuff from a year and a half ago.

You are obsessed.

18 months .....

 

[monkers]

18 months ago ....


You literally brought it up today .... 18 months after the event, 9 months after I last posted, long after the thread had moved on.

You simply couldn't miss a chance to drag me back into your histrionics, even if it involved referencing stuff from a year and a half ago.



18 months .....

Yes and you are still going on. Obsessed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You brought it up. You dragged me and trans issues into your 'Braverman's mentally ill' post. Nobody else. Literally just you. For no reason whatsoever other than to have a go at me and kick off with your histrionics. And now you're whining about me going on about trans issues on the thread ...... 9 months after I last posted on the thread.

I'll leave you to it now because it's really gotten quite weird, and I wouldn't want to detain you from your diagnostic work in the mental health/people-who-don't-agree-with-me sector.

 

[monkers]

You brought it up. You dragged me and trans issues into your 'Braverman's mentally ill' post. Nobody else. Literally just you. For no reason whatsoever other than to have a go at me and kick off with your histrionics. And now you're whining about me going on about trans issues on the thread ...... 9 months after I last posted on the thread.

I'll leave you to it now because it's really gotten quite weird, and I wouldn't want to detain you from your diagnostic work in the mental health/people-who-don't-agree-with-me sector.

You chattin' shoot innit.

Seriously do stop.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Your view was that she was ignorant of the law on allowing schools to recognise a pupil's gender identity. My point was that she wasn't. It doesn't need discussing again but it wasn't hijacking the thread to point out why.

You, or perhaps rather Ms Braverman, are conflating two things.

(1) Should schools recognise (say) a 16.5yo natal male who is gender incongruent and wishes to dress as female to be known as Dora rather than Dick and allow them to dress as, and be called by the name of, their preferred ID?

I actually think we might agree on that.

(2) How Dick/Dora's preference at 16.5 interfaces with the current GRA. I think they're entitled to be treated as living in their potential acquired gender so as to meet the requirement to have done so for 2 years and get a GRC at 18.

Suella says not, in which case the min age for a GRC is effectively 18+2. I'm not clear where you stand on that but I suspect with Suella.