Hello

[Cunt]

So the trans mass-shooter story came out, and again the interesting part is the response from authorities.

Youtube and facebook censored it (for you OWN GOOD!) and law enforcement is investigating the 'leak'.

Would make a sensible person wonder why they are so desperate to hide the facts.

Do you know any that we can ask?

Not here.

I mean, I know what they censored, but I think the local posting crowd are either comfy with the law hiding facts, or quiet about it.

To be fair though, some of the countries they are in are pretty authoritarian. Look at what happened to Julian Assange, and which countries were solidly in favour of his treatment. He committed the sin of exposing corruption, so he got 'Assanged'.

So, you hint that stuff has been censored, but you refuse to provide any information or links. Looks like you've got nothing...

Hint?

The censored manifesto was hidden. That's not in doubt.

Crowder broke the story yesterday. You can find it on his regular show.

www.louderwithcrowder.com

Looks like Google/Youtube and facebook are censoring it (unconfirmed, but pretty predictable)


The big story isn't a mass murder, nor the fact that it was clearly a 'hate-crime', as they say.

The really big story is how much normal news sources are censored in this particular context.

Feel free to have a look. Don't blame me for your sources not having it though. They circled the wagons to cover it up for reasons that no-one will make them answer.

When I said 'not here', I meant that I don't know anyone here who I would think of as 'a sensible person wondering why they hid the facts'.

My guess is that most of them would 'back the blue' on hiding this from the public. I certainly understand that, even though I might not agree.

[Cunt]

Here is a bit about the censorship efforts. Youtube clear and accountable as one could wish, considering.



https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/crowder-nashville

YouTube still found a way. They always do. While they realize this may be disappointing news, it's their job to make YouTube a safe place for all. As such, the Big Tech company, or whatever purple-haired twat "reviewed" our video, determined we violated their

...Violent criminal organizations policy?

...


We didn't do a video on the mafia, the Yakuza, the Minnesota Freedom Fund, or Rashida Tlaib's reelection campaign. It wasn't a video on any organization. Unless YouTube is talking about the government/media collective that attempted to suppress the release of the Nashville Shooter's manifesto as they've been doing since March.

Our video was about one he/him or she/her (my AP Styleguide is in the other room) and the reasons why they/them killed six people in an elementary school. We knew there was a manifesto. It was in the news that there was a manifesto that people wanted to be kept hidden for some reason, unlike every other manifesto that is published within 24 hours. We broke the news. Breaking news violated a YouTube policy.

[Cunt]

Twenty one days of hearings, over such a difficult to clarify question. Then they changed the focus, because of scientifically important reasons, surely...

https://www.rebelnews.com/live_updates_ ... rs_hearing

Amy Hamm, a B.C. nurse, women's rights advocate, and mother of two, enters Day 21 of her disciplinary hearing with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) over her acknowledgement that two genders exist.

Two members of the public, who had never been patients of the accused, lodged a complaint with the BCCNM over an 'I [heart] J.K. Rowling' billboard from 2020. The famed Harry Potter author is also an advocate for women and children.

The BCCNM initially claimed Hamm disseminated "medically inaccurate information," before dropping that charge in June 2022.

In the most recent charge issued by the board, they allege the nurse "[…] made discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people [between approximately July 2018 and March 2021] as a nurse or nurse educator" across various online platforms, including but not limited to, podcasts, videos, published writings and social media.

Geez, why would they drop the charge of disseminating 'medically inaccurate information'? Without their clarification, we will have to assume that the info was not 'medically inaccurate', or that they didn't like their chances of showing such in a hearing.

More to the point, with a nursing shortage, why are public health officials trying to discipline this one? Because of a contrary opinion? Support of a dissident view? An effort to make their staff more fearful and compliant?

[Cunt]

More on the censorship. I'll spoiler it in case you appreciate and approve of it.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Cunt]

Censorship is ok, when law enforcement does it to protect...something.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't theorize when pointing out that you do not express an opinion against far-left gender ideology.

Theorizing is saying that you can not. Of course that can't be true though. It must be free choice on your part.

You seem to believe that 'expressing an opinion against far-left gender ideology' is some kind of necessary condition that qualifies an opinion as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible etc. If and when people don't meet this condition they immediately become illegitimate, untrustworthy, unconvincing, or not understandable. You seem to fall back on this to avoid actually saying anything of substance on any matter or issue, and instead choose to focus on telling people why you're not going to talk to them (because they're not legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible).

What does that look like? it's quite simple, and I don't have to theorize when pointing out that you never express an opinion against far-right gender bias and hatred.

[Cunt]

I don't theorize when pointing out that you do not express an opinion against far-left gender ideology.

Theorizing is saying that you can not. Of course that can't be true though. It must be free choice on your part.

You seem to believe that 'expressing an opinion against far-left gender ideology' is some kind of necessary condition that qualifies an opinion as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible etc. If and when people don't meet this condition they immediately become illegitimate, untrustworthy, unconvincing, or not understandable. You seem to fall back on this to avoid actually saying anything of substance on any matter or issue, and instead choose to focus on telling people why you're not going to talk to them (because they're not legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible).

What does that look like? it's quite simple, and I don't have to theorize when pointing out that you never express an opinion against far-right gender bias and hatred.

I don't say that they can't be trusted, but when someone starts by bowing and scraping to one political side, it shows their bias quickly.

So when someone can't say what they mean by 'woman', then uses a phrase like 'identifies as a woman', I treat them as incoherent and nonsensical.

That can change if they simply define categories, but that is forbidden. Even you, with your gentle language and decent treatment of people, can't make that distinction as it taps a wedge into 'trans acceptance'. Or maybe there are other reasons you can't define. Such as exemplified in rainbows quoted 'definition' (which is a hilariously clear statement of not having a definition)

[Brian Peacock]

There you go again. Many people have told you how they think about and relate to women, including transgender women, but you don't treat that as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible, and so you have to pretend that people are failing to provide a definition. But all they're failing at is meeting your conditions and/or defining something to your satisfaction. This is a circular game - you ask for something that you have no intention of acknowledging, and then ask again, while all the time chiding others for not providing the very thing you refuse to acknowledge or pretend not to understand.

[pErvinalia]

I pointed that out at the beginning of this term's demand for a definition of a woman. He needs to disagree with any of our definitions. He can't troll if he agrees.

[Cunt]

There you go again. Many people have told you how they think about and relate to women, including transgender women, but you don't treat that as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible, and so you have to pretend that people are failing to provide a definition.

On the contrary. The best, clearest and most succinct definition possible on this board, was offered by rainbow. I quoted it in my signature.

Since that definition can include anyone, there isn't really much 'defining', but it IS the best I have from here.

If you want to try to make it clearer, you can, but may be subject to follow up questions.

But all they're failing at is meeting your conditions and/or defining something to your satisfaction. This is a circular game - you ask for something that you have no intention of acknowledging, and then ask again, while all the time chiding others for not providing the very thing you refuse to acknowledge or pretend not to understand.

What is your problem with rainbow's definition?

[pErvinalia]

What is your problem with everyone else's definitions? You haven't engaged with any of them.

[Joe]

I keep wondering what's wrong with the dictionary.

[Brian Peacock]

There you go again. Many people have told you how they think about and relate to women, including transgender women, but you don't treat that as legitimate, or trustworthy, or convincing, or comprehensible, and so you have to pretend that people are failing to provide a definition.

On the contrary. The best, clearest and most succinct definition possible on this board, was offered by rainbow. I quoted it in my signature.

Since that definition can include anyone, there isn't really much 'defining', but it IS the best I have from here.

If you want to try to make it clearer, you can, but may be subject to follow up questions.

But all they're failing at is meeting your conditions and/or defining something to your satisfaction. This is a circular game - you ask for something that you have no intention of acknowledging, and then ask again, while all the time chiding others for not providing the very thing you refuse to acknowledge or pretend not to understand.

What is your problem with rainbow's definition?

Stealman my position and I'll tell you.

[Svartalf]

I keep wondering what's wrong with the dictionary.

dictionary does not cover trans ladies

[Brian Peacock]

I keep wondering what's wrong with the dictionary.

dictionary does not cover trans ladies

The clue is in the label Svarty: transgender woman.