Harry miller arrested

[chilling19]

twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1jMJgemEeybKL

Of course, it’s sooo hard to follow 🙄. But seeing as it seems difficult:

Apparently it’s antisemitic to claim TRAs act like Nazis. So a question was asked how come it’s so common to call feminists Nazis?

You then asked if Lawrence Fox was a feminist. Why you asked this is a mystery, because in solving the question above it has zero relevance. So it was pointed out to you that it’s like claiming dolphins are fish when people are talking about fish living in the sea, that is, just babbling bullshit.

I don't understand why it's antisemitic to point out the authoritarianism/fascistic tendencies of TRAs?

It’s not, it’s just fashionable to throw as much mud as possible with slurs like that.

I suspect that unless you are willing to claim that a group of 4 progressive flag are a literal Nazis flag and/or that a named individual is a literal Nazis that you will continue to play word logic games.

You then asked if Lawrence Fox was a feminist. Why you asked this is a mystery, because in solving the question above it has zero relevant
I'd have thought because of people saying they're grateful to him, and that he stands up for women (ha, as if 😂 )

I see. So practically speaking, I suppose to implement this local committee approval, I imagine we would be looking for a sort of public gathering - a rally, perhaps - where the offender is re-educated and his hateful and offensive views denounced by his neighbours?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denunciation_rally

Laurence Fox is a femist now?

I don't think he's a feminist per se, but he's established himself as a leading gender critic with all the good work he's been doing lately.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Nancy Kelley Antisemitism comment

Being GC was stated to akin to anti semitism by Stonewall. Why wasn’t Nancy arrested?

But it has no relevance to the discussion as to why it’s ok to call feminists Nazis.

Fish, dolphins..

Was it even being GC, Chaz? I thought it was just lesbians who didn't want to include penis in their dating pool?

Apologies, I have reread:

'However Ms Kelley said while Stonewall believed in freedom of speech, it was "not without limit".

"With all beliefs including controversial beliefs there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging - whether it's antisemitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability - we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that,” she said.'

Nancy Kelley

Harry talks to Glinner about what happened

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-harry-last-night?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Yes I think you are right. I was being too generous to her.

No, no he hasn't. I haven't seen him say a single GC thing.

His concern is free speech in general, which is fine but he could be far less of a dick about it.

I think the overall context was wider in that she was saying if you are excluding people from your dating pool you should examine your prejudices and subsequently made the anti- semitism comments. So same sex is prejudice and GC is like anti-semitism.

When is her non crime hate speech reeducation session due?
NOTE: I profoundly disagree with Nancy Kelley’s statements but offensive comments on both sides are NOT police matters.

This is the remarkable harm. In everyday contexts, this calumny is used for asking a question or expressing a reasonable concern.

Given the number of people who have no sense of what happened during that period of history, debasing the terms in this way is minimising those atrocities that so shocked humanity that we drew up Human Rights legislation and brought in agreements around the human treatment of people and the ethical conduct of clinical trials etc.

Prof Rosa Freedman (starting here) at A Woman's Place is at the Bar Reading, 4th December 2018

Her summary of the history of human rights is the best and most succinct that I've ever seen.

It's appalling. And very dangerous in the context of free speech.

This sort of approach has been around for years for traffic offences. Offer of a lower fine or fewer points if you go on a speed/driving education course. All well and good. Promoting safer driving is uncontroversial and something pretty much everyone would support.

But it really is moving into authoritarian state territory when the potential 'offence' is having an 'offensive' opinion.

I'm glad it's made the main stream press. I hope it causes a huge row.

Harry said said they would downgrade it from a crime to a non-crime, before it even got inside a police station, though.

That's not the same as picking what punishment you want for speeding.

You should follow him on twitter, he's really been fighting hard for women's rights and child safety - he's done three videos with KJK including the excellent 'Groomed' film.

Anti-bepenised-lesbian lesbian's have a special classification of sexual racism.....

As exwhyzed pointed out capitalist market forces come into play, when a income generating business model upgrades the re-education to a profitable jobs for the boys operation.

I agree. Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly. I agree, it's not the same at all. I was just pointing out that I suspect that an existing 'reeducation' approach which has been embedded in the system for years has been extended/adapted from a situation where it's appropriate and acceptable to one where it isn't.

I don’t think comparing anything to nazism is bad, if you are making clear what the comparison is about.

if you are trying to say that something is as bad as the holocaust when it clearly isn’t, then you deserve to be pulled up on that and it’s not a good thing to say.

But comparing authoritarian, ideology-pushing, bullying behaviour, especially by the state and its institutions, to nazism is a political point that it should be OK to make. Especially because, like many horrific totalitarian regimes, nazism started gradually with what appeared to be or were presented as positive, socialist/progressive values. When you see “social justice” tipping over into persecution of wrongthink or of a group with a particular belief, it’s important to be able to point out where that’s led in the past.

How are we meant to learn the lessons of history and avoid repeating them if it’s illegal to say “hang on, this is reminiscent of nazi germany”? If someone says that and is wrong, they can be debated with and their mistake pointed out. It’s called debate.

I see. So practically speaking, I suppose to implement this local committee approval, I imagine we would be looking for a sort of public gathering - a rally, perhaps - where the offender is re-educated and his hateful and offensive views denounced by his neighbours?

Rather like the ones they used to do in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China?

Prof Rosa Freedman (starting here) at A Woman's Place is at the Bar Reading, 4th December 2018

Her summary of the history of human rights is the best and most succinct that I've ever seen.

Excellent - thanks for sharing that video, Embarrassing.