Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

[mickthinks]

Just to be clear - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

lol Snide insinuation is snide!

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

[Vitruvius]

Just to be clear - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

lol Snide insinuation is snide!

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

What I'm getting is, that you initially attacked the story as fake news, and have since discovered that it's true - that Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men." Why not just admit your error and apologise? Instead you persist in an impossible position. Would you like me to reproduce the several places where you said it's fake news, and that I'm gullible for listening to it? Here's just one:

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.

Again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Just to be clear - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

lol Snide insinuation is snide!

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

What I'm getting is, that you initially attacked the story as fake news, and have since discovered that it's true - that Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men." Why not just admit your error and apologise? Instead you persist in an impossible position. Would you like me to reproduce the several places where you said it's fake news, and that I'm gullible for listening to it? Here's just one:

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.

Again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by, (or not, because I suspect it might have been 'created' by self-flagellating wokie fuckwits).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

[Vitruvius]

Just to be clear - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

lol Snide insinuation is snide!

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

What I'm getting is, that you initially attacked the story as fake news, and have since discovered that it's true - that Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men." Why not just admit your error and apologise? Instead you persist in an impossible position. Would you like me to reproduce the several places where you said it's fake news, and that I'm gullible for listening to it? Here's just one:

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.

Again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

I couldn't look at the video because it's inappropriate for some users, and I won't sign in. Me, youtube, google, twitter - all fell out over political correctness, when at the height of the BLM rioting, I pointed out that statistics produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show very few Arrest Related Deaths as a percentage of overall arrests, 0.01% - in a country where people carry guns, and no particular racial bias not mirrored in the number and nature of crimes committed by those racial groups. They suspended my account for providing factual information - and so they can go fuck their fake news PC selves!

Consequently, I'm unable to parse your meaning.
Not sure why anyone would argue about ...what?
People say ....what, kind of thing all the time?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What I'm getting is, that you initially attacked the story as fake news, and have since discovered that it's true - that Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men." Why not just admit your error and apologise? Instead you persist in an impossible position. Would you like me to reproduce the several places where you said it's fake news, and that I'm gullible for listening to it? Here's just one:



Again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

I couldn't look at the video because it's inappropriate for some users, and I won't sign in. Me, youtube, google, twitter - all fell out over political correctness, when at the height of the BLM rioting, I pointed out that statistics produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show very few Arrest Related Deaths as a percentage of overall arrests, 0.01% - in a country where people carry guns, and no particular racial bias not mirrored in the number and nature of crimes committed by those racial groups. They suspended my account for providing factual information - and so they can go fuck their fake news PC selves!

Consequently, I'm unable to parse your meaning.
Not sure why anyone would argue about ...what?
People say ....what, kind of thing all the time?

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

[Vitruvius]

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

I couldn't look at the video because it's inappropriate for some users, and I won't sign in. Me, youtube, google, twitter - all fell out over political correctness, when at the height of the BLM rioting, I pointed out that statistics produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show very few Arrest Related Deaths as a percentage of overall arrests, 0.01% - in a country where people carry guns, and no particular racial bias not mirrored in the number and nature of crimes committed by those racial groups. They suspended my account for providing factual information - and so they can go fuck their fake news PC selves!

Consequently, I'm unable to parse your meaning.
Not sure why anyone would argue about ...what?
People say ....what, kind of thing all the time?

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

Okay, that's fine. Just remember - what goes around comes around.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

I couldn't look at the video because it's inappropriate for some users, and I won't sign in. Me, youtube, google, twitter - all fell out over political correctness, when at the height of the BLM rioting, I pointed out that statistics produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show very few Arrest Related Deaths as a percentage of overall arrests, 0.01% - in a country where people carry guns, and no particular racial bias not mirrored in the number and nature of crimes committed by those racial groups. They suspended my account for providing factual information - and so they can go fuck their fake news PC selves!

Consequently, I'm unable to parse your meaning.
Not sure why anyone would argue about ...what?
People say ....what, kind of thing all the time?

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

Okay, that's fine. Just remember - what goes around comes around.

What a twat. I don't know why I bother.

[Vitruvius]

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

Okay, that's fine. Just remember - what goes around comes around.

What a twat. I don't know why I bother.

You didn't bother. You posted a link to a youtube video and said "this."

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.
Just look at this pile of dog shit.

I suspect you are seeking to provoke hate speech. This thread isn't about hating people. It's about protecting vulnerable children in particular, but also society in general, from an out of control politically correct dogma - that is insane, unfair, dishonest and hypocritical.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

Okay, that's fine. Just remember - what goes around comes around.

What a twat. I don't know why I bother.

You didn't bother. You posted a link to a youtube video and said "this."

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.
Just look at this pile of dog shit.

I suspect you are seeking to provoke hate speech. This thread isn't about hating people. It's about protecting vulnerable children in particular, but also society in general, from an out of control politically correct dogma - that is insane, unfair, dishonest and hypocritical.

I was talking about your ridiculous argument with mick'thinks' fuckwit. The video is called 'what are white people superior at?' with a bunch of people saying things like 'being dicks' 'being privileged' and generally being as offensive and racist as possible (which is naturally allowed by Youtube). I was making the POINT that the comment you quoted and which 'mickthinks' claimed hadn't been said is something that is hardly unique, therefore it's stupid to argue about whether or not it was said. What the fuck does ANY of THAT have to do with promoting so-called HATE SPEECH you fucking freak!!

Now, if you had just watched the fucking video instead of whining about some stupid 'issue' you have with Youtube then you would know all this.

KIndly go fuck yourself and resist the urge to post another moronic and completely off-the-mark non-response that has nothing to do with anything I've written. I was actually agreeing with you you stupid little cock.

The irony, of course, is that the video is the exact definition of 'hate speech', yet it's evidently considered quite acceptable.

[Vitruvius]

Why can't anything ever just be straightforward and normal ffs! If you can't watch the video then you can't watch the video. Don't ask me to explain it to you.

Okay, that's fine. Just remember - what goes around comes around.

What a twat. I don't know why I bother.

You didn't bother. You posted a link to a youtube video and said "this."

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.
Just look at this pile of dog shit.

I suspect you are seeking to provoke hate speech. This thread isn't about hating people. It's about protecting vulnerable children in particular, but also society in general, from an out of control politically correct dogma - that is insane, unfair, dishonest and hypocritical.

I was talking about your ridiculous argument with mick'thinks' fuckwit.

Which I'm perfectly capable of conducting without your help.

The video is called 'what are white people superior at?' with a bunch of people saying things like 'being dicks' 'being privileged' and generally being as offensive and racist as possible. I was making the POINT that the comment you quoted and which 'mickthinks' claimed hadn't been said is something that is hardly unique, therefore it's stupid to argue about whether or not it was said. What the fuck does ANY of THAT have to do with promoting so-called HATE SPEECH you fucking freak!!

Actually, there's a big difference between what occurs at a Labour Party conference, and what's said by a bunch of nobodies on youtube.

Now, if you had just watch the fucking video instead of whining about some stupid 'issue' you have with Youtube then you would know all this. Kindly go fuck yourself.

No thank you!

[Gary Childress]

Just to be clear - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

lol Snide insinuation is snide!

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

What I'm getting is, that you initially attacked the story as fake news, and have since discovered that it's true - that Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men." Why not just admit your error and apologise? Instead you persist in an impossible position. Would you like me to reproduce the several places where you said it's fake news, and that I'm gullible for listening to it? Here's just one:

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.

Again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

Not sure why anyone would argue about this. People say this kind of thing all the time.

Just look at this pile of dog shit. They could have said 'grammar' if the pathetic title is anything to go by, (or not, because I suspect it might have been 'created' by self-flagellating wokie fuckwits).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYZ2XoaBO2A&t=144s

The video seems kind of cute. I don't think they mean anything seriously terrible by it. Maybe some of us can be "dicks" sometimes. It just means some of us have to make more effort to be considerate and kind toward others.

[mickthinks]

... you initially attacked the story as fake news ... hat Mark Ferguson did stand up and say, "we've had too many contributions from white men."

I've never denied that something happened at the Labour Party conference. What I have pointed out and continue to point out is that white men were not urged not to “dominate” speaking slots, and no one was singled out on the basis of skin colour and forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say.

White men have been urged not to “dominate” speaking slots at Labour Party conference.

That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then.

There is a difference between saying "too many white men putting their hands up" and urging white men not to dominate speaking slots. There is an even bigger difference between saying "too many white men putting their hands up" and singling someone out on the basis of skin colour, forcing them into the spotlight of a debate when they've nothing to say.

I think any difficulty you have in understanding the difference between what happened and what you said happened is clear proof of a deficit in either your honesty or your intellect. I leave you to decide which of those is closest to the look you are striving for.

[Vitruvius]

Again, and again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen? I'd also like to know if you defend it; if you think it's a reasonable thing to say? And under what circumstances you'd say, or defend saying: "we've heard enough from black women"?

[mickthinks]

Again, and again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

Did what happen? I've already acknowledged that Mark Ferguson complained "too many white men putting their hands up". I did that here:-

So white men are naturally "over-represented" - and yet post modernist political correctness inverts that imagined identity politics pyramid ...

I think you are saying the pyramid isn't real, but if it were real, white men would be at the top and that's okay.

Have I got that right?

The incident - at the Labour Party conference, where Neal Ferguson complained that "too many white men are speaking"...

It was Mark Ferguson, and his complaint was "too many white men putting their hands up", but otherwise your grasp of the details of this story is astounding in its precision.

But you seem to be inferring from Ferguson telling delegates there were too many white men putting their hands up, that one or more people were singled out on the basis of skin colour, forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say. That is not a reasonable inference. I would go so far as to say it is a flagrantly dishonest misreresentation of the incident to which you've referred.

It's not a good look, man.

And it's still not a good look, dude!

[Vitruvius]

Again, and again, I ask you - are you now acknowledging that it did happen?

Did what happen? I've already acknowledged that Mark Ferguson complained "too many white men putting their hands up". I did that here:-

So white men are naturally "over-represented" - and yet post modernist political correctness inverts that imagined identity politics pyramid ...

I think you are saying the pyramid isn't real, but if it were real, white men would be at the top and that's okay.

Have I got that right?

The incident - at the Labour Party conference, where Neal Ferguson complained that "too many white men are speaking"...

It was Mark Ferguson, and his complaint was "too many white men putting their hands up", but otherwise your grasp of the details of this story is astounding in its precision.

But you seem to be inferring from Ferguson telling delegates there were too many white men putting their hands up, that one or more people were singled out on the basis of skin colour, forced into the spotlight of a debate when they had nothing to say. That is not a reasonable inference. I would go so far as to say it is a flagrantly dishonest misreresentation of the incident to which you've referred.

It's not a good look, man.

And it's still not a good look, dude!

So, with enormous effort, at last we have an explicit admission that the story in the Evening Standard is accurate. Why did you say:

"That appears to be a lie, and you are too gullible to apply your critical faculties to spot it. No surprise there then."

Do you not think you owe me an apology? If not, is it coz I is white?