That Starmer fella...

they were all perceived as the anti-establishment option.

Linking to the above, a lot of people still view Brexit as anti-establishment and the establishment is also rolled into the mythical metropolitan elite, Islington dinner parties, BBC bias, etc

When did this happen? Certainly wasn't the case in my day.

It was when greenhell was awarded the all-territories all-topic exclusive right on behalf of the entire human race to have an opinion on anything. Did you not get the memo?

Did you not get the memo?

I think that may have been sent when I was at work, or raising my children. Did I miss much?

Well, that would be a subjective assessment, and therefore an opinion, so I couldn't say. Don't blame me, those are the rules.

Back in the day, people like you used to get paid for your opinions. Has that changed too?

I refer my learned friend to my previous answer.

i do so enjoy living rent free in this tedious cunt's noggin.

i do so enjoy living rent free in this tedious cunt's noggin.

It's really interesting when people try to present being censorious and dismissive as a virtue.

sorry, is that directed at me? well clearly it is. you'll have to expand.

Yes, Brexit was undeniably the crucial factor in these elections. I don't want to excuse the result as anything other than catastrophic, but I really don't think there was any Brexit policy option that would not have resulted in Labour haemmoraging votes (although the 2017 soft Brexit policy would likely have softened the blow in the so-called 'red wall').

Labour's late pivot to a second referendum position led them to be portrayed as the anti-democratic establishment party in certain circles. That the policy was wilfully construed as impossible to understand by the media was also a factor, amongst many others!

sorry, is that directed at me? well clearly it is. you'll have to expand.

Ok, here goes. Repeatedly telling anyone who expresses a view that doesn't align perfectly with your own to fuck off adds nothing to the discussion. All it does is re-establish that you hold particular views that we all know you hold anyway (because you make them quite clear in other ways). It gets really boring after a while.

Sometimes, some people think that there is a discussion to be had that includes ideas that you think are so abhorrent that anyone who voices them should be told to fuck off and ostracised. To other people those ideas are worth hearing. That doesn't mean that they agree with those ideas or think that they are laudable, they just think that you can't fairly make up your mind without a discussion and you can't say in advance of the issue being thrashed out what ideas are worth listening to. Even if you don't agree with a point of view, you generally learn something from it, if only how to counter it.

To put it another way (paraphrasing Hitchens), to whom do you award the right to decide what speech/ideas are harmful or who is the harmful speaker. Can you think of anyone who you would entrust with deciding for you what you should and shouldn't be able to read and what ideas you should be exposed to? No? Then perhaps consider that it's a bit fucking tedious for you to constantly tell people to fuck off/jog on/row row row your boat the fuck away from here. This forum is well-moderated; hate speech and pointless edgelording gets people banned. Beyond that I think we can all cope with hearing things that we don't agree with.

aha i see. let me help

i was replying to someone who on a different thread had baselessly accused the people on this forum of being misogynists and had themselves mused about leaving as a result. it happened here again. my suggestion was merely an invitation to follow through.

happy to help.

anyone else wants to pile on, slide into my DM's

<3

You should use the "Reply" function.

I think you missed 'repeatedly' in FFM's very well expressed position. It's not just one time. It's fucking boring. I think I'll stay out of your DMs tho, thanks all the same.

👍

they are requesting that society stops treating them like x and starts treating them like y

Wut. I have to squint really hard to see this framing.
It's more like - for people that already know you, you say "I know you always thought I was X but actually I'm Y" and they say "Oh shit, wow that must have been really fucking hard to deal with, ok I'll try and I might fuck it up sometimes until I get used to it but I'll get there." And everyone else who hasn't met you yet is just like "Hey, Y person. How you doing.". The first group of people isn't very big. "Society" falls into the second group, mostly.
I mean that would be nice.

her concerns should not be debated let alone given any weight at all?

Why are you trying to convince her of this?
Your whole setup is weird.

I know you are a bit hard of thinking, but for the record, this is what I said:

I do feel pretty queasy about the misogyny of using the c word. Maybe lfgss isn't for me anymore.

If you do a quick search, you'll see that it is a word which features unfortunately often on here.

Is every thread going to descend into this sort of chat??

The cycling related ones will probably be ok. Greenhell doesn't comment in them thankfully.

I don't think he is. It's a lot of people trying to tell cis female feminists their long held thoughts and beliefs are wrong. Those people telling his partner is a cis male.

Is the point that is trying to be made.

Yeah I kinda guessed that.

To be fair, it's a valid concern.
Men telling women how they should be thinking.

Which is what I think Keir was saying, and what I was saying three pages ago. I don't doubt the immense challenges and stigma trans people face, but I think women with concerns (even if it is a minority of women), deserve for their voices to be be heard as well.

Which a couple of pages ago we all agreed was a valid point and we were all concerned stuff would sneak in by the backdoor.

I hadn't understood the expressions 'off you pop' and 'row, row, row your boat the fuck away' were expressions of agreement. My bad.