Wellknown Cyclist Reports Hate Speech When Victories Challenged

[ArranUpsideDown]

Helen Staniland reports that a cyclist wrote to Veronica Ivy (who acknowledges self to be "better known" as Rachel McKinnon) to express his opinion that VI's recent cycling victories were unfair to the other competitors. VI acknowledges that the email seems polite but is nonetheless hate speech and, as such, has reported it to Safe Sport.

twitter.com/helenstaniland/status/1210921157584736256

For ease of reading, the photo images of the email are:

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1210845345481207809/photo/1

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1210845345481207809/photo/2

Extending Helen's point, how is anyone supposed to be comfortable about discussing issues without retribution? And, in Maya's case the probable loss of income and professional reputation.

I apologise for how badly written the OP is and some of you will understand the need for the circumlocutions.

I picked up a promising reference to Repressive Tolerance from the comments of the thread that contains the photographs of the emails and the essay is worth reading (123 pgs):

THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.
...

Tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of violence, and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the creation of a humane society. Such a society does not yet exist; progress toward it is perhaps more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale. As deterrents against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo-colonial massacres, violence and suppression are promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.

www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html

It reminds me sort of like the westboro Baptist church. Spouting hateful stuff and the minute someone calls them out on it they threaten to sue.

I have just read this on the FB page - Save Women's Sport, and it really makes sense.

"Traffickers know what females are. Rapists know what sex differences are. People who force little girls into marriage understand sex. Female infanticide rates make it pretty clear. But if a woman dares to state that sex is real, people lose their minds and scream "bigot"

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1263457203848298&set=p.1263457203848298&type=3&theater

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7835513/Its-Devil-Tennis-great-Margaret-Court-unleashes-gays-Australian-open.html#article-7835513

Look at what is happening with Margaret Court in Australia at the moment. DM link.

Tennis Australia said the body respects Court's right to express her opinion, but said that came with the obligation not to harm others.
'We understand that there are consequences to our words,' the governing body said in an open letter dated November 30.
'Publicly stated views of intolerance and demeaning language about others can have enormous impact, and are particularly hurtful and harmful to those who believe they are targeted.

They're absolutely right: "TWAW", "fishies", "Enjoy your erasure", "menstruators", "vagina fetishists"...shall I continue?

There is no such thing as complete freedom of speech. Nobody has the absolute right not to be offended, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility for the consequences.

You can stand in the middle of a field and yell "Fire! Fire!", but can you stand in the middle of a crowded theatre and yell "Fire! Fire!"? Do you genuinely have the freedom to do both?

There is no such thing as complete freedom of speech. Nobody has the absolute right not to be offended, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility for the consequences.

You can stand in the middle of a field and yell "Fire! Fire!", but can you stand in the middle of a crowded theatre and yell "Fire! Fire!"? Do you genuinely have the freedom to do both?

Not sure if I’m getting the context or the point being made but consequence doesn’t halt freedom of speech, does it? I can yell “Fire! Fire!” in a theatre because I have the freedom to do so just like I could yell “There’s a bomb on this plane!” or hurl racial insults at somebody because it’s my mouth and I can use it to form words that I want to say** There would be, hopefully, consequences in saying such things but it doesn’t lessen the fact that I can’t say them.

**Not that I want to say myself but you get the idea

If you yell "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded theatre, resulting in a panicked stampede, would you not then be responsible for the consequent broken bones, crushed and asphyxiated people and destruction of property? Particularly if there was no fire.

With freedom comes responsibility. Trans ideologists claim complete freedom, with no responsibility for the consequences. But want trans ideologists actually want - as proven by their actions - is complete freedom for themselves, coupled with control over others.

@JellySlice I think we’re on the same page but I got your original post mixed up.

Yes, you can say anything and I agree freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

With the trans and many other issues, things are shut down with “You can’t say that”, but yes, people can say that and people can say whatever they like, really. There may be a fallout, there may be consequences and there may even be incarceration but people can still say what they like, that’s the freedom. But with trans ideology there seems to be something where calling people ‘cis’ despite being told numerous times by a person they don’t like to be called that is fine but as soon as you ‘deadname’ or go against the transgrain is like a murder has been committed or at the very least, “literal violence”.

Firstly, Big Ron has assumed Michael’s gender and pronouns, I doubt very much Big Ron wrote to Michael asking “when I report you for hate speech, what pronouns should I use for you?” So it seems it’s ok for Big Ron to make some assumptions and referrals to a person based on their appearance in a photo (from snooping on Facebook it seems), but it’s hate speech if it’s the other way round apparently .
If Michael had any sense he would come out as non-binary and counter-report Lovely Veronica for “misgendering”.

Second, Big Ron has inferred that letter to be hate speech because Big Ron sees hate speech in any criticism of their actions. Others would infer that letter to be an accurate representation of events occurred. So by saying it IS hate speech is a bit of a stretch. That’s just an opinion. In your opinion it’s hate speech, Ronnie. It doesn’t make it so.

Next, there’s the part where “alludes to me cheating”. So it’s hate speech to compare various different ways of gaining an advantage? Michael never says Ronnie is a cheat or broke the rules.

Finally, the utter narcissism of it: “this is me, this how famous I am, here are links, I’m an important Canadian”. Clearly Ronnie thinks that this only matters because of how important they are, not because of the actual letter.

Pathetic, basically.

Why has RM become VI? Is that not a bit strange, to completely change your name? (Again)

Just for the record here is how The Melbourne Age has categorised Margaret Court's views.

Why has RM become VI? Is that not a bit strange, to completely change your name? (Again)

Best guess is that RM wants to hide past activity. There have been a lot of criminals using transgender identity to disguise previous accounts of their criminal behaviour. Not saying that RM is a criminal, obviously.

Makes sense if you are trying to lie low and live anonymously and not be known for your former glories - but you shouldn't then be linking the names for others, and you can't talk about what you "achieved" before in the old name, surely!

I suppose that outsized person has a bit of assistance from business sponsors.

How do they feel about this super advert for their products suddenly changing name, again?

Well, you know, VeRonikA is right. VeroNiKa is racing according to the rules.

Pointless debating the issue with the cyclist, who is clearly very happy with the success the cyclist is having in women's sport.

It's the rules that need changing.