“Anti-male” activist faces court in UK

Maguined

Very Bored wrote: »

One thing which confuses me about all this is that she is clearly white herself. None of her photos gives me the impression she's anything other than caucasian regardless of what her name might be. So I wonder what she thinks of male members of her own family or if she's so deranged that when she sees them she actually, in her head only, sees black men.

Her family originally comes from Turkey. Turks are racially white but the events were listed as BME so for Black and minority ethnic women or non-binary people. Even though Turks are racially white she considers herself non-white as she is still an ethnic minority. I wonder if the event would allow a pasty white Irish woman in as she is an ethnic minority in the UK? It would be a tough call between the all that lovely guilt and oppression on one hand against the total lack of exoticness on the other.

justchecked

Wonder who designed the computer she used to send her message.

Wonder who designed the piercing gun for her nose ring.

Wonder who designed and manufactured her red lipstick.

Booo white men.

darkpagandeath

zeffabelli wrote: »

I dont think she should be brought to court for this.

What makes me nervous about this is the internet could be the end of free speech because it's 18th century mob mentality facilitated by 20th century technology.

WE cant criminally charge people everytime they say something we don't like. Sure she deserved to be fired, but the government has no right to prosecute her.

We don't have protected Free speech here in Ireland or the UK why can't people get that simple fact. it's not something being taken away we never had it.

wp_rathead

The Corinthian wrote: »

• Any employer will likely think twice before employing anyone who's graduated from Goldsmiths University, in future.

I think that is nonsense tbh

darkpagandeath

wp_rathead wrote: »

I think that is nonsense tbh

I dunno Social media comes back to bite many a person in the ass when they give the prospective employer their FB or Twitter. It's not just you now it's who you hang around with what views they have.

Subcomandante Marcos

Maguined wrote: »

Her family originally comes from Turkey. Turks are racially white but the events were listed as BME so for Black and minority ethnic women or non-binary people. Even though Turks are racially white she considers herself non-white as she is still an ethnic minority. I wonder if the event would allow a pasty white Irish woman in as she is an ethnic minority in the UK? It would be a tough call between the all that lovely guilt and oppression on one hand against the total lack of exoticness on the other.

Turkish people are not white,they are Turkic, just like people from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and pockets of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan amongst other areas in near and central Asia and eastern Russia.

Duggy747

I'm surprised she's been let loose for this length of time without repercussion from her antics, it was only a matter of time before something caught up on her as she constantly comes across as a very unpleasant person with a mixed, conflicting bag of ideals.

speedboatchase

Look, I'm gonna go Voltaire on this one and say that while I don't agree with the politics of this woman, she has every right to send a harmless, clearly hyperbolic tweet intended for humour.

People like her are the kind of people who want to outlaw or marginalise speech that offends them, BUT that does not mean that free speech advocates should not defend *her* right to free speech. If people rejoice in her being charged, they're no better than her.

She probably wouldn't agree with me on a lot of things, or support my right to free speech (since I'm 'privileged'). But I support her right to free speech on this because I don't want a society where people are being brought to court for jokes being (deliberately) taken out of context.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

Look, I'm gonna go Voltaire on this one and say that while I don't agree with the politics of this woman, she has every right to send a harmless, clearly hyperbolic tweet intended for humour.

People like her are the kind of people who want to outlaw or marginalise speech that offends them, BUT that does not mean that free speech advocates should not defend *her* right to free speech. If people rejoice in her being charged, they're no better than her.

She probably wouldn't agree with me on a lot of things, or support my right to free speech (since I'm 'privileged'). But I support her right to free speech on this because I don't want a society where people are being brought to court for jokes being (deliberately) taken out of context.

Out of context have you read some of her other work...

wp_rathead

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I dunno Social media comes back to bite many a person in the ass when they give the prospective employer their FB or Twitter. It's not just you now it's who you hang around with what views they have.

True, but the posters point was simply goin to this college will hinder your chances of employment
I don't buy that

Infini

It amazes me that people will whinge moan and everything else about these types and forget the 1st thing about the internet....

"Dont feed the trolls"

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Out of context have you read some of her other work...

I have, and she's the type of extreme 'progressive' who seem to be transforming university campuses and shutting out rational debatement and outsider opinions under the facist guise of 'safe spaces', 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions'.

But while her hashtag was nasty and comes from a prejudical outlook, it was not 'incitement to violence'. People who deliberately pretended that they saw that message as an incitement to violence did so to humiliate her. Which is probably the same kind of tactics people like her regularly adopt when they see tweets they don't like.

My point is that free speech advocates can't rejoice when someone who is anti-free speech is humiliated through these tactics. Getting the police involved is silly and no victory for free speech at all.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

I have, and she's the type of extreme 'progressive' who seem to be transforming university campuses and shutting out rational debatement and outsider opinions under the facist guise of 'safe spaces', 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions'.

But while her hashtag was nasty and comes from a prejudical outlook, it was not 'incitement to violence'. People who deliberately pretended that they saw that message as an incitement to violence did so to humiliate her. Which is probably the same kind of tactics people like her regularly adopt when they see tweets they don't like.

My point is that free speech advocates can't rejoice when someone who is anti-free speech is humiliated through these tactics. Getting the police involved is silly and no victory for free speech at all.

True but Ireland And the UK do not have Protected Free speech this is not something that is being lost we never had it. She fell on the Sword she would use to strike others down with.

Maguined

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Turkish people are not white,they are Turkic, just like people from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and pockets of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan amongst other areas in near and central Asia and eastern Russia.

White and Black are racial identifiers, Turkic is ethnic.

suicide_circus

speedboatchase wrote: »

I have, and she's the type of extreme 'progressive' who seem to be transforming university campuses and shutting out rational debatement and outsider opinions under the facist guise of 'safe spaces', 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions'.

But while her hashtag was nasty and comes from a prejudical outlook, it was not 'incitement to violence'. People who deliberately pretended that they saw that message as an incitement to violence did so to humiliate her. Which is probably the same kind of tactics people like her regularly adopt when they see tweets they don't like.

My point is that free speech advocates can't rejoice when someone who is anti-free speech is humiliated through these tactics. Getting the police involved is silly and no victory for free speech at all.

These people preach tolerance and freedom right up until the point you disagree with them in any way

osarusan

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It does I already said pages back that they probably come from people in countries with protected speech. One has already concluded this case due to her being a British citizen and identifiable. Her history also makes very interesting reading some very stupid comments all round. Serial offender on the edginess.

Where she is from and the relevant laws determine what is protected or not, and what action can be taken - but that's not connected to what I said.

Or, do you think that when people say 'imagine the outrage there would be if there was a hashtag that said #killalltrans', they only mean if the person making the comments was in a place where such comments could acted upon - and that there would and should be no such outrage otherwise?

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

True but Ireland And the UK do not have Protected Free speech this is not something that is being lost we never had it. She fell on the Sword she would use to strike others down with.

Cases like this make it very easy for extreme feminists to characterise free speech advocates as having a deliberate vendetta against them, when the reality should be that free speech advocates just want people to have platforms to speak their mind and not feel pressured into self-censoring.

This charge plays right into the already massive victimhood complex of 'progressives' and mischaracterises the intentions of those who want free speech for everyone, including them.

darkpagandeath

osarusan wrote: »

Where she is from and the relevant laws determine what is protected or not, and what action can be taken - but that's not connected to what I said.

Or, do you think that when people say 'imagine the outrage there would be if there was a hashtag that said #killalltrans', they only mean if the person making the comments was in a place where such comments could acted upon - and that there should be no such outrage otherwise?

One can be outraged all one likes if you have protected free speech. Problem's come when you don't. And being an adult and her job she would have been well aware of these laws.

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

She is an official from a recognized organization representing the students of that university. As such she is in a position of authority and influence and can implement official policy (such as barring white males from events that recieve student funding). An unknown social worker who, in a position of authority and influence, doing the same thing or a county Councillor stating that only white people need apply for building permits would and should be taken up on such policies.

That is a very fair point, you are right.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

Cases like this make it very easy for extreme feminists to characterise free speech advocates as having a deliberate vendetta against them, when the reality should be that free speech advocates just want people to have platforms to speak their mind and not feel pressured into self-censoring.

This charge plays right into the already massive victimhood complex of 'progressives' and mischaracterises the intentions of those who want free speech for everyone, including them.

But they don't that's the point she wants it for her and not for any who disagree with what she spouts. You can tell by what she posts.

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But they don't that's the point she wants it for her and not for any who disagree with what she spouts. You can tell by what she posts.

I agree completely. She doesn't support free speech, but I support her right to free speech, as I support anyone's. This was not a genuine 'incitement to violence' - it was a silly, hyperbolic tweet.

People who support free speech should not resort to the same tactics (deliberately misreading of a tweet to bring in the authorities and humiliate the person) to punish those who don't.

melissak

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

How very a la carte of you, considering you posted this not so long ago:



I suppose it doesn't affect you so you shouldn't care...

I didn't say she should have said it or that it was not wrong, or that the university should not fire her. I said it was not imo a crime. Thank you for caring so much about my opinion that you would read my past posts, on other threads, to find discrepancies. I'm flattered.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

I agree completely. She doesn't support free speech, but I support her right to free speech, as I support anyone's. This was not a genuine 'incitement to violence' - it was a silly, hyperbolic tweet.

People who support free speech should not resort to the same tactics (deliberately misreading of a tweet to bring in the authorities and humiliate the person) to punish those who don't.

I would love Protected free speech, But here is the thing she would use the stick on everyone who does not agree. So she should expect the stick in return that's how it works. Does she have the right to be an Idiot yes, Does she have the right to cross the law and not be pulled up on it that's a no.

speedboatchase

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I would love Protected free speech, But here is the thing she would use the stick on everyone who does not agree. So she should expect the stick in return that's how it works. Does she have the right to be an Idiot yes, Does she have the right to cross the law and not be pulled up on it that's a no.

Yeah, she'd try have me locked up if I ever tweeted '#killallwomen' as a joke. No doubt about it.

But advocating for free speech has to be universal, and means taking the high ground and applying your principles across the board, even if it means having to defend all sort of eejits.

darkpagandeath

speedboatchase wrote: »

Yeah, she'd try have me locked up if I ever tweeted '#killallwomen' as a joke. No doubt about it.

But advocating for free speech has to be universal, and means taking the high ground and applying your principles across the board, even if it means having to defend all sort of eejits.

Oh don't get me wrong I would agree, But the problem is she was not even cleaver enough not to use her work Twitter account. I think that's the Crux. What she said could be taken as an official stance.

twin_beacon

she need a good ride

J Mysterio

Your one's a fcking d1ck. Hate people like that. 'I am unhappy in my life so I will blame others blah blah blah'. Get over it you silly bitch.

Should probably be expelled from her university but definitely fired from her position as Welfare and Diversity officer (wtf?!).

She also looks a bit like Dobby from peep show.

melissak

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong I would agree, But the problem is she was not even cleaver enough not to use her work Twitter account. I think that's the Crux. What she said could be taken as an official stance.

Did she use her official university account and not her personal account

darkpagandeath

melissak wrote: »

Did she use her official university account and not her personal account

As Far as I am aware, Could be corrected.

Nodin

Lucifer MorningStar wrote: »

Anyone else think she looks like a man ?

Not so much that, but if shes a 'woman of colour' I'm oprah winfrey.