Yes, Cookie, I screen shotted you touting for people's nonnymails, presumably so you could shit stir by sharing (thankfully largely fictional) personal information about me with complete strangers and WhatsApped it to various people accompanied by the words "what a creepy fvcker".
Presumably the most offensive part was a woman continuing to say "no".
heh - the only way that thread could be characterised as “anna saying “no”” is if you mean anna saying “no, i never said X” after being provided with evidence she did in fact say X
or anna saying “no, you haven’t provided evidence of Y” after being provided with evidence of Y
Unfortunately for Team Chill, this woman can't be manipulated, gaslit or bullied into changing her point of view in the absence of any compelling arguments.
Na we can't even talk about American elections and the pasting the alt right took without certain monomaniacs being bigots and trying to derail threads back onto trans issues.
Derailing threads used to be seen as insult to women's rights but the same people.
To be fair, we did spend a long time debating how much the Democrats have actually done for women's rights.
My favourite part was when an American popped up to explain that the reason why Obama didn't use his majority to secure women's reproductive rights was because he didn't have the necessary support from the Democrats, which is why I was wrong to say that the Democrats are also poor on women's rights.
Yes, I really made a mug of myself by saying that the Democrats have been poor on women's rights when the real explanation for why they didn't codify Roe is because they, erm, didn't want to.
Next time I will think twice before saying that if the Democrats were truly committed to women's rights they would have supported Obama in using his majority to codify Roe v Wade.
Can't promise that thinking twice will lead me to a different conclusion, but I'm always open to having my opinion changed by a compelling argument.
Speaking of which, how is your compelling argument about trans people being an oppressed minority coming along?
Next time I will think twice before saying that if the Democrats were truly committed to women's rights they would have supported Obama in using his majority to codify Roe v Wade.
tbf they never thought it was necessary - it takes a spectacular leap of stupidity to overturn it on the grounds they did.
And let's say they had. This current SC would have found it unconstitutional anyway.
Not thinking it necessary was spectacularly short sighted.
I don't even live in the US and the constant raging of the debate about whether women should have the choice about whether to bear a child or not (which had been settled decades ago in most other developed countries) rang the same kind of alarm bells for me as the shieking of Tory gammons the years ago about leaving the EU.
If you don't pay attention to people outside your own echo chamber, it's easy to underestimate your political enemies.
My favourite part was when an American popped up to explain that the reason why Obama didn't use his majority to secure women's reproductive rights was because he didn't have the necessary support from the Democrats, which is why I was wrong to say that the Democrats are also poor on women's rights.
Not really a fair representation of what happened in the thread. Are you aware of your revision of history as you’re doing it, or are you experiencing a kind of false memory syndrome?
Just FAOD, your contention wasn’t that “Democrats are also poor on women’s rights”. Your contention was that Obama had “eight years” to codify Roe. You were correctly pulled up on that by multiple people. Rather than admitting the error, you tried to pretend you were saying something else. But you weren’t.
Then you tried to say that Scylla habitually abused you and had done so on multiple threads. When asked for any evidence of this at all you were not able to provide any.
He said that Obama couldn't have used his majority to codify Roe because he didn't have the necessary support from the Democrats, Chimp.
Just admit you made a mistake. He didn’t have eight years to do it. He had far less time than that. Admitting a mistake isn’t the worst thing in the world.
The fact that he didn't have a majority for the full eight years isn't the pertinent point here. The fact that he failed to act when he did have one is the point.
Then you tried to say that Scylla habitually abused you and had done so on multiple threads. When asked for any evidence of this at all you were not able to provide any.
I'd say she provided it herself by proving my point in that very thread.
Davos, if trans people were actually oppressed, would it not be just as easy and far more persuasive to give an actual example, rather than just shrieking "bigot!" at me?
Not thinking it necessary was spectacularly short sighted.
The Americans though have a system in which someone could propose a law, the American public vote for politicians in order to pass it, with bipartisan support, sailing through Congress and the Senate, and the President signs it in.
And then five people declare it a nullity because of what some slave owning tax cheating traitors thought 250 years ago.
why would me or davos - or you for that matter anna - be the arbiter of who is oppressed?
we’re all well aware you don’t think trans people are oppressed (you would i assume accept they are a minority group) - but as i said on the other thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your obsession with them is motivated by hate
you have swallowed all the right wing talking points hook line and sinker and are constantly flailing around trying to find someone to fight with you so you can attempt to justify your awful views
tbf they never thought it was necessary - it takes a spectacular leap of stupidity to overturn it on the grounds they did.
And let's say they had. This current SC would have found it unconstitutional anyway.
One of the things I've learned from ROF is how many low information low IQ people have incredible self-belief.
The Democrats never legislated for general abortion rights at a national level in the US because:
(i) Criminal law is traditionally a matter for the US states and for forty odd years since Roe whatever regulation of abortion was permitted under Roe was done at a state level. The federalisation of every political issue in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon dating to the mid 2000s.
(ii) Until relatively recently - Obama's first term - the Democrats and the Republicans were both divided on abortion rights with each party having a significant (10-15%) minority of Congressional representatives of the minority view.
There has been federal legislation relating to abortion, e.g. the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act back in the Clinton era, and the Partial Birth Abortion Act in the George W Bush era. The former was passed by the pro-choice side with some pro-life support. The latter was passed by the pro-life side with some pro-choice support.
tbf a mid term election thread would never have made a tun. Only transgender threads seem to tun these days and it is basically an ever repeating argument between Chill and Anna.
why would me or davos - or you for that matter anna - be the arbiter of who is oppressed?
You're not the arbiter.
You should, however, be willing to provide some evidence of why you think trans people are oppressed if your position is that those of us who disagree are bigoted and wrong.
we’re all well aware you don’t think trans people are oppressed (you would i assume accept they are a minority group) - but as i said on the other thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your obsession with them is motivated by hate
None of what I say is motivated by hate.
As I said on the other thread, is it more likely that all the left leaning feminists who have traditionally supported every social justice movement going have suddenly become "motivated by hate" in relation to this specific group of people, or that we actually have a point?
you have swallowed all the right wing talking points hook line and sinker and are constantly flailing around trying to find someone to fight with you so you can attempt to justify your awful views
The fact that humans can't change sex is not a "right wing talking point". If you think it is, that rather begs the question of what the fvck is going on with the political left.
The right should not be in a position to make political capital out of saying that women don't have penises, because the fact that women don't have penises should be entirely uncontroversial.
It's not awful to believe that we need words to describe biological sex in humans, and that specifically, members of the childbearing sex, who are systematically oppressed and discriminated against due to being members of the childbearing sex, need words to describe themselves which are not in any circumstances used to describe members of the opposite sex.
It's not awful to say that disabled women should be entitled to single sex intimate care. It's not awful to say that female prisoners (most of whom have been victims of male violence) should not be incarcerated with male people. It's not awful to say that female rape survivors should be entitled to single sex victim support. It's not awful to say that female athletes should be entitled to compete fairly on the basis of their sex, which is actually relevant to sporting performance, rather than on the basis of "gender identity", which is not.
You repeatedly try to silence women by implying that these points of view are "awful" and motivated by hate, when clearly they are perfectly reasonable and motivated by the belief that women - the biological kind - actually have rights too.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable to defend your nonsensical viewpoint in even the most basic terms, so you resort to mud slinging instead.
Even those people (largely a figment of your imagination in this debate) are higher up the intellectual food chain than someone who does nothing but shout "bigot!" into cyberspace, Davos.
The idea of someone who continually self pwning and being span in circles almost daily by every other Roffer being more intelligent than the rig is quite lolsome
I have no idea, Kimmy. The only ones I've ever tried to have pulled were the outy ones, and even that was less successful than you'd hope. The quickest way of getting those ones pulled is to retaliate and say something outy about Cookie, which results in immediate action from RoF Towers but also the need for a new username.
As for why the thread got pulled. Perhaps it was the last post I saw from someone called ‘Bertha’ which stated that the owners of this ‘moribund discussion board’. Not only tolerated but encouraged Anna’s ‘vile behaviour’ in order to generate ‘clicks’.
If I were RoF Towers I certainly wouldn’t want anyone thinking I encouraged what Anna posts.
Do you think I care who it is? Or that I bother keeping track of user names?
Who it is doesn’t make you any less of a bully..
and the unkind reference to breakfast items only confirms it.. and serves as an example of your usual methodology of constant ad hominem personal attacks on people.
0
0
It wasn't me!
1
1
Enough of it is screenshotted never fear.
I think they’re called ‘receipts’.
Or, by grownups, ‘evidence’.
4
0
Jerry, what series of unfortunate events led you to be like this?
5
0
Yes, Cookie, I screen shotted you touting for people's nonnymails, presumably so you could shit stir by sharing (thankfully largely fictional) personal information about me with complete strangers and WhatsApped it to various people accompanied by the words "what a creepy fvcker".
2
1
Yeah and that wasn't even the stupidest and most offensive part of the thread!
Who deleted it? Will anyone confess?
5
0
Presumably the most offensive part was a woman continuing to say "no".
0
1
Heh.
*justwhenithoughtiwasouttheypulledmebackin.gif*
5
1
Has the thread where a certain Roffer makes a fool of themselves on a whole series of topics been deleted?
Huge, if true
1
0
heh - the only way that thread could be characterised as “anna saying “no”” is if you mean anna saying “no, i never said X” after being provided with evidence she did in fact say X
or anna saying “no, you haven’t provided evidence of Y” after being provided with evidence of Y
3
0
I repeatedly asked for evidence that trans people are oppressed and you all failed to provide any.
Is that why you had the thread pulled?
4
1
I think we all know the one sprouting hateful bigotry and trying to shut down women's opinions (ie you, RoF's biggest bully) had it pulled
3
0
I guess we can add that to the long list of things you think you know, but don't.
I'm not ashamed of anything I said and the only threads I've ever tried to have pulled are outy ones.
It must have been one of you lot.
0
1
I was hoping the board had moved on from the transgender threads…
2
0
Unfortunately for Team Chill, this woman can't be manipulated, gaslit or bullied into changing her point of view in the absence of any compelling arguments.
3
0
Na we can't even talk about American elections and the pasting the alt right took without certain monomaniacs being bigots and trying to derail threads back onto trans issues.
Derailing threads used to be seen as insult to women's rights but the same people.
Funny that
0
1
To be fair, we did spend a long time debating how much the Democrats have actually done for women's rights.
My favourite part was when an American popped up to explain that the reason why Obama didn't use his majority to secure women's reproductive rights was because he didn't have the necessary support from the Democrats, which is why I was wrong to say that the Democrats are also poor on women's rights.
4
0
Yeah you made a mug of yourself there with your limited knowledge of US politics
No wonder you got it pulled
8
0
the thread was just anna getting her arse handed to her half a dozen times
dunno why she thinks i would have gotten it pulled
2
0
Yes, I really made a mug of myself by saying that the Democrats have been poor on women's rights when the real explanation for why they didn't codify Roe is because they, erm, didn't want to.
6
1
Yes you did
#dontmugyaself
0
1
If you say so, Davos.
Next time I will think twice before saying that if the Democrats were truly committed to women's rights they would have supported Obama in using his majority to codify Roe v Wade.
Can't promise that thinking twice will lead me to a different conclusion, but I'm always open to having my opinion changed by a compelling argument.
Speaking of which, how is your compelling argument about trans people being an oppressed minority coming along?
4
0
tbf they never thought it was necessary - it takes a spectacular leap of stupidity to overturn it on the grounds they did.
And let's say they had. This current SC would have found it unconstitutional anyway.
4
1
If you honestly think trans people aren't an oppressed minority then please do one of the following:
Email to all of your colleagues explaining it
Or
LinkedIn post explaining it
Apologies if you have done these things - I obviously have no way of knowing.
It's one thing being a bigot behind the clock of anonymity but another doing so publicly
0
1
Not thinking it necessary was spectacularly short sighted.
I don't even live in the US and the constant raging of the debate about whether women should have the choice about whether to bear a child or not (which had been settled decades ago in most other developed countries) rang the same kind of alarm bells for me as the shieking of Tory gammons the years ago about leaving the EU.
If you don't pay attention to people outside your own echo chamber, it's easy to underestimate your political enemies.
0
0
Davos, menacing behaviour towards women who ask for actual evidence of trans people being oppressed is not the same thing as providing evidence.
5
1
Not really a fair representation of what happened in the thread. Are you aware of your revision of history as you’re doing it, or are you experiencing a kind of false memory syndrome?
5
1
Just FAOD, your contention wasn’t that “Democrats are also poor on women’s rights”. Your contention was that Obama had “eight years” to codify Roe. You were correctly pulled up on that by multiple people. Rather than admitting the error, you tried to pretend you were saying something else. But you weren’t.
0
1
He said that Obama couldn't have used his majority to codify Roe because he didn't have the necessary support from the Democrats, Chimp.
6
0
Then you tried to say that Scylla habitually abused you and had done so on multiple threads. When asked for any evidence of this at all you were not able to provide any.
4
1
Just admit you made a mistake. He didn’t have eight years to do it. He had far less time than that. Admitting a mistake isn’t the worst thing in the world.
3
0
classic rof
people bicker on thread
thread gets pulled
same people start bickering on a new thread about whose fault it was that the first thread got pulled
0
1
The fact that he didn't have a majority for the full eight years isn't the pertinent point here. The fact that he failed to act when he did have one is the point.
0
0
I'd say she provided it herself by proving my point in that very thread.
4
1
This thread is getting pulled shortly
When Tuesday starts the gaslighting, bullying, bigotry and self pwns it usually follows
Of course if absolutely is not her pulling them
Absolutely not
Never!
0
0
It's not me. Stop judging me by the standards of Team Snowflake.
Any evidence to support your claim about trans people being oppressed?
What rights do they not have that other people do have?
8
0
ROF were right to pull that thread as some sort of mercy killing on Anna’s behalf. They should pull this one too.
0
0
Davos, if trans people were actually oppressed, would it not be just as easy and far more persuasive to give an actual example, rather than just shrieking "bigot!" at me?
2
1
Was the previous thread like this one? If so, deserved to die.
18
0
It started off being about the mid term elections in the US but about halfway through it turned into all this *gestures*
classic derailment tbf
0
1
The Americans though have a system in which someone could propose a law, the American public vote for politicians in order to pass it, with bipartisan support, sailing through Congress and the Senate, and the President signs it in.
And then five people declare it a nullity because of what some slave owning tax cheating traitors thought 250 years ago.
0
0
So is the truth that the USA is an ungovernable basket case which the rest of the world should try to ignore as best we can?
2
0
why would me or davos - or you for that matter anna - be the arbiter of who is oppressed?
we’re all well aware you don’t think trans people are oppressed (you would i assume accept they are a minority group) - but as i said on the other thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether your obsession with them is motivated by hate
you have swallowed all the right wing talking points hook line and sinker and are constantly flailing around trying to find someone to fight with you so you can attempt to justify your awful views
why would anyone play that game?
1
1
One of the things I've learned from ROF is how many low information low IQ people have incredible self-belief.
The Democrats never legislated for general abortion rights at a national level in the US because:
(i) Criminal law is traditionally a matter for the US states and for forty odd years since Roe whatever regulation of abortion was permitted under Roe was done at a state level. The federalisation of every political issue in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon dating to the mid 2000s.
(ii) Until relatively recently - Obama's first term - the Democrats and the Republicans were both divided on abortion rights with each party having a significant (10-15%) minority of Congressional representatives of the minority view.
There has been federal legislation relating to abortion, e.g. the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act back in the Clinton era, and the Partial Birth Abortion Act in the George W Bush era. The former was passed by the pro-choice side with some pro-life support. The latter was passed by the pro-life side with some pro-choice support.
1
0
*davos or i
2
1
Halfway? It got derailed 10 posts into a 6 page thread.
0
1
Heh
fair enough but I think people mostly ignored all that stuff for a while. By post 300 it was just chill and Anna blah blah blah
0
0
tbf a mid term election thread would never have made a tun. Only transgender threads seem to tun these days and it is basically an ever repeating argument between Chill and Anna.
0
0
You're not the arbiter.
You should, however, be willing to provide some evidence of why you think trans people are oppressed if your position is that those of us who disagree are bigoted and wrong.
None of what I say is motivated by hate.
As I said on the other thread, is it more likely that all the left leaning feminists who have traditionally supported every social justice movement going have suddenly become "motivated by hate" in relation to this specific group of people, or that we actually have a point?
The fact that humans can't change sex is not a "right wing talking point". If you think it is, that rather begs the question of what the fvck is going on with the political left.
The right should not be in a position to make political capital out of saying that women don't have penises, because the fact that women don't have penises should be entirely uncontroversial.
It's not awful to believe that we need words to describe biological sex in humans, and that specifically, members of the childbearing sex, who are systematically oppressed and discriminated against due to being members of the childbearing sex, need words to describe themselves which are not in any circumstances used to describe members of the opposite sex.
It's not awful to say that disabled women should be entitled to single sex intimate care. It's not awful to say that female prisoners (most of whom have been victims of male violence) should not be incarcerated with male people. It's not awful to say that female rape survivors should be entitled to single sex victim support. It's not awful to say that female athletes should be entitled to compete fairly on the basis of their sex, which is actually relevant to sporting performance, rather than on the basis of "gender identity", which is not.
You repeatedly try to silence women by implying that these points of view are "awful" and motivated by hate, when clearly they are perfectly reasonable and motivated by the belief that women - the biological kind - actually have rights too.
You have demonstrated time and time again that you are unable to defend your nonsensical viewpoint in even the most basic terms, so you resort to mud slinging instead.
Colour me entirely unbothered.
Your intimidation tactics don't work on me.
6
2
The Black Knight took on all-comers.
1
1
Wot Lollerz said at 15:07
4
0
heh - you are the one employing intimidation tactics anna, because you are a bully
trying to claim you are in fact the victim of intimidation tactics is laughable
you have literally driven posters off the board because of your repeated vile personal attacks
2
0
Once again, you deploy baseless allegations instead of actually making any arguments of your own.
What a surprise.
4
0
"One of the things I've learned from ROF is how many low information low IQ people have incredible self-belief. "
Hard agree
The clever ones are quite able to say 'i know little about this ' or 'thats a good point ' or 'you are correct I think'
The stupid ones aren't. They are also often alt right
3
0
Even those people (largely a figment of your imagination in this debate) are higher up the intellectual food chain than someone who does nothing but shout "bigot!" into cyberspace, Davos.
1
0
what causes a thread to get pulled - is it 2 people reporting the initial post?
4
1
I think threads get pulled when tuesday sends a text to the proprietor.
1
1
it's back again now!
3
0
The idea of someone who continually self pwning and being span in circles almost daily by every other Roffer being more intelligent than the rig is quite lolsome
I lol at you
3
1
It's back and still embarrassing
MAKE IT STOP ROF
0
1
I have no idea, Kimmy. The only ones I've ever tried to have pulled were the outy ones, and even that was less successful than you'd hope. The quickest way of getting those ones pulled is to retaliate and say something outy about Cookie, which results in immediate action from RoF Towers but also the need for a new username.
1
0
HEHMAX
5
1
I abused you on that thread?
really. How? By point out that you were wrong and a hypocrite?
I do believe that you were the one who called me..
‘a loathsome hypocrite, a brainless idiot and a dick pandering moron..’
among other childish insults.
So, frankly I think you were the one abusing me.
1
1
Not that I care for the record. Your impotent, childish rage amuses me.
4
1
Oh and you also falsely claimed that I had called you a ‘hateful bigot’ on that thread.
Which was a complete lie.. and when called out on it.. you failed to acknowledge the falsity of your accusation.
So more lies and more bullying from YOU.
The only abusive bully here is you Anna.
As dozens of posters, and long time lurkers, on that very thread came out to tell you.
1
0
As for why the thread got pulled. Perhaps it was the last post I saw from someone called ‘Bertha’ which stated that the owners of this ‘moribund discussion board’. Not only tolerated but encouraged Anna’s ‘vile behaviour’ in order to generate ‘clicks’.
If I were RoF Towers I certainly wouldn’t want anyone thinking I encouraged what Anna posts.
3
0
That’s annaboutery in action for you.
0
0
Bertha is Cookie ffs, Scylla.
5
1
And? So what?
Do you think I care who it is? Or that I bother keeping track of user names?
Who it is doesn’t make you any less of a bully..
and the unkind reference to breakfast items only confirms it.. and serves as an example of your usual methodology of constant ad hominem personal attacks on people.
1
1
Scylla, did you just tell me not to be unkind to the man who has outed me multiple times on here and said he hoped I miscarried my unborn child?
Erm, no. I don't think I will.
FFS.
0
0
You're talking about a man who has outed me on here multiple times and told me he hoped I miscarried my unborn child.
0
0
Uh huh, he's outed me on here six or seven times and said he hoped I miscarried my unborn child but I'm the bully.
Join the discussion