Matt Walsh asks trans activist 'what is a woman'..

What the person as a whole is like, is important when listening. To understand where likely coming from. Biases.

And again, everyone is aware of this. Why do you think we wouldn’t be?

It's very naive to believe everything you're told, and when it's someone who is active in politics and messaging etc. Extremely naive

And has been pointed out to you, we are not naive, we know exactly who he is and what his background is and people still think what he said was right.

Do you, or do you not?

This thread then was posted (on UK board), saying wow look at this bloke (no mention of anything about him and not widely known in UK) he is brilliant on this!

And? Is he or is he not? On this? This alone?

The expectation then was that rather than reading the OP from which obv doesn't give view clue about his general outlook. That those who didn't know who was, would Google?

And then what? People who didn’t know who he is and then Google him like you did, find out who he is. It doesn’t change anything. Is he right or wrong on this particular issue?

You’re saying that if someone says something, you can’t possibly agree with what they have said until you’ve found out everything else they believe in.

Is he right or wrong to draw attention to the Loudoun rape cases?

Erm.... No. It's more nuanced than that! I thought this stuff was something everyone did!

You can't assume that those who you group together all have the same reasons for doing or thinking things. Life is way more complex than that. Assuming those you put in certain category all clones is easy but lacking.

Define what you mean by tra and happy to give thoughts. What do, individual or org, where share thoughts, how express them. Roughly obv! Vv definitely different ideas of who tra to different people.

Same as I wouldn't on a USA site mention JRM, Nick Ferrari, Emily Maitless (so). Vv unlikely have a clue who are.

You're working on the assumption that all posters who had look vid op and said something positive. Knew he was anti -abortion, anti BLM, a misogynist, thinks Rittenhouse hero etc?

I didn't realise that either. I don't think that's something you can assume tbh.

I mean. Remember on thread here talking about NF in 70s 80s. USA poster didn't know what meant even though they were era and related to thread topic.

'But in your hypothetical example, and in the very real world example of Walsh throughout this thread, no one is ignoring the other views. So nothing strange is happening.'

Ah I didn't realise.

This thread then was posted (on UK board), saying wow look at this bloke (no mention of anything about him and not widely known in UK) he is brilliant on this!

The expectation then was that rather than reading the OP from which obv doesn't give view clue about his general outlook. That those who didn't know who was, would Google?

That's not actually very likely on a chatboard like this surely.

How do you know all the posters knew who he was etc? Threads it's not uncommon to read OP, next post or 2, comment, move on.

You can't assume everyone knows who he is and what his views are, surely?

'On the contrary, you are saying that the person as a whole dictates whether we should listen to anything they say. According to you, if a person isn’t pure enough, we shouldn’t listen to them.'

No you've still not got it.

What the person as a whole is like, is important when listening. To understand where likely coming from. Biases.

To be careful about taking at face value, especially politicians and commentators.

That grabbing attention, keeping/growing audience/support is invariably in play.
That everyone has biases.
Is there something in the background, something that is being glossed over.

Trusting those who need popularity, taking at face value.

Is the opposite of childish (used earlier I assume about me ).

It's very naive to believe everything you're told, and when it's someone who is active in politics and messaging etc. Extremely naive.

Would he go for that? He listens to those who generally hold opposing views?

Would be vv hard to set up.

Thoughts?

Having said that,

What would be vv hard hitting is if he got an old school radical feminist on. One pretty well known been around for years women.

Because. Having two people who on anything else would be at loggerheads. Could on screen say this is outside mainstream political parties etc. It's about all women and girls. We have agreed to discuss amicably the main issues with Gender > sex. Why the risk to women girls is so great that we are prepared to talk about this one topic only. And stick to the risks. As clearly getting into why we personally feel so strongly other than risk, we would obviously completely disagree.

The risks are so clear theres no need for further justification.

And we are doing this to make our point, that this is such a priority for half the population. That the politics need to be set aside. And on this, to forget about coming out on top politically. But win for all women girls no matter who they are.

Not bad do you really not understand that example?

Yes I understand it perfectly.

That approach of ignoring all other views that a person holds, is a very strange approach

But in your hypothetical example, and in the very real world example of Walsh throughout this thread, no one is ignoring the other views. So nothing strange is happening.

No one is ignoring the person as a whole. On the contrary, you are saying that the person as a whole dictates whether we should listen to anything they say. According to you, if a person isn’t pure enough, we shouldn’t listen to them.

All that is being asked is whether that particular view is right or not. Is hypothetical person A/Matt Walsh correct on the environment/Loudoun rape case?

Yes or no?

Dinosaur's post is worth repeating - truth is important and it's terrifying to see so many powerful people openly presenting lies and fiction as the truth.

No longer lol wouldn't work though.

Big part of his rage was because it was a woman challenging him. And not being deferential like women should be!

Not bad do you really not understand that example?

That approach of ignoring all other views that a person holds, is a very strange approach.

Other people are whole people, with a character, perspective on life, and varied range of views.

People also commonly hold seemingly opposing opinions.

Plenty of famous dictators held beliefs, or cared about things that plenty would say. That thing is good. According to the method on this thread, ignoring the person as a whole is the thing to do.

And yet.

When I mention others who share the view that woman is sex not gender ID. No has said well that's great! And stacks of people do, the ones I'm thinking of also agree with MW on other views he holds.

So, which is it? For those who say doesn't matter what other opinions a person holds.

With whatever Matt Walsh is supposedly planning, Posie Parker could use her debate with Harrop as an audition tape. It remains something that gives me great joy.

Tbh in end as I've said for years.

This is not a party political issue at all. Party politics governments etc structures by men for men.

This falls outside political parties, allegiances etc.

It's about women and girls. All of them. All of us.

Would I march alongside any woman, at a protest on this ONE issue? Of course.

Would I say Look at this vid from p Patel everyone!

No of course I bloody wouldn't. Why anyway when plenty vid available done by people who aren't total arseholes.

Simple.

As would have done this chap if not such a peculiar thread!

Who has made it peculiar by posting about Robert Downey Jnr always playing himself?

You have made it very clear Cheese that you can’t comment on his words. There’s no point repeating yourself.

IF she has same bunch beliefs this guy then that will be interesting.

As it is. She does her thing. As with this guy, plenty like plenty hate.

I think nothing to do with me really. Just let them get on with it.

No need for me to react either way.

As would have done this chap if not such a peculiar thread! He's not extreme right. Erm. According to some, obviously!

Drawing equivalent between pp and him is interesting!

I don't know her stance on abortion, homosexual people, black people tbh.

She's never been left. She's never been a feminist. She's always said that.

When on here she used to cause mayhem with some of her views. And when she posted feminism often swiftly devolved into huge row!

She is a woman though and while those fights were vv frequent. I don't remember her views when posting feminism as even hinting at coming from fundamental religious Christian beliefs.

I will check if anyone interested?

Other problem.

Say person A is vv good on environment, but wants non whites out of UK.

Using this method.

I share person A vid.
Tues 9am. Look at this! Fab vid on environment!

10am share different person A vid.
OMG this bloke is a vile racist wtf terrible.

Yes?
Consider each opinion completely separately. Don't think about what character as a whole is.

Taking that approach to logical conclusion would mean some pretty interesting statements...

*they’d, not tenured

The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later...

I agree what a pp said about Matt Walsh’s voice helping, especially when up against a transwoman trying to sound like a natal woman.

Where I think he and Posie Parker are effective is they don’t care about hurting people’s feelings, or appeasement to “sound reasonable”. This is more confronting to people with PP because she looks so traditionally feminine and yet refuses to succumb to female socialisation. PP has accepted that the left has left her so doesn’t try to #bekind and Matt Walsh is a conservative so doesn’t even have to pretend to buy into any of the trans ideology.

I’d love to see them debate together (tenured be on the same side, obvs)

Pro choice! Here oops.

Obv it's him whose anti abortion homosexuality etc etc.

It's not agreement anywhere except on the very very very surface. And agree with them? Them not agreeing with feminist views?

Try telling this bloke he's in massive agreement with feminists and should listen to them. The anti abortion UK lefty style of feminism obv.

Way people in USA this bloke type views, somehow totally different to... Those in other countries with same major beliefs and also v religious is fascinating.

Is it because shared language?

It's a bit... Inconsistent to say this books should talk to but not equivalent in Poland for example.

What's the difference? There's not one. Something against the poles?