AIBU to want vegan alternatives to Flora?

[testing987654321]

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

Anyway, whether sales decrease depends on whether the majority of posters on this site have an issue with Flora following this. I doubt that they do. It will be interesting to see though

Exactly, not all mums are going to say "no more Flora"

Imagine hating trans people this much. Mortifying. I hope one day you look back at your past self and realise what a wanker you were.

This must be some of that respectful civil discussion we are told we should aspire to.

This must be some of that respectful civil discussion we are told we should aspire to

That's one lone poster.
Not all piling on and trying to discredit posters and accuse of being abusers/TRA etc as described upthread by someone as to what is meant by "respectful civil discussion"

That's one lone poster. Who has been deleted and no doubt that deletion will be spun as evidence of MN being transphobic, because you know every deleted post is always deleted because they are transphobic.

It's always piling on isn't, never just a case of a number of different posters disagreeing with you, which -shock, horror- can be found on any number of threads most notably in AIBU.

Aldi own brand.

Nobody's said every deleted post is because they're transphobic, of course they aren't always - personal attacks get deleted as well

Olivio spead

First it was trans fats, now it's trans people. What next?!

'FLORA BLAMED FOR GREASY WHEELS IN TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY TRAGEDY'

Righto Wotcha and yet posters use the deleted posts argument as gold plated proof that MN is transphobic to it's core, you can't have it both ways.

It's always piling on isn't, never just a case of a number of different posters disagreeing with you, which -shock, horror- can be found on any number of threads most notably in AIBU.

They don't just disagree though. There is often an attempt to discredit and a fair amount of nastiness/bullying towards anyone who is sympathetic towards people who are transgender. The posts are usually deleted (before you ask me to provide evidence lol), but people have time to read them first and hardly surprising that many don't bother posting again.

Discrediting transgender ideology is not nasty or bullying nor does it mean a lack of sympathy towards people who are transgender.

Insisting that the rights of women are upheld is not being unsympathetic to transgender people.

Discrediting transgender ideology is not nasty or bullying nor does it mean a lack of sympathy towards people who are transgender.

Where did I say that discrediting transgender ideology is nasty or bullying? If that was all they were doing they wouldn't get deleted.

Sesame perhaps you can explain why you decided the boycott was instigated by woke cookie scoffing bellends who object to biological reality rather than by people who have a problem with the handling of trans issues and discussions on this site.

These two groups are by no means mutually exclusive.

think it was the mother of someone who is transgender who made the complaint,

AIBU to do a bit of due diligence into this person?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR232MZM02veHU7jlaBaJgv9L7yU5P9IMeJmQfvUX0f56OGVH2iIOzeMN7M&v=UmeNdlL_xqY

Perhaps is was Birdseye then. Speaking of which- have their sales dropped since April?

Birdseye's contract naturally ended, as is quite common in the corporate world I believe. They didn't cancel it.

Yes, Helen Islan as well as being the usual logic failure handmaiden is also a nasty piece of work. Worth a google for anyone who hasn't heard of her.

SesameOil
Your post suggested otherwise fascicle. You conflated a particular attitude, an objectively bad one, with being supportive of trans people and their supporters. As well as being factually incorrect it's also offensive. I expect you meant well when you did it and thought you were acting in support of trans people, but it's still highly problematic. However much tone policing you might try and throw in there to justify it. If it isn't an accurate representation of your beliefs, the onus is on you to retract your remark.

There is something rather unpleasant about your persistence in misinterpreting/misrepresenting my opinion, which based on the scant evidence you have now supplied, was not inaccurate. There was no conflation or suggestion in anything that I've said that could reasonably suggest I believe that all trans people hold the same view. It is nonsense to suggest I should retract a comment simply because you choose to extrapolate from it, even when corrected, something that isn't there.

In terms of woke cookie scoffing biology objecting bellends, Helen Islan appears to be the particular example to whom they've capitulated on this specific occasion, but there are others like her.

Still no explanation/basis/link for your comment as a whole, just the tentative volunteering of one person's name who you say appears to be the particular example...on this specific occasion. For somebody who has repeatedly emphasised the importance of backing up claims, this is a weak and vague response – certainly not what you ask of other posters. Where is the source document on which you based your derogatory comment and where is the information about the complaints Upfield received and based their decision on?

If your comment was actually a piece of hyperbole based on one person who appears to be the particular example... then there seems to be a real issue with the level of care which you have applied to your own use of words as well as the level of care you apply to the interpretation of my words. Perhaps the problem you have with my assessment of your woke cookie scoffing bellends who object to biological reality comment lies more with your knowledge of your dubious basis for it.

Goodness how very precious.

It's not unpleasant, merely inconvenient to you fascicle. Your words are your words. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you're possibly not lying and actually meant something different to what you posted. But if you choose not to retract it, then, well, there's still a post of yours on here attributing some rather negative and offensive things to trans people and their allies.

Helen Islan: no, it isn't weak and it's laughably pathetic that this was your response. It's a specific example, of precisely the sort that the people claiming MN are full of transphobia usually have very special reasons why they can't provide. If I were like them I'd complain at you having the temerity to disagree with me, but actually I'm perfectly content being right.

A lot of bluster, obfuscation and inaccurate judgments in that post SesameOil. But still no explanation or basis for your comment which makes it difficult to progress the discussion.

Your most recent comments can essentially be summed up as 'how very dare you'. But you're fooling nobody, the reason it's difficult for you to continue the discussion is the corner you've backed yourself into.