AIBU to want vegan alternatives to Flora?

[testing987654321]

Just that really. Apparently they don't want my custom.

It demonstrates that you're not willing to back up your claims unless you feel confident you're going to be agreed with woodchuck. The only acceptable response is an echo chamber. Good to have that clarified.

It demonstrates that you're not willing to back up your claims unless you feel confident you're going to be agreed with woodchuck. The only acceptable response is an echo chamber. Good to have that clarified.

What is the point in spending hours backing up the claims if they are never going to be agreed with anyway though? People don't have to prove to you that there are transphobic comments on here.

We use pure for baking and Vitalite for sandwiches etc. Both reasonably priced and easily found.

If you're going to throw around vague accusations of transphobia it really is on you to show some evidence.

I can't see the point of spending hours repeatedly posting about why you won't do so.

I can't see the point of spending hours repeatedly posting about why you won't do so.

I have given reasons -I have done in the past and people have argued that the comments are not transphobic or that their comments have been taken out of context. Many comments also get deleted so can't be shown in evidence either. So really it is a pretty pointless and I said, people don't have to prove anything to you in order to decide that comments have an anti transgender sentiment.

To repeat my earlier post no one should be buying Flora, the manufacturers may be trying to gain woke points with their cynical tweet, but the fact remains they are complicit in the destruction of environments we depend on for our survival.

To be honest, anyone claiming to be vegan who has been buying it is on dubious ground too.

When will women learn? You cannot placate the implacable. Your attempts to balance an unreasonable demand for total submission with the demands of free speech and truth, will only result in closing down women's speech and still being punished by men who run corporations, for allowing us to speak at all.

You don't speak for all women so stop trying to turn this into a women versus men argument.

A) I don't claim to speak for all women
B) Stop imputing something stupid to me. This isn't a woman versus men argument, it's people who are willing to use their critical faculties and be thoughtful and brave and truthful, vs people who can't really be arsed or are scared, or are prepared to go along with lies for a quiet life or for profit or for political gain or for some other purpose.

^So you want to be unpleasant about trans people @ScreamingBeans?

The reason it's different to Brexit or political threads, is that political views are not a protected characteristic. Being trans is.^

Not particularly, though I'm happy to be unpleasant about trans people whom I think are unpleasant, just as I am about anyone else I think is unpleasant - I don't think they get a free pass for being trans. I just think it's bizarre that they are handled with kid gloves in a way politicians, slebs etc. are not.

Obviously no-one should be unpleasant about someone just for the sake of being unpleasant. But if you are critiquing someone's behaviour or world view or whatever and you find it lacking in morality or logic or integrity or whatever it is, you are going to be unpleasant about them. I've often been unpleasant about Tony Blair, David Cameron, Donald Trump and that's considered OK on Mumsnet.

Only transwomen are beyond unpleasant criticism and I'm not sure that's on the basis of their protected characteristic because otherwise surely more posts about Diane Abbot would be deleted.

SesameOil
You have decided (even when corrected) that I was commenting solely on your use of biological reality rather than your use of it within the comment as a whole:

Which is why it probably wasn't a good idea for them to end their association with MN in favour of the sort of woke cookie scoffing bellends who object to biological reality.

At a loss as to how your comment does not contain embedded prejudice against/invidious characterisation of people who are either transgender or supportive of those who are.

Pure. Sunflower is much nicer than vitalite ( There was an outcry recently when the manufacturers changed the receipt but they changed it back pretty quickly !)

I didn't know that Pure had changed the recipe back MoreHairyThanScary. Thanks - will start buying it again.

Stop imputing something stupid to me. This isn't a woman versus men argument, it's people who are willing to use their critical faculties and be thoughtful and brave and truthful, vs people who can't really be arsed or are scared, or are prepared to go along with lies for a quiet life or for profit or for political gain or for some other purpose.

So who are the "people who can't really be arsed or are scared, or are prepared to go along with lies for a quiet life or for profit or for political gain or for some other purpose" in your opinion I wonder....

A lot of posters seem to think that margarines are stuffed with hydrog fats; am pretty sure that not a single brand here has hydrog fat in it. Nor have they for last 10+ yrs.

Fascicle. The only reason people are targeting Mumsnet is misogyny. I have seen much much offensive comments on twitter than I have ever read on MN and yet you don't see people calling for a boycott of twitter.

Why do you think that is?

Wonder away Woodchuck.

I think there's a lot of them at the BBC and other media organisations, in parliament, in global corporations, in local authorities, in schools, in the medical profession... the list is endless.

When the feminists who have been doxed, threatened, no-platformed and sacked for standing up for truth and reality and women's and children's rights have at last turned the juggernaut and defeated this sexist, misogynist ideology, all those Mitläufer will come out of the woodwork and declare that they knew all along it was a absurd and they never agreed with it and they were horrified by the extremist tactics of its proponents (not that they'll ever acknowledge just how appalling they are, they'll stick to the "faults on both sides" line, ignoring the fact that those on the side of reality, do not threaten or commit violence to the other side.

At a loss as to how your comment does not contain embedded prejudice against/invidious characterisation of people who are either transgender or supportive of those who are.

Presumably you did not read my reply?

You are the one who is being prejudiced by imagining everyone who is Trans believes that biological reality is a social construct.

Many trans people are just as frustrated as sesame by the way that adhering to Genderist/Butlerian beliefs is being pushed as synonymous with Trans rights.

There is nothing transphobic about discussing biology.

Is Vaseline vegan?

donquixotedelamancha
You are the one who is being prejudiced by imagining everyone who is Trans believes that biological reality is a social construct.

Utter rubbish. Where on earth do you get that from what I have said?

Where on earth do you get that from what I have said?

The comment you claim is transphobic is nothing to do with Trans people per se. It is attacking Genderism as a belief system. The conflation of the two is disingenuous.

Is Vaseline vegan?

Can you eat vaseline? I suppose it wouldn't taste too dissimilar to Flora, but I'll stick to butter.

Again woodchuck people don't have to prove their claims, but they do then have to accept the consequences of that failure/refusal. In terms of a pointlessness analysis, I'd say making wild claims you aren't going to try and back up is up there in the futility stakes, but hey ho.

Fascicle, you being at a loss says a great deal more about you than it does my post. Prejudice against nonsense isn't transphobia. Frankly the potential connotations of your claim are rather transphobic in themselves. I guess I might get my example of transphobia on MN after all...

Again woodchuck people don't have to prove their claims, but they do then have to accept the consequences of that failure/refusal.

There is no consequence of not providing evidence that you would consider proof (if that were possible). You talk as if people need your permission to decide that there are posts on mumsnet that have an anti transgender sentiment or are transphobic.

Yes there is. The consequence is that people are going to say you aren't providing proof because you don't have any. It's happened already in this thread. Also, your second sentence is nonsense. The resentment at being asked to prove what you say is palpable!

There is no consequence of not providing evidence that you would consider proof

Surely this must just be pretending to misunderstand? The consequence is that no-one believes you.

Why bother to repeatedly make an argument, then say 'i have proof but you can't see it'?

You talk as if people need your permission to decide that there are posts on mumsnet that have an anti transgender sentiment or are transphobic.

I'm pretty sure that poster pointed out that with 12m users there are bound to be the odd (genuinely) transphobic comment getting though. I've certainly seen and reported some.

I understood that your point was that there are loads of current threads indicating a persistent, officially tolerated, culture of abuse about trans people?

I did indeed point that out donquixote, you're right.