Kicked out of club for wearing LGB Alliance Tshirt

Anyone who says that someone got what they deserved in being thrown out of a club for wearing a pro-LGB T shirt shows that they have zero respect for LGB people's right to campaign for their own rights.

Football fanaticism is no more a protected characteristic in law than gender identity is.

People have more issues with vegans than they do with trans people.

I have no issue with either group.

I wonder what results a venn diagram would show between the two sets? And would the overlapping group pose even more difficulties for the people who have 'issues'?

I'm not sure which vegan hating pro trans people you're referring to. Have you done a survey?

People have more issues with vegans than they do with trans people.

That might be what is happening, but is it required to happen, and more importantly, is your average person even aware it’s happening?

The "average person" is rolling their eyes at all of this shit. They're not taking the TRA side,

My god, I know transactivists hate feminists, but I’m surprised they’re openly abusive to LGB people too. Well, that’s me and most of my friends out of favour! Luckily we’re getting less and less keen on them.

Yes, I agree with you to some extent. The demand for purity, to me, though represents a problem with the “left” having moved away from materialist politics toward idealism — the belief that words create reality, which is why words must be so heavily policed.

Though I still think the dichotomy and labeling in your diagram is overly-simplistic and doesn’t capture certain nuances, similar to another American framing where liberals are the Caring Mum party and conservatives are the Disciplinary Dad.

Because Disciplinary Dad isn’t disciplinary at all when it comes to markets, and Caring Mum has a LOT of limitations on how far and to whom that care extends.

I don’t know about suffering when Johnson won a large majority.

Both left and right are suffering from the problem of ideological purity in the UK...

This sort of diagram, Bickering

There’s something going wrong on the political left, we’ve seen it with the Labour Party and Corbynism. Seeing Angela Rayner get ripped to shreds on twitter for saying she found Sure Start useful was educational. Similar to anyone talking about issues with antisemitism. There’s a demand for purity of thinking rather than a broad church of opinion.

Which “left” are you talking about, noble? Feminists are OF THE LEFT.

As for your security-tolerance dichotomy, that’s a very simplistic line of analysis.

Part of radical feminist analysis is recognising and fighting against the means by which males as a class control and exploit females as a class — class analysis being leftist analysis — and that is by looking at how male violence functions to ensure female subjugation specifically and the need, in order for liberation to progress, for women and children to be protected from that violence. The RADICAL position there is NOT tolerance of violence.

What you’re really talking about the so-called left now being infused with neoliberal and postmodern beliefs in individualism above everything, so that individuals be free to do whatever the hell they please regardlesss of effects on community, including the community of women, and most particularly to pursue individual profit within a neoliberal marketplace where individuals are their own corporate brands. THAT is what you’re calling “tolerance.”

NONE of this is leftist. At all. In fact, it was born in reaction to leftist politics.

What do you think leftists have been fighting for, over the past 200 years, besides the needs of the people to be secure in their provisions for themselves and their families via taking control over those means by which such provision is made?

Where the hell do you place the labour movement — striking miners, say — on your tolerance-security dichotomy? On the RIGHT, for demanding job security?

And since we are quoting the inimitable Professor Karl Raimond Popper, let's quote him in full and consider his words:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

Equality act is part of the wider manifesto to ditch the HRA and workers rights.

Rights are seen as a barrier to 'common sense' in general because they are 'big state'.

The current tory government is far more about 'small state', the removal of beaucracy and beaucrats.

His incoherent rambling reveal enough.

Tolerance is knowing when to roll your eyes and walk away and knowing when to say 'hang on a minute' it's not as simple. Whilst always maintaining reason and proportionality.

When critical thought disappears so does tolerance. One relies on the other.

Dominic Cummings had a plan and has one now.

I’ve read a lot of Cummings ramblings, but I’ve never read him mention the Equality Act. Have you got any specifics, given that he publishes all his plans in tedious depth?

but I don’t see rape and death threats to women as an example of the paradox of tolerance

I was talking about the young woman kicked out of the nightclub tbh. And intolerance of opinions.

Rape and death threats aren’t just a feature of this debate, unfortunately. I don’t think they’re all coming from the left either.

Nope. The modern left are not tolerant. They are identity fixated authoritarian zealots. That is one reason the Labour party were decimated in the last election. The paradigm has shifted. Whilst Twitter is struggling to process the results

Hmmm

Well The last election followed the model of the Trump election.

And Dominic Cummings is on record as saying he would relish a referendum on leaving the ECHR and thinks he'd win because there is a growing backlash against political correctness.

There was a definite strategy of being offensive about certain things, because whilst it horrified one group it played well with the target voters. He knew how to motivate certain groups.

Cummings has also written at length some of his objectives and ambitions. He wasn't taken seriously by people who disagree with him because of his unorthodoxthy.

Personally I don't like him and whilst I think he has a point on certain issues, I disagree with his aims and the way he thinks he can go about it.

But to say he hasn't got a plan might be stretching it. He gets how to manipulate more than most.

If we change the word feminists for women, it's even more enlightening.

Not really, it’s the standard response of the left to that sort of argument. Right wingers have been used to it for years. Remember Rotherham was kept quiet because the police didn’t want to be accused of racism? Think about concerns about immigration. Security versus tolerance.

YY, Bovary — and then add in the words “security arguments regarding children.”

It would certainly seem Dominic Cummings had a plan and has one now.

As for tolerance vs. intolerance — maybe it’s me, but I don’t see rape and death threats to women as an example of the paradox of tolerance. I don’t see beating a 60-year old woman to the ground or making a bomb threat to a group of women gathering to discuss women’s rights, or blockading them in in a stairwell or lunging at Julie Bindel an example of the paradox of tolerance.

It sure looks a hell of a lot like something else to me, something that has NOTHING to do with tolerance and everything to do with enforcement of rigid ideology that insists people adhere to a lie, the falsity of which they perceive with their very own eyes.

The left value tolerance, the right value security.

A vocal faction of the left don't value tolerance at all. They are authoritarian zealots.

Feminists have been making security arguments and have been surprised to be called bigots and phobes. LGB Alliance are doing the same

If we change the word feminists for women, it's even more enlightening.

By the same token it serves the Conservatives to allow the woke brigade to carry on with their demands - and look nuts in doing so. And then act when it suits to 'rein it in' and to provoke a full on revolt against the Equality Act.

You appear to be crediting the Conservatives with a plan. Also, why would the Conservatives want to revoke the Equality Act? They brought in gay marriage, they seemed to be headed towards the GRA when it looked like an easy win. And for all Johnson’s talk of bum boys, I think he is towards the liberal side of the party.

The idea that the left is more tolerant is part of the 'liberal identity' PR. But its actually bullshit in practice.

Or per Popper’s Paradox of Intolerance, they think that in order to preserve their tolerant society, they have to boot out intolerance, with LGBnotT being seen as intolerant.