Standing for women - Portland rally cancelled over violent threats

[ArabellaScott]

Not quite sure what's happened - seems there were credible threats to women's lives over these protests.

twitter.com/StandingforXX

Now it seems a few women went ahead and met up and were attacked. (Nobody seriously hurt as far as I can tell)

twitter.com/ReduxxMag/status/1585012546766966784

Hoping everyone is safe and well.

You've mixed up two different incidents and two different people here. Maybe you should have read the whole thread carefully before spouting off and patronising otehr people.

I was responding to 'custard pies and silly string'. Now it is spit as well.

How many projectiles coming at you is enough to warrant self defence?

How does one know the contents of said custard pie in the first place, was a recipe card handed over prior to the incident to check ingredients?

Posie really has got to you hasn't she? Again with the Streisand effect for the lurkers. She does this to provoke your and others reactions, you know that don't you?

She was no “MALE”. Jeanna Hoch (the woman holding the sign) herself said this girl was seeming to be about to spit on her

It's quite clear from the video that the large person is about to spit at her, I don't think blocking the disgusting spitting was unreasonable and it really enraged the TRA who then retaliated, and an obvious man in his 30s/40s tried to pepper spray Jeanna but missed, then she pepper sprayed both in self defence and hit them both. Don't attack people if you don't like the response. Pretty sure those two people were both adults but even if not pepper spray is legal self defence in most states.

Goodness it all kicked off here last night didn’t it?

and I think what we learned (among other things) is that in common with a number of posters recently, @Discovereads thinks it’s all one woman posting here. Just because she’s seen something once, it means she can use it as a basis to make sweeping generalisations about everyone posting here

mak sweeping and unprejudiced generalisations about a disparate group of people? Sounds like prejudice and bigotry to me

No. Flagged up by the news publications I read regularly.

I'm sure those are entirely free from bias of any kind.

Whether male or female, that was also an adult over 18. Did you hear them confirm it elsewhere on the video.

The one that at 31.46 steps in to be right up to Jeanna. A larger person stepping up from previous distanced position and staring silently for around four or five minutes at a smaller woman.

Intimidation by the textbook.

Or do you think this is quite ok, discovereads? Like the posters dismissing the cream pie as ‘just good and acceptable protesting’?

Step up deliberately and stare down a smaller woman?

Not intimidation at all?

Then spitting.

Without seeing the person in real life, I am not going to quibble about sex. If it is a female they are on testosterone because they have a five o’clock shadow. JeannaHoch made a tweet about the person having breasts and being upset when someone asked being her basis on deriving sex.

That could just also mean a male who was overweight or on estrogen. On my large screen I have also detected a five o’clock shadow on the side angle of their face in an earlier part of the video which I paused.

Either way that was an adult. And confirmed by their own voice. A larger and much heavier adult.

And I saw the person about to get physical when the board is dropped.

It was was then the pepper spray was sprayed.

And you didn’t then post the rest of that incident. The male to the right of JeannaHoch then pepper sprays her. (35.51 in the video) And Jeanna then sprays that pepper sprayer with the red or orange logo.

There was not just JeannaHoch’s pepper spray being sprayed at that protest.

But yeah, you go on excusing violence to women and girls, go right ahead

So…. are you of the opinion that a woman who was assaulted days before should not have defended herself? She should have stayed passive? After the stepping up and staring intimidation of four or five minutes and then spitting ? She should have not reacted in fright?

Is that what you are saying @Discovereads ? Please be very clear in your answer because you have accused me of excusing violence.

Do you believe that a woman who was assaulted days before, just had something else sprayed, that she wouldn’t have known was silly string until it left the can, at her minutes before, should have a) accepted the spit in the face or failing that b) having blocked the spit attempt with arms going everywhere accepted any physical altercation that was coming?

But yeah, you go on excusing violence to women and girls, go right ahead

And please be very specific where I have ‘excused violence’?

I have also stated repeatedly now, that all the noted violent acts should be thoroughly investigated by the police. Including the spraying of ANY substance.

Shall I say it again: ALL ACTS OF VIOLENCE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED THOROUGHLY REGARDLESS OF WHO DID THAT ACT!

I can see where some actions are self defense. Can you discovereads?

Can you see where actions could be considered self defense?

Or are you under the impression that any action of self defense by the women who were speaking or those in support is to be categorised as ‘violence’ only and… you know… ignore the self defense aspect?

Gosh discovereads, When you break it down, I don’t seem to trying any “automatic, deny and reverse with random accusation tactic”. And certainly not “excusing violence to women and girls”.

That would seem to be projection from you.

I am seeking an honest dissection of what happened.

Yet, all we seem to have on this thread is empty accusations and the dismissal of not just the obvious violence perpetrated by the extreme trans activists (and again I note that certainly not all would be trans people!) but the mob mentality and sustained intimidation.

And by that, I will point out yet again that mobbing is intimidation, and then that mob following women who are clearly leaving the area is most definitely intimidation.

Do you agree discovereads that

a) Spraying anything directly at the face of a person, when it is not self defense, is a violent act in a protest?

b) Spitting is an act of assault and violent?

c) Stepping directly up to be in the face of someone and prolonged staring is an act of violence?

d) mobbing a smaller group is an act of violence?

e) following a small group of women after they have been clearly scared and have left is a continued act of violence?

Tell us very clearly discovereads, do you or don’t you see these as acts of violence?

Are you satisfied that women should accept these acts passively and ignore them at any time?

And please be very specific why you do not see these as acts of violence and whether you believe women should accept them passively and ignore them.

I am an intelligent and articulate woman, which is why you have a hate boner for me pointing out that Datun has been flinging around silly accusations that don’t have a shred of truth to them.

I didn’t want to address this last night. I was too tired.

This sentence lack consistency throughout.

But ‘hateboner’? What feminist uses that term in relation to another women? Surely this is the language of misogynistic men?

Sounds like something someone on Kiwi Farms might say.

It was certainly bizarre and revealing in this context

I am putting this list up for any of those seeking to dismiss the violence against women here to answer including @MargaritaPie and @SecretTransTwitterEngineer .

Do you agree that

a) Spraying anything directly at the face of a person, when it is not self defense, is a violent act in a protest?

b) Spitting is an act of assault and violent?

c) Stepping directly up to be in the face of someone and prolonged staring is an act of violence?

d) mobbing a smaller group is an act of violence?

e) following a small group of women after they have been clearly scared and have left is a continued act of violence?

Should women should accept these acts passively and ignore them at any time?

Should teenagers be taught that any of these acts are ‘not hurting anyone’ as per the article linked by @livvyposts and @DadJoke ? If so when is this behaviour deemed acceptable towards women when it is not in self defense?

And please be very specific why you do not see these as acts of violence and whether you believe women should accept them passively and ignore them.

Goodness it all kicked off here last night didn’t it?

didnt it 😳

Sometimes i think its best for me personally not to engage, im not as erudite on here as many others ( absolutely fine in real life…but by god im a slow, mispelt typer)

there was a poster here a few months ago where it got to the stage where i was scared to post on the thread AT ALL

But ‘hateboner’? What feminist uses that term in relation to another women? Surely this is the language of misogynistic men?

Indeed, that struck me as well. You should ask @Asdavaluesausage as she is the one that originally said it of me. I merely flung it back at her later on the thread:

Asdavaluesausage · Yesterday 23:32
”I think @Datun its you @Discovereads has a crush on not KJK. I mean how else would they know how many threads you’re on? Seems slightly obsessed bordering on unhinged. If I was guessing, I’d say an MRA with a hateboner for intelligent, articulate women. Hates them cos they ain’t them.”

Her message has since been deleted.

Asdavaluesausage · Yesterday 23:32
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Now, I didnt report her post, but it’s a bit convenient that you’d take issue with me using the exact same word of hateboner that was used against me by one of your compatriots but only after the original usage of it on this thread has been deleted? Hmm? 🐟

You’re not going to get any answers helle

That’s what due diligence is for.

Excellent. That is indeed a weird turn of phrase. Thank you for explaining.

But now that you are up. Could you please go through my list and tell me what you don’t believe is a violent act and why. And if women should be expected to ignore the act or remain passive.

I might.

Although I noticed @MargaritaPie left the thread…. Maybe they will come back and answer.

I like the optimism ☕️

I have to point out though, that Asda’s context of using hateboner does make sense by the way.

This is true

and also having a copy of a deleted post made by somebody else is fucking weird, no?

No Bernard Discover posted the text version of that post at bang on midnight.

Because Discover has not used any of MN's functionality just C&P, it has not been deleted by MNHQ.

Ah, apologies

I’ll just go back to thinking they’re fucking weird for perceiving all the women who post here as one gestalt entity, and for believing that facts and perceptions are interchangeable

Bernard

No worries. To be fair, I often have pages left open too so I can sometimes access deleted posts. 😔 😉

fucking weird for perceiving all the women who post here as one gestalt entity, and for believing that facts and perceptions are interchangeable

yes... dehumanising does this too, doesn't it.

And you didn’t then post the rest of that incident.
My sole object was to correct your response to me insisting the person was a man, when they were not. But you want to make out that I’m oh so terrible for not posting a complete transcript and timeline of some video footage. Why should I? You didn’t when you fired back at me that the person was a man, when they most certainly were not.

But apparently it’s ok that you have been deliberately repeating all through this thread that a key person in the video was a man when they were most definitely were not a man. EVEN AFTER proof was posted on THIS THREAD that the person was a young woman from the very SFW protester who stood mere inches away from her. But you still try and go on about 5 o’clock shadow you think you saw on a big screen, and witter on about well they could be on estrogen…. You’re literally saying a key figure, Jeanna, on your side of the debate who was inches away from this woman is either lying about her being a woman or is extremely stupid because your video analysis skills tell you the person was a man. Do you know how demented that comes across as? How blinded by your own convictions that you cannot see the evidence in front of your nose? Even when it comes from a respected figure on your side of the debate?

You can’t say oh, I was mistaken and thought they were a man when I said that.
You knew, unless you weren’t being wholly truthful when you said you do actually read all the evidence that gets posted by anyone critical of SFW?

And please be very specific where I have ‘excused violence’?
By excusing any all violence against counter protesters by calling them “self defence”. You’re pretending that a can of silly string looks like a can of pepper spray. That’s rather like saying a nerf gun looks like a 9mm handgun. You’ve just tried to elaborately justify the threat of “girl spit” was enough to warrant “self defence” of slamming a sign into a woman’s face while shoving her backwards, then dropping the sign and immediately pepper spraying. The mental gymnastics are quite something to watch.

Erasing the board being slammed in her face and being shoved backwards, but hinting that after this “they were about to get physical” but the fact is THEY DID NOT GET PHYSICAL even after being physically assaulted by Jeanna..and yet they somehow deserved to be pepper sprayed.

The only side that has used pepper spray was the SFW side. The only side that has shown up at “peaceful demonstrations” with loaded guns carried by men ready and willing to use them was the SFW side. You are blind to the ugly threat of violence this represents towards counter protesters and the danger of violence escalating to yet more deaths in the U.S. which is a tinder box compared to the U.K.

Your “all incidents should be reported” disclaimer is just lip service for counter protesters.

Youve also completely ignored that the news reports state that the only person who was arrested at Tacoma was arrested for criminal damage of a phone ( the grabbing and throwing a phone at a female counter protester incident). This same female counter protester that your side has been pretending was mistaken and a dropped phone that got near her face wasn’t really thrown, she just might have thought it was. That’s yet more excusing of violence to women…..

Your “all incidents should be reported” disclaimer is just lip service for counter protesters

but you also want all the incidents reported dont you?