Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
If SCOTUS Won’t Enforce the 14th Amendment, We Should Worry How They’ll Handle the 22nd
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/if-scotus-won-t-enforce-the-14th-amendment-we-should-worry-how-they-ll-handle-the-22nd ..Tired of one standard applying to Donald Trump and another to everyone else, Democrats rally behind Obama and, on the fourth day, nominate him by acclamation. States led by Republican officials refuse to place him on the ballot, citing his ineligibility. But states led by Democratic officials, following the Supreme Court’s declination to bar Trump, place Obama on the ballot, putting him on the ballot in enough states to potentially win 270 Electoral College votes.
Trump supporters in Michigan sue, and the case quickly reaches the Supreme Court. What should the Court do? In this imagined future, what is the Court likely to do?
Until recently, the answer to the first question was uncontroversial: It should strike Obama from the ballot. But in this scenario, the answer to the second question is much harder: The Court would have to know that keeping the likely Republican nominee on the ballot but knocking the preferred Democrat off would render it partisan beyond repair.
This scenario is of course solely for purposes of illustration. Joe Biden is not going anywhere. But one aspect of it is not entirely made up. While Barack Obama has never suggested running for a third term, Donald Trump has. Repeatedly.
“We are going to win four more years,” he said in August 2020, “and then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” He went on a month later: “After [getting reelected], we’ll negotiate, right? Because we’re probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that.”
Notwithstanding the implausibility of this argument as a legal matter, it is not hard to see how, if returned to power, Republicans might rally behind it in 2028 just as Democrats might rally behind Obama in the tale just told, especially if the Supreme Court decides this year that it is not its job to enforce the Constitution to bar popular candidates from the ballot...
This is where the “they can’t possibly bar Trump, they won’t be seen to be anti-democratic” argument falls down. And why I don’t actually see that policy argument affecting their judgment on this issue.
The constitution says certain people can’t be president. You can argue that’s anti-democratic* but thems the rules.
*besides which, I’d argue it’s not palpably anti-democratic because there is a constitutional mechanism that allows the rules to be changed if enough people want them to be, via a constitutional amendment.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Will that prediction age as well as your other predictions about Tucker on Twitter?
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Will that prediction age as well as your other predictions about Tucker on Twitter?
Like I said, he's bored. And it's skewing his sense of what's interesting.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
The danger for people who are confused in teenage years is that things happen to them (puberty blockers etc) that cannot be undone. That is not the case for sexual preference.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the true incidence of trans people is tiny (less than 0.1%?). Ultimately I do not experience their lives, so I have no idea what it is like to feel that you are trans. I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I have the same inability to understand how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, as I am not, and never have been, but I accept its a real thing.
The issue with prisons is just part of the wider discussion about womens rights. What about womens hostels? Whose rights are given priority?
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So what would a 'significant' number be claiming transracial? There are certainly cases - Rachel Dolezal for one.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chasing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
One thing to remember about Carlson's love-in with Putin: Russia has a terrible track record of journalists being murdered and jailed - particularly ones that are anti-regime.
I daresay Carlson does not want to share their fate.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
That is a very generous percentage of impression to >1min watch rate. I would guess 5%.
Oh, I know.
Tucker getting 5m impressions for an interview Tweet is an utter disaster. As you say, that's probably only 100k views. Which makes his interviews (pre-Putin) about as popular as a second tier chess YouTuber.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
The danger for people who are confused in teenage years is that things happen to them (puberty blockers etc) that cannot be undone. That is not the case for sexual preference.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the true incidence of trans people is tiny (less than 0.1%?). Ultimately I do not experience their lives, so I have no idea what it is like to feel that you are trans. I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I have the same inability to understand how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, as I am not, and never have been, but I accept its a real thing.
The issue with prisons is just part of the wider discussion about womens rights. What about womens hostels? Whose rights are given priority?
What with it being such an important issue, hopefully there can be a consensus on both sides that it shouldn't be turned into a cheap little joke for party political advantage.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Except that it won’t be on TV.
That’s the bit that’s groundbreaking.
As someone mentioned earlier today, this is like when Barbara Waters went to interview Castro. But not on TV.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
And, of course, Twitter does make an actual MRC-compliant video view count available to the creator (based on at least 50% of the video frame being in view for at least 2 seconds). The fact that neither Carlson or whoever handles his Twitter has made those numbers available strongly suggests that they're terrible.
His big Trump relaunch interview last year got 57m impressions in the first 24 hours, and is currently at 88m. The Putin one will get... maybe ten times that?
I'd guess that more people will see it as a clip on TV news or embedded in other videos. But that still gets Carlson talked about, so he'll see it as a win either way.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
The danger for people who are confused in teenage years is that things happen to them (puberty blockers etc) that cannot be undone. That is not the case for sexual preference.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the true incidence of trans people is tiny (less than 0.1%?). Ultimately I do not experience their lives, so I have no idea what it is like to feel that you are trans. I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I have the same inability to understand how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, as I am not, and never have been, but I accept its a real thing.
The issue with prisons is just part of the wider discussion about womens rights. What about womens hostels? Whose rights are given priority?
I have a niece who is a prison officer, and has been for many years. To my knowledge she has never had a problem with a trans prisoner although in her time she’s met plenty of very nasty men indeed. However she’s now moving to a different area of prison activity, re-education, so I wait to hear her stories. So far as she can tell them!
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
That is a very generous percentage of impression to >1min watch rate. I would guess 5%.
Oh, I know.
Tucker getting 5m impressions for an interview Tweet is an utter disaster. As you say, that's probably only 100k views. Which makes his interviews (pre-Putin) about as popular as a second tier chess YouTuber.
You can say what you like about Tucker but one thing you can be sure about is he will never be stale, mate.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
Good grief . Badenoch should stfu .
#ToryScum
She is the future of the Tory party. A Rees-Mogg/Badenoch/Braverman future. They deserve to be completely annihilated at the GE for Ratnering our country.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
Starmer is arguably clearer than Badenoch & Co. They chunter that women "can't have a penis" and that a woman is "an adult born female" yet unless I've missed it they make no suggestion to repeal/amend the Gender Recognition Act into line with those views. Repeal it if they wish to prevent people changing gender or link it to surgery if they wish to police their genitals.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
No disrespect, but that does sound like disrespect.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
No disrespect, but that does sound like disrespect.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
Really MrS? I thought that was me! Apart from having sex with more women, in case Mrs C reads this!
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chasing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
A little bit of self certification there Leon, don't you think?
You may be right but it's for others to decide not yourself.
That's why I miss SeanT - he would never self-certify!
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
As funny as your "I can't help but notice I am considerably richer than yow" response is, can we park it?
Seanie is in one of his I AM A GOLDEN GOD phases. Bless him. You don't need to slap the old chap on the desk and start measuring it. I have to ask the question - do you really care where it measures vs his?
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
"Nearly gone". What's stopping you? Waiting for someone to show you how to close a browser?
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
As funny as your "I can't help but notice I am considerably richer than yow" response is, can we park it?
Seanie is in one of his I AM A GOLDEN GOD phases. Bless him. You don't need to slap the old chap on the desk and start measuring it. I have to ask the question - do you really care where it measures vs his?
We can park it if you wish. I can always come back to it.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
You see? The only way you can try to be witty or clever is to try and copy or parody me, but you can’t even do that, not in an amusing way
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
That's a lovely post to play "Seven Deadly Sins Bingo" with.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
And, of course, Twitter does make an actual MRC-compliant video view count available to the creator (based on at least 50% of the video frame being in view for at least 2 seconds). The fact that neither Carlson or whoever handles his Twitter has made those numbers available strongly suggests that they're terrible.
His big Trump relaunch interview last year got 57m impressions in the first 24 hours, and is currently at 88m. The Putin one will get... maybe ten times that?
I'd guess that more people will see it as a clip on TV news or embedded in other videos. But that still gets Carlson talked about, so he'll see it as a win either way.
Leon could be right. This could be the Frost/Nixon de no jours. Most likely everyone on pb would watch it, especially once it is pirated from TwiX onto Youtube. But I'd imagine what Tucker Carlson wants is for it to be bought, and him to be bought, by one of the major channels.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
The danger for people who are confused in teenage years is that things happen to them (puberty blockers etc) that cannot be undone. That is not the case for sexual preference.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the true incidence of trans people is tiny (less than 0.1%?). Ultimately I do not experience their lives, so I have no idea what it is like to feel that you are trans. I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I have the same inability to understand how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, as I am not, and never have been, but I accept its a real thing.
The issue with prisons is just part of the wider discussion about womens rights. What about womens hostels? Whose rights are given priority?
Puberty blockers are, indeed, undoable. We prescribe them all the time to children who have precocious puberty and those children then can go on and have a typical puberty alongside their peers. That has been standard medical practice for like 60 years. And we let lots of people do lots of things that are undoable they may regret - again more people regret their abortions and having their children; these are very unundoable things - how should we regulate that?
You expect but cannot prove? Okay - well I wipe my arse with that.
What's the issue with women's hostels? You don't want abusers in there. If a lesbian comes to a hostel and her abusive partner turns up - are they allowed in because they're a woman? No. So, once again, the issue is abusers. I think it is reasonable to have a general blanket no men for woman's shelters - but I've also heard stories of women who go to shelters with their kids in tow because the man beats them too, only to be told that a 15 year old boy can't stay there as well because he's basically a man. I think these things need to have some flexibility that allows for case by case review. There is no evidence of transpeople being more likely to be predatory in those spaces - again most of the abuse is cis on cis.
As for your point in your other comment about Dolezal - that is literally one example. We have significantly more examples of transgenderism, across thousands of years, across multiple different forms of society. Whether it's a Roman Empress, some Sycthian priestesses, the two-spirit culture of Native Americans or the 5-6 gender identities outlined in some versions of the Hebrew bible, all the way to the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in the 20s and 30s - trans people are there.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
You see? The only way you can try to be witty or clever is to try and copy or parody me, but you can’t even do that, not in an amusing way
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
It's not trying to be witty or clever. Just giving you facts. When rich people call me it is to pay me £750 an hour to sort out the mess they've got themselves in at their workplaces. When rich people call you it's to get a steer on the best Ladyboy bars in Bangkok - a service that you can't price at a premium. It's obvious who's the Alpha here. You're just a late middle age fat bloke who thinks he's a cross between James Bond, Nigel Farage and Michael Palin.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
Just imagine all the wind passing by before the final *thwack*. Isn't it a calming thought? It certainly is for me.
@leon is Matt Smith's doctor right at the end. Ancient, being bothered by the spectres of his previous incarntions - @LadyG@eadric etc
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed solitude. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
And, of course, Twitter does make an actual MRC-compliant video view count available to the creator (based on at least 50% of the video frame being in view for at least 2 seconds). The fact that neither Carlson or whoever handles his Twitter has made those numbers available strongly suggests that they're terrible.
His big Trump relaunch interview last year got 57m impressions in the first 24 hours, and is currently at 88m. The Putin one will get... maybe ten times that?
I'd guess that more people will see it as a clip on TV news or embedded in other videos. But that still gets Carlson talked about, so he'll see it as a win either way.
Leon could be right. This could be the Frost/Nixon de no jours. Most likely everyone on pb would watch it, especially once it is pirated from TwiX onto Youtube. But I'd imagine what Tucker Carlson wants is for it to be bought, and him to be bought, by one of the major channels.
Twitter are paying him millions for the exclusive. He won’t be on Joe Rogan money, but it’ll be eight figures a year.
Ironically, the fact that he’s an independent made getting this interview a whole lot easier. No global media company with an office in Moscow would give Putin anything but the softest of interviews.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
You see? The only way you can try to be witty or clever is to try and copy or parody me, but you can’t even do that, not in an amusing way
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
It's not trying to be witty or clever. Just giving you facts. When rich people call me it is to pay me £750 an hour to sort out the mess they've got themselves in at their workplaces. When rich people call you it's to get a steer on the best Ladyboy bars in Bangkok - a service that you can't price at a premium. It's obvious who's the Alpha here. You're just a late middle age fat bloke who thinks he's a cross between James Bond, Nigel Farage and Michael Palin.
Oh dear. You went ahead and just wrote that, didn’t you? It’s right there. What you wrote, here. Above this comment
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
Starmer is arguably clearer than Badenoch & Co. They chunter that women "can't have a penis" and that a woman is "an adult born female" yet unless I've missed it they make no suggestion to repeal/amend the Gender Recognition Act into line with those views. Repeal it if they wish to prevent people changing gender or link it to surgery if they wish to police their genitals.
SKS said 'daughter'. What am I missing in the sense of 'inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender'? Or is it a fib, deliberate or otherwise?
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
You see? The only way you can try to be witty or clever is to try and copy or parody me, but you can’t even do that, not in an amusing way
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
It's not trying to be witty or clever. Just giving you facts. When rich people call me it is to pay me £750 an hour to sort out the mess they've got themselves in at their workplaces. When rich people call you it's to get a steer on the best Ladyboy bars in Bangkok - a service that you can't price at a premium. It's obvious who's the Alpha here. You're just a late middle age fat bloke who thinks he's a cross between James Bond, Nigel Farage and Michael Palin.
Oh dear. You went ahead and just wrote that, didn’t you? It’s right there. What you wrote, here. Above this comment
I shall take a screenshot
Yep, that was me. And given that you are about to be an ex-poster on this site why do you care what I wrote. Unless your threatened flounce was like so much of your dribbling on here...complete bullshit.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
Right, so you've gone through my entire output on here, and proclaimed I'm a misogynist. Low even for you.
@leon is Matt Smith's doctor right at the end. Ancient, being bothered by the spectres of his previous incarntions - @LadyG@eadric etc
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
We look forward to your next incarnation.
Trivia (while my horses keep losing): Capaldi is the only Doctor to have won an Oscar (albeit for production rather than acting).
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
Fuck me - an honest comment where you aren't beating your chest claiming you are the police. Good. You are bored and lonely. Get that. We all have that. And venting on here? Sure. Several of us have practically live streamed mental health crises on here.
Here's the thing. If you were some kind of ideological zealot I could buy the tub-thumping. HY does it - its funny, but his position is fixed. What is your ideology? You're insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong, but what are you right about? You twist and turn in the political wind like a twisty-turny thing.
Which is fine BTW. Just stop insisting you have a bigger cock and a bigger brain than everyone else. You post almost as dementedly as Elon Musk. Almost. Then calm down and we have good conversations and debates.
We know you are exorcised about various topics. Woke. AI. Aliens. Woke AI Aliens. Fine. Don't just SCREAM AT PEOPLE FOR BEING SO STUPID. If your position on woke (to pick one example) was so clear and unambiguous, it would be mainstream. It isn't, so it isn't.
You want to persuade me about the growing dangers of something under the surface, do so. I am persuadable - my politics evolve. But you can't get there by saying how you're so smart and I'm so stupid. Even if those are both true...
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So what would a 'significant' number be...
Now that's a sensible question. I read once that the current setup was on the assumption that there would be few trans people. Yet the last census indicated[1] that hundreds of thousands identify as such. At such numbers improbable events stop being rare (infinite monkeys and all that) and Govt wasn't really set up for it, hence the post-hoc fixes.
[1] The exact number is hotly debated and the debate went up to the OSR, which is the stats equivalent of a standup interview with no coffee. The outcome was along the lines of "well, OK, for now, but do the updates in the reviews", which is the stats equivalent of "we'll fix it in post". Nobody is saying they're wrong on order-of-magnitude (well some are but I'm not), and nobody agrees in which direction they're wrong, but as a rule of thumb I wouldn't take the total figure to be to the nearest ten thousand. That's why I'm putting "hundreds of thousands" instead of the exact number. But that's my personal not professional view, I'm not putting my name to it, and you must DYOR. See https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/review-of-statistics-on-gender-identity-based-on-data-collected-as-part-of-the-2021-england-and-wales-census-interim-report/ and later responses.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
Why are you not teaching students instead of administering them?
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
The most watched not-on-TV interview.
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
It'll be interesting. Will the mendacious slimeball be revealed in his true colours? Or will it be all about Putin?
I will imagine Putin will use the opportunity to appeal to western electorates over the heads of their leaders by denouncing various what he sees as crazy social policies.
If Tucker needs a boost he really should try coming over and compering a pb battles show:
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off Casino vs The Republicans Anabonanza vs The Cashists
I was thinking more a special train to one of those places where three counties meet which used to be very popular for prize-fights with the sporting fraternity of old. Some of the politics on show are so old-fashioned.
@leon is Matt Smith's doctor right at the end. Ancient, being bothered by the spectres of his previous incarntions - @LadyG@eadric etc
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
We look forward to your next incarnation.
No way I'll be joining this mass dump on Leon. The fact is if he dropped the neanderthal far right 'humour' and the bragging about sex'n'travel and the intellectual pretensions and the social snobbery he could be an ok poster.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
Why are you not teaching students instead of administering them?
Because I have mental health problems that on a 3-4 year cycle essentially make me want to kill myself for a good 6 months to a year. And nobody wants to fund another person who wants to talk about literature. And I didn't grow up with oodles of money, so I couldn't afford to do the PhD I wanted to do, had to enter the workforce, and the aforementioned mental health problems mean that I live comfortable but in threat of economic precarity if I can't hold down a job. And teaching at university is hard, and I don't like doing things that are hard because, again, aforementioned mental health problems that mean I find stress extremely difficult to deal with.
Is the standard to be allowed to converse here now university lecturers only? Because if so - that does sound like fun; and would likely involve people actually providing goddamn citations for the shit they say.
Tom Harwood @tomhfh I get the horrible feeling that a media row about “what is a woman” is precisely the row Number 10 wants to have.
Sunak will get positive headlines in the Mail, Express and Telegraph, as well as support from GB News. Unfortunately for him, most people don’t read the Mail, Express or Telegraph, or watch GB News.
Mail circulation only around 700000 now down from over 2 million a few years ago.
It is in the top ten most visited English-speaking websites in the world, which - these days - is a far more important metric
Yes but those visitors will likely only read the odd article.
But the number of visitors mailonline gets - in the tens of millions - means its political slant can make an impact even if only 0.1% go on to read other, more political articles (after being dragged in by the sideboob of shame, or some mad UFOs-are-made-up story)
The future is obvs online, that is the only arena that matters
Yes speaking of online impact Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin will drop at 11pm tomorrow uk time on X.
It will be huge. I suspect it might be the most watched TV political interview of all time
Carlson is no fool, nor is Musk - and nor is Putin
The most watched not-on-TV interview.
Tucker had better go hard on the little f****r.
It'll be interesting. Will the mendacious slimeball be revealed in his true colours? Or will it be all about Putin?
I will imagine Putin will use the opportunity to appeal to western electorates over the heads of their leaders by denouncing various what he sees as crazy social policies.
For the big interview will he be allowed to dress traditionally in his riding topless on a horse pose or is that a step too far for our conservative western moral standards?
If Tucker needs a boost he really should try coming over and compering a pb battles show:
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off Casino vs The Republicans Anabonanza vs The Cashists
I was thinking more a special train to one of those places where three counties meet which used to be very popular for prize-fights with the sporting fraternity of old. Some of the politics on show are so old-fashioned.
Thank goodness actually they're wearing gloves, because I've witnessed bare knuckle boxing in a barn in Somerset about three years ago, and it was a sorry sight to see men goading them on in such a barbaric fashion. And I'm rather ashamed to say I was party to that goading, two men fighting as I saw in the barn that night, naked as the day they were born and fighting the way God intended. Wrestling at points - I don't know if you've seen "Women In Love", that marvellous scene by the fire. It kind of resembled that.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
I think the problem is its easy on any online site to get caught in bubbles whether its this site or guido fawkes for example. In my experience this site is economically pretty centrist but well to the left socially and people who dont fit this mould are likely to leave.
In things I wasn’t expecting this week. A house in the part of Durham twin A wants to live in, came back on the market on Monday at a lower price she can afford.
Yesterday she sorted out her mortgage and 20 minutes ago her offer was accepted
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
That is literally what I do every winter. As other PB-ers can attest. I don’t lack for social life outside these months, I travel and/or socialise endlessly, partly BECAUSE I get the hard yakka done in the winter
And this winter I have a particularly tricky and daunting project, yet also potentially very rewarding. Enough - if I nail it - to guarantee an easy life to the end of my days, which is - at my advanced years - a nice prospect
But because it unusually difficult I have gone beyond my normal winter feeding ground of Bangkok - to Phnom Penh, which is - albeit seductive - even more estranged and isolated. And…. It’s fine. The work goes welll. I just wish PB had fewer tedious lefty lawyers and accountants and execs, but there we are
You are free to discount all this, claim I’m lying, say my work is pointless whatever. I really do not care, but as you replied I’m giving you an honest explanation
I am now scheduled to fly to Colombia in the first week of March to take ayahuasca with a billionaire and a famous scientist and a film crew in a HUT
That is my goal, after this monastic exile. My reward
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
No disrespect but I am more successful than you in every conceivable respect that you care about - save you’ve travelled more but even that’s close. Richer, more friends, had sex with more women, higher IQ, more popular, better looking…you name it. You come on here and play the big man but you’re a soaked out never was journo desperate for clicks. I’m just better than you. Face it and you can enjoy your time on here.
You see? The only way you can try to be witty or clever is to try and copy or parody me, but you can’t even do that, not in an amusing way
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
It's not trying to be witty or clever. Just giving you facts. When rich people call me it is to pay me £750 an hour to sort out the mess they've got themselves in at their workplaces. When rich people call you it's to get a steer on the best Ladyboy bars in Bangkok - a service that you can't price at a premium. It's obvious who's the Alpha here. You're just a late middle age fat bloke who thinks he's a cross between James Bond, Nigel Farage and Michael Palin.
Oh dear. You went ahead and just wrote that, didn’t you? It’s right there. What you wrote, here. Above this comment
I shall take a screenshot
I'm not convinced you are this globe-trotting 21st Century answer to Len Deighton. I am more than ever beginning to realise you are a be-corderouyed primary school teacher called Kevin who wistfully spends his evenings bar-leaning at the Cock of Tupsley.
@leon is Matt Smith's doctor right at the end. Ancient, being bothered by the spectres of his previous incarntions - @LadyG@eadric etc
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
We look forward to your next incarnation.
No way I'll be joining this mass dump on Leon. The fact is if he dropped the neanderthal far right 'humour' and the bragging about sex'n'travel and the intellectual pretensions and the social snobbery he could be an ok poster.
@leon is Matt Smith's doctor right at the end. Ancient, being bothered by the spectres of his previous incarntions - @LadyG@eadric etc
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
We look forward to your next incarnation.
No way I'll be joining this mass dump on Leon. The fact is if he dropped the neanderthal far right 'humour' and the bragging about sex'n'travel and the intellectual pretensions and the social snobbery he could be an ok poster.
Yes same as yourself if you were to drop your pretensions to be a Hampstead liberal when we all know your politics are driven by the guilt of the working class boy made good.
@KevinASchofield The government's political communications disasterclass on the PM's trans 'joke' is continuing, this time in an interview with Jeremy Hunt by the BBC's Chris Mason.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
Er, Starmer didn't bring up either sex or gender at first - he merely said that Brianna's mother was in parliament. It was Sunak who responded with his creepy edgelord routine about knowing more about women than Starmer.
So this is Kemi a) lying, b) stirring things up further, and c) not actually defending Sunak.
And this is the problem for Sunak - he's successfully blown his dogwhistle, but the nutters won't respond positively because they prefer Kemi.
If Tucker needs a boost he really should try coming over and compering a pb battles show:
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off Casino vs The Republicans Anabonanza vs The Cashists
I was thinking more a special train to one of those places where three counties meet which used to be very popular for prize-fights with the sporting fraternity of old. Some of the politics on show are so old-fashioned.
Thank goodness actually they're wearing gloves, because I've witnessed bare knuckle boxing in a barn in Somerset about three years ago, and it was a sorry sight to see men goading them on in such a barbaric fashion. And I'm rather ashamed to say I was party to that goading, two men fighting as I saw in the barn that night, naked as the day they were born and fighting the way God intended. Wrestling at points - I don't know if you've seen "Women In Love", that marvellous scene by the fire. It kind of resembled that.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Here’s a tip. “lol” is not the winning argument you clearly think it is.
Tbh I do not argue with clear intellectual inferiors. Like you
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chssing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
Don't worry. We will cope fine after you flounce off to join TRUTH SOCIAL.
I am nearly gone. Then you can all fuck about and fling your humourless turds at each other, like a closed down zoo where all the smarter mammals escaped, and only you lobotomised left wing chimps remain, unable to understand an open cage
What I don't understand is this:
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
Because I am bored and lonely in Cambodia
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed isolation. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
I love the idea that you hermit yourself away in exotic places to get the best of whatever shit the spectator will publish, and not because everybody who knows you hates your whiskey drenched arse. I only sit on here during work hours when I can have another screen open and have something interesting to do at the same time as answering emails and chasing up students - at all other times of day I am living my life. But sure, we're the sad boring nerds.
Why are you not teaching students instead of administering them?
Because I have mental health problems that on a 3-4 year cycle essentially make me want to kill myself for a good 6 months to a year. And nobody wants to fund another person who wants to talk about literature. And I didn't grow up with oodles of money, so I couldn't afford to do the PhD I wanted to do, had to enter the workforce, and the aforementioned mental health problems mean that I live comfortable but in threat of economic precarity if I can't hold down a job. And teaching at university is hard, and I don't like doing things that are hard because, again, aforementioned mental health problems that mean I find stress extremely difficult to deal with.
Is the standard to be allowed to converse here now university lecturers only? Because if so - that does sound like fun; and would likely involve people actually providing goddamn citations for the shit they say.
Honest sympathies. I start to like you even if I despise every opinion you hold. You are at least articulate - and genuinely interesting (unlike the PB lawyers and accountants etc)
Stick at it. You’ll be good. She’ll be apples
I genuinely believe mental health often gets better as you age; the mind seems to right itself. It’s a damn shame the body does not do the same
If Tucker needs a boost he really should try coming over and compering a pb battles show:
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off Casino vs The Republicans Anabonanza vs The Cashists
I was thinking more a special train to one of those places where three counties meet which used to be very popular for prize-fights with the sporting fraternity of old. Some of the politics on show are so old-fashioned.
I have to ask.
Tickets for “Anabonanza vs The Cashists”
- will they be available for cash - will they be available for online payment - will they be available for touch card payment - will they be paper tickets - will they be electronic tickets
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
Right, so you've gone through my entire output on here, and proclaimed I'm a misogynist. Low even for you.
Is the seal in your profile picture representative of you attempting to sea lion? If so I’d swap it out for a scarecrow for strawman or some Catholic iconography to represent bad faith.
@Keir_Starmer Today I met Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered last year.
I am utterly in awe of her strength and bravery in the face of such unimaginable grief, as she campaigns to make sure no parent has to go through what she did.
Labour will work with campaigners and parents like Esther to ensure our children and young people have the mental health support they need. It’s what Brianna and her family deserve.
but wait, it's not unimaginable. Kemi managed it...
Every murder is a tragedy. None should be trivialised by political point-scoring. As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Ghey has endured.
It was shameful of Starmer to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her grief.
Starmer is arguably clearer than Badenoch & Co. They chunter that women "can't have a penis" and that a woman is "an adult born female" yet unless I've missed it they make no suggestion to repeal/amend the Gender Recognition Act into line with those views. Repeal it if they wish to prevent people changing gender or link it to surgery if they wish to police their genitals.
SKS said 'daughter'. What am I missing in the sense of 'inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender'? Or is it a fib, deliberate or otherwise?
The ongoing taunt from the tory right is that he can't say women don't have a penis or that a woman is a female born adult, 'end of'. That he's not a speaker of plain commonsense like wot they are.
Given the law we have (the GRA) renders both these statements false, what he's being invited to say is really a signal of belief that 'trans' is a load of hogwash and a pretendy phoney identity.
He's right to resist and be precise in his language imo.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
Lots of blanket things applied to men. I'm thinking of, say, residential school trips. And, of course, the divide between people in incarceration.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
If Tucker needs a boost he really should try coming over and compering a pb battles show:
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off Casino vs The Republicans Anabonanza vs The Cashists
I was thinking more a special train to one of those places where three counties meet which used to be very popular for prize-fights with the sporting fraternity of old. Some of the politics on show are so old-fashioned.
I have to ask.
Tickets for “Anabonanza vs The Cashists”
- will they be available for cash - will they be available for online payment - will they be available for touch card payment - will they be paper tickets - will they be electronic tickets
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
Lots of blanket things applied to men. I'm thinking of, say, residential school trips. And, of course, the divide between people in incarceration.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
Okay - so wth is this about?
“The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students.”
Is this just in reference to like school trips? Because, again, I would say what does the data say - do trans people present the same risk as the gender they identify with or as the gender they are assigned at birth? Because all the data I’ve seen has said the latter - transwomen are more alike to cis women when it comes to crime stats, both victims of and perpetrators of. Interestingly transmen are also more alike to cis women; as are nonbinary people. Almost as if male criminality isn’t biological but sociological.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
Well, quite often these days the idea of being a different species appeals to me. So maybe it's not such a throwaway remark.
I would like to self identify as Irish so that I am still in the EU.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
Right, so you've gone through my entire output on here, and proclaimed I'm a misogynist. Low even for you.
Is the seal in your profile picture representative of you attempting to sea lion? If so I’d swap it out for a scarecrow for strawman or some Catholic iconography to represent bad faith.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
Well, quite often these days the idea of being a different species appeals to me. So maybe it's not such a throwaway remark.
I would like to self identify as Irish so that I am still in the EU.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
Lots of blanket things applied to men. I'm thinking of, say, residential school trips. And, of course, the divide between people in incarceration.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
Okay - so wth is this about?
“The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students.”
Is this just in reference to like school trips? Because, again, I would say what does the data say - do trans people present the same risk as the gender they identify with or as the gender they are assigned at birth? Because all the data I’ve seen has said the latter - transwomen are more alike to cis women when it comes to crime stats, both victims of and perpetrators of. Interestingly transmen are also more alike to cis women; as are nonbinary people. Almost as if male criminality isn’t biological but sociological.
School trips is an example, not the totality.
I don't think the statistics for the past (without self-ID) can be used to buttress an argument about changing the policy to be something different in the future (with self-ID) but I would be inclined to agree that there is a strong sociological component, which should encourage us that we can reduce the insane high levels of male violence more generally.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
Lots of blanket things applied to men. I'm thinking of, say, residential school trips. And, of course, the divide between people in incarceration.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
Okay - so wth is this about?
“The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students.”
Is this just in reference to like school trips? Because, again, I would say what does the data say - do trans people present the same risk as the gender they identify with or as the gender they are assigned at birth? Because all the data I’ve seen has said the latter - transwomen are more alike to cis women when it comes to crime stats, both victims of and perpetrators of. Interestingly transmen are also more alike to cis women; as are nonbinary people. Almost as if male criminality isn’t biological but sociological.
School trips is an example, not the totality.
I don't think the statistics for the past (without self-ID) can be used to buttress an argument about changing the policy to be something different in the future (with self-ID) but I would be inclined to agree that there is a strong sociological component, which should encourage us that we can reduce the insane high levels of male violence more generally.
Self ID has always been the norm - indeed for all my life self ID to use the toilet or changing rooms or such has been the de facto norm. It still is the norm. And it is the norm in many other countries. So where is the evidence of transpeople being a high risk to blanket consider them a safeguarding issue? There isn’t any - if there was transphobes would be as up for sharing it as they enjoy sharing the headlines associated with the few cases they do have.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
Did I say ignore abuse, or did I say "deal with all kinds of abuse, especially the kind of abuse that is the overwhelming majority of cases"? It's ya'll who harp on about women's rights and protecting women and so on and such when it comes to trans people and then are crickets for literally everything else that impacts women.
The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students. This is a risk-based assessment, and not a judgement that every individual male is an abuser. Self-IDing as trans should still leave a person in this same, risk-based, group.
That's all it is.
I mean I would argue that if that was true about cis men (and I’m trying to think of what possible situations you’re referring to that cis men are not allowed to do blanket as policy on safeguarding grounds) that would be based on evidence on significant likelihood of harm caused by cis men. So do you have any proof or evidence that transpeople present that same level of risk - or do you just feel they should because you think they’re ikky?
Lots of blanket things applied to men. I'm thinking of, say, residential school trips. And, of course, the divide between people in incarceration.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
Okay - so wth is this about?
“The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students.”
Is this just in reference to like school trips? Because, again, I would say what does the data say - do trans people present the same risk as the gender they identify with or as the gender they are assigned at birth? Because all the data I’ve seen has said the latter - transwomen are more alike to cis women when it comes to crime stats, both victims of and perpetrators of. Interestingly transmen are also more alike to cis women; as are nonbinary people. Almost as if male criminality isn’t biological but sociological.
School trips is an example, not the totality.
I don't think the statistics for the past (without self-ID) can be used to buttress an argument about changing the policy to be something different in the future (with self-ID) but I would be inclined to agree that there is a strong sociological component, which should encourage us that we can reduce the insane high levels of male violence more generally.
Self ID has always been the norm - indeed for all my life self ID to use the toilet or changing rooms or such has been the de facto norm. It still is the norm. And it is the norm in many other countries. So where is the evidence of transpeople being a high risk to blanket consider them a safeguarding issue? There isn’t any - if there was transphobes would be as up for sharing it as they enjoy sharing the headlines associated with the few cases they do have.
You mentioned bathrooms, so I think that's a sign that this discussion has run its course.
As an aside, one of the things @Leon has been wrong about has been Tucker on X.
It's been - candidly - a disaster.
Twitter reports "impressions", not video views. And Tucker's interviews often get less than 6 million impressions, and sometimes fewer than 3m.
Now, what's the video watch rate on those impressions? Well, it's probably not more than 35 or 40%. And that's being generous.
That means that at most 2 million people *start* watching a Tucker Carlson interview. (And my 35-40% impression to watch rate is almost certainly highly optimistic.)
Now, it may be that the Putin interview is what catapults him to relevance.
But right now, Carlson's reach on Twitter is a small fraction of what it was on Fox, and is - what - maybe 5 or 10x what I got with some of my videos.
lol
His interview with Putin will be the most watched political TV interview in history. All else is fluff
Replying to @alexwickhamPM’s spokesperson doubles down on Sunak’s trans joke in front of Esther Ghey — declines to apologise — defends it as “legitimate”
Yes, it is legitimate but that is no defence. He should really apologise. It was tactless and insensitive. Show some ruddy empathy for once, Sunak, you great twit.
I mean, there is zero difference between you and him right now. It isn't legitimate, it's a transphobic dogwhistle aimed at giving people like you red meat. Just because it makes your political position look like it's only held by heartless ghouls because he happened to say it in front on a dead girl's mother are you any way annoyed he said it.
It is perfectly legitimate and there is a debate to be had.
Yes, I am annoyed at the tactless way in which he said it and his doubling down.
Doesn't mean the issue is not one that needs addressing and the concerns of women listening to.
What's the debate? Do trans people exist, and are they a threat to womanhood? Fuck that debate - they exist, and no they aren't.
No, that is not the debate. That is you, most eloquently too, deciding what the debate is then dismissing it.
Very very few people deny the existence of Trans People. Certainly no one on here irrespective of their position on the debate.
So what is the debate? Spell it out for me. When Rishi Sunak says SKS doesn't know "if a woman is a woman and if a man is a man" what legitimate point in said debate is he making?
Its legitimate to ask questions. If you can accept that some people feel that the body they inhabit is not the same gender that they feel they are, then the idea of 'trans' is born. Fine. But people get worried by the idea that a murderer or rapist with a male body can proclaim that they are actually a trans woman and thus should be incarcerated in a womans prison. Especially if said person still has male genitalia.
So its not trans people under attack. Its the potential for abuse of the idea of being trans.
I also worry about the confusion of the teenage years and whether some adults abuse confused children by trying to convince them that they are trans, when in a few years the child might realise that they were gay. or something else entirely.
Then there is the throwaway line that if you can be transgender, why can you not be transrace? I.e. a black man in a white mans body. Asking for a friend.*
*Ok, its Tim Westwood, but you get the idea.
So let's deal with the last first - there is no scientific, historic or anthropological evidence of a significant number of people sincerely claiming to be transracial. And before we get on to similar false analogies like people with anorexia or people who want to cut off a limb - with those people there is no evidence of a self affirming treatment helping them; with trans people there is.
As to the "confused teen" thing - that's essentially a polite way of saying what people used to say about all gay people - that we're out there trying to recruit kids because we're a brainwashing cult, etc. Teenage years are, indeed, the time when people explore their identity. If children present with gender dysphoria before puberty or during puberty, they may be given hormone blockers. This allows a child to not experience the puberty that is giving them dysphoria and come to understand if they want to transition or go through a cis puberty. Pretty much all of the evidence suggests that most people who do that continue (the one study that has a high rate of "desistance" includes a large number of children who would now not meet the clinical criteria for dysphoria, and the data was also gathered in a really garbage way). Satisfaction with surgeries and hormone treatments are in the high 90% - this is above basically any other medical procedure that people do, including things like abortion (and carrying a baby to full term) as well as knee surgery. That the satisfaction rate is so high is a testament to how much gate keeping is already in place.
The issue of trans people in the criminal system is pretty moot - they are so rare that they are literally dealt with on a case by case basis in this country. If there is a concern about abuse in prisons, which there should be because it is endemic, and women's prisons specifically, where it should be because prison guards assaulting prisoners is pretty common there too, then deal with the environment of abuse. It isn't a trans issue; most abuse in prison is done by cis people to cis people.
So you think that abuse by trans prisoners on other prisoners doesn’t matter? You really are a nasty piece of work aren’t you? Anyone who doesn’t meet your standards of ideological purity can just rot. The problem with your type is you care nothing for humanity only ideology. In the last 48 hours you’ve wished ill on a cancer patient and decided that we should ignore certain types of abuse in prisons. You really have more in common with Faragists than genuine left wing people. You are no socialist.
This is a totally uncalled for response, for which I think you should apologise @dougseal.
There is a wide range of views on this board, some well informed, some less so. @148grss is at one extreme of those views, sure, but is consistently well informed and informative, and the board is better for their posts.
The post you replied to in no way said that abuse doesn’t matter. And your ad hominem follow up was just unpleasant.
He had a weird moment yesterday whereby he offered out a poster and then immediately flounced off. He had sad before that he struggles to sleep due to having very young children, so this was probably to blame.
The guy can be a pompous arse at times (especially when it comes to royal matters). But he is an intelligent guy and can be very insightful. Also likes James Bond and trains, so clearly a good egg.
James Bond is ace. Moonraker is the best film.
His point though, although it was somewhat extreme offering someone out to make it, is that people will say stuff online that they would never dare say to anyone’s face in public. You do not know the person you are abusing or trying to wind up. You do not know how it will impact them.
I think that is certainly the case of many people here. Dura Ace would be the exception of course. I think he would probably say more in public.
I have met quite a few people IRL to buy and sell stuff after getting to know them on car/motorbike forums and FB groups. In my experience, people are pretty much like they are online.
The exception was somebody I tried to buy a Mk.6 GTI from, when I got to the house he was clearly about 16 and the car clearly belonged to his (presumably holidaying) parents.
PB gets a more exasperated and sometimes cheerless version of me I'm afraid, just because that's the way politics often makes me feel. And of course, I'm rather less polite here than I am in the flesh.
I hope that the next time Rishi scuttles from cover that some hack is gallus enough to ask him if he thinks Brianna Ghey was a murdered girl or a murdered boy.
What does the death certificate say?
Rish saying 'I refer you to the death certificate' would be so on brand.
It's quite depressing how you think that the tragic event of a teenager's death should be used to browbeat someone into abandoning their considered perception of the truth. Criticising crass insensitivity is one thing - your suggestion is quite another. It's a Twittery thing I think. Optics are all.
Comments
The constitution says certain people can’t be president. You can argue that’s anti-democratic* but thems the rules.
*besides which, I’d argue it’s not palpably anti-democratic because there is a constitutional mechanism that allows the rules to be changed if enough people want them to be, via a constitutional amendment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72g13ml097o
"Police have described the theft of bolts from a safety barrier at a new Aberdeenshire road bridge as reckless.
Four bolts were found to have been removed at the Jubilee Gairnshiel Bridge on the A939 near Ballater during a recent inspection."
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the true incidence of trans people is tiny (less than 0.1%?). Ultimately I do not experience their lives, so I have no idea what it is like to feel that you are trans. I am sure that they are sincere in their beliefs. I have the same inability to understand how a man could be sexually attracted to another man, as I am not, and never have been, but I accept its a real thing.
The issue with prisons is just part of the wider discussion about womens rights. What about womens hostels? Whose rights are given priority?
What’s the point? It would be freaky. It would be like a nobleman personally dismounting and trying to rugby tackle an annoying peasant - why would I bother? Why get muddy chasing after you or @TSE or anyone, into your hamlets?
I do not see my intellectual equal on the lists. Quite seriously, I do not. @Richard_Nabavi was one but he has gone. There were others, but they too have gone. Like Tim.
Now I sit here alone, my armour rusting, my spurs unused, my steed is bored and pisses on the squire. The jousting may have ended
PB has nearly had its day, I think
I daresay Carlson does not want to share their fate.
Tucker getting 5m impressions for an interview Tweet is an utter disaster. As you say, that's probably only 100k views. Which makes his interviews (pre-Putin) about as popular as a second tier chess YouTuber.
That’s the bit that’s groundbreaking.
As someone mentioned earlier today, this is like when Barbara Waters went to interview Castro. But not on TV.
Saudis agree $3.2 bln deal to buy South Korean missile defence system
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/saudis-agree-32-bln-deal-buy-south-korean-missile-defence-system-ministry-2024-02-06/
..the Saudi defence ministry agreed to buy 10 batteries of a mid-range, medium-altitude interception system called Cheongung M-SAM II that can cope with ballistic missile and aircraft attacks, the South Korean ministry said...
Interestingly, it seems to be a Korean version of the Russian S-400.
Which likely means better electronics.
His big Trump relaunch interview last year got 57m impressions in the first 24 hours, and is currently at 88m. The Putin one will get... maybe ten times that?
I'd guess that more people will see it as a clip on TV news or embedded in other videos. But that still gets Carlson talked about, so he'll see it as a win either way.
However she’s now moving to a different area of prison activity, re-education, so I wait to hear her stories.
So far as she can tell them!
https://order-order.com/2024/02/07/sunak-makes-trans-joke-blunder-at-pmqs/
Apart from having sex with more women, in case Mrs C reads this!
You may be right but it's for others to decide not yourself.
That's why I miss SeanT - he would never self-certify!
Seanie is in one of his I AM A GOLDEN GOD phases. Bless him. You don't need to slap the old chap on the desk and start measuring it. I have to ask the question - do you really care where it measures vs his?
Why should I engage with something as dumb as this? I might as well debate with a snowdrop
We are all - in your view - inferior intellectually, physically, financially and politically. You stand so far above us that its a complete waste of your time engaging with us.
So why are you? You sound like one of the anti-EV people who come onto my channel. They are Absolutely Convinced that EVs are awful in every way. Its totally obvious and we must be idiots to disagree. Yet they have this burning need for reassurance and reinforcement which is why they come and post and argue and get arsey when facts disarm them.
If I am what you say I am and you are what you say you are, why do you even need to say anything to me? The one skill I learned in local politics was that once you lose respect for someone, you can simply smile at their insults and abuse, as you hold what they say in no regard at all. Whats more, smiling at the abuse then going back to the original point drives them absolutely nuts...
You expect but cannot prove? Okay - well I wipe my arse with that.
What's the issue with women's hostels? You don't want abusers in there. If a lesbian comes to a hostel and her abusive partner turns up - are they allowed in because they're a woman? No. So, once again, the issue is abusers. I think it is reasonable to have a general blanket no men for woman's shelters - but I've also heard stories of women who go to shelters with their kids in tow because the man beats them too, only to be told that a 15 year old boy can't stay there as well because he's basically a man. I think these things need to have some flexibility that allows for case by case review. There is no evidence of transpeople being more likely to be predatory in those spaces - again most of the abuse is cis on cis.
As for your point in your other comment about Dolezal - that is literally one example. We have significantly more examples of transgenderism, across thousands of years, across multiple different forms of society. Whether it's a Roman Empress, some Sycthian priestesses, the two-spirit culture of Native Americans or the 5-6 gender identities outlined in some versions of the Hebrew bible, all the way to the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in the 20s and 30s - trans people are there.
There is Good News. Capaldi was a spectacular doctor. And if anyone is watching Criminal Record on Apple TV his DCI is basically Malcolm Tucker minus the swearing. Spectacular stuff!
We look forward to your next incarnation.
Now, let’s be straight, I have enforced this boredom and loneliness on myself so I can produce the best creative flint-work possible. I have friends and family back home, indeed all over, so I could be with them and less bored and less lonely. But I wanted the near-monastic isolation required to produce good good flints. It seems to be working
I was hoping PB would provide some intellectual consolation and dialogue during this self imposed solitude. And it kind of is, and yet it kind of isn’t. The standard of debate ain’t what it was. A lot of interesting people have left, the nerds remain. The lawyers and accountants and boring business execs
It is what it is. But, also, it is what it is
Ironically, the fact that he’s an independent made getting this interview a whole lot easier. No global media company with an office in Moscow would give Putin anything but the softest of interviews.
I shall take a screenshot
Here's the thing. If you were some kind of ideological zealot I could buy the tub-thumping. HY does it - its funny, but his position is fixed. What is your ideology? You're insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong, but what are you right about? You twist and turn in the political wind like a twisty-turny thing.
Which is fine BTW. Just stop insisting you have a bigger cock and a bigger brain than everyone else. You post almost as dementedly as Elon Musk. Almost. Then calm down and we have good conversations and debates.
We know you are exorcised about various topics. Woke. AI. Aliens. Woke AI Aliens. Fine. Don't just SCREAM AT PEOPLE FOR BEING SO STUPID. If your position on woke (to pick one example) was so clear and unambiguous, it would be mainstream. It isn't, so it isn't.
You want to persuade me about the growing dangers of something under the surface, do so. I am persuadable - my politics evolve. But you can't get there by saying how you're so smart and I'm so stupid. Even if those are both true...
[1] The exact number is hotly debated and the debate went up to the OSR, which is the stats equivalent of a standup interview with no coffee. The outcome was along the lines of "well, OK, for now, but do the updates in the reviews", which is the stats equivalent of "we'll fix it in post". Nobody is saying they're wrong on order-of-magnitude (well some are but I'm not), and nobody agrees in which direction they're wrong, but as a rule of thumb I wouldn't take the total figure to be to the nearest ten thousand. That's why I'm putting "hundreds of thousands" instead of the exact number. But that's my personal not professional view, I'm not putting my name to it, and you must DYOR. See https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/review-of-statistics-on-gender-identity-based-on-data-collected-as-part-of-the-2021-england-and-wales-census-interim-report/ and later responses.
First episode:
Leon v DougSeal for a Smarm and Wealth off
Casino vs The Republicans
Anabonanza vs The Cashists
Is the standard to be allowed to converse here now university lecturers only? Because if so - that does sound like fun; and would likely involve people actually providing goddamn citations for the shit they say.
Yesterday she sorted out her mortgage and 20 minutes ago her offer was accepted
That's all it is.
And this winter I have a particularly tricky and daunting project, yet also potentially very rewarding. Enough - if I nail it - to guarantee an easy life to the end of my days, which is - at my advanced years - a nice prospect
But because it unusually difficult I have gone beyond my normal winter feeding ground of Bangkok - to Phnom Penh, which is - albeit seductive - even more estranged and isolated. And…. It’s fine. The work goes welll. I just wish PB had fewer tedious lefty lawyers and accountants and execs, but there we are
You are free to discount all this, claim I’m lying, say my work is pointless whatever. I really do not care, but as you replied I’m giving you an honest explanation
I am now scheduled to fly to Colombia in the first week of March to take ayahuasca with a billionaire and a famous scientist and a film crew in a HUT
That is my goal, after this monastic exile. My reward
The government's political communications disasterclass on the PM's trans 'joke' is continuing, this time in an interview with Jeremy Hunt by the BBC's Chris Mason.
NEW THREAD
Time for me to do as I do daily, and raise the standard of debate.
Who was the greatest PM – A. Johnson or M.Truss?
Cast your votes.
T
R
U
S
S
So this is Kemi a) lying, b) stirring things up further, and c) not actually defending Sunak.
And this is the problem for Sunak - he's successfully blown his dogwhistle, but the nutters won't respond positively because they prefer Kemi.
Stick at it. You’ll be good. She’ll be apples
I genuinely believe mental health often gets better as you age; the mind seems to right itself. It’s a damn shame the body does not do the same
Tickets for “Anabonanza vs The Cashists”
- will they be available for cash
- will they be available for online payment
- will they be available for touch card payment
- will they be paper tickets
- will they be electronic tickets
?
Given the law we have (the GRA) renders both these statements false, what he's being invited to say is really a signal of belief that 'trans' is a load of hogwash and a pretendy phoney identity.
He's right to resist and be precise in his language imo.
I was once detained by the MoD plod with three women at an anti-nuclear action, and the police refused to put us all in a cell together, despite the three women not wanting me to be left alone.
The point is that the decision wasn't made because of any assessment of my risk as an individual, but because I was part of a relevant risk group. I think that, in all the ways that matter for safeguarding, someone who self-IDs as trans, but has the biological sex of a man, should still be treated as male for safeguarding purposes.
That isn't a judgement about trans people, any more than the MoD plod decision was a judgement about me, but that the relevant risk group is defined biologically, rather than through self-declaration.
I self-ID as a man who is completely physically harmless, for example, but that doesn't get me a pass on safeguarding rules.
“The approach we take for child safeguarding is to exclude all men from certain tasks, because of the risk posed to female students.”
Is this just in reference to like school trips? Because, again, I would say what does the data say - do trans people present the same risk as the gender they identify with or as the gender they are assigned at birth? Because all the data I’ve seen has said the latter - transwomen are more alike to cis women when it comes to crime stats, both victims of and perpetrators of. Interestingly transmen are also more alike to cis women; as are nonbinary people. Almost as if male criminality isn’t biological but sociological.
I don't think the statistics for the past (without self-ID) can be used to buttress an argument about changing the policy to be something different in the future (with self-ID) but I would be inclined to agree that there is a strong sociological component, which should encourage us that we can reduce the insane high levels of male violence more generally.
https://x.com/ruthdavidsonpc/status/1755140110486581633?s=61
There is a wide range of views on this board, some well informed, some less so. @148grss is at one extreme of those views, sure, but is consistently well informed and informative, and the board is better for their posts.
The post you replied to in no way said that abuse doesn’t matter. And your ad hominem follow up was just unpleasant.