Pretty much, yes

Labour’s Future, Why Labour Lost in 2015 and How it Can Win Again, to be published this week, says the party is losing socially conservative voters to Ukip in droves, while appealing most to metropolitan liberals who tend to be better off and to have been to university.

And metropolitan liberals do not a majority make….

77 thoughts on “Pretty much, yes”

  1. Having effectively destroyed the old working class never mind the manufacturing etc. economy they have left a waste land in social terms. The answers they think they have will not work, much as many in the future will not be working.

  2. No, this isn’t the answer. It’s the one that Cruddas is comfortable with, because he isn’t a Blairite, He isn’t as Tonto Communist Left as Corbyn, but he certainly isn’t on the right of the party.

    I’m not even sure what’s left of social conservatism. We’ve got gay marriage, equal rights for women, basically no racism left. What is there? Banning burqas? You’re going to win elections on that?

    And you really can’t go measuring much based on 4 councillors in Thurrock. Labour won 2 in Swindon and it wasn’t because Corbyn was doing a good job but because of a couple of local matters. UKIP gained less than 10% of Labour’s seats, despite the omnishambles of Corbyn.

  3. The Meissen Bison

    …unless lessons are learned from last year’s general election disaster and this month’s local election results, Labour’s prospects will “remain very poor”.

    The concept of ‘lessons being learned’ has come to mean that those responsible for a failure decline to admit their responsibility.

    As far as Labour goes, the party has travelled so far up a cul-de-sac that there’s no turning round: they might as well just give up and disband.

    Rather oddly, the LibDems have greater potential than Labour for reinventing themselves once they get rid of their current membership and parliamentarians.

  4. Stig,
    “Socially conservative” is code for anti-immigration. At the extremes there’ll be a few people who have strong feelings about gay marriage or sex education in schools, but by-and-large most voters aren’t thinking about that when they cast their votes.

    Local councils don’t have the power to control migration, so it’s possible that UKIP is underrepresented locally compared to their share of the vote in general elections. Strategically it’s a flaw though: without a solid base of experienced local councillors, they struggle to field competent candidates at the general elections.

  5. Destroyed the manufacturing economy?
    So where are we in the world manufacturing tables? 80th? 90th? 120th?
    Germany as I recall had a bigger portion of their economy devoted to manufacturing – how has global slowdown / recession affected their economy?

  6. AM is right. Although accusing the Bremain camp of Project Fear, UKIP feeds on fears of immigration.Problem is since the accession of Poland and the former Soviet states plus the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan to displace the leftist government the huge waves of migration have been set off by anti-Russian American policy.It might be better to strengthen Europe to resist American interference in the way President de Gaulle was banging on about in his time.

  7. “…the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan to displace the leftist government…”

    Leftist government? Do you mean the Soviets?

    In other words, the problem began with armed opposition to an invasion by, er, leftists, not with the invasion by the leftists?

  8. A problem Labour have is tension between needing to keep a client class voting for them to support their continued existence, and wanting to improve the lot of their supporters which will inevitably convert them into non-Labour voters.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    The Stigler – “I’m not even sure what’s left of social conservatism. We’ve got gay marriage, equal rights for women, basically no racism left. What is there? Banning burqas? You’re going to win elections on that?”

    There is no racism from Whites left. Not the same as no racism. What is left? Well, the Left has not stopped. They will push until people have had enough. So now every sexual predator who wants to call himself a woman is entitled to spend time in your daughter’s changing room. And you’re a bigot if you object.

    What is the next step for the socially liberal?

  10. De Gaul didn’t mind a bit of American interference in ’44 though, did he?
    If there’s one thing I detest it’s that reflex anti-Americanism spews out of people like DBC. ” anti-Russian American policy” So the Yanks should be in favour of murdering disaffected members of the public in concentration camps?. Invading any nearby country you take a fancy to & subjugating its population at gunpoint? Supplying arms & support to any group of terrorists wants to overthrow a legitimate government?.
    Sure, the US mayn’t always been as pure as new fallen snow. It’s been operating in a real, complex & very dirty world. Not a fairy tale. But the idea it’s any conceivable threat to Europe’s purest bollox.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    DBC Reed – “Problem is since the accession of Poland and the former Soviet states plus the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan to displace the leftist government the huge waves of migration have been set off by anti-Russian American policy.”

    That is funny because I thought it was Merkel inviting the world, as Blair did before her, that set off the latest round of migration. Civil War does not automatically create refugees. But offering them free stuff does.

  12. The problem for Labour is that its full of the kind of people who see those without an university education as stupid.

    They simply can’t fathom why someone would want to be an electrician, plaster, welder or any other skilled job that didn’t require an university degree, even though many pay fantastically well.

  13. @Martin Davies

    “Destroyed the manufacturing economy?
    So where are we in the world manufacturing tables? 80th? 90th? 120th?”

    8th by output in 2013 and 11th by output per head. Mind you, that last one’s a bit silly as Switzerland tops the per head table.

  14. @DBC “It might be better to strengthen Europe to resist American interference in the way President de Gaulle was banging on about in his time.”

    I can’t remember which American politician de Gaulle was talking too after the war when de Gaulle demanded all US soldiers leave France but the politician did ask “does that include the ones we’ve buried here?”

  15. The Inimitable Steve

    Labour is in danger of becoming “irrelevant to the majority of working people” because the party fails to represent their concerns about immigration, Europe, crime and welfare

    “In danger”? Lol. Too late: the white working classes have already wised up to Labour. They’re in third place in Scotland and losing their grip on Wales. UKIP are hoovering up their former supporters in the north.

    When you despise your own voters, eventually even the window lickers amongst them are gonna get the message.

    At present, the report argues, Labour is “largely a party of progressive, social liberals who value principles such as equality, sustainability, and social justice. It is losing connection

    Labour’s core constituencies are:

    * public sector “workers” (How many people work in the public sector? About half of them.)

    * Guardian-reading SJW manginas and lady-manginas who aren’t yet ready to vote Raving Monster Green Party.

    * Immigrants biding their time till they have enough numbers to launch the Jew-hating Goatfuckers, Murder the Infidels and Peace Party.

    * Confused geriatrics who think Harold Wilson is Prime Minister.

  16. DBC,
    Even if we accept your theory on middle-eastern migration, it doesn’t explain why half of Africa wants to come to Britain too.

    Forget the conspiracy theories or the convoluted explanations, and just apply Occam’s Razor: they’re coming for the money.

  17. ‘social liberals who value principles such as equality, sustainability, and social justice’

    Note the reification fallacy. These things are not tangible, nor even finitely defined. Thinking people would not accept them as justifications. Labour supporters are simply submissive to authority. The politically lazy.

  18. @AndrewC

    That was LBJ’s instruction to Dean Rusk: “Ask him about the cemeteries, Dean!”

  19. The Inimitable Steve,

    And benefit queens

    What it isn’t so much is “the poor”. Wiltshire is a blue county, but really not well off. Calne, Devizes and Trowbridge just aren’t rich places. But what they don’t have is a dependence or expectation of dependence on the state. You aren’t going to be working in some wanky, pretentious modern art gallery or some pointless sockpuppet fake charity.

    On the flip side, South Wales is quite a well-off place, but is basically red. But it depends on the state. All those people doing pointless translation services, the armies of people at DLVA and Patent Office and a symphony orchestra and opera company, like rich people can’t just pay for that themselves.

    The divide is now state-dependant/non-state-dependant.

  20. AM Good point. I read somewhere that the weird workings of Free Trade mean that Africa imports 60% of its food.
    @BiS I am not anti American policy by reflex: I learned most of it from Conservative-minded politicians like Enoch Powell.
    Face facts , mugs: the Yanks liberated the Soviet satellites from the iron heel of Communism then left the EU to sort them out. I don’t see the country of “Give me your poor and huddled masses” doing much in the present situation.

  21. “I’m not even sure what’s left of social conservatism.”

    Depends whether you’re talking about the sort of social conservatism that upholds high moral standards in their own behaviour, or that tries to impose those same moral standards on others.

    The former type I think is as strong as ever. Good people don’t need to be forced to be good.

    “So now every sexual predator who wants to call himself a woman is entitled to spend time in your daughter’s changing room.”

    Every gay sexual predator who wants to call himself a man is entitled to spend time in your son’s changing room. But you’re OK with that. I wonder why?

    Of course, sexual predators are not big on following the rules. Why bother pretending to be anything? It’s not like anyone locks the doors…

    “And you’re a bigot if you object.”

    Yep.

    The argument goes like this:
    I hate group A, but that’s obviously deranged since they’re mostly the innocent victims of violence from people like me, and doing no harm to anyone, so how can I make it sound more reasonable? I know! I’ll point to group B, who might overlap with group A, and who everyone can understand me hating. Then I’ll blur the lines between group A and group B, pretending that tolerating group A is tantamount to supporting group B.

    For example:
    Everyone knows that most sadistic serial killer rapists are cis-gender heterosexual men. So allowing cis-gender heterosexual men into the same building as your teenage daughter is obviously sheer madness. Therefore the Muslim beardies are right about making women wear bags over their heads and segregating the sexes. That’s the same argument, right?

    It’s so obviously self-justifying bigotry that I can’t believe I’m having to spell it out. However, the example does go to show that there’s definitely one major bastion of “social conservatism” left. And that one would be Islamic fundamentalism.

    Ever thought of converting?

  22. The Inimitable Steve

    The Stigler – yarp. Labour is the party of “gimme”.

    NiV – how comes you’re always white knighting for trannies?

    Everyone knows that most sadistic serial killer rapists are cis-gender heterosexual men

    Yarp. It’s one of those “everybody knows” things that happens to be bollocks though. Most are sexual deviants of some kind, like John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hindley & Brady, Beverly Allit and so on.

  23. South Wales isn’t Cardiff

    Although the politicians seem to believe Cardiff is South Wales.

  24. “NiV – how comes you’re always white knighting for trannies?”

    Tim once got asked the same question why he was always speaking up for prostitution. The same answer applies.

    It’s because I’m a libertarian. I support the right of smokers to smoke indoors, although I’m not a smoker. I support the right of gun owners to hold guns, although I don’t own a gun. I support the rights of Jews to be Jewish, although I’m not a Jew. I support the rights of women to do whatever jobs they want, or to wear what they want, although I’m not a woman. I support the right of pornographic cartoonists to sell their wares, although I can’t draw. I support the right of prostitutes to trade, although I’m neither a prostitute nor use them. And so on.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

    “Yarp. It’s one of those “everybody knows” things that happens to be bollocks though. Most are sexual deviants of some kind,”

    Obviously. Rape itself is sexually deviant. If the rules against murdering people don’t apply, then why would the rules against any other behaviour?

    I don’t think there are any reliable statistics, but I’ve heard 86% of serial killers were hetero (lower than proportionate, yes, but still a majority), and over 90% were men. I think pretty much all rapists are hetero, or at least bi, more or less by definition. What’s you’re objection? If you want to pick nits, just pick a different group. It was just a rhetorical example to illustrate the stupid logic of assigning the crimes of group B to group A.

  25. The divide is now state-dependant/non-state-dependant.

    Something like six of the ten wealthiest counties in the US are in the Washington DC area.

  26. ‘“I’m not even sure what’s left of social conservatism.”

    ‘Depends whether you’re talking about the sort of social conservatism that upholds high moral standards in their own behaviour, or that tries to impose those same moral standards on others.

    ‘The former type I think is as strong as ever. Good people don’t need to be forced to be good.’

    Why do you think it’s as strong as ever, NiV? Why would good people bother, now?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/angel-of-woolwich-confronting-lee-rigbys-killers-ruined-my-life/

  27. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The former type I think is as strong as ever. Good people don’t need to be forced to be good.”

    Which is NiVspeak for people you agree with can be allowed to continue to exist.

    “Every gay sexual predator who wants to call himself a man is entitled to spend time in your son’s changing room. But you’re OK with that. I wonder why?”

    What makes you think I am OK with that? We used to get policemen to hang out in toilets specifically to arrest Gay predators therein. If only God or Nature had provided a way of telling who was a Gay predator or not. Something obvious like a sexual organ or a chromosome.

    The number of men who want to use the toilets sleep with women to the point of pretending to be something they are not is likely to be a thousand times greater than the number of Gays who would. There just aren’t that many Gays.

    “Yep.”

    So there you go.

    “I hate group A, but that’s obviously deranged since they’re mostly the innocent victims of violence from people like me, and doing no harm to anyone, so how can I make it sound more reasonable?”

    I had no problems with them when they were not doing any harm to anyone. But now they are. Hence they need to be opposed. J Michael Bailey was not fired and he was not sent to jail but it wasn’t from lack of trying.

    “Everyone knows that most sadistic serial killer rapists are cis-gender heterosexual men.”

    No they are not. Depending on how you want to fiddle over the term “most sadistic”. Serial killers are very often Gay.

    “So allowing cis-gender heterosexual men into the same building as your teenage daughter is obviously sheer madness.”

    In your daughter’s changing room? Yes that is madness.

    “Ever thought of converting?”

    They are looking saner by the day.

  28. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “It’s because I’m a libertarian. I support the right of smokers to smoke indoors, although I’m not a smoker.”

    No it is not because you are libertarian. Otherwise you would not be supporting a massive Federal assault on civil society and everyone elses civil liberties to push your pet boat. By all means support the right of smokers to smoke. But do you support the right of smokers to smoke in your daughter’s changing room? Or do you think that whether or not Target allows men to smoke in your daughter’s toilet ought not to be a issue of Federal regulation?

    But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries

    The irony is that you cannot see you are on the side of the tyrants here as you have both the Government and the oppressive forces of social opprobium on your side. You are, in fact, the problem. But you think you are a hero.

    “Obviously. Rape itself is sexually deviant. If the rules against murdering people don’t apply, then why would the rules against any other behaviour?”

    Like not being Gay? Although people are funny. They may obey the small rules and break the big.

    “I don’t think there are any reliable statistics, but I’ve heard 86% of serial killers were hetero (lower than proportionate, yes, but still a majority), and over 90% were men.”

    So made up bullsh!t internet statistics come to your aid.

  29. Reedy–Your last load of shite is so mixed up it will need translation before demolition

    NiV–Horseshit.

    Yeah some homo who was also a paedo might have a go at a kid in the gents. Which is why most Dads go with their little kids and most women would rather take little kids in the ladies with them if the Father isn’t there.

    Adults know that gays sometimes hang around gents looking for pick-ups. But gays are:

    1-Not that numerous
    2-Not esp violent
    3-Not that big a problem as most hetero men don’t hang about in toilets anyway.

    Allowing every Desperate Dan lookalike to put on a dress and go in the Ladies is an open invite to every assaulter, molester, pervert and rapist to have a go–at a time when the scum of the state is importing a whole new crop of them. Not to mention ordinary thieves/muggers. Snatch her bag while she is on the bog with her knickers round her ankles. If she grabs it and tries to hang on a couple of quick punches and away.

    You are right about one thing tho’. There are lots more hetro predators than homo. Because there are lots more hetros. What a good plan– allowing them to invade toilets and changing rooms.

    Your tripe has nothing to do with Liberty. You are another example of the Reservoir Dogs syndrome– enough Marxist semen has gone up your arse to reach and scramble your brains.

  30. “Otherwise you would not be supporting a massive Federal assault on civil society and everyone elses civil liberties to push your pet boat.”

    ??!

    “By all means support the right of smokers to smoke. But do you support the right of smokers to smoke in your daughter’s changing room?”

    Yes.

    “Or do you think that whether or not Target allows men to smoke in your daughter’s toilet ought not to be a issue of Federal regulation?”

    It shouldn’t.

    “The irony is that you cannot see you are on the side of the tyrants here as you have both the Government and the oppressive forces of social opprobium on your side.”

    Your attribution of irony is ironic!

    You’re welcome to disapprove of trans people using changing rooms you don’t approve of, just as trans-activists are welcome to disapprove of you. But the harm principle disallows either of you doing anything about it. You can’t block the trans from using the changing rooms or beat them up for having done so. They can’t have you fired or prosecuted for complaining.

    The irony is that the SJWs are using the same methods against you that you have for so long got away with using on the trans. I don’t approve of either. But I don’t bother talking to the SJWs about it – they’re beyond reason. You could take it as a compliment that I think I might be able to persuade you.

  31. “Yeah some homo who was also a paedo might have a go at a kid in the gents.”

    That’s crap. Nobody pays any attention to the possibility because the percentage of sexual predators is tiny. It was just SMurFS scaremongering.

    “Snatch her bag while she is on the bog with her knickers round her ankles. If she grabs it and tries to hang on a couple of quick punches and away.”

    I take it you’ve never been in the ladies? They have these things called “cubicles” that prevent that. Idiot.

    “Your tripe has nothing to do with Liberty”

    So says every authoritarian…

  32. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Yes.”

    Sorry but how can you reconcile your claims of being a libertarian with the insanity of forcing schools and businesses to allow a grown man to sit in your daughter’s changing room while smoking?

    “It shouldn’t.”

    And yet that is what you support. Why?

    “You’re welcome to disapprove of trans people using changing rooms you don’t approve of, just as trans-activists are welcome to disapprove of you. But the harm principle disallows either of you doing anything about it. You can’t block the trans from using the changing rooms or beat them up for having done so. They can’t have you fired or prosecuted for complaining.”

    They can have me fired for complaining. All over the world they are trying to do so to other people for much less. At the moment I can’t block anyone from doing anything and I am not sure I would want to. But soon large policemen with guns are going to be sent around to make sure everyone complies with Washington’s rules. A use of force you are fine with. Some libertarian.

    “The irony is that the SJWs are using the same methods against you that you have for so long got away with using on the trans.”

    Tolerance? I don’t think so.

  33. “Sorry but how can you reconcile your claims of being a libertarian with the insanity of forcing schools and businesses to allow a grown man to sit in your daughter’s changing room while smoking?”

    What harm is he doing?

    “They can have me fired for complaining.”

    Yes. And I’m against that.

    ” At the moment I can’t block anyone from doing anything and I am not sure I would want to.”

    You’re trying to.

    “Tolerance? I don’t think so.”

    No, not tolerance. Intolerance.

  34. Metropolitan liberals do not make a majority *except* among journalists. I decline to keep emails from “Guido” but I expect that some reader of this site has a record of his post showing that over 50% of journalists are willing to identify themselves as left-wing, even though most people define “left-wing” as “someone to the left of me”, so thet need to be pretty far left of centre.
    As an aside, can you stop screaming at NiV who was making a reasonable comment? It is Murphyish to scream, at people who make a reasonable comment with which you disagree.

  35. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “What harm is he doing?”

    Why do you pretend to be a libertarian? That is not the right question. The right question is what harm does not allowing him to do so cause that is so great it is worth killing people over. Because is issue is not his smoking per se but the force used to make everyone else allow him to sit in your daughter’s changing room.

    But if you want a harm, passive smoking is a nonsense. However that doesn’t mean it is a good idea to expose young lungs to second hand tar. We can be less sure about the impact on growing lungs. Also it will prime her to smoke later in life – which is the real reason the Left hates passive smoking. That is a harm. Apart from having the pervert watch her undress.

    “Yes. And I’m against that.”

    No you’re not. You have never once shown the slightest objection.

    “No, not tolerance. Intolerance.”

    Asking the government to stay out of other people’s private lives is tolerance. But you’re right. We need to face the reality. The Left has long exploited our willingness to be tolerant while they do not extend the same tolerance to us. So f&&k ’em all. The correct solution is not to force the 99.99% of normal people to do squat. It is to stop the mentally ill harming themselves and others. And the Trans community does pose a threat to themselves and others. So they ought to be institutionalised in appropriate medical facilities until such time as we can cure their disorder.

    That is the genuinely compassionate solution.

  36. @ SE
    I prescribe two pints of decent beer – it won’t make SMFS disappear but they will makle it easier to tolerate him.

  37. The Inimitable Steve

    NiV – It’s because I’m a libertarian.

    Yeah. I get that. I just don’t – and excuse me – believe you.

    You’ve got a bee in your bonnet about transsexuals. It’s obviously not an abstract issue to you.

    Now personally, I don’t particularly care one way or t’other. I used to feel sorry for the transgenders, still do to some extent (they’re tragically broken people), but it’s now obvious that humouring their lunacy is a huge mistake. They don’t want to be left alone. They want to force everybody else to LARP in their gender madness. Even helpless little tots.

    Oh, and the John Stuart Mill quotes, as if a Victorian politician would have given a big thumbs up to men in skirts wanting to take a shit with little girls. Lolbertarianism at its finest.

    Being normal these days is starting to feel like an achievement.

  38. “Why do you pretend to be a libertarian? That is not the right question.”

    Why did you ask it then?

    “The right question is what harm does not allowing him to do so cause that is so great it is worth killing people over.”

    It’s a deprivation of someone’s liberty – read Mill.

    “Because is issue is not his smoking per se but the force used to make everyone else allow him to sit in your daughter’s changing room.”

    Generally speaking, I’m against force being used, too.

    On smoking, it ought to be up to the owner of the property. If a pub landlord wants to operate a non-smoking pub, he should be able to. If he wants to operate a smokers pub, he should be able to do that too. Let the market sort it out.

    And I’d say the same thing with regard to toilets and changing rooms. It shouldn’t be a matter for the law. But neither do I think that bigotry is a very admirable characteristic – it’s very much a case of “I may detest what you say, but I’d defend to the death your right to say it”. Decent people wouldn’t need to be forced.

    “But if you want a harm, passive smoking is a nonsense. However that doesn’t mean it is a good idea to expose young lungs to second hand tar.”

    There’s no evidence it does any more harm than cooking smells, and there’s a lot *less* evidence than there is for the harm done to kids by peanut butter. Passive smoking was just an excuse made up by the bansturbators, who had been stymied by the adherence of legislators to the harm principle.

    “Also it will prime her to smoke later in life – which is the real reason the Left hates passive smoking.”

    The real reason is that they knew a lot of ordinary people didn’t like smoking, and had no sympathy with smokers. So they knew they could get away with imposing a ban, which millions of stupid bastards would let them get away with because they’d say “I’m-not-a-smoker-and-it’s-a-filthy-habit”, which would then become a precedent for all the other stuff they wanted to ban. It’s all about gaining power over other people.

    I don’t oppose the smoking ban because I like smoke. I oppose it because it’s the tip of the wedge.

    “Apart from having the pervert watch her undress.”

    I know several trans people, and none of them are the least bit interested. When they go into a changing room, the only thing they’re interested in doing is changing. When they go into a toilet, the only thing they’re interested in is using the toilet. There’s no particular opportunity to peek, and they wouldn’t if there was.

    You appear to still be living in the 1980s, when the restrictions on the availability of porn led adolescents to extreme lengths to get a distant blurry glimpse of the other sex’s bits. Today, we have this thing called *The. Internet*. It’s full of high-definition close-ups of the other sexes bits. Anyone over the age of 10 can see as much of that sort of thing as they want.

    So you’d have to be an idiot to go to the lengths of going out in public wearing a dress (which most men would find pretty embarrassing), then risking a beating by trying to sneak a fraction-of-a-second peek in the changing rooms (where, I’m told, the girls don’t even let other girls see anything interesting), and at the same time risk them seeing yours, when you could sit at home downloading “changing room porn” to your heart’s content, with no risk, embarrassment, or uncomfortable chafing from the underwear.

    For that matter, you’re sat using the internet right now. You know perfectly well that with a few clicks of the mouse you could get to see pics of someone else’s teenage daughter in the nuddy. They’re never more than seconds away from you. And yet somehow most men are perfectly capable of resisting the temptation for, oh, hours at a time! If you can do it, so can they.

    Virtually all civilised people are perfectly capable of behaving themselves, and the exceptions wouldn’t be playing by your gender segregation rules anyway. Most trans are mostly scared to death someone’s going to start picking on them, so unless they’re with friends who will look after them they are just praying they’ll be able to get changed and get out without any trouble, and they have in any case seen it all before. They’re not interested.

    I can only guess that the reason you assume they would be is that if you got a chance to go in the women’s changing rooms, that’s what *you’d* do. It’s not them that are the perverts here.

    Seriously, this is on a par with Muslim men thinking that if they got into a railway carriage where there were women, they’d not be able to resist sexually assaulting them, and infidel men are obviously even less moral than Muslims, and therefore railway carriages ought to be segregated to protect the fairer sex from the wickedness of men. Well, most Western men are *perfectly capable* of resisting the temptation. It’s only Muslim men who are that perverted – and it’s largely a result of the ‘conservative Islamic’ rules on segregation that they got that way.

    “So they ought to be institutionalised in appropriate medical facilities until such time as we can cure their disorder.”

    That anyone today could seriously say that just makes me shudder. The Soviets did that. It didn’t end well.

  39. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Why did you ask it then?”

    I didn’t.

    “It’s a deprivation of someone’s liberty – read Mill.”

    Someone has no liberty to inflict harm on others. Nor do they have the liberty to help themselves to other people’s property. The people who are losing their freedom here is the rest of society.

    “Generally speaking, I’m against force being used, too.”

    I am sure you would like everyone to do what you ask without forcing them but every law is enforced with guns. Even laws banning the selling of individual cigarettes is enforced by men with guns and it results in people being killed. What positive social benefit here is worth killing for?

    “Let the market sort it out.”

    But not when it comes to his bathrooms. Then you support the full force of the state coming down hard on him. And this is what you have been consistently defending so it is absurd to deny it now.

    “There’s no evidence it does any more harm than cooking smells, and there’s a lot *less* evidence than there is for the harm done to kids by peanut butter.”

    Virtually no studies have been done on children. There isn’t a lot of evidence but that is beside the point. It should be up to the owners of the toilets to decide, not the White House.

    “I know several trans people, and none of them are the least bit interested.”

    That is besides the point. They are hardly going to admit it. On top of which you are not arguing for Trans men to go into Steve’s daughters’ changing room. You are arguing for all men being able to do so. There is no valid test to determine which is which.

    “There’s no particular opportunity to peek, and they wouldn’t if there was.”

    Because Gay people never invented glory holes and cottaging.

    “So you’d have to be an idiot to go to the lengths of going out in public wearing a dress (which most men would find pretty embarrassing), then risking a beating by trying to sneak a fraction-of-a-second peek in the changing rooms”

    And yet here we are. Idiots are doing all sorts of idiotic things.

    “And yet somehow most men are perfectly capable of resisting the temptation for, oh, hours at a time! If you can do it, so can they.”

    Most men are mentally healthy.

    “Most trans are mostly scared to death someone’s going to start picking on them”

    No they are not. They are just playing the victim card because they know it works. In Jamaica they might be worried but they know in the West the only violence they face is from other Gay people.

    “I can only guess that the reason you assume they would be is that if you got a chance to go in the women’s changing rooms, that’s what *you’d* do. It’s not them that are the perverts here.”

    Well that goes without saying, of course. Well done there. You resisted this childishness for, oh, several posts.

    “Well, most Western men are *perfectly capable* of resisting the temptation. It’s only Muslim men who are that perverted”

    That seems a tad racist to me. It is not about male urges. It is about societies attitudes. We don’t regard sexual assault as worse than death.

    “That anyone today could seriously say that just makes me shudder. The Soviets did that. It didn’t end well.”

    It worked just fine for Soviet society. It did not fall because they were mean to Trans people. They fell because their economic ideas were insane – they listened to Social Justice Warriors like you.

    The Trans community is mentally ill. We have tried tolerance. It has not worked. Time to try something else. They need to be protected for their own good.

  40. “What positive social benefit here is worth killing for?”

    A 40% suicide rate. And the prevention of a lot of human misery.

    “But not when it comes to his bathrooms. Then you support the full force of the state coming down hard on him. And this is what you have been consistently defending so it is absurd to deny it now.”

    I just said the exact opposite of that!

    If you can’t even read/comprehend what I wrote, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

    “The Trans community is mentally ill. We have tried tolerance. It has not worked. Time to try something else. They need to be protected for their own good.”

    Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder if you’re actually a delusional psychopath. The lack of empathy you show is frightening.

  41. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “A 40% suicide rate. And the prevention of a lot of human misery.”

    There is no evidence that anything we do for trans people makes them less miserable or less likely to kill themselves. So you are not just playing the victim card again, you are playing a false one.

    However the question was about allowing adult men to smoke in my daughter’s changing room. Something you insist the Feds should force everyone to do. Smokers do not kill themselves all that often.

    “I just said the exact opposite of that!”

    You have spent a dozen posts arguing for precisely that and now claim you meant something else. That is absurd.

    “If you can’t even read/comprehend what I wrote, there’s no point in continuing this conversation.”

    It is not my fault if you are incoherent. I would suggest the first step is honesty about your motivations.

    “Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder if you’re actually a delusional psychopath. The lack of empathy you show is frightening.”

    Says the man who wants to wave hairy penises in the faces of eight year old girls. Good one.

    We are both agreed that the Trans are miserable and kill themselves a lot. What we have tried has not worked and is now a danger not only to them but to the rest of us. So it is clearly sensible to acknowledge failure and go back to what worked a whole lot better.

    If you gave a damn about trans people you would agree.

  42. Niv:

    “That’s crap. Nobody pays any attention to the possibility because the percentage of sexual predators is tiny. It was just SMurFS scaremongering.”

    The number of perverts is small. But not zero. Enough to allow leftist femmi-liars to massively exaggerate it –apart from the new schism of trans-sucking femmi-freaks who openly don’t give a shit about real women.

    And if you want more women attacked these measures are just what the doctor ordered.

    “I take it you’ve never been in the ladies? They have these things called “cubicles” that prevent that. Idiot.”

    Cock-rot even by your low standards. One good kick and the cubicle door is in. For a short while there was a fad in the 80s–in Australia if I remember the reports right– for kicking in cubicle doors and grabbing men’s wallets . The “Shit or get off the pot” gang the malefactors were known as.

    You are SJW dross posing as a friend of liberty.

  43. More fuckwit imbecility:

    “You appear to still be living in the 1980s, when the restrictions on the availability of porn led adolescents to extreme lengths to get a distant blurry glimpse of the other sex’s bits. Today, we have this thing called *The. Internet*. It’s full of high-definition close-ups of the other sexes bits. Anyone over the age of 10 can see as much of that sort of thing as they want.”

    And so there are no more perverts and sex assaulters and whatever are there? Because wanking is obviously–to a clown like you–more fun and less trouble than actually physical action. The I-net and porn reduce rape they don’t abolish it. And we are importing lots of dear new friends who certainly don’t give a shit for the virtual action that meets the needs of you and your SJW bum chums.

    “So you’d have to be an idiot to go to the lengths of going out in public wearing a dress (which most men would find pretty embarrassing), then risking a beating by trying to sneak a fraction-of-a-second peek in the changing rooms (where, I’m told, the girls don’t even let other girls see anything interesting), and at the same time risk them seeing yours, when you could sit at home downloading “changing room porn” to your heart’s content, with no risk, embarrassment, or uncomfortable chafing from the underwear.”

    Changing rooms are far less likely areas for assault because there are lots of people who know each other going in and out at the same time. It would be hard for a Desperate Dan lookalike to get into a school and infiltrate a girls gym class. Girls should be safe in such a place unless the fucking scum SJW school is saying boys can claim they are girls and go in said class. Which it seems they are. Toilets have quiet periods and women going in on their own and cubicles that you can drag a female into with your hand over her mouth and/or a blade at her throat.

    “For that matter, you’re sat using the internet right now. You know perfectly well that with a few clicks of the mouse you could get to see pics of someone else’s teenage daughter in the nuddy. They’re never more than seconds away from you. And yet somehow most men are perfectly capable of resisting the temptation for, oh, hours at a time! If you can do it, so can they.”

    What the fuck are you rambling about? The issue is not if most men can control themselves because they can. The issue is that the % of scumbags who can’t and don’t want to will be given lots of new opportunities for sexual assault on a plate by hate-filled leftist nutters and fellow-traveling scum like you NiF.

    “Virtually all civilised people are perfectly capable of behaving themselves”

    So fucking what?

    “, and the exceptions wouldn’t be playing by your gender segregation rules anyway.”

    The exceptions play the chances they see of 1-having an opportunity and 2-getting away with it. And now dozy cunts like you are trying to improve their odds at both ends.

    “Most trans are mostly scared to death someone’s going to start picking on them,”

    Boo Hoo

    ” so unless they’re with friends who will look after them they are just praying they’ll be able to get changed and get out without any trouble, and they have in any case seen it all before. They’re not interested.”

    The same moronic point was made by Matthew L a few weeks back. No one is suggesting that trans weirdos are planning to start new careers in the sexual assault business. If for no other reason that there are a vanishingly small number of them.

    The issue is not the trannies. It is the common or garden mostly hetero molesters, assaulters. perverts, rapists, thieves and muggers who will be able to play dress-up and get into spaces that the previously couldn’t because a Desperate-Dan-in-a-Dress heading into the Ladies would have brought uproar and security called. Now the uproar will be the arrest of the person calling for help for tranniphobic hate crimes.

    You are a major-league fuckwit NiF.

  44. Didn’t take long did it?

    “Jason Pomare, 33, entered the bathroom in Palmdale, California at Macy’s, wearing a bra and dress and what happens next should not surprise you. He sets up a hidden camera in one of the stalls and for the next two hours, tapes women using the bathroom.

    Eventually, one woman noticed the camera with the record light on and notified mall security, who arrested Pomare. There was absolutely no way for anyone to see this coming, was there?”

  45. If trannies have a 40% suicide rate that strongly suggests their mental illness should be treated, not pandered to.

  46. Didn’t take long did it?</i?
    Indeed not. In fact it took minus three years – the date on the story is May 14th 2013. It’s as if right-wing nut-job websites just make stuff up.

    Of course there never has been anything stopping men from dressing up as women and going into women’s lavatories. And very little to stop them dressing as men and going into women’s lavatories.

  47. I was googling for this “female security guard arrested for hate crime” shite and found the Pomare case. All I could find about the guard was leftist shite that didn’t actually say how the trannie was identified. Didn’t look at the date on Pomare. My mistake. Changes nothing though. There will be lots more.

    The rest of your posting is your usual bullshit.

    “Of course there never has been anything stopping men from dressing up as women and going into women’s lavatories. And very little to stop them dressing as men and going into women’s lavatories.”

    Of course there has. Extra penalties for outré crimes that set a trend. Going in the Ladies would rightly get you rousted in itself and committing a crime in there more so. Nearby men (as opposed to males like yourself SJW) might well turn violent on them. Only a few freakos have so far done it. But when an opportunity to get in amongst a new pool of victims is given on a plate by the scum of the Left there will takers enough. Esp since security people will now be worried about their jobs if they dare front weirds and tell them to fuck off out.

    If you have had the courage of your convictions and have had your dick whacked off then you can go in the ladies. Dick attached you go in the gents regardless of outerwear. Don’t really want to see mental cases in there either but if they don’t bother us we won’t bother them. And if there is trouble we can deal with it a lot better than the women.

    The time is coming for severe action against the SJW scum.
    The Left now needs to be smashed once and for all.

  48. The suicide rate for Trannies goes up post surgery.

    Its one of the reasons the Mayo Clinic, who pioneered the technique, no longer recommend surgery and instead recommend therapy.

    My challenge is I have met a couple of post op’s… and they seem pretty happy with the outcome. So how to tell the difference – between the ones that it helps and the ones that it doesn’t…

  49. The Inimitable Steve

    Johnnydub – there’s wider issues than that though. If it was just a small number of adults getting their bits chopped off and some of them committing suicide, that would be sad but of little broader consequence.

    Instead, we now have people raising “gender neutral” kids, toddlers being told they’re “transgender”, teachers bringing radical feminist gender theory into the classrooms, etc.

    All justified in the name of being more tolerant to a pifflingly tiny minority.

    The tragic case of David Reimer hasn’t dimmed the Left’s zeal for inflicting gender theory on helpless children.

    Kids have a hard enough time growing up to be normal, functioning members of society as it is. The world of grown ups and adult sexuality is a confusing and often frightening thing to them.

    They need protection and reassurance, not weirdos telling them to experiment with gender or that sometimes Mummies have penises.

  50. “They need protection and reassurance, not weirdos telling them to experiment with gender or that sometimes Mummies have penises.”

    It’s a good illustration of the rabbit hole we have gone down that this opinion is now seen as intolerant, hate, even extreme.

  51. “If trannies have a 40% suicide rate that strongly suggests their mental illness should be treated, not pandered to.”

    Hard to tell, in general. From my own conversations with them, the suicide rate is not so much because of their condition per se, but because of the way society treats them. And the principal post-operative problem they have, that could possibly still lead to suicide, is that despite doing everything they can, that society still won’t accept them.

    The ones who have friends and family that support them do pretty well.

    There is no known effective treatment – nobody can rewire the brain. It’s like trying to cure homosexuality (or heterosexuality). Some of the feminists experimented with bringing up boys as if they were girls – a bit like what happened to David Reimer – to prove their theories about gender being socially constructed. It didn’t work, because the theory is not true. Male and female behaviours are hardwired into the brain, in the same sort of way as whether you are a maths geek, or sporty, or artistic. It’s just that in about 1% of cases the wiring in the brain doesn’t match the rest of the body.

    It’s not a mental illness – half the population have exactly the same wiring and are considered normal/healthy. The mental health issues arise from the continual stress of having to live a lie. And from the continual fear of getting caught. It’s like trying to live as a spy behind enemy lines – occupied France during WWII, for example, or the Soviet union. Having to do things you hate doing just to fit in.

    It used to be considered scandalous for women to wear trousers, and go out to work. I’m sure there were people back then who considered them ‘mentally ill’ to even want to. Nowadays instead, they complain that not enough of them are going into the traditionally male ‘geek’ jobs (STEM). None of them are considered mentally unbalanced for doing so – nor are they in fact. They’re all perfectly happy and well-adjusted having the choice, with society’s acceptance.

    When you have weirdoes telling kids that “Mummies can sometimes do maths and engineering”, kids can find that confusing – if they’ve been brought up by chauvinist dinosaurs in a ‘traditional’ household stuck somewhere in the 1920s. Kids are very flexible – they always learn and accept the society they live in as normal/natural. It’s only adults that find it hard to understand.

    The Muslim beards find it hard to understand society changing in the same sort of way – although they’re a more extreme case, being stuck somewhere in the 14th century. The young think it’s them that are barmy.

  52. “It used to be considered scandalous for women to wear trousers, and go out to work.”

    More bullshit.

    It was never considered scandalous for most women to work. Women have been working since the dawn of time.

    It was considered scandalous for women to not stop working and look after the kids once they had them. By no means a bad idea, After all those generations of latch key kids just fucking ooze mental health.

    So where are the limits fuckwit?

    When you have weirdoes telling kids ” It is ok to submit to crazed cultural Marxist shite” kids might find that confusing –esp if they have been raised by old fashioned dinosaurs in a “traditional” beliefs like “having a dick means you are male”–how 19th century. Kids will adapt to whatever scummy socialist freakshow they find themselves in.

    And “libertarian” Judas Goats like NiF find it so easy to understand.

  53. Still more from the fount of all knowledge:

    “It’s not a mental illness”

    Yes it is.

    ” – half the population have exactly the same wiring and are considered normal/healthy. ”

    Cos they have the body to go with it.

    “The mental health issues arise from the continual stress of having to live a lie”

    What lie numb-nuts? The only lie is SJW clowns insisting that what is –is not. You are born male or female–that is what you are. You are born human–that is what you are. You can regard yourself as a fluffy fucking bunny if you like. That don’t make it true. What we have here is the subjectivist evil of socialism being played out. 2+2=5 if the Party says so.

    No it doesn’t scumbag. And if you support that –then scumbag is what you are.

    .” And from the continual fear of getting caught”

    Yeah–we all just knew that Trannie Death Penalty was a bad idea. How many executions is it now?

    .” It’s like trying to live as a spy behind enemy lines – occupied France during WWII, for example, or the Soviet union”

    What has this drama queen bollocks got to do with men going in women’s toilets?

    . “Having to do things you hate doing just to fit in.”

    Then don’t do them–walk around dragged up like a fucking idiot if you want. But if your dick is still attached you aren’t going in the Ladies. Whether you like it you SJW stooge or whether you don’t.

  54. OT, but see Abacab (above) on CiF comments under Nick Cohen’s Guardian piece “Radical tourists have been deluded pimps for Venezuela”.

    I found this comment from a Lee Salter

    I hope people know that he doesn’t mean it and only comes out with this tripe because controversy sells. It’s a little shameful of The Guardian to encourage Cohen’s new found trolling role. And this is from one of the “Radical Tourists”. I spent years researching Venezuela, and visited twice. Unfortunately for Cohen, I wasn’t deluded. I saw bad things, I saw good things. Most of all the government people I met all said exactly the same things – they all disagreed! They pointed to corruption, crime, incompetence. They pointed to housing projects and education. They pointed to failings of the moment. Cohen has produced a parody that unfortunately draws a lot of attention.

    This piqued my curiosity. “This guy knows his onions” I thought. So I dug a little further. Who is Lee Slater? I asked myself.

    LinkedIn told me that he is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Sussex. His education tells me that he has a thorough grounding in Economics Agitprop

    London Guildhall University
    BA, Politics and Modern History, 1994 – 1997

    Birkbeck, U. of London
    M.Sc, Poltics and Sociology, 1997 – 1999

    London Metropolitan University
    Ph.D Politics, 1999 – 2005

    Helpfully, a fairly comprehensive list of his publications id provided. These include films. Space constraints here (and an element of cherry-picking) restrict me to five.

    The UWE Occupation(Link)
    Social Movement Studies, Taylor and Francis
    2011
    This profile looks at how students at the University of the West of England (UWE) undertook direct action in protest against the British government’s cuts to educational funding in the higher education sector. Situating the in the broader context of the struggle against cuts to education, the authors observed the organisation of students, interviewing them and holding focus groups to get a full…more

    Mediating Intellectuals
    Bates, D. Marxism, Intellectuals and Politics, Palgrave
    2006

    Framing the cuts: An analysis of the BBC’s discursive framing of the ConDem cuts agenda
    Journalism: Theory, Practice, Criticism
    July 2014

    The Fourth Estate
    NA
    May 6, 2015
    Produced in the UK on a zero-budget, the filmmakers spent two years contacting and interviewing journalists, organisers and critics of the corrupt industrial practices highlighted by, but not limited to, the Leveson Inquiry in 2011. While the phone hacking scandal illuminated the depth and breadth of the cavalier flouting of legality and integrity in British journalism, there are larger…more

    The Goods of Community? The Potential of Journalism as a Social Practice
    Philosophy of Management 7:1. pp. 33-44
    2008
    This paper considers the question of whether journalism can be considered to be a social practice. After considering some of the goods of journalism the paper moves to investigate how external goods can corrupt the practice and make it somewhat ineffective. The paper therefore looks to consider ways in which the goods claimed have been better served in ‘radical’ journalism. Bristol Independent Media Centre is then evaluated as an example of an active project in which the goods of community are pursued through an inclusive form of participatory journalism

    His web page at the University of Sussex gives this helpful potted biography:

    http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/328625

    Biography
    Dr Lee Salter is Senior Lecturer in media and communications.

    He has taught and researched at a variety of institutions, including the Univeristy of the West of England, University of Verona and Royal Holloway.

    He leads the modules Media, Publics and Protest and International Journalism in Trasition. He is also Convenor for the MAs in Journalism and oversees the other taught postgraduate provision in the School.

    Lee researches a variety areas includng activism, conflict and the media, new technologies and media analysis, Venezulea (sic), and discourse analysis, focusing in particular on austerity and protests against it, as well as radical movements and their relation to the state. He is currently on the Advisory Board of Cardiff University’s Digital Citizenship and Surveillance project, as well as a Director of the MediaWise Trust.

    Lee is also a film-maker, having written and produced the award-winning documentary Secret City (dir.Michael Chanan, http://www.secretcity-thefilm.com) and more recently the feature documentary The Fourth Estate (www.fourthestatedoc.com), alongside a plethora of shorter activist films. He is currently working on the follow up to Secret City, Money Puzzles.

    The real revelation is his piece on Venezuela written in 2012 for the New Statesman

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/10/medias-misunderstanding-venezuela

    In the run-up to this year’s Venezuelan election, one thing is clear. The incumbent, Hugo Chavez, may lose this time. Indeed he probably lost in 1998, 2000, 2005 and every election contested. At least that’s what we can judge from British news media coverage. Tales of a “shock victory” and of winning an “unexpected majority” will no doubt animate reporting after, as is almost certain, Chavez wins.

    It is unsurprising that reporters in the UK remain confused after each election. After all, the business and private media elite take great pride in assuring the world that real Chavez supporters are few, and those that there are are largely brainwashed.

    Indeed mention Hugo Chavez to a reasonably well-informed person in the UK and the response will probably be one of suspicion. The outspoken president of Venezuela does manage to get himself noticed, but rarely with a favourable reception in the British press. Often those who may otherwise support a left wing movement that has made significant advances in social welfare at a time when the West seems only capable of punishing the neediest know little of such progress but a good deal to be cautious of.

    …and on in the same vein.

    This too is worth a go if one is of masochistic bent

    https://salterlee.wordpress.com/

    In short, this horny-handed son of toil (on a salary scale between £47k and £55k p.a.) is a member of that class of bien-pensant reaching back to the early days of Castro in Cuba and before, the Juanqueristas

  55. Fuck off, Ecks. You’re a bigot making crap up about a subject you know nothing about to try to justify your filthy, authoritarian 14th century delusions. You’re the reason the SJWs are winning.

    Younger people are so disgusted by it that they’re concluding the SJWs are right about the Right. They’ll win this round, too, thanks to you and people like you. That’s bad for everyone else, but I’m starting to think in your case the old saw about “people get the government they deserve” is true.

  56. Fascinating discussion.

    I’m probably being a bit slow here, but haven’t we already sorted this toilet thing out?

    It’s very rare nowadays not to see “Men”, “Women” and “Disabled”.

    Job done? (My invoice is in the post)

  57. “There is no known effective treatment – nobody can rewire the brain.” So no treatment for mental illness is valid?

    Amazingly, no-one has ever been able to identify the womanly qualities in the brain of a man with a penis. The penis on the other hand can be readily identified.

    NiV laughably argues the SJWs are winning because Ecks disagrees with them. NiV soaks up every bit of their horseshit and then claims to be fighting them with libertarianism.

    Pandering to the delusions of trannies has only increased their misery. Luckily, so far the idiocies of people like NiV have only affected a few people, due to the tiny number of those who believe they are afflicted with the wrong body.

    Pushing these delusions on children will lead to much more misery in much greater numbers. TISteve has it spot on.

  58. Here’s Ecks again

    “Toilets have quiet periods and women going in on their own and cubicles that you can drag a female into with your hand over her mouth and/or a blade at her throat.”

    He’s thought about it. A lot.

    NiV reckons 14th century. I’m thinking antidiluvian. On every subject.

    I’m not sure how many people actually think this: when was the last time anyone thought about those quiet periods where women go in to a cubicle for whatever and are therefore prone to anyone putting hands over their mouths, with or without a blade.

  59. MC

    I don’t want to speak for NiV, but he has described a very human situation.

    You reckon there’s a some sort of mission that means someone “soaks up every bit of their horseshit”. Who are these horseshit soakers? Can you see one from your window? Do you walk to the other side of the road just in case that man coming out of Dorothy Perkins will accost you with his tales of oestrogen withdrawal?

    NiV is almost correct. It’s not that ‘SJWs’ are winning, it’s that the opinions of the Eckses reinforce a human decency for something that would otherwise not be considered.

  60. “I’m probably being a bit slow here, but haven’t we already sorted this toilet thing out?”

    Yes. I’ve lived in or visited numerous private houses, flats, and bungalows, many of them dual-occupation with both men and women living there, and in not one of them have I ever seen “Ladies” and “Gents” signs on the door of any toilet. Mostly there’s one toilet, for the use of both sexes, and the worst dispute that arises is whether the toilet seat should be left up or down.

    It’s perfectly possible for civilised people to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement, and 99% of the population do so every day, without even thinking about it. Next time you go to the toilet in your house, check the door. You might even find that you already share facilities too.

    “So no treatment for mental illness is valid?”

    That doesn’t follow.

    Faults with signalling molecules can sometimes be treated with drugs, and in a very crude sense brain surgery can sometimes disable or disconnect bits that are causing problems, but wiring faults can’t be fixed. They’re making hopeful progress with reconnecting severed spinal cords, but the idea of recreating entire complex behavioural modules of the brain is still science fiction.

    And I’m sure you already knew that. So don’t be silly.

    “Amazingly, no-one has ever been able to identify the womanly qualities in the brain of a man with a penis”

    Obviously untrue. The person in the body clearly has. (In the same sort of way that someone like David Reimer was able to tell that he was a man, despite having no penis and being brought up as a girl.)

    For that matter, there was a discussion a few months back on this very site about a study that had used brain scanning to identify a few dozen brain anatomy features that showed a strong division between the sexes. The point they found most significant was that the division wasn’t perfect. A lot of the features were found in say 90% of men and only 10% of women, say, which meant that *every* brain had a mixture of features selected from those associated with *both* sexes, although a *majority* of them were usually from the same set.

    So you might have separate modules for language skills, spatial/mathematical skills, asking for directions, sexual attraction, promiscuity, aggression, submissiveness, romanticism, social skills, and social types, and so on. Most men are more aggressive and assertive than women, but there are exceptions. Just as most men are taller than women, but there are also tall women and short men.

    None of that is very surprising, but it means that brains are not as binary as the MPW zealots are willing to believe, and therefore proved “controversial”. I can’t persuade someone who doesn’t have rational reasons for their beliefs.

    “NiV laughably argues the SJWs are winning because Ecks disagrees with them.”

    No he doesn’t.

    The SJWs look out for minority groups that the public has sympathy for but that get authoritarian conservatives frothing at the mouth. They then start a campaign to support them, demand rights for them, and introduce authoritarian measures to force them on the “right-wing bigots” who oppose such rights.

    The did it first with the poor (like Stalin cared about the poor…). Then they did it with women, with blacks, with gays, with the disabled, with polar bears and pandas and rare tree snails and cute l’il bunny wabbits.

    And the right, predictably, blew a gasket and started attacking, not the SJWs, but the minority group they were hiding behind. Every time.

    And this enabled the SJWs to portray the right wing as selfish bigots bullying a minority that the public were generally sympathetic to (women wanting equal pay for equal work, cancer kids in wheelchairs wanting an access ramp, etc.). And having proven that the right were not about to grant them any rights voluntarily, therefore coercion was justified. The right had to be forced by law to do what the left told them, and everyone voted for them because their sympathies were with the downtrodden.

    The entire point of the exercise is not rights for polar bears, about which the SJWs care not a jot, but the precedent set of coercive legislation being enacted with the SJWs in charge of setting it. They’re the ones on all the steering committees operating it now, since they were so visible in the campaign to bring it about.

    So the reason they’re winning is not the fact that Ecks disagrees with them, but the fact that Ecks expends most of his bile attacking the transgender dupes and virtually none of it attacking the SJWs and their authoritarian agenda hiding behind them.

    Young people today enjoy watching Eddie Izzard, who’s very funny, and if a bit older probably enjoyed listening to Boy George, who was seen as OK, and they’re used by now to gays like Freddy Mercury or Graham Norton or Elton John, and they don’t care about it any more. When they read about the past – about what happened to Alan Turing, for example, they’re more shocked and uncomprehending about the people who treated them that way than the gays and transsexuals themselves.

    And if you want to stand up in front of a young audience, and seriously propose that Eddie Izzard should be locked up in a mental asylum until somebody found a ‘cure’ for him, and that Alan Turing’s suicide only went to prove that the authorities were right about his mental illness, you’re not going to get a lot of sympathy. In fact, they’re probably going to want to lock *you* up.

    Personally, I’m not sure that I care any more if they do. But it’s still a problem for me because it’s yet another round of authoritarian legislation on the books, and another batch of precedents set, all because some frothing idiots thought the best way to fight the animal rights environmentalists was to publicly *stamp on Bambi’s head* while screaming foul-mouthed abuse in front of an audience of little kiddies.

    “Pandering to the delusions of trannies has only increased their misery.”

    All the ones I know are very happy about it.

    “Luckily, so far the idiocies of people like NiV have only affected a few people”

    The last survey I saw, about 80% of the British public supported transgender people getting sex-change treatment. You’re living in a bubble.

  61. “Toilets”

    I’ve even seen the French do the unisex thing with urinals (in public places).

    Ie, everyone walks in, and straight past the stand up urinals to get to the cublcles (cubicles being multi)…

    “Next time you go to the toilet in your house, check the door”

    So that’s the solution to the squirrel problem?

  62. Well argued, NiV, not that Ecks will bother reading it, because he’s too busy stripping down his AK47 with his eyes shut, listening out for the four minute warning.

    But even you are verging on the paranoiac – “and introduce authoritarian measures”

    It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of ‘authoritarian measures’ that have been introduced, say, in the last 30 years, that have anything to do with your perception of ‘SJWs’.

    Anyone want to give it a try so we can argue the toss. I may be wrong, surely not?

  63. PF

    Clubs and pubs in London have unisex (at least that’s what i’ve told myself in the moment). In fact hotels are kitted out to be unisex.

    Having a piss is having a piss, there shouldn’t be anything prudish about it, a decency partition is fine.

  64. ““Toilets have quiet periods and women going in on their own and cubicles that you can drag a female into with your hand over her mouth and/or a blade at her throat.”

    He’s thought about it. A lot.

    NiV reckons 14th century. I’m thinking antidiluvian. On every subject.

    I’m not sure how many people actually think this: when was the last time anyone thought about those quiet periods where women go in to a cubicle for whatever and are therefore prone to anyone putting hands over their mouths, with or without a blade.”

    The noble and virtuous Arnald. Who supports a creed that has murdered millions of women and children . He just described how he lives with his worthless self. By not thinking about the evil he represents and daily endorses.

    And you would have to be some sort of monster wouldn’t you to think that a rapist might silence or threaten a women they were trying to rape? Arnie’s socialist comrades never put their hands over the mouths of the women they were executing I’m sure. Perhaps some of the women they were torturing maybe. All that screaming must have got them down.

    Why 14th Century NIv?– Ah- you like men in tights don’t you?

    More from the Sage of Gurn-Sea:

    “You reckon there’s a some sort of mission that means someone “soaks up every bit of their horseshit”. Who are these horseshit soakers? Can you see one from your window? Do you walk to the other side of the road just in case that man coming out of Dorothy Perkins will accost you with his tales of oestrogen withdrawal?

    NiV is almost correct. It’s not that ‘SJWs’ are winning, it’s that the opinions of the Eckses reinforce a human decency for something that would otherwise not be considered.”

    You are a horseshit soaker Laurence. And you spew it back out again.

    Human decency does not include women/little girls being subject to danger from those who will be happy to make use of your leftist evil.

    NiV–Trying to win by sheer verbiage?

    ““I’m probably being a bit slow here, but haven’t we already sorted this toilet thing out?”

    Yes. I’ve lived in or visited numerous private houses, flats, and bungalows, many of them dual-occupation with both men and women living there, and in not one of them have I ever seen “Ladies” and “Gents” signs on the door of any toilet. Mostly there’s one toilet, for the use of both sexes, and the worst dispute that arises is whether the toilet seat should be left up or down.

    It’s perfectly possible for civilised people to come to a mutually acceptable arrangement, and 99% of the population do so every day, without even thinking about it. Next time you go to the toilet in your house, check the door. You might even find that you already share facilities too.”

    So NiV–do you keep an open toilet for every passer-by then?
    Because if you can’t see the difference between a private house and a public area which can be entered by anyone –including the worse specimens humanity has to offer–then you are in need of help.

    ““NiV laughably argues the SJWs are winning because Ecks disagrees with them.”

    No he doesn’t.

    The SJWs look out for minority groups that the public has sympathy for but that get authoritarian conservatives frothing at the mouth. They then start a campaign to support them, demand rights for them, and introduce authoritarian measures to force them on the “right-wing bigots” who oppose such rights.

    The did it first with the poor (like Stalin cared about the poor…). Then they did it with women, with blacks, with gays, with the disabled, with polar bears and pandas and rare tree snails and cute l’il bunny wabbits.

    And the right, predictably, blew a gasket and started attacking, not the SJWs, but the minority group they were hiding behind. Every time.”

    Strangely enough there is some truth in that bit.

    It should be noted that the CM tactics NiV describes need at least some of minority on the leftist team. And frankly there is no case of the bulk of the minority standing up to say “Fuck off you leftist scum. We don’t need help from the friends of tyranny and murder”. Most minority members at least passively accept the SJW’s antics –with a few honourable exceptions.

    “So the reason they’re winning is not the fact that Ecks disagrees with them, but the fact that Ecks expends most of his bile attacking the transgender dupes and virtually none of it attacking the SJWs and their authoritarian agenda hiding behind them.”

    Back to being wrong again NiV. Anyone who reads what I wrote will clearly see that I attack the scum of the left first and foremost-ALWAYS. I have no beef ( no pun intend) with TSs except those twats who think they should be allowed in women’s toilets –with their dick still attached. If you lack the courage of your convictions then you go in the Gents. And that is the extent of my concern about TSs. If drag-queen life is the best they can envisage for themselves then so be it.

    “Young people today enjoy watching Eddie Izzard, who’s very funny, and if a bit older probably enjoyed listening to Boy George, who was seen as OK, and they’re used by now to gays like Freddy Mercury or Graham Norton or Elton John, and they don’t care about it any more. When they read about the past – about what happened to Alan Turing, for example, they’re more shocked and uncomprehending about the people who treated them that way than the gays and transsexuals themselves.

    And if you want to stand up in front of a young audience, and seriously propose that Eddie Izzard should be locked up in a mental asylum until somebody found a ‘cure’ for him, and that Alan Turing’s suicide only went to prove that the authorities were right about his mental illness, you’re not going to get a lot of sympathy. In fact, they’re probably going to want to lock *you* up.””

    You seem to be confused NiV. Izzard –whose leftist , EU -sucking bullshit is a far better reason to hate him than his dress sense–has not (as far as I know) advocated men using the women’s toilet. In fact that would surely undermine his entire “fuck you–accept me as I am” routine anyway. All the rest of your examples are not relevant either. People can be who they like if they are not violating the right of others. In the case in question the right of women to go to the bog in peace without the extra-danger of men being allowed into their toilet. I am tolerant of all the examples you put forward. I don’t like any of them but if they don’t bother me I won’t bother them. That is tolerance. Men being allowed in the Ladies is not tolerance. It is stupid and dangerous for the women.

    “Personally, I’m not sure that I care any more if they do. But it’s still a problem for me because it’s yet another round of authoritarian legislation on the books”

    Laws already exist to punish men trying to get into Ladies toilets. They need to be enforced not ignored. No more laws are required.

    “, and another batch of precedents set, all because some frothing idiots thought the best way to fight the animal rights environmentalists was to publicly *stamp on Bambi’s head* while screaming foul-mouthed abuse in front of an audience of little kiddies.”

    The precedent of toilets was set long ago and is sound. The stuff about Bambi–I don’t know WTF you are on about.

    ““Pandering to the delusions of trannies has only increased their misery.”

    All the ones I know are very happy about it.”

    Bully for them. They still aren’t going in the Ladies with their dick attached.

    “Luckily, so far the idiocies of people like NiV have only affected a few people”

    The last survey I saw, about 80% of the British public supported transgender people getting sex-change treatment. You’re living in a bubble.”

    They can make surgery their hobby if they are paying for it themselves.

    The Return of Big Mac:

    “It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of ‘authoritarian measures’ that have been introduced, say, in the last 30 years, that have anything to do with your perception of ‘SJWs’.

    Anyone want to give it a try so we can argue the toss. I may be wrong, surely not?”

    SJWs are a recent happening under that label.

    But arrogant socialist shite have been making life worse for many decades. From seatbelts to anti-smoking, drinking and–ah fuck it –anyone who isn’t scum like Arnie can make up a list as long as your arm.

    SJWs have already encouraged and gloried in false-rape accusations, squealed about free speech while moving to shut down the same for all except socialist scum and spewed out trillions of pretentious self-indulgent middle-class Marxist twitters. The waste of electrons alone is criminal.

    “Clubs and pubs in London have unisex (at least that’s what i’ve told myself in the moment). In fact hotels are kitted out to be unisex.

    Having a piss is having a piss, there shouldn’t be anything prudish about it, a decency partition is fine.”

    WTF is he on about? Pubs/clubs are unisex he’s told himself in his mind? The accumulated grease fumes must be replacing your brain fats Arnie.

    No one wants to hear what hotels you recommend socialist boy. Esp since the last one.

    The Lubyanka? What kind of name is that for a fucking hotel.

    Better hurry and get your breakfast bowl of Trigglypuffs Arnald. The boss will shout if you are late.

  65. “And frankly there is no case of the bulk of the minority standing up to say “Fuck off you leftist scum. We don’t need help from the friends of tyranny and murder”. Most minority members at least passively accept the SJW’s antics –with a few honourable exceptions.”

    Yes. Because *you* and those like you drive them away!

    Which is my point. Why would any trans look at your behaviour here and not think it was *you* that was the friend of tyranny and murder, at least as far as they’re concerned? And so they all go join the SJWs. Thanks a lot!

    The authoritarian-libertarian axis is at right angles to the left-right axis. There are authoritarians on the right as well as the left, and they’re just as much friends of tyranny – they just have a different set of rules to impose. (e.g. Muslim conservatives.)

    If the moral distinction you want them to make is opposition to tyranny, then it’s libertarianism you’re talking about. If you want them to stand up to the SJWs, then you’ve got to show that you’re the libertarian and they’re not; that they’ll be better off joining your side than the SJWs; that they can win their freedom with your support more easily and safely than with theirs.

    Instead, you’re busily driving them into the SJW camp, by proving to them that it’s the right that’s still tyrannising them and only the left that’s trying to free them.

    If your real problem is security in toilets against bad people, then make toilets more secure. Provide individual cubicles, stronger locks, more privacy, better visibility, alarms, whatever, and provide them to *everyone*. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want men such as you describe coming into the toilet with *me*, and I don’t see why women should get protection from them and I shouldn’t. So protect everybody, *including* the trans people, and thereby make it clear that they can join your side and still get what they want. That there’s a mutually acceptable “right-wing” solution that doesn’t require coercive legislation, that everyone can enter into voluntarily and that benefits everyone. It’s even a measure for improving ‘law and order’ – a classic conservative value.

    It’s also ones the trans can identify with, having been bullied and threatened all their lives by men like that. Say you’re going to introduce measures to stop *anyone*, including people like them, being attacked in toilets, and they’re a lot more likely to sign up on *your* side.

    But if you show yourself to be one of the male bullies that women and trans need protecting *from* – while claiming in doing so to represent the right – their response will be painfully predictable. They’ll join the SJWs, and I could scarcely blame them.

  66. You can come up with the cash for Stalag -Luft toilets NiV. Because it isn’t coming out of my pocket so the latest SJW fad can be appeased.

    “But if you show yourself to be one of the male bullies that women and trans need protecting *from* – while claiming in doing so to represent the right – their response will be painfully predictable. They’ll join the SJWs, and I could scarcely blame them.”

    Telling males –with dicks attached–that they aren’t going in the ladies is not bullying them– outside of your fantasy world.

    Ladies toilets are secure enough by just having ladies going in them.

    End of story.

  67. “You can come up with the cash for Stalag -Luft toilets NiV. Because it isn’t coming out of my pocket so the latest SJW fad can be appeased.”

    So you’re *not* interested in protecting anyone’s safety? All that concern was just a convenient lie? I thought so.

    As I said to SMurFS, earlier, he objects to men waving hairy willies in the faces of small girls (like they would), but he’s got no problem at all with them doing so to small *boys*. (We can all guess why.) You’ve told me yourself of a gang of muggers attacking *men* when they’re on the toilet, and you figure that’s enough to justify a ban, but you’ve got no interest at all in protecting the *men* you’ve told me are being robbed from these muggers. (In fact, the logic of your argument would imply that you ought to ban men from entering the *gents* as well, to prevent them carrying out such assaults.)

    Although I find it hard to imagine why you think such a gang of violent muggers would be stopped by a sign on the door from entering the ladies, or what the advantages to them of 4-inch heels and dresses would be in either a) kicking down doors, b) being taken seriously, or c) getting away afterwards when the description the victims gave the police would be pretty unmistakable.

    In fact, it seems pretty obvious that you’re just making up crap. You blame group A for the crimes of group B, to justify your hatred and persecution of group A. But when offered a chance to improve toilet security to prevent the crimes of group B you claim to be so concerned about, declare that you have no interest in paying anything for that. Transparent.

    Well, you’ve just lost the battle. Society has moved on, 80% of the population today support transgender rights, and the SJWs will be able to push through legislation to force businesses to allow trans into the ladies toilets – the coercion fully justified in the eyes of said population by their ability to point to your bigotry and hate.

    SJWs win. You lose. End of story.

  68. Piss-poor self-deluding lies Niv.

    80%+ don’t support your bog-confusion. They may accept that TS’ers exist–in miniscule number –and if they want to drag up or de-dick themselves that is their own business. They do not and are not going to support women’s toilets being invaded by any man who cares to walk in.

    Men can –and in the end have to–protect themselves as well as everybody else. Squealing males–not men– who want Big Daddy state to do it can fuck off. And take your Robocop super-max bog of the future with you.

    Your A–B bollocks will need translating. Or rather not. You can hardly be so stupid as to not understand the points that have been made. Your verbiage is a substitute for the case you cannot muster.

    Let me re-iterate. Marxist subjective fantasy is not going to be treated as reality no matter how many wigglers and squealers of either sex squeal, cry or throw a tantrum. TS’ers are not and never will be women (maybe in 250 years they will be able to do a real sex change but that has f-all to do with now). If they are willing to give up their anatomy that shows they are unlikely to be crims, etc, If they are not–they don’t get in the Ladies.

    BTW your point about drag does need to be considered. Because how long do you think it will be–if your tripe prevails–before some dude goes in the ladies in men’s clothes? If having a dick is no bar to claiming you are a woman and having socialist scum, including the scum of the state, hail you as a woman , how much of a barrier is wearing men’s garb going to be?

    “I identify as a woman” says our pervert/crim “but I wear men’s clothes because I suffer homophobo trans-hatred if I wear my beloved John England collection”.

    Do you think for one minute that won’t fly you numpty? No more embarrassing dragging-up, drawing attention to themselves and trying to run in high heels. A new world of transgression handed to male crims on a plate by Marxist scum and bleeding heart loons like you. They won’t even have to shell out for an Easter Bonnet.

  69. Still taking crap, I see.

    You’ve already lost. That’s the law, and everyone’s OK with it, thanks to you.

  70. “That’s the law , and everyone’s OK with it, thanks to you.,”

    Take the Magic Carpet back when you’ve finished with it you nutter. You don’t want to lose your deposit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *