Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

24567…10

Comments

  • #52
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #53
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    greencap wrote: »
    People of all persuasions and camps and sides do this kind of thing, the pile on.

    The opportunity to vent ones bile safely and almost anonymously, with the support of the crowd against one individual, especially one found in the wrong.

    I've experience of it myself, albeit for much less serious stuff.

    I had the crowd turn on me and for no reason, two or three people targeted me, a fourth saw and joined in, then a fifth and so on, til there was about 30 people just trying to pick on me for nothing in particular - not whinging its just I've seen it first hand, you don't have to even do anything, if some people see the opportunity they'll join in like rioters. Vent their spleen from safety and fade away.

    I think it's especially dangerous when they think they are doing the "right thing".

    I'd imagine that's what's happening in this case. Convince enough people that this lady was homophobic and suddenly it doesn't really matter how badly you treat her because it's all in service of a good cause.

    If she dies? Well hey there's one less homophobic person in the world.

    You think they should go easy on her? You're not defending homophobic people, are you? *knife sharpening intensifies*

    Plenty of people do bad things knowing fully that what they are doing is bad and wrong. They probably even feel some kind of guilt of self loathing about being an objectively bad person.

    In cases like this though you have people doing bad things but firmly believing that what they are doing is objectively good. It seems that many of them buy into the idea that there are no bad tactics, only bad targets.


  • #54
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    EDIT: Case in point, I vehemently support repealing the eighth amendment, but I don't believe in denying the pro-life crowd a platform to campaign against repealing it. SJWs, on the other hand, think it's ok within a democratic system to pull down the opposition's posters, and harass third party platforms into denying them a meeting space or a voice.

    As far as I know, extreme campaigners on both sides get up to these kinds of shenanigans. (certainly, poster-ripping and protesting meetings taking place have happened for both sides.) So if pro-choice campaigners that do this stuff are classed pejoratively as SJWs, what moniker is given to pro-life campaigners who indulge in same? And why do you only mention pro-choicers who get up to this kind of nonsense? Surely it's shitty either way?


  • #55
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    As far as I know, extreme campaigners on both sides get up to these kinds of shenanigans. (certainly, poster-ripping and protesting meetings taking place have happened for both sides.) So if pro-choice campaigners that do this stuff are classed as SJWs, what moniker is given to pro-life campaigners who indulge in same?

    Alt-Right?

    I think the internet is just SJW vs Alt-Right at this stage.

    If you refuse to take sides then then SJWs will call you Alt-Right and Alt-righters will call you SJW. Then they will both come after you! Good luck!


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And in my view, it isn't. There's precedents for content to be delayed for various reasons - porn is just another media, same as movies, TV shows, and anything else. It's a lot less respected socially than these other things, sure, but it is getting more mainstream with every passing year.

    In my eyes, delaying the release of her scene is no different than the recent series of the Punisher being delayed because of the Las Vegas shooting, or Gone Baby Gone being delayed because of Madeline McCann.


  • #57
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I feel like SJW is like "f*ckboy". It's a term that's thrown around quite a lot lately, but if you ask people exactly what they mean, nobody really has a definitive answer.

    It seems to be interchangeable with "virtue signaler" and "do-gooder" among awful unimaginative bores who get accused of shitty behaviour and are too thick to come up with a better insult.


  • #58
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Amazing that an expression of sexual preference now constitutes a phobia to some people. I myself so far in my life have never once found myself attracted to a man or woman of color. My entire sexual attraction matrix appears to be based on pale Irish skin. I even turned down a threesome in college that friends of mine were almost begging me to take up for their vicarious pleasure due to them being unattractive to me.

    So I suppose I am someone with Negrophobia now or what?

    I have heard that in some areas where porn is produced that there is a lot of pressure on participants to consent to the partners chosen for them. And being too picky or selective can get you a bad name, make you lose work, get black listed or worse. As a complete supporter of pornography and someone not at all convinced by the moral and ethical arguments against pornography (such as they are), I do think that that is an aspect that needs to be addressed better in some areas.

    This ex-porn actress speaks a lot about that very thing in this "Why I left porn" video.


  • #59
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    If I was a porn actress (there's a sentence I never thought I would type), I would hesitate to have sex with a man who had also had sex with men. I don't know why that is but there you go. Maybe that makes me a homophobe? But intellectually, I'm not. Viscerally... maybe?


  • #60
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Personally I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man. It's a personal preference and it's my choice to make. I'm not homophobic whateverphobic phobicphobic. It's a bloody choice. If people get offended by that I don't really GAF


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    I can't actually figure it out from this thread so could someone throw me a little TL;DR? Are people saying this girl was in the wrong to do what she did?


  • #62
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    I can't actually figure it out from this thread so could someone throw me a little TL;DR? Are people saying this girl was in the wrong to do what she did?

    Half the thread is people giving out about the mob and bullying, the rest is people upset at the usage of "SJW".


  • #63
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    RayM wrote: »
    It seems to be interchangeable with "virtue signaler" and "do-gooder" among awful unimaginative bores who get accused of shitty behaviour and are too thick to come up with a better insult.

    And those in turn seem to be interchangeable with "awful unimaginative bores" and "too thick to come up with a better insult" among do-gooders who get accused of virtue signalling.



  • #64
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Independently of anything here, including the telltale "SJW" which announces to the aware that the OP is against social justice,

    It's possible to be in favour of social justice while having a general disapproval of Social Justice Warriors, just as it is possible to be Pro-Life while having a general disapproval of Pro-Lifers.


  • #65
    Gijoseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Gijoseph


    RayM wrote: »
    It seems to be interchangeable with "virtue signaler" and "do-gooder" among awful unimaginative bores who get accused of shitty behaviour and are too thick to come up with a better insult.

    Not particularly. Usually people that are offended by the term by an abnormal amount could probably use the term for themselves.


  • #66
    LadyMacBeth_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,070 ✭✭✭LadyMacBeth_


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    If I was a porn actress (there's a sentence I never thought I would type), I would hesitate to have sex with a man who had also had sex with men. I don't know why that is but there you go. Maybe that makes me a homophobe? But intellectually, I'm not. Viscerally... maybe?
    anna080 wrote: »
    Personally I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man. It's a personal preference and it's my choice to make. I'm not homophobic whateverphobic phobicphobic. It's a bloody choice. If people get offended by that I don't really GAF

    I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #68
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    anna080 wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with what she said. But I'd imagine she wasn't in a sound space to begin with. Although Twitter can be a scourge, people don't take their lives solely off the back of vicious comments directed at them on a social platform. There must have been other factors at play and this merely compounded her already fragile state.


    Unfortunately, all too often, they do, because social media allows for very public humiliation of an individual, and there have been many examples of young people who have taken their own lives following their public humiliation on social media.

    Having said that. Twitter makes it too easy for people to mock and deride others just for sharing a difference in opinion. I said this in another thread yesterday but It really is a cesspit. I would say it's an example of social media at its worst. The amount of bullying, shaming, harassment that is apparent on it is overwhelming. I've seen people being hounded for sharing a difference of opinion, their place of work shared, parental/marital/relationship status shamed- all in the name of one comment or remark that a group of people take issue with and feel it's okay to mock and deride everything about you. These things gain momentum too so an off the cuff remark can be retweeted and forwarded, shared and shamed before you know it. Mad.


    I don't think it's particularly platform specific, same thing goes on here on Boards all the time for example.

    I can imagine how easy it must be for a flippant remark to get out of hand and if you're already in a bad place it just exacerbates an existing problem.


    It does, but that shouldn't be a mitigating factor for the bullying behaviour of the people who directly contributed to this young woman's decision to take her own life. The even more horrible thing is that those people will feel their behaviour was justified. They won't recognise their behaviour as bullying because they have themselves convinced of their own righteousness, validated and judtified by the mob mentality they're all part of. It's only when they themselves as individuals are the target of public humiliation that they'll cry foul.


  • #69
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    Infini wrote: »
    From our greatest asset: Urban Dictionary!

    "Social Justice Warrior

    A person who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority. The behaviors of Social justice warriors usually have a negative impact on the civil rights movement, turning away potential allies and fueling the resurgence of bigoted groups that scoop up people who have been burned or turned off by social justice warriors.

    If social justice warriors would just fu'ck off, we could actually make some progress."

    It's ironic to think that SJWs probably indirectly helped to get Trump elected.


  • #70
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    A lot of psychologists frequent AH, I was not aware of this.

    As for the OPs question, bullying is bullying, regardless of the median, and should be dealt with severely.


  • #71
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,496 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    Gijoseph wrote: »
    Not particularly. Usually people that are offended by the term by an abnormal amount could probably use the term for themselves.

    Very much this.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    anna080 wrote: »
    Personally I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man. It's a personal preference and it's my choice to make. I'm not homophobic whateverphobic phobicphobic. It's a bloody choice. If people get offended by that I don't really GAF

    I think the problem is that people are not just getting offended anymore.

    That would be fine. Someone says something I don't like and I get offended and that's that.

    Groups of people have convinced themselves that words are tantamount to violence. Since meeting violence with violence could technically be seen as self defense, there's only one way this can go.

    We've seen how it goes because historically we know what happened to many people who once "offended" religious sensibilities. The causing of offence was seen as fundamentally dangerous and was dealt with as though the person causing offence was a danger to society.

    So you post a thing like "I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man" and someone takes it upon themselves to find out who you are and where you work etc and then suddenly it's a serious problem.

    Or maybe they go to other people who might be less rational and more quick to violence and sneakily convince them that you are a "Nazi" and we all know what should be done with Nazis.

    The worst thing is that the person doing this might think that they are doing a good thing.

    You said these words therefore they've interpreted that and applied this label to you. Now they are going to administer the agreed punishment for being an <insert label here>.

    Anyone who defends you or says "hey, this is going to far now" is an <insert label here> apologist which is really just the same as <insert label here> so they can face the punishment too.

    For cultures like the USA, Canada and Ireland etc this is completely regressive.


  • #73
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    anna080 wrote: »
    Personally I wouldn't have sex with a man who has had sex with another man. It's a personal preference and it's my choice to make. I'm not homophobic whateverphobic phobicphobic. It's a bloody choice. If people get offended by that I don't really GAF


    I'm with you, the way I look at it is, I am perfectly entitled to only have sex with people I want to have sex with, I couldn't give a rats arse what anyone else thinks of my reason.
    If you're too fat, skinny, tall, short, white, black, young, old or whatever for my tastes that is all the reason I need right there. No correspondence will be entered into!


  • #74
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »
    I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

    I honestly don’t know. I can’t quite put my finger on it. I’m straight and I think I’d prefer a sexual partner to be too. Statistically, HIV is much more likely if you have anal sex often too due to bodily mechanics, that’s another issue at the back of my mind.


  • #75
    Gijoseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Gijoseph


    I'd say a few posters here are so angry that they can't call others misogynists. They've had to resort to their permanent offence at the term SJW.


  • #76
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    A gay cake?
    Bakers up north found to be breaking the law by not doing business with someone based on their sexuality. This girl's business was her body. Seems like a reasonable parallel to me.


  • #77
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »
    I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

    It's just a preference, LMB. I suppose if I'm being honest with myself it just does nothing for me to imagine two men together. It doesn't turn me on and as a straight person I'd prefer it if my partner was straight too.
    As Dara said above me HIV is also more prevalent among gay/bi men too. I suppose that fact is there are the back of my mind too contributing to my decision.


  • #78
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I'm with you, the way I look at it is, I am perfectly entitled to only have sex with people I want to have sex with, I couldn't give a rats arse what anyone else thinks of my reason.
    If you're too fat, skinny, tall, short, white, black, young, old or whatever for my tastes that is all the reason I need right there. No correspondence will be entered into!

    I would like to refer you to the following article from Everyday Feminism.

    https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/12/dating-preferences-discriminatory/

    I'm sorry but, in respect to your "tastes", that's pretty discriminatory.

    So you disagree with "Everyday Feminism"? That means you don't agree that men and women should be treated equally under the law. So you are a misogynist. You know who else is misogynists? The alt-right. You know another name for the alt right? Nazis.

    Hey everyone! This poster over here is a Nazi! Get them!

    I'm just a good person though. A very good guy. Reasonable too.
    None of you are as good as me.

    Yours sincerely,

    A Warrior for Social Justice. xx


  • #79
    Gijoseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Gijoseph


    I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.


  • #80
    LadyMacBeth_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,070 ✭✭✭LadyMacBeth_


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I honestly don’t know. I can’t quite put my finger on it. I’m straight and I think I’d prefer a sexual partner to be too. Statistically, HIV is much more likely if you have anal sex often too due to bodily mechanics, that’s another issue at the back of my mind.
    anna080 wrote: »
    It's just a preference, LMB. I suppose if I'm being honest with myself it just does nothing for me to imagine two men together. It doesn't turn me on and as a straight person I'd prefer it if my partner was straight too.
    As Dara said above me HIV is also more prevalent among gay men too. I suppose that fact is there are the back of my mind too contributing to my decision.

    Thanks for your replies, I've just never really thought about it. I'm coming from a different place as a bi-sexual person though. I think it's probably similar to the fact that I generally tend to be more attracted to white people than black people or Asian people. I don't consider it to be racist, just my general sexual preference.

    Just edited to say that I suppose it struck a cord with me because I've often heard of gay/straight people not wanting to go out with bi people because of the stereotype of promiscuity and other reasons like this. It is of course everyone's individual choice but I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone would rule me out because of my sexuality alone. Then again they could rule me out because I'm a chubster, or because they aren't typically attracted to white people and I couldn't object to that.


  • #81
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Bakers up north found to be breaking the law by not doing business with someone based on their sexuality. This girl's business was her body. Seems like a reasonable parallel to me.

    To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Gijoseph wrote: »
    I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.

    I think this is perfectly rational position to hold


  • #83
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Gijoseph wrote: »
    I don't think it was so much based on whether she had an opinion on the rights or wrongs of gay sex. It was due to the maddening fact that performers are not tested.


    Exactly! She made no comment about gay sex, and she wouldn't because she would be aware that a number of straight male performers also do gay porn because it simply pays better and there are more opportunities for them than just doing straight porn.

    To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.


  • #84
    Gijoseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Gijoseph


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    I think this is perfectly rational position to hold

    Not to the irrational idiots that bullied the crap out of her.


  • #85
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    RayM wrote: »
    To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.
    Agree to disagree. The principle is the same.


  • #86
    Gijoseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 64 ✭✭Gijoseph


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Exactly! She made no comment about gay sex, and she wouldn't because she would be aware that a number of straight male performers also do gay porn because it simply pays better and there are more opportunities for them than just doing straight porn.

    To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.

    Hence why I used SJW as a term. The headline reading mouth breathers failed to pick up on that.


  • #87
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,673 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    RayM wrote: »
    To be fair, that person in the north only wanted them to bake a cake, not put his untested bodily fluids into them. So I'm not sure I'd call it a reasonable parallel.

    I would hope a court wouldnt be retarded and make a similar judgement if something like ever became a case but I think the parallels are there none the less

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #88
    PeterParker957
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »
    I'm just curious, not attacking your choice at all, as it is your choice. I'm just wondering why you feel that way. Is it to do with a concern about unprotected sex in the past and possible STIs or is it just that the thought or idea that a man has had sex with another man turns you off them sexually?

    I have a scary feeling that it's harking back to the start of AIDS and a WHOLLY UNFOUNDED myth that only gay men got it.

    Would I sleep with a man who had also previously slept with a man ? Why ever not ???


  • #89
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    silverharp wrote: »
    I would hope a court wouldnt be retarded and make a similar judgement if something like ever became a case but I think the parallels are there none the less

    I think the parallels could be there, if and only if the baker sincerely believes that baking the cake could potentially result in negative personal consequences - like being struck down by a wrathful God. Otherwise I'm not seeing it.


  • #90
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    To me it sounds like what she said was purposely misconstrued in order to publicly humiliate her for something she hadn't even implied.

    I would say this is exactly what has happened.

    I don't think it's particularly unusual human behavior as, in real life, I've witnessed such behavior in groups I've been part of over the years. People trying to victimize others by spreading half-truths or misinterpretations. They always tried to hide it though.

    There seems to be a growing trend of these kind of things being done openly and in public. It can even get to the extent of people having misrepresentations of their character and points of view openly shared by media outlets.

    It's disturbing to watch someone be lied about and bullied in public and not being able to do anything about it.

    I mean not even being able to speak up about it on an anonymous internet forum without having people implying that you are against social justice.

    Look at the OP here for example. The 5th reply to the OP was a statement that the OP is against social justice. A post with 7 likes.

    So long as the "right" people are being targeted and you can gain some sense of being virtuous by joining the mob then nobody really seems to care.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Agree to disagree. The principle is the same.

    I dunno, a cake is a food item. A human being is an individual with preferences and a desire to avoid health issues as far as possible.

    Call me crazy, but I think one might be slightly more important than the other with more complex issues as a result of their sentience.

    I hope that doesn't come across as discrimination against cakes. :(


  • #92
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Candie wrote: »
    I hope that doesn't come across as discrimination against cakes. :(

    At the risk of some dullard calling me a "virtue signaler" I'd just like to say that I would never, under any circumstances, discriminate against a cake, whatever its colour.


  • #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RayM wrote: »
    At the risk of some dullard calling me a "virtue signaler" I'd just like to say that I would never, under any circumstances, discriminate against a cake, whatever its colour.

    Or flavour, you monster!


  • #94
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    My sexual preference is not to sleep with gay men as I find the idea repulsive. Sleeping with a straight man is less repulsive. It's so weird to think I could be attacked so ferociously for something like that.


  • #95
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    RayM wrote: »
    At the risk of some dullard calling me a "virtue signaler" I'd just like to say that I would never, under any circumstances, discriminate against a cake, whatever its colour.

    Oh I dunno. I can not even share a room with coffee cake, let alone actually put one inside my body by any means or via any orifice.


  • #96
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    PeterParker957 wrote: »
    I have a scary feeling that it's harking back to the start of AIDS and a WHOLLY UNFOUNDED myth that only gay men got it.

    Would I sleep with a man who had also previously slept with a man ? Why ever not ???

    Well, I certainly don’t think that only gay men pass around HIV. However it is much more likely to be transmitted via anal sex. That’s just a fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This thread has confirmed something pretty depressing to me; everyone seems to have a side now.

    If this was a story of online abuse leading to a suicide would the first reaction be "Oh they obviously must have had other problems already". If it was Transphobic abuse or "slut-shaming" would the first instinct be to undermine that argument? Would it ****e.


    Tragic stuff altogether, whatever the "cause".


  • #98
    PeterParker957
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    Candie wrote: »
    RayM wrote: »
    At the risk of some dullard calling me a "virtue signaler" I'd just like to say that I would never, under any circumstances, discriminate against a cake, whatever its colour.

    Or flavour, you monster!

    I hate coffee cake and it will never be welcome in my house.


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This thread has confirmed something pretty depressing to me; everyone seems to have a side now.

    If this was a story of online abuse leading to a suicide would the first reaction be "Oh they obviously must have had other problems already". If it was Transphobic abuse or "slut-shaming" would the first instinct be to undermine that argument? Would it ****e.


    Tragic stuff altogether, whatever the "cause".

    Only it's been reported that she had been suffering heavily from depression.


  • #100
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    PeterParker957 wrote: »
    I hate coffee cake and it will never be welcome in my house.

    Carrot cake is the king of standard cakes. But to preach such vitriol against coffee cake should be a charter breach.


  • #101
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,673 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    RayM wrote: »
    I think the parallels could be there, if and only if the baker sincerely believes that baking the cake could potentially result in negative personal consequences - like being struck down by a wrathful God. Otherwise I'm not seeing it.

    but its about the concept of owning your work. A court could decide her reason isn't valid and technically she might even be wrong (as in her risk assessment) but it wouldn't be the point.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
Advertisement