The Woke

[OneMoreFarang]

Even if you don't care about Peterson or Twitter it's still fun/crazy/alarming to watch this. Enjoy!

 

 

[zzaa09]

The Perpetually Offended.....

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Shouldn't be cancelled but I wouldn't get on the Peterson train myself.. some things he says is good stuff but some not to my way of thinking  .. I just have no trans people or situations to concern me in my life so I am happy for them to do their thing as long as they are adults and if they want to cut this and that then no skin of my ... nose

[ozimoron]

This belongs in the angry old white man thread or should be deleted altogether as not being an approved source. Twitter was entitled to ban him under their rules.

Edited July 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[proton]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

This belongs in the angry old white man thread or should be deleted altogether as not being an approved source. Twitter was entitled to ban him under their rules.

But he did not break the rules did he, that's the point. Like YT they ban what they do not approve of, so these places have becomes cesspits of intolerant liberal offence to anything that goes against their insane woke beliefs.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, proton said:

But he did not break the rules did he, that's the point. Like YT they ban what they do not approve of, so these places have becomes cesspits of intolerant liberal offence to anything that goes against their insane woke beliefs.

My interpretation is he clearly broke the rules right at "harassment". Your world view will never acknowledge that people have a right to feel offended.

Edited July 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[proton]

Just now, ozimoron said:

My interpretation is he clearly broke the rules right at "harassment".

who was harassed? making a factual statement without any comment or judgement is not. It would be defamation if the physician had not been guilty of a crime.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, proton said:

who was harassed? making a factual statement without any comment or judgement is not. It would be defamation if the physician had not been guilty of a crime.

The subject's medical history is a private matter. Discussing her medical history without her permission is harassment, if not an outright crime.

Edited July 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[OneMoreFarang]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

should be deleted altogether as not being an approved source

Jordan Peterson talking about Jordan Peterson is not an approved source? I am confused.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Jordan Peterson talking about Jordan Peterson is not an approved source? I am confused.

Read the rules about social media posts.

 

18. Social media content is acceptable in most forums. However in factual areas such as but not limited to news, current affairs and health topics, social media cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or a government agency, and must include a link to the original source.

Edited July 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[ukrules]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

My interpretation is he clearly broke the rules right at "harassment".

In reality what happened is he 'triggered' a bunch of 'the woke' who complained to Twitter who hate everything this man stands for and have been waiting for an excuse to delete him.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your world view will never acknowledge that people have a right to feel offended.

Someone has a wonderful answer to that one. ????

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ukrules said:

In reality what happened is he 'triggered' a bunch of 'the woke' who complained to Twitter who hate everything this man stands for and have been waiting for an excuse to delete him.

 

whose reality? ????

[ukrules]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

whose reality? ????

There's only one, everything else is interpretation.

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The subject's medical history is a private matter. Discussing her medical history without her permission is harassment, if not an outright crime.

I didn't follow the history of that person. But it seems at some time was a women and had breasts and then she didn't have breast anymore and called herself a man. Someone must have removed those breast and I would be surprised if that story was not reported in detail on other media or maybe even by that person on fb or instagram or something like that.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I didn't follow the history of that person. But it seems at some time was a women and had breasts and then she didn't have breast anymore and called herself a man. Someone must have removed those breast and I would be surprised if that story was not reported in detail on other media or maybe even by that person on fb or instagram or something like that.

How is her medical history not private? If this wasn't a hot button issue for anti trans bigots it wouldn't be reported on at all.

[proton]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The subject's medical history is a private matter. Discussing her medical history without her permission is harassment, if not an outright crime.

If it's in the public domain already it's no longer private.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, proton said:

If it's in the public domain already it's no longer private.

Twitter is private and can enforce these rules as they see fit. It's only in the public domain because intolerant click bait media published the details.

[Lacessit]

I am obviously of a generation that does not understand any of this garbage. I have a headache now just trying to follow what the hell the fuss is about.

[proton]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Twitter is private and can enforce these rules as they see fit. It's only in the public domain because intolerant click bait media published the details.

So you agree it's in the public domain, the person concerned talked about it first. The rules are mis used to shut down dissent on anything not approved of. Conservative views, opinions on CRT, Islam, Trans, and abortion etc. They just say you broke the rules but never say how.

[ozimoron]

Just now, proton said:

So you agree it's in the public domain, the person concerned talked about it first. The rules are mis used to shut down dissent on anything not approved of. Conservative views, opinions on CRT, Islam, Trans, and abortion etc. They just say you broke the rules but never say how.

Her medical history remains a private matter no matter how many bigots out her.

[Gottfrid]

32 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

My interpretation is he clearly broke the rules right at "harassment". Your world view will never acknowledge that people have a right to feel offended.

Just because someone feel offended, that is not directly the same as harassment. That just a point to what level a single individual is capable of accepting.

[proton]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Her medical history remains a private matter no matter how many bigots out her.

She was not outed she made it public, or is it her/it/meow/woof? ????

Edited July 2, 2022 by proton

[ozimoron]

Just now, Gottfrid said:

Just because someone feel offended, that is not directly the same as harassment. That just a point to what level a single individual is capable of accepting.

There we differ. I fail to see how if someone offends me I don';t also feel harassed. Offense and harassment are the domain of the recipient, not the perpetrator.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, proton said:

She was not outed she made it public, or is it her/it/meow/woof?

I think you've just displayed your true colours.

[ukrules]

If you watch the TV show named 'The Umbrella Academy' in seasons 1 and 2 there was a female character who suddenly changed into a male character in season 3.

 

They rewrote the TV show to accomodate this alteration.

Season 3 of the really quite popular TV show was released just a few weeks ago on Netflix hence some level of public interest.

[Gottfrid]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

There we differ. I fail to see how if someone offends me I don';t also feel harassed. Offense and harassment are the domain of the recipient, not the perpetrator.

No, it´s not according to the law. You are free to feel harassed and offended how much you want. That has nothing to do with how the law looks at harassment. Maybe you just have a too low threshold. Just because you misinterpret something or personally see it as harassment, does not necessarily make it such a thing. So, no! Looking at the law, there is no such thing as individual levels of harassment.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

No, it´s not according to the law. You are free to feel harassed and offended how much you want. That has nothing to do with how the law looks at harassment. Maybe you just have a too low threshold. Just because you misinterpret something or personally see it as harassment, does not necessarily make it such a thing. So, no! Looking at the law, there is no such thing as individual levels of harassment.

Got a link to the law that said it's not? It's not necessarily a criminal issue.

Edited July 2, 2022 by ozimoron

[Gottfrid]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Got a link to the law that said it's not? It's not necessarily a criminal issue.

No, it will only be a criminal issue if someone chose to open a law suit as it mostly goes under private affairs. 

Regarding the link you ask for. Not needed, as everyone know the law should not make individual differences.
Please, I know we are in Thailand, so do not refer to how they interpret the law here)

Edited July 2, 2022 by Gottfrid

[ozimoron]

Just now, Gottfrid said:

No, it will only be a criminal issue if someone chose to open a law suit as it mostly goes under private affairs. 

Regarding the link you ask for. Not needed, as everyone know the law should not make individual differences.

So your statement was false. It is harassment is the person who feels harassed claims to be harassed as a result of a perceived offensive comment.