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.

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

Its only because someone forgot to report this post in which I quoted the deleted post…..this one is still there….I’m situ…so can’t say I made it up.

No I really haven’t. It’s adorable you think reading only the thread means you actually know the facts. 🥹

I often use “you” in the plural sense because even though one may have originally said something, usually another has chimed in with agreement or posted substantially the same comment as well. It’s a long thread and so, I don’t see a need to direct my comments to one poster unless I take issue with something only they are doing.

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.

Really.. That was what you got out of all my posts on this thread?

No. I am trying to dissect all the noise and get to the truth of what happened and just what people are dismissing.

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?

This is hilarious, even for you Discovereads.

Yes. I am saying that the sex of this person is actually not clear from the video, and that Jeanna based her assertion on a comment that Jeanna made to this person about breasts.

Yet you have launched in here with ad hom attacks.

And by the way, I have no idea who Jeanna Hoch is. She is NOT a respected figure on 'my 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?

I knew what? I knew that Jeanna Hoch posted that she thought that was a female. I disagree with her, but I can also see that I could be mistaken.

Shall we actually discuss the incident?

Oh, wait... you didn't discuss the actual incident at all.

You know, the one you specifically stated was me:

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

You just moved on to misrepresenting what I said and I asked. While saying:

You’re pretending that a can of silly string looks like a can of pepper spray.

FUCK! Really???? This is your answer?

The only side that has used pepper spray was the SFW side.

No. It has been proven otherwise in video evidence. Oh... and by the way.... by Jeanna Hoch who you in the previous answer were so very clear in saying you found to be a solid witness.

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…..

Strange isn't it? That the police were called over 20 times and said they were not coming. So you can claim, 'only one arrest' was made. So what? Police reports are being filed.

Jeanna, who you quote as being a good witness, is filing reports! There are reports of a 14 year old filing a police report.

There may be only one arrest so far. The investigation is NOT OVER.

And please notice I have not mentioned any phone incident. Have I posted anything about it?

if you have any more incidents of actions (even in self defence) by the women speaking at that event, state that and let's discuss them.

I am breaking this down but by not because I am jumping in and out of meetings.

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.

I see. So you have avoided the clear evidence that the male person with the red or orange logo had pepper spray. despite it being repeated all over this thread. What is that, selective reading?

The men were a security firm. Used for protection after, wait for it,

Portland which was cancelled due to Antifa threats, and women who turned up were assaulted by objects thrown at them. One of those women seem to have been Jeanna from the news report.

Tacoma where a series of incidences were captured on video.

To say I am blind, seems more projection actually. You seem to have willfully ignored some pretty clear evidence or else willfully be misrepresenting the events.

I am confused though. Women have organised events where they can meet each other and talk into a microphone. Yet those women are responsible for the protestors turning up and behaving in violent ways. And thereby contributing to the ‘danger of violence escalating’?

Please correct any error in my restating of your assertions.

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?

Because I asked for clarification on this post:

'Well you know that spit will be spit…and so pepper spraying a girl for seeming to be about to spit on you is a disproportionate reaction. It’s not self defence by any measure.'

I asked you to clarify which incident and you came back with:

"She was no “MALE”. Jeanna Hoch (the woman holding the sign) herself said this girl was seeming to be about to spit on her and confirmed she was female. But apparently a bit of girl spit is enough reason to slam a sign in her face while shoving her backwards, and then duck down and pepper spray as many people as you can in that general direction."

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

So, I can see that your 'sole object was to correct your response to me insisting the person was a man' is clearly misrepresenting or at least a pivot from what was the original intention.

That intention to be clear, is you attempting to project your own dismissal of violence against women onto me.

Or, alternatively, you have objected that I also corrected you that this person is not a 'girl' or a 'boy' but is someone who is over 18.

YOU are now saying:

"You can’t say oh, I was mistaken and thought they were a man when I said that."

Oh. more projection.

"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 I have just explained, in depth, that I believe that Jeanna is incorrect in her assessment of the sex of this person. It seems you are under the impression that I 'must' take on board any feminists perspective of what happened if I look at the same evidence and have a different interpretation.

What a bizarre take?

Even better, you posted this little gem:

"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?"

So.. what is it discovereads?

Are we supposed to be a hive mind which we are constantly being accused of and only think the same thoughts, OR are we allowed to be very individual thinkers who make up our own minds about things and take evidence and assess it for voracity?

Are we supposed to post our interpretation of that analysis of evidence OR are we then just just 'wittering' and are 'demented' for posting any in depth analysis?

And I cannot leave this one alone:

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?

How blind? What, after posting analysis and constantly asking those who are making accusations, most of which are unfounded or twists of reality, makes me 'blinded by my own convictions'? And then again (I know I have pointed this out before), you claim JeannaHoch is a 'respected figure on your side of the debate'?

Who the fuck is JeannaHoch except for a person who has been attacked at the Portland event, and been sprayed in the face, spat at and then attempted to be pepper sprayed again? How is she a 'respected figure on your side of the debate'?

I suspect you are over exaggerating her significance to the overall movement, probably in the US but most certainly internationally just like you exaggerated the 'girl' when it is not clear if the person is male or female and I am probably more in thinking MALE being attacked to try to emphasise the innocence of that person.

All I can see here is more projection. It is ridiculously hypocritical.

The reason they deny it was a woman is because they want to talk about male violence.

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

You posted:

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…..

I have addressed some of this. I will come back and address one pretty fucked up part.

But in the meantime :

So, you have NO answers to my direct questions?

Why?

Hi Antelope,

Any answers to the posts I posted yesterday or today?

The point is that the sex of this person is not really that relevant. The person was larger and much heavier than Jeanna. The person stepped up to Jeanna, not the other way around, and stared directly at her for 4-5 minutes.

The person then spat at Jeanna.

Do you dispute that?

The person looked in my eyes to be about to get physical. This has been disputed. Fine we can disagree.

Do you or do you not dispute the actions of this person, Antelope?

Please tell me what difference then the sex of the person brings to this analysis?

Anyone would think that you have posted this with the intention of trying to dismiss the violence directed towards the women speaking and those supporting them.

Are you? Are you dismissing that violence, Antelope?

Didn't see your posts. I did answer earlier posts where I posted a ton of links.

The teenage girl tried to spit at Jeana, she blocked it with the placard. Jeanna's stance was violent and aggressive.

The teenage girl tried to spit at Jeana, she blocked it with the placard. Jeanna's stance was violent and aggressive.

Kind of glosses over a lot doesn't it?

Here are those questions:

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?

Are acts of violence.

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

(note, on one posting of these, I forgot to add the 'are acts of violence')

@Helleofabore the wouldbe spitter who got the sign in the face, was female? I am surprised but I think their sex is irrelevant, it doesn't change their behaviour. Iirc, that having got right in the face of the SFW women, they'd been screaming, 'you're a nazi' over and over and over. Then they decided to spit, right in the woman's face, who, fortunately, got her sign in the way in time.

Spitting in someone's face is absolutely vile.

It seems the person who crushed April's hand has been reportedly arrested. Apparently they are: Elijah Lane aged 27.

The "teenage girl" who tried to spit on Jeanna.

And I have just explained, in depth, that I believe that Jeanna is incorrect in her assessment of the sex of this person. It seems you are under the impression that I 'must' take on board any feminists perspective of what happened if I look at the same evidence and have a different interpretation.

Bit troubling this from a movement that claims it can always tell what biological sex people were born and seeks to challenge people using single sex spaces who they think don't belong there. Would you have kicked this person out of the ladies loos @Helleofabore

I think she is right. Looks like a teenage girl to me.

The one who said youre a nazi over and over again was a teenage boy standing at the side.

antelope

sorry to interrupt….did you get what you wanted from your ‘am i a feminist’ thread?

id ask on the actual thread but I’m not sure you are coming back

There is confusion about the sex of the person Icake.

Posters on this thread are using this tweet as evidence:

"That was what Yolanda saw as well. She fooled me. I initially thought she was a man, but she got really mad when her then obvious breasts were mentioned. Then I couldn't unsee the effects of testosterone on girls/women."

JeannaHoch 31st October 6.18PM

Having reviewed this person multiple times, I believe differently.

I too think it is irrelevant in the main analysis of the event. We already know that people who said they were females were spitting and other things.

It suits the posters who are actually dismissing the violence that was perpetrated against a group of women who were using a microphone to speak, and who gathered to hear those women and meet each other.

Even when you pare it right down to the stark facts, they refuse to answer.

Apart from the self defence actions taken by JeannaHoch, and I agree that those should be reviewed by the police, I have seen NO evidence that any other woman in that group have attacked any other person. Rumour and accusation? yes, from ONE person.

Whereas it has been very obvious that not one of the posters who have doubled down on 'the women were attacking', has even acknowledged the reality.

That a group of people arrived to protest a women's open air meeting. They were intimidating and behaved as a mob. They would not stand back from the group. They spat. They assaulted. They were not peaceful in their protest. They also then continued the intimidation and followed the women as they left the area.

Oh hello!!

Care to answer the direct questions on the previous pages?

or just going to ignore them and keep dismissing violence against women.

Why livvy, if this person is a male and respects female's needs for single sex spaces, why on earth would I need to 'kick' them out?

Are you saying this person cannot be trusted to respect females and their needs?

Do YOU respect females and their needs, Livvy?

At least we have moved on from calling this particular spitter a 'child' and attempting to use that as emotional manipulation to distract from their actions.

That is a start.

Why livvy, if this person is a male and respects female's needs for single sex spaces, why on earth would I need to 'kick' them out?

But you don't know if they are male. To me it looks like a teenage girl, or maybe a trans boy or non binary person, I was confused intitially when people talked about a man spitting, I thought they must be talking about someone else, or had suddenly decided to gender a possible trans boy correctly.

Another poster treating the regular posters on this board as a gestalt entity