Glinner streaming on Triggernometry this evening

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

On the Triggernometry YouTube channel at 9pm. I like the Triggernomtry fellas and they interview a lot of interesting and erudite people. Last one was Gad Saad and worth your time

I also agree about the Posie interview. There's something about 'rude' women (as in assertive or plain speaking) that gets people's backs up whereas it's far more accepted in men such as Harry Miller.

I'm not saying it's always a conscious reaction but it's how it appeared to me in the interview. It's also why we end up with these viral 'Karen' and 'speak to the manager' memes yet there's no male equivalent.

I can open jars without resorting to tricks. It’s my super power. I am frequently called upon to rescue men with stubborn bottles and jars. Still a woman.

@OvaHere absolutely. Spot on.

The real problem for women isn't free speech.

It's annoying when men call themselves women and say that they should be in our changing rooms and be in women's groups, but that isn't the problem.

The problem is when they do come into womens spaces and groups, and when those with power allow it to happen.

Being allowed to say that male people cannot become female doesn't keep girls safe in schools if nobody is listening to what women are saying.

Freedom to say what is then ignored.

Yes Zut if policy makers were actually responsible and did their due diligence it wouldn't matter anywhere near as much how many men were on Twitter bleating on about ladybrains and imaginary periods.

You may not like someone being a dick but unless you defend their right to be a dick, you will soon find that someone thinks you're being a dick for refusing to accept that "trans women are women".

True and not true. You can accept that by defending people's right to speak the truth you are also defending people's freedom to be a dick, but that doesn't mean a person speaking a truth = deliberately being a dick, just because someone is offended.

Some people enjoy being obnoxious and get a feeling of glee from upsetting others. They are being dicks. Others are actually trying to speak the truth - trying to pursue a quest for knowledge, scientific advance, etc. The fact that some people are so insane as to find science offensive doesn't mean people who pursue science are doing it to be dicks and wind these fragile people up.

I enjoyed the Posie interview, and was surprised when the guys fed India Willoughbey's line back to Posie.
But
PP is perfectly capable of looking after herself. All they were doing was putting an alternative POV. They also gave her the space to dispute it, at length. Why shouldn't they present an alternative POV?
The important thing is that the podcast gave her over an hour to give her thoughts.

In fact, if you speak to young people who subscribe to this nonsense that is exactly what they will tell you "OK OK, maybe trans women aren't literally women but WHY BE A DICK ABOUT IT?

Isn't that the approach you took to Posie re India Willoughby?

Am I misremembering or misinterpreting?

I really think hate speak and hate crime offences should be abolished.

They're deeply illiberal concepts and have no place in the justice system of a liberal democracy.

There is no distinction to be made, that's why we don't make it.

Either there is free speech or there isn't. Any distinction in these areas will be used as a wedge to destroy free speech for your "noble" causes.

This is important to say. As can be seen in the trans debate, making a statement of fact, of biological reality, can be framed as being antagonistic and, astonishingly, can get the police set onto you to threaten you to stay within compelled speech specified by people who are aggressive, insist on imposing a bizarre unreality, and seem to have a particular hatred of women standing up for themselves.

These days even facts can be declared hate speech. Therefore, to accept "no antagonistic statements" in this debate is asking to be silenced.

Isn't that the approach you took to Posie re India Willoughby?

Am I misremembering or misinterpreting?

That's how I remember and interpreted it.

Part of my argument was "what if one day something you believe is classed as wrong?". As a "right on" lefty, I never thought I would have views considered ban-able, but here we are.

Same here.

In fact, if you speak to young people who subscribe to this nonsense that is exactly what they will tell you "OK OK, maybe trans women aren't literally women but WHY BE A DICK ABOUT IT?

Isn't that the approach you took to Posie re India Willoughby?

Yes. Exactly that.

Back in the 1970s, an early example of "no-platforming" happened when a group of (probably left-wing and I am sure admirable in many ways) students and their friends decided to prevent Hans Eysenck from speaking at a small and specialised meeting for one department of a university, at which he was to discuss psychology -- not, as far as I remember, the work on genetics and intelligence for which he was at the time being unpersoned. (It was pretty offensive, and I think misguided because it depended on a faulty premise, but that isn't the point.)

Their means for no-platforming involved physical attacks on him
and people standing near him using heavy sticks. I think on this occasion he was taken to a hospital for treatment of a head-wound.

There are ways and ways of disagreeing with somebody's views, and some of them are clearly wrong.

I shall leave that where it is and not wonder openly who at present openly advocates violence and who does not. But there is always terfisaslur.com/ in case of doubt.

@Triggerpod

Have you invited the person who made you edit the video on? I think that could be a fun interview!

"Isn't this the approach you took with Posie?"

No. We gave her more than an hour on a sizeable media platform to say her piece.

We didn't say "you're being a dick therefore you're being hateful therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak".

Huge difference.

I just remember one of the trigger hosts going on about politeness and consideration being important in regard to using pronouns. Which isn't exactly "why be a dick about it?" but it comes close.

And it's a reasonable thing to feel, but it only works when you're dealing with reasonable people (it's how most of us felt 20 years ago maybe. I would have referred to a male transexual as "she" within their hearing so as not to upset them, but now I'd feel compromised if I did that. I don't want to upset nice trans people, but I also want to be true to myself, I'm not going to prioritise their feelings over my right to name reality anymore).

However yeah, point taken, it's nothing like calling for her to be no platformed for prioritising truth and clarity over consideration and politeness.

I think we really need to explore what free speech means and why it's important. And alongside that get used to the idea that it's fine to challenge people's views.

It doesn't matter if the trigger guys disagree with Posie, the point is surely to test her ideas. Ideas are strengthened when thoroughly tested.

The "no debate" advocates have followed a policy of "don't question because booboo will get upset". As soon as debate is allowed their arguments fall to pieces. No debate isn't good for anyone.

I just remember one of the trigger hosts going on about politeness and consideration being important in regard to using pronouns. Which isn't exactly "why be a dick about it?" but it comes close.

This idea is a live part of the topic of trans rights, though, and how to talk about them, so in a way an interview on the topic needs to address it. In a way it might have been worse not to ask - it gave POsie a good opportunity to address just that question.

I agree that there can be no distinction about free speech in law.

In terms of personal oughts, that's a little different. People who are being offensive mainly to get a thrill and are being dicks ought not to behave that way. It's a kind of bullying in a lot of cases, and that fact that it's legal doesn't make it right.

That being said, it's been my observation that the sort of people who are most likely to speak out about unpopular things that need to be said are also people that an be difficult and seem needlessly offensive. And even enjoy being offensive.

I thought the Posie interview was great. The guys gave her plenty of space to say and explain her piece. It was powerful. Ovaries of steel.

As other posters have said - please get Adrian Harrop, Owen Jones et al - would love to watch. Free speech going down the toilet with them.

We didn't say "you're being a dick therefore you're being hateful therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak".

I've got to say that I think you are/were wrong on that aspect of this issue and was exasperated by your view and rolling my eyes at some of the things you said, but I don't think Posie came off badly at all, and I completely respect that you had a different view and wanted to challenge. I think it's good to do so. I don't have to agree with everything you say to appreciate your commitment to free speech and your open approach to discussion.

I would also love to see a proper #nodebate transactivist come on, but I think that's unlikely!

God I'd love to see Little Owen on there.

But he wouldn't.