Thread 2 Turn your son in knowing he’d get the death penalty

It's a public message board, we are allowed to respond to any posts that take our fancy. The way people 'debate' (or don't) interests me.

Our opinion differs and that's okay.

And as if a trans person, specifically a man, can have any insight or sensitivity at all of what it is to be a woman. It doesn't stop 'em stamping their size 10s though, wringing their hairy hands, and clutching at their pearl necklaces demanding to use women's spaces. That last sentence was unnecessary, but what the heck, I'm human. My bad. I always get a 'head picture' of Cissy and Ada. 😁

But that's not the topic of this thread.

you’re picking apart @Tandora ’s response to a conversation we were having about the way some people on MN debate.
I see it everyone all over most threads - especially political ones and I personally find it quite jarring.
It irks me especially as we were basically both saying that while we may not agree with each other on everything, that we probably have more in common that we realise

I personally didn’t find that last part about people changing their minds patronising at all. I agree with it.

@Tandora I’m not talking about debate in general- I’m speaking of the way in which people interact on mumsnet. Your posts being a good demonstration:

😂😂

Thank you for confirming that what you meant is not what you said. I could find your words very hurty - if they had any power. 😆

I didn’t say you did 🤷‍♀️

I do think nastiness from some has been evident.

That’s fine. I didn’t ask you to find it funny 🤷🏼‍♀️.

You can ‘lol’ all you like if it makes you feel better about finding the below funny. Regardless of my views on gender ideology and how it impacts women and children I wouldn’t laugh at the same or promote it.

One thing that has become clear is how being decent re CK is easily lost by some.

I’m not talking about debate in general- I’m speaking of the way in which people interact on mumsnet. Your posts being a good demonstration:

lol at the idea that you have any insight or sensitivity to the experience of a trans person

@Tandora This is exactly it. And because of this the ultimate goal is to prove the other person wrong, and humiliate them for being so stupid when this is done.

Re debating - is this is really what you were taught? Or is this what's in your own heart when you debate? Why do you tarnish everyone who enjoys exchanging words with your brush of 'the ultimate goal' of 'humiliation' and 'stupid'?

I disagree entirely.

However, if one or other party's 'lack' for want of a better word is illuminated during a debate, then that's on them. As a saying goes: you can't argue with stupid. I guess at this point I'm thinking of an Oxford student (who could never be labelled 'stupid' by the very fact he was at Oxford) who tried to argue that he already existed in the people who eventually became his parents, in his father's sperm and his mother's egg even before they were fused into 'him'. He was showing himself up rather. Trying to be too clever, was my observation.

And with that comes the reluctance to change our mind, and to double down on what we've said, even when we can see that maybe someone else has a stronger argument, or new information comes to light.

With checks and balances, with that I somewhat agree.

Actually we should be rewarding people when they admit they are wrong or change their minds

Nah! Rewarding? That's a bit patronising.

@Tandora Haha well that’s a creative new justification.

Not at all. I did not need to justify it - it was, simply, as I said it. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is interesting that taken out of context, or without the nuance, or read from an already biased mindset, or whatever, the word and it's meaning in the fullness of what was said, was misrepresented. And that is exactly what I've seen happening regarding Charlie Kirk's words.

Also Can you please stop saying “hurty words” . It’s actually very unpleasant the type of demeaning, belittling tactic used by bullies.

It's not a good look to try and bully people into preventing the free use of words. You find 'hurty words' unpleasant, and that is unfortunate, but why is it any more unpleasant than misrepresenting people? I've seen a lot of, if the word you want to use is 'bullying' tactics on this thread and others, trying to close down freedom of thought and speech. No, sometimes the accusers are just reflecting what is in their own heart.

Finally, please note- Words do hurt and they are not harmless

Noted! I half agree, however, they only hurt if you allow them the power to hurt - but they can only hurt feelings.

We have laws in this country criminalising words that incite violence and hate speech. We also have civil laws that protect people in certain settings for being subject to discriminatory words, or words that constitute harrassment . There are very good reasons for these laws,

Well, yes. Of course. 🤷‍♀️

I could quote a lot of other things CK said and did that promoted / justified / rationalised / excused violence.

Aaaannnndddd around we go - taken out of context, without the nuance, without the fullness of what was said, heard/read from a place of hate in the heart - lots of quoted soundbites have been copied and pasted here and elsewhere merely to misrepresent him. There has been more hatred and wickedness thrown towards him, the flawed human being, than ever the angry people think his words meant.

When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group ...

So am I impressed that he said that one basic thing?

🙂

I couldn’t imagine finding it funny for say a trans gender person (thinking of anyone who has been reported on a lot) and I think there’d be outcry over their vulnerability. But I guess we’ll not find out which is for the best.

Ah ok well I haven't seen clips of him shouting tbf. I've seen clips of him talking over, needling/ baiting/ mocking/ provoking/ humiliating etc. But not shouting. He may well have shouted of course, I just haven't seen it.

Of course I would.

The joke isn't in the mocking of a person I don't like for being dead (that isn't funny at all - which is why I don't find the other comments funny).

The joke is in the word play, the surprising / innovative / dark (and therefore taboo) reference to the ridiculous row we are all having about the use of pronouns.

TBF though it would be much funnier/ cleverer if "were/was" were actually pronouns. Since they are verbs it doesn't really make sense. But it did tickle me when I first read it.

Would the middle one still be humorous to you if it was someone whose ideology you agreed with who was assassinated?

Its in the quote history that you posted from Idinnaenah

"he loved nothing more than to shout down young students of 18, 19, 20 and had a very nasty way of needling them and trying to unsettle them before any ‘debate’ even started ‘ you the purple haired jihadi’ was a call for one to come to the mic"

We have laws in this country criminalising words that incite violence and hate speech. We also have civil laws that protect people in certain settings for being subject to discriminatory words, or words that constitute harrassment . There are very good reasons for these laws

See this is interesting because the UK and the US have very different laws about speech. The US has a law protecting free speech, which we don't have. So legally in the US you are free to say things which would be criminalised here.

Does that make us better or worse? Should we criminalise words? Hate speech for instance, some people think saying men can never become women is hate speech. When that's actual factual reality. People have been visited by the police for saying words which reflect reality. You say there are good reasons for these laws, but I'm not sure.

But back to Charlie Kirk, he had a legal right to say everything he said, in the US. Words which are hurtful or upsetting to others are legal there.

I don't think anyone said that he 'shouted people down' did they? They said that he demeaned, humiliated, interrupted people, etc. There's loads of examples of him doing this.

Very true. It so often descends in to a competition over who can say the ‘cleverest’ most demeaning thing to the person they’re debating with

This is exactly it. And because of this the ultimate goal is to prove the other person wrong, and humiliate them for being so stupid when this is done. Which of course creates incentives for people to never want to admit when they do get things wrong - which of course we all do. And with that comes the reluctance to change our mind, and to double down on what we've said, even when we can see that maybe someone else has a stronger argument, or new information comes to light. Actually we should be rewarding people when they admit they are wrong or change their minds, because these are really important, pro-social characteristics of a person, and they are also indicators of intelligence and flexible thinking.

Emotional abuse is another really good example of how words can be dangerous, I agree.

On the previous thread, my stance was that the murderer was more dangerous than the murdered because one used words and the other used bullets. But I agree, the wrong words can be very dangerous indeed.

Of course words can be dangerous. They can incite violence. It really is not a hard thing to comprehend.

By that logic, emotional abuse doesn’t exist because it’s ’just words’. You do not get to dictate the impact of words on the recipient.

No.
I’d hang for my child.
There’s no way they’d get their hands on my kid whilst I had breath in my body frankly

But you can use actual evidence to support your claims.
You should be able to go on the internet and find clips (if need be) of him shouting down those that he was debating.

Having looked through many clips/reels and full videos I have not seen him do this, even when provoked by students and others including an old man that offered to fight him their and then.

Very true. It so often descends in to a competition over who can say the ‘cleverest’ most demeaning thing to the person they’re debating with. The prequel to this thread was a prime example of that with people making snarky comments like “perhaps you should see your therapist or lie down in a dark room” and it just adds nothing to the discussion or exchange of ideas.

If you enter a debate with the right mind set, that you will either learn something new or become more sure of the opinions you already hold because they have stood up to scrutiny then it’s always a win/win.

For example, on the previous thread I too made the argument that words aren’t dangerous but bullets are and another very respectful poster changed my
mind on that. Words can sometimes be dangerous, especially in a cult setting where people are brainwashed to an extreme amount and then go on to commit violence because of it.

Again, I’m not sure exactly where I draw the line but it may be in a different place to others.

I could quote a lot of other things CK said and did that promoted / justified / rationalised / excused violence. So am I impressed that he said that one basic thing? No.