Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Elixir]

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical.

Yet, she claims that her arguments are "how women feel", and that anyone who disagrees with her does so because they "hate women".

Poli you put me in a weird position of defending Emily, but I gotta say I don’t get that at all from her.

 

[WAB]

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical.

Yet, she claims that her arguments are "how women feel", and that anyone who disagrees with her does so because they "hate women".

She never said that's how all women feel, nor did she ever say that anyone who disagrees with her hates women. See, you're doing the exact thing I talked about.

 

[Politesse]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

 

[WAB]

Please enlighten us because I don't 'understand where it's coming from' if my understanding that it comes from a place of ignorance and bigotry and hatred is incorrect.

I believe that psychopathy is a mental illness. I think it's a mental defect that should not be normalized. I think psychopaths should receive mental health care, and in some cases that might mean that psychopaths may need to be institutionalized for the safety of the rest of society.

I don't hate psychopaths, nor do I think my view on the treatment of psychopaths is motivated by bigotry. Do you think I'm motivated by hatred and bigotry?

Charlie Kirk's record shows this isn’t just about a neutral "mental health" framing, and that's why the analogy to psychopaths doesn't really capture what's going on. A few examples (not exhaustive):

• Propaganda framing: He has pushed the false claim that trans people are overrepresented in mass shootings. That isn't about "mental illness," it’s about manufacturing fear.
• Targeted insults: He has said (paraphrased): "Adults who think they're the opposite sex are mentally ill. Minors who think they're the opposite sex mean their mothers are mentally ill." That's not a diagnosis--it's an intentionally demeaning soundbite for his base.
• The 1950s-60s remark: He explicitly said trans people should be "taken care of" the way they were in the 50s and 60s. As noted before, this has become a political issue only in the early 2000s. So Kirk could have appealed to the 70s, 80s, or 90s, but he specifically chose the 50s and 60s. So, this is not modern institutionalization. In that era, "care" often meant forced sedation, lobotomies, electroshock "aversion therapy," or indefinite confinement. Outside institutions, it also meant criminalization, police harassment, job loss, ostracism, and physical violence.

So when you compare trans people to psychopaths in this context, you're repeating one of the core pieces of propaganda--that trans people are uniquely dangerous to society and must be controlled. The analogy breaks down, because psychopaths are defined in part by their lack of empathy toward others. Trans people are not.

Mentally ill people are also subject to a lot of very real cruelty and bigotry, including just about every form of government oppression imaginable. What the fuck good is it to a crazy person if Emily "doesn't mean them any harm" as she checks them into a life in prison?

Prison??

Without a doubt. If anything, our involuntary residential care facilities are often worse than your average prison. They are there to make money, not treat patients, and it shows in just about every aspect of their "care". At least in prison there are things to do to break up the monotony.

Which is not to say that all mental health care facilities are bad, what they really are is nearly unregulated, so it matters a lot what your family is willing to pay, especially if you're talking a short term stay that includes therapy, medication, and so forth. But I guarantee you that facility to which a person is sent to for life as a punishment for a crime is going to be distinguishable from jail in any appreciable degree. No facility that offers that "service" is going to be anything less than a horror show, because no reputable mental health care professional would ever work for such a facility.

See how the conversation has gone from Kirk and HIS belief that transgenders, etc, are mentally ill, to the flat acceptance of the belief that Emily shares that belief? Now we are discussing mental hospitals. I've been in two mental hospitals. Yeah it sucks, but I was well fed and never molested or beaten. As a small man who is definitely not a tough guy, if I were so much as sentenced to county jail I'd most likely be a punching bag.

Wouldn't you prefer that there were mental hospitals and not just prisons?

And lest we forget, no one in this thread has said that transgenders are mentally ill! That entire derail happened over comments KIRK had made.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (Jarhyn's phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

Only in certain contexts.

What presumably the majority of women who assault other women in bathrooms are stronger and wield more force, but this is often not the case; social and indirect violence is often wielded instead.

What's clear is that she doesn't actually care about protecting women, she cares about hurting trans people.

This is clear not just from the fact that she sells the much larger population of women abused by women up the river in favor of going after the 1-2 incidents that have EVER happened of cross-dressing bathroom assaults; it's also clear from the fact that she ignores the multitudes of incidents in bathrooms of women assaulting other women in bathrooms *specifically to enforce her agenda of hating trans people*.

Let me reiterate: many magnitudes more women are assaulted in bathrooms by TERF women.

 

[WAB]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's loaded because Emily is not concerned about "predator 'women' " (your phrase), but predator men. Primarily because men are usually much stronger and wield more force.

This is in response to post 1409.

The point would be that predator women are a threat, but not a common one... much like transgender predators. Women face problems from normal males all the time. Emily Lake, as per the norm, concentrates on the less common or trite things for whatever reason. Tens of thousands of men in jail for rape... because we need to has threads about a handful transgender rapes.

Em has so much difficulty here because she's the only woman who dares to be transgender critical.

Emily Lake has trouble here because she has problems prioritizing. This dates way back to when she was another username here, well before the right-wing got all jostled over transgenderism. The problem is enhanced that her positions are often self-contradictory and naive to what she says she supports.

Her posts are continually misrepresented and often deliberately.

I don't think Emily Lake is the only person who has had her posts taken out of context here.

Also, people cannot seem to track an argument very well.

Can too!

Not to mention that any deviance from accepted points of view are met with severe rebuke.

My own posts have been butchered to fuck in the past, but things are worse now.

I don't know., there never has been a golden days of the PD forum. What I will note, however, in that posting here for so long, there have been apparent shifts in politics of some conservative and moderate posters, and these days, they appear very liberal. Their positions haven't changed much, but the underlying political state of the United States has.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. Twice, as a patient.

Then you should know better.

ETA: I was missing a "know".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

Indeed. I think the word "hate" is being tossed around too liberally hear. I think the source is that there are people defending the clearly understood views of Charlie Kirk by trying to wrap them in ambiguity. The reason to do so, I'm uncertain, but when one provides cover for Kirk and his positions, that can lead one to leap to conclusions of another person, which is being done unfairly and without justification. And it certainly isn't helping the threads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something that the males posting in this forum do not completely understand is that girls and women are conditioned to fear sexual assault from a very young age. I think most of us are aware of ‘the talk’ parents of black sons have to give their sons regarding the very legitimate fears of violence and victimization they face at the hands of law enforcement and society in general. Few of us do not understand the necessity of this

Most of the women posting anywhere in these fora have been sexually assaulted. So have some of the men. Not all of the perpetrators have been male.

Of course, men and boys are also sexually victimized.

Literally just saw this report on sextortion this morning. Apparently teen males are much much more liable to get sextorted. And of course, it can easily be a guy on the other side doing it.

I had to explain to my daughter what this meant and reinforce the "NEVER ANYTHING ONLINE WITH ANYONE".

Individuals identified at birth as male are statistically much more likely to commit sexual assault compared with those identified as female, as far as we know based on statistics gathered. The difference may be smaller than we now believe, but we can only rely on what we actually know.

I find it curious that those that are quick to attack transgenders were also the same people that mocked #MeToo.

 

[WAB]

Yes. Twice, as a patient.

Then you should better.

I assume you mean know better?

Apparently you missed my post number 1424? Maybe not, but if you read it, you did not understand it.

In short, I was never molested or beaten in a mental hospital, or even intimidated. In so much as county jail, let alone prison, I'd be a punching bag.

I admit that mental hospitals suck, but given a choice...


Repeat: no one in this thread is advocating throwing transgender people in a mental hospital.

 

[Politesse]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. Twice, as a patient.

Then you should better.

I assume you mean know better?

Apparently you missed my post number 1424? Maybe not, but if you read it, you did not understand it.

In short, I was never molested or beaten in a mental hospital, or even intimidated. In so much as county jail, let alone prison, I'd be a punching bag.

I admit that mental hospitals suck, but given a choice...

In short, I said Mental Hospitals are closer to prison than hospitals. I stand by that.

Repeat: no one in this thread is advocating throwing transgender people in a mental hospital.

Emily Lake was providing cover for Charlie Kirk who suggested revisiting the 50s/60s for transgenders which meant electroshock therapy and other barbaric treatment. Emily Lake (and Charlie Kirk) might not understood what she (they) were talking about, which could be the source of confusion.

 

[WAB]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

Okay, I will look for this demand, and probably get back to you.

Em did not defend Kirk's views. She's an atheist and not some nutball Dominionist, and she certainly does not think women should be barefoot and pregnant! Like Bomb, she was trying to explain his views, in the respect that they did not all have to come from hate. Ie, if he truly believed transgenders were mentally ill, than that belief was not absolutely, necessarily one of hate. Maybe it was! I would not doubt that! He had despicable views. Bomb called the man a dirtbag, but due to lack of comprehension and/or deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination of both, he was dragged through the mud and hauled up as a bigot and worse. l'll be next, and it's already starting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

Okay, I will look for this demand, and probably get back to you.

Em did not defend Kirk's views. She's an atheist and not some nutball Dominionist, and she certainly does not think women should be barefoot and pregnant! Like Bomb, she was trying to explain his views, in the respect that they did not all have to come from hate. Ie, if he truly believed transgenders were mentally ill, than that belief was not absolutely, necessarily one of hate. Maybe it was! I would not doubt that! He had despicable views. Bomb called the man a dirtbag, but due to lack of comprehension and/or deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination of both, he was dragged through the mud and hauled up as a bigot and worse. l'll be next, and it's already starting.

Just to be clear, saying someone is a dirtbag is three words. When the remainder of the post is a number of paragraphs attempting to take Kirk out of context to protect the image of Kirk... the 'misunderstanding' is at best Bomb's fault, at worst, a deception. Whether Kirk hated *insert any number of people he spoke negatively about* is a red herring. What he advocated for should not be defended.

 

[WAB]

I deleted my last post.

 

[Toni]

LGBTQIA persons are more likely to be victims of sexual violence compared with cis straight persons. They are not more likely to commit sexual assaults.

More likely is an understatement. I don't know any queer people who were out as a youth, and didn't get sexually abused by soneone close to them.

And I know precious few women who were not sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. Usually by males.

Sexual assault is known to be significantly under-reported. Period.

We need to address this much more openly and much better.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's the position we're in though.

They want bloody conflict. They advocate for it publicly and unmistakably through their rhetoric. Even the most uneducated, alcoholic whoremonger has been told they're in God's army. Got Wit Uss. History is replete with bloody examples of what happens when God is on your side.

Democrats have a hand in this too. Seriously, Democrats have spent nearly a decade constantly telling the public that Republicans are fascists - loudly, on TV, over and over again. Their supporters, including several on this site, have spent more than a decade insisting that conservatives and even sometimes independents are nazis, or at least nazi adjacent.

The right is on a bender, but so is the left. And if you don't think that Democrats are partially responsible for the state we find ourselves in, then you are naively and blindly partisan.

I take it you've never read anything else I've written here.

I probably have, but in all honesty I suck and remembering who said what for most people. There are a handful of posters that I interact with frequently, and for those I'll manage to keep crap in my mind. But there are a lot of posters that I just don't have an aggregated sense of. IRL, my brain tends to associate strongly with faces, expressions, and vocal intonation to store info about people. Online stuff has always been a struggle for me, because all of that is missing.

Strong interactions - both positive and negative - will help cement that info. I don't think I've ever had a real passionate interaction with you, so apologies for my brain being based in a pre-internet world

 

[Politesse]

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

Okay, I will look for this demand, and probably get back to you.

Em did not defend Kirk's views. She's an atheist and not some nutball Dominionist, and she certainly does not think women should be barefoot and pregnant! Like Bomb, she was trying to explain his views, in the respect that they did not all have to come from hate. Ie, if he truly believed transgenders were mentally ill, than that belief was not absolutely, necessarily one of hate. Maybe it was! I would not doubt that! He had despicable views. Bomb called the man a dirtbag, but due to lack of comprehension and/or deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination of both, he was dragged through the mud and hauled up as a bigot and worse. l'll be next, and it's already starting.

I've not called you or Bomb#20 a dirtbag, nor am I likely to start. For one thing, I don't do name-calling, at least not from my perspective. Yes, I know that talking about fascism or bigotry is taken as a personal insult by many, but to me those are descriptors of political stances, not types of people. Not the same thing as calling someone a "jerk" or a "poopoo head" or an "orange menace", etc, which I have always disapproved of.

For another, my interpretation of Emily as a bad-faith "gender critical" activist comes from her many years of pushing anti-trans rhetoric on this forum. I actually have no idea what she's like as a person, no doubt she has many admirable traits, but I do know a lot about how she behaves on IIDB: always on the attack, always focused on the culture war issues of the week. You have no such history as far as I am aware. If anything, I'm surprised to see you getting so involved in a dogshit political scrap like this thread, you usually avoid them it seems to me, though of course everyone is welcome to join in on the food fight. What else do we all have to do while the Empire crumbles around us?

As a forumer, Bomb#20 in practice is a lot like what Emily likes to claims she is, a generally polite moderate-leaning type capable of listening and learning at times, pushing back at others. To the limited extent that can actually know anyone, I think I'd like Bomb as a person despite our many disagreements. I think we'd be able to sit down and have the proverbial talk over beers without much incident.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Do we need to find ways to safeguard "women" from predator "women" who use their shared "woman" status as cover to predate?

No...

So, then, you don't actually care about women...

You just hate trans people.

Wow! Way to quote someone! Lol.

As if there's any reason to be charitable to spmeone

I resent the notion that any kind of unpopular view must come from hate. I don't see any hate coming from Emily or Bomb#20, in fact quite the contrary. They don't deserve the shit they've been handed.

I was sexually assaulted when I was on a camping trip with a bunch of guys from school. I'm a small guy and not a tough guy, and he was drunk as fuck and much bigger. It sucks. I can easily understand if a woman is uncomfortable around men in the bathroom, dressing room, etc. Why in the fuck we should haul these women up as evil and hateful is beyond me.

Have you proposed involuntarily committing all big guys as a punishment for what that specific one did? The hateful part isn't that she has those feelings, the hateful part is what she wants done to innocent people because of those feelings. As a person I don't feel comfortable walking around in certain neighborhoods of my city, but I don't go online and demand that they all be bulldozed and their residents dehomed. People's feelings are their own, but only until they channel those feelings into acts of hatred and violence towards others. That's when a line has to be drawn.

Egads! You are not arguing in good faith!

What does Em "want done to INNOCENT people"?

In this very thread she demands institutionalization of "psychopaths". And if Emily doesn't want to be associated with Kirk's views, defending them in an open forum is a funny strategy for avoiding that.

Okay, I will look for this demand, and probably get back to you.

Em did not defend Kirk's views. She's an atheist and not some nutball Dominionist,

There are nutball atheists on this very forum. And someone can be a nutball in more ways than religious.