Moira Deeming defamation trial - Thread 2 from Australia

[TheSandgroper]

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on?page=40&reply=138525746

Tribunal Tweets Substack https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/moira-deeming-v-john-pesutto-a-case?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share. Thanks to @BezMills

Thanks to everyone on thread 1. I am pleased it generated such interest and conversations. I have learnt a lot from many very bright women.

That's a great rule to live by @timenowplease

In normal circumstances I would agree but this isn't that.

This is a particular tactic called flooding the zone. If someone makes a post with a dodgy link and that post is ignored then nothing comes of it. It just gets lost.

If suddenly you make a big song and dance of the post, as is happening here, then you are creating thousands of posts, hundreds of threads, giving the poster the opportunity to repeat the misinformation thousands of times, thereby flooding the zone. That's worse than ignoring. You've helped create a whole narrative. No smoke without fire and all that.

I suspect that some posters will repeat the misinformation anyway. At any opportunity. With or without interaction. So I guess we will disagree here.

That makes so much sense, timenowplease. Really helpful analysis.

Well I aspire, but fall short unfortunately.

Lord give me patience 🙏

Where is that quote from, timenowplease?

Mark Twain maybe, but I've also heard another version which I think is Chinese or Taoist or something which is 'When you argue with a fool, two fools argue"

Thanks for that I'd not heard the phrase before, it's spot on.

Then they will be shouting into the Void.

I have huge admiration for you and the other stalwarts of this board. Honestly, you deserve a medal. I don't know how you do it. Seriously.

But it can't hurt to try another tactic. I just think if you're constantly having to defend against something then you're always on the back foot. Taking control of the narrative is the only way to defeat this-in the micro and macro.

Ah, thanks. I'm also reminded of this one:
"Don't argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
There are probably quite a lot of sayings on that theme!

Anyway, thanks again. I characterised it as attention-seeking or obsessive behaviour but now I see it for what it is.

Anyway, thanks again. I characterised it as attention-seeking or obsessive behaviour but now I see it for what it is.

Oh, that too, for sure.

@Helleofabore

I understand. But I tend to disagree. Because people are reading along. There are still people who don’t have the depth of knowledge that you and I and others do. I tend to be a bit optimistic here, I will take that on the chin.

I think if we don’t counter misinformation such as some links posted that have done no research or are pure opinion works, that misinformation will keep reappearing unchallenged. I know that is different from other’s views, but I reckon it is ok to disagree on this.

OMG, the self-importance of this! What gives you such confidence you and others are completely correct all the time and the person you are talking about is disseminating misinformation?

Crysanthou is slicing and dicing Rodrigo Pintos-Lopez. Judge is assisting her. This guy is the one who decided to take Angie Jones’ tweet out of context and run with it. He decided that Jones didn’t mean paedophiles and actually meant transgender. The crap coming out of his mouth left Deeming literally open mouthed, seemingly in disbelief or maybe outrage. Judge was confused as to how Pintos-Lopez could decide that he knew better than Jones herself what her tweet meant. He’s an arrogant fucker who likes to play with the meanings of words to twist them to his own purposes. He’s the one who compiled the dossier with the incomplete Pink News article, the out of context tweet, etc.

If anyone is able to watch the livestream before it ends, watch this part. It’s about 1hr 45mins after the start, for 10-15mins.

One witness left once Crysanthou finishes destroying this guy.

They went over time into the lunch break and finished with Pintos-Lopez. He was a malicious, weaponised fuckwomble. Twitter is full of the best quotes from him. Search DeemingvPesutto.

One to go. Nick Johnson, head of media and communications.

Good, thanks @FeralWoman

The topic of the thread is "did the Victorian ALP leader make baseless defamatory statements about his (then) colleague". If so, how and why did that occur.
And how short is his subsequent period of leadership going to be, can his fall from grace due to willingly donning clown shoes, perhaps provide schadenfreude to the nest of vipers here

His honour was distinctly unimpressed with Rodrigo. HH understood the "nazis and paedos" tweet and also agreed that "adult babies" were paedophiles. He said so.

This is why Moira didn't settle. Because it is total bullshit. All of it.

Why do you dislike Moira so much?

Absolutely. It was a complete stitch up. They wanted rid of her and concocted a plan to sling as much mud as possible at her to get her out, and it’s all come out in court. Their malevolence is obvious.

Thanks Feral. I went back and saw this. His Honour really has understood that Angie Jones tweet.

And His Honour also really does understand that it was in response to a male person who supports and defends the concept of 'adult babies'. And he seems incredulous that the tweet can continue to be twisted any other way.

Cailin66 Because she doesn't like people, especially Christians with sinister agendas, who suggest there are more than just the two paedophile apologists that we have undeniable evidence of, in the university department charged with the creation of a school- based relationship curriculum.

There's only two, ok! Just two paedophile apologists!

Definitely no more than two.

According to her.

The more I read the notes of the feeds over the past couple of weeks and see the very shoddy work of that dossier, I think it is clear to say that the leadership team developed group think and have been spending a large amount of time defending that group think. They then removed significant information from the dossier that would give fuller context that would not support their developed thought before they published the dossier.

HH seems to be very much over the leadership team's reliance on that Angie Jones tweet and their seemingly rather deliberate misrepresentation of it.

And if it’s obvious they misrepresented Jones’s tweet to (falsely) imply associations with Nazis by Jones, and by Deeming as a result, then that’s a pretty good case for Deeming IMO.

She was non-compliant as far as their election strategy was concerned.

This seems to be a team who was not focused on anything except getting elected. And while getting elected is obviously the ultimate goal, in the position of Opposition they do need to be there as a balance point to shape legislation. Which obviously requires more than that election focus.

It is clear that they most certainly did not support freedom of supporting particular issues. Despite all that posturing at the start of that recorded audio which we were assured meant the team full heartedly supported Moira's choice to campaign on prioritising sex over gender identity when it came to the impacts of gender identity on sex based rights. It seemed that all that was said to that effect was a falsity.

ie They didn't support Moira Deeming campaigning for protection of women and children's rights. Some of them because they prioritised gender identity to be equal to sex at all times, some of them because it would lose support of a group they needed strategically. A group they treated as a homogenous one. Or at least, they were only interested in the power group that demanded that gender identity be treated as if that identity was natal sex.