That’s a bit rich

So Australian ex-pat David Glasgow makes a good point:

Don’t get me wrong; there is nothing helpful about the use of sweeping generalisations and epithets to dismiss political opponents, no matter what side they are on.

But here’s the difficulty: bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist, and the boundaries of those concepts shift as social mores evolve. Ideas are not locked in a state of equilibrium, and no one is entitled to have their views considered permanently respectable.

So while it is understandable that traditionalists lament the decline of their ideas on certain topics – particularly those that relate to sexual freedom – losing a public debate is not the same thing as being silenced or bullied.

Quite right – arguments are won and lost every day, and tomorrow is another day. But the thing is this – generally the community will decide who has won or lost an argument. Anti-free speech laws have judges telling us who has won or lost an argument. That is a silencing. It is unlawful in Australia, for example, to say that white is not black. It may soon become unlawful to argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It might soon be unlawful for students at a public university to protest about being excluded from using computer facilities funded by the taxpayer. There is a huge difference between some views and opinions becoming impolite and those same views becoming unlawful.

The most interesting aspect of Mr Glasgow’s views on free speech is that he writes from New York State in the United States. His right to free speech is protected by the first amendment to the US constitution, and the second amendment too. Here is Australia we have none of those rights.

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Hypocrisy of progressives, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to That’s a bit rich

  1. Lem

    There should be no laws defining what white or black is, as it should be irrelevant.

    There should be no laws saying what a marriage “is” according to the gender of the participants, it is no business of anyone except the participants in the relationship, and laws already exist to protect property rights and children born into those relationships.

    If governments want to make laws they can amend the constitution to have stiffer penalties for politicians who lie, impoverish the nation through reckless spending, and facilitate the killing or maiming of people through stupid policies and initiatives. To give the laws teeth they can have mandatory sentences, confiscation of assets, and loss of all perks.

    There is no area of human endeavour that allows people to lie, steal, and kill others like GOVERNMENT.

  2. rickw

    His right to free speech is protected by the first amendment to the US constitution, and the second amendment too.

    Exactly, we urgently need both, neither of which will be given to use without a fight.

    So while it is understandable that traditionalists lament the decline of their ideas on certain topics – particularly those that relate to sexual freedom – losing a public debate is not the same thing as being silenced or bullied.

    Silencing opponents and bullying (and I would add covert indoctrination) is the only way that the LGBT lobby can “win” any debate. Almost no one is interested in supporting their ideas, even a large proportion of those who they might consider to be “members”.

  3. twostix

    “Transphobia”?

    lol here we go.

    It may soon be illegal for a father standing outside a female toilet nervously waiting for his six year old daughter to come out to tell this guy that, no, he cannot go in there.

    Libertarians offer such a pathetically gay defense on these matters that they might as well not bother: “oh no, no dear leftists, we agree that he’s a revolting bigot for not wanting that wonderful brave ‘woman’ in the toilets with his little girl, but come on guuyyyys the government probably shouldn’t be putting him in prison”.

  4. C.L.

    Dot, for example, will say that he wants the government out of the toilet business.

  5. Roger

    There should be no laws saying what a marriage “is” according to the gender of the participants, it is no business of anyone except the participants in the relationship

    What is the acronym?

    ROTFLMAO!

  6. C.L.

    … bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist …

    Diddums.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    There should be no laws saying what a marriage “is” according to the gender of the participants, it is no business of anyone except the participants in the relationship

    That’s what I told my brother when we got hitched.

  8. Lem

    Roger, who gives a damn what a “marriage” is, so long as the participants are bound by laws that respect their property rights?

    What the hell are we even doing allowing government or anyone define what our personal relationships are?

    They should get out of peoples relationships, and start busying themselves instead with balancing budgets.

  9. .

    C.L.
    #1950135, posted on February 18, 2016 at 8:55 pm
    Dot, for example, will say that he wants the government out of the toilet business.

    The Beresford (eastern suburbs, Sydney) already has unisex toilets. Starship Troopers here we come.

    It has one upside – men are forced to wash their hands because of shame. Don’t you have a story about Stephen Conroy pissing and not washing his hands?

  10. thefrollickingmole

    What it is is the left declaring the argument over as it was only ever intended to go in one direction.

    Now the “science is settled” to their satisfaction they must use the power of the state (and the threat of state violence) to ensure it stays settled.

  11. Tel

    Roger, who gives a damn what a “marriage” is, so long as the participants are bound by laws that respect their property rights?

    Well since the framers of the Australian Constitution used the word “marriage” do define the limit of government power, we have no choice but to give a damn about what it means.

    What the hell are we even doing allowing government or anyone define what our personal relationships are?

    The only way to achieve that is delete the lines about marriage and divorce from the Constitution, and that requires a referendum (and a lot of votes). If we achieve that, then great.

  12. .

    Well since the framers of the Australian Constitution used the word “marriage” do define the limit of government power, we have no choice but to give a damn about what it means.

    No, they gave themselves the power (as many became Federal MPs or judges) to define marriage. Write that out 50 times.

  13. Roger

    Roger, who gives a damn what a “marriage” is, so long as the participants are bound by laws that respect their property rights?

    My dear Lem, laws that respect the property rights of co-habiting same sex couples can be framed without impinging upon the dignity of an institution established by Divine will and natural law.

    Let them have civil unions.

  14. Lem

    And one way would be to stop talking about “marriage” in the law and start talking about “relationships”.

    Then people can reserve the term “marriage” for their private conception of it, which is what it always was before governments and religious institutions started meddling eons ago.

    It seems to me from my reading of “The Marriage Act” it is mainly involved in the property rights of the individuals, particularly when they want to dissolve this so-called “holy and sacrosanct” institution. The irony!

  15. Roger

    No, they gave themselves the power (as many became Federal MPs or judges) to define marriage

    Aren’t you a Roman Catholic, dot?

    I fear you are in danger of becoming an apostate via your commitment to Libertarian dogma.

    To the catechism, young man!

  16. Lem

    My dear Lem, laws that respect the property rights of co-habiting same sex couples can be framed without impinging upon the dignity of an institution established by Divine will and natural law.

    Let them have civil unions.

    If only all people of any gender could have civil unions.

    Perhaps you have hit on an idea, Roger!

  17. Roger

    It seems to me from my reading of “The Marriage Act” it is mainly involved in the property rights of the individuals, particularly when they want to dissolve this so-called “holy and sacrosanct” institution. The irony!

    Of course the law is concerned with property.

    But marriage is much more than that.

    You are too cynical, Lem.

    We are living in a faithless age when, to borrow a line from T.S. Eliot, “between the ideal and the reality… falls the shadow”. For the culture’s sake, let the ideal remain and manage life in the shadow as justly as we can.

  18. Rabz

    Mark Steyn:

    “There is no argument that can be made for government regulation of speech.”

  19. ella

    “But here’s the difficulty: bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist, and the boundaries of those concepts shift as social mores evolve. Ideas are not locked in a state of equilibrium, and no one is entitled to have their views considered permanently respectable.”

    The rape of a woman is absolutely wrong. The rape of a woman was absolutely wrong in the year 2000BC and it will still be wrong in the year 3000AD.

    Moreover, I don’t give a damn about evolving social mores.

  20. Rabz

    I don’t give a damn about evolving social mores.

    I do – they’re a frigging scourge.

  21. Lem

    Roger, my point is not to denigrate how a small percentage of people feel very strongly that only a man and a woman can constitute a loving marriage. People who want to hold that view are free to do so, and it is the most popular form of longterm relationship, with a 50% divorce rate.

    My point is that government should not be meddling in the issue at all.

    the simplest way to defuse the whole same sex marriage issue is for government to remove “marriage” as a term in the definition of long term relationships, and just focus on laws relating to property rights when those relationships are dissolved (which is the whole point of the Marriage act).

    The simplest thing would be to call “the Marriage Act” the “Civil Union Act” and preserve the property aspects.

    Then people including Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists can reserve marriage as defined by their creeds, excepting that monogamy trumps polygamy. The Gays can set up Gay churches, have Gay marriage and have Gay divorce as well. Marriage becomes a private term.

  22. rickw

    What the hell are we even doing allowing government or anyone define what our personal relationships are?

    Fundamentally it’s about the definition of the word.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman, a whole lot of ratbag radicals do not have a right force a broader definition upon everyone else, the word belongs to men and women who consider themselves to be married, no one else. They can have whatever relationship concoctions they want, but they aren’t a marriage.

    A dog cannot and should not be called a cat just because it’s agitating for it.

  23. ella

    “The simplest thing would be to call “the Marriage Act” the “Civil Union Act” and preserve the property aspects.”

    Marriage is not just about the relationship between two individuals and property. Children and their welfare are of paramount importance. And any person who argues otherwise cannot be taken seriously.

  24. rickw

    The simplest thing would be to call “the Marriage Act” the “Civil Union Act” and preserve the property aspects.

    So we are rewriting laws and a historical approach because of an insatiable 1%? Actually it’s less than that because a fair percentage of gays and lesbians think that the radicals should just fuck off and leave everyone alone.

  25. Stimpson J. Cat

    Ideas are not locked in a state of equilibrium, and no one is entitled to have their views considered permanently respectable.

    Really?
    Raping kids is not wrong?
    Killing people is not wrong?
    Tell me more you ridiculous idiot.

    “Oh but I didn’t mean those ideas, everyone knows that….”

  26. Lem

    RickW:

    Fundamentally it’s about the definition of the word.

    You can define it anyway you want. I am only interested in how property and child maintenance issues are resolved following the dissolution of any type of relationship, be it same sex or not, in order that the responsibility for the dissolution falls on the participants of the relationship, and not me as a taxpayer.

    Ella:

    Marriage is not just about the relationship between two individuals and property. Children and their welfare are of paramount importance. And any person who argues otherwise cannot be taken seriously.

    see above.

    RickW

    So we are rewriting laws and a historical approach because of an insatiable 1%? Actually it’s less than that because a fair percentage of gays and lesbians think that the radicals should just fuck off and leave everyone alone.

    No. The proposition if to remove the definition of “marriage” from the realm of the State, and return it to the private sphere. If gays want to have “marriage” then, they can set up their own institutions/”churches”.

  27. Leo G

    But here’s the difficulty: bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist, and the boundaries of those concepts shift as social mores evolve.

    The meaning of transphobia certainly seems to have shifted, if David Glasgow’s Opinion piece in the Drum is a guide. Transphobia literally means a persistent, irrational fear of anything exceeding the ordinary.

    Nobody should be silenced. But next time you hear someone proclaim through a media megaphone that they do not have a voice, ask yourself whether a voice heard loud and clear is really a voice denied.

    The argument “that a person who claims they are being bullied to silence should have their claim disregarded because knowledge of the claim disproves the claim” is very ordinary indeed.
    Rather like “Nobody should be silenced. But …”, I expect he means if they’re successfully silenced, then they’re nobodies.

  28. ella

    “Quite right – arguments are won and lost every day, and tomorrow is another day. But the thing is this – generally the community will decide who has won or lost an argument.”

    True arguments do exist regardless of the views of the community.

    There is a valid argument happening at the moment with respect to noble cause corruption in research.

    There is value in attempting to uncover true arguments simply for their own sake.

  29. Stimpson J. Cat

    There should be no laws saying what a marriage “is” according to the gender of the participants, it is no business of anyone except the participants in the relationship, and laws already exist to protect property rights and children born into those relationships.

    Bullshit.
    If I am willing to create a new term to describe myself based solely on my sexual preferences, I should be willing to create a new term incorporating that term to describe a union between myself and someone who identifies like myself.
    Because by creating a new term to describe myself, I am differentiating myself from existing terms to describe people with different sexual preferences to myself, and their relationships including marriage.
    Hence, it is different, and not the same.

  30. Lem

    Stimps, only one comment.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say.

  31. Stimpson J. Cat

    Ffs Lem do you need diagrams?
    Keep reading it until it makes sense like a normal person.
    And don’t call me again this is my Meet the Habibs time!

  32. Leo G

    There should be no laws saying what a marriage “is” according to the gender of the participants, it is no business of anyone except the participants in the relationship, …

    If it is no business of anyone except the participants, then a public demonstration of a couple’s commitment to such a relationship- such as a wedding ceremony- is contradictory.

  33. cynical1

    “Quite right – arguments are won and lost every day, and tomorrow is another day. But the thing is this – generally the community will decide who has won or lost an argument.”

    Unless it’s about climate change.

    In that case, deniers should be burnt at the stake…

  34. Lem +10
    Government has NO business being involved in marriage BECAUSE when it does, it is essentially deciding who may form a union (of whatever type they wish).
    ANY couple who believe their union is ENHANCED because a piece of paper is filed in a government office somewhere, should maybe rethink the value of their union.

    If Adam and Eve wish to marry in a church, and the church is willing, what business is it of the govt?
    If Adam and Steve wish to marry in a church, but the church is NOT willing, what business is it of govt?
    If a woman want’s her father to perform the wedding ceremony, what business is it of the government?
    etc
    etc

    If the objection is to the use of the word ‘marriage’, then have at it in the court of public opinion, not in a legal court.
    IMHO

  35. StraightShooter

    For goodness sake people! TransPhobia, HomoPhobia, IslamoPhobia, XenoPhobia are all massively misused words. A phobia is an unrealistic or unsubstantiated fear of something.

    Granted, there may be a handful of people who have these irrational fears, but having a fear of something is, in and of itself, not irrational.

    And most people accused of all these phobias do, in fact, have a rational fear of these things.

    In fact most people are actually less fearful and actually more wise to the problems that these words represent. They are Sophic, not Phobic.

    Most sane people are actually TransSophic, HomoSophic, IslamoSophic and XenoSophic. They are smart enough to see a threat for what it really is, and do not succumb to some irrational fear.

  36. Leo G
    #1950259, posted on February 18, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    If it is no business of anyone except the participants, then a public demonstration of a couple’s commitment to such a relationship- such as a wedding ceremony- is contradictory.

    How so? People can still get married and have (God, Gaia, Parent, Best Mate whatever) as their witness. NO NEED WHATSOEVER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE A WITNESS.
    After all, government doesn’t witness any De Facto relationships (which are large in numbers these days).

    A couple marrying at a Catholic Church lose absolutely NOTHING by not filing a piece of paper with the government. Nor do they lose anything when another couple get married somewhere.

    It’s simple really. People just got to stick their noses out of other peoples business.

  37. Quig

    Bloody Hell! Marriage is a CONTRACT. An agreement (both social & legal) between two people (predominantly a man & a woman).
    The state gets involved in the recording of such doings so that things like responsibility for the raising of offspring can, if need be, determined. As well, the records help avoid the potential embarrassments inherent in consanguineous relationships and, much to the delight of the legal profession, provide a base for the resolution (or lack thereof) of property rights.
    Beyond the record keeping function the state (IMHO) should have no function. Yes, this entrusts to a culture/society the policing of some practices that may well be seen by some as heinous.

  38. Quig

    Of course, when your society gets to the point where things like gender cease to matter very much you get this kind of thing.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/16/when-triparenting-goes-bad/

  39. None

    So pedastry was wrong but now it’s OK. Sodomy was sexual abuse but now it’s ‘love and inclusion’. Yep, teach that to your daughters, champs. Somehow I don’t think our biology has changed.

  40. None

    NO NEED WHATSOEVER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO BE A WITNESS.

    Government does not witness marriage. It’s sole purpose in regulating marriage is for the protection of children, citizens of the state. For the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens, not just from enemies without but from each other. (Hence armed forces, judiciary etc. Otherwise, bring back the lynch mobs and vigilantes). Given there is no way two mem or two women can every produce a child from sexual congress, who gives a flying toss about what sort of appendages and implements they shove up their orifices. As long as I don’t have to pay for your haemerroid cream and ruptured anus and your sexually transmitted diseases.

  41. A Lurker

    So while it is understandable that traditionalists lament the decline of their ideas on certain topics – particularly those that relate to sexual freedom – losing a public debate is not the same thing as being silenced or bullied.

    He is wrong – if you lose the public debate, you are being silenced and bullied, especially if the weight of the State is brought to bear upon you.

    But here’s the difficulty: bigotry, misogyny, racism and transphobia do exist, and the boundaries of those concepts shift as social mores evolve.

    So how do we regard a white woman who is demonstrably white, but who self identifies as a black woman, complete with altering her appearance. Are we racist for pointing out the bleeding obvious that she is in fact white.

    So how do we regard a man, complete with Y-male chromosomes, and wife and children, suddenly decides that he now identifies as a little girl, complete with little dress, ribbon in the hair and doll. Are we transphobic for pointing out the bleeding obvious that ‘she’ is actually a he, and he is in fact a bit of a loony.

    So how do we regard women who are nasty, brutish, bitchy, aggressive, and bullying. Are we misogynist for simply pointing out those deplorable character traits

    So how do we regard men and women who profess to be from the religion of peace, but instead go about blowing people up, raping, murdering, beheading, killing, defecating in the street, chopping off their females’ sexual bits and otherwise acting as uncouth and uncivilized barbarians. Are we now bigots for pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that those sort of activities really are not peaceful, and that we’d much rather not have any more of them in our communities.

    Ideas are not locked in a state of equilibrium, and no one is entitled to have their views considered permanently respectable.

    So out with respectable facts and common sense – and in with delusion and irrationality.
    Down the rabbit hole we plummet.

  42. BorisG

    So out with respectable facts and common sense – and in with delusion and irrationality.
    Down the rabbit hole we plummet.

    Once upon a time slavery was considered normal – not anymore.
    Once upon a time only men were allowed to vote – not anymore.
    Once upon a time racial segregation was normal – now it is prohibited.
    Once upon a time it was considered natural that wife should obey husband – not anymore (in th west anyway).
    Once upon a time Jews who did not wish to convert were burned at stake (not to mention atheists). Now this practice is unpopular.

    Are all these changes in community perceptions all delusion and irrationality?

  43. BorisG

    He is wrong – if you lose the public debate, you are being silenced and bullied, especially if the weight of the State is brought to bear upon you.

    Wrong. Correct version is as follows:

    He is wrong – if you lose the public debate, you are NOT being silenced and bullied, UNLESS the weight of the State is brought to bear upon you.

  44. classical_hero

    Apparently words no longer have meanings in this society of our. Tyranny is the changing of the definition of words to suit what they want. We no longer live in a Democracy, but under a Tyranny and according to Voltaire, we know who rules us by those whom we can’t criticise.

  45. A Lurker

    Are all these changes in community perceptions all delusion and irrationality?

    Depends – were those changes in community perceptions driven by a rational and logical desire for change coming from the bottom up; or were they a top down phenomenon driven by political activists, agitators and elites who have been for decades effectively brainwashing the community into politically correct thought, via indoctrination of kiddies in school and university, and pushing certain ideological views via the social(ist) media and the MSM.

    He is wrong – if you lose the public debate, you are NOT being silenced and bullied, UNLESS the weight of the State is brought to bear upon you.

    Wrong again. Try holding a non-politically correct public opinion on a medium such as Facebook. If you aren’t being crucified by roaming bands of Social Justice Wankers, your account is at risk of being frozen, barred or deleted simply because of the views you hold.

  46. From a libertarian perspective, societal conventions are the domain of society, not the state, not parliament or the judiciary. The only role of the state in such matters is to protect people through law from violence and persecution. All such laws should be limited prior to the point where they would elevate any preference over others.

  47. Leo G

    It’s simple really. People just got to stick their noses out of other peoples business.

    Bizarre metaphor. Is that a reference to the way activists defend a minority position that is not their own- by hiding themselves within that “business” so that just their noses stick out?
    In any case, many couples in relationships (whether or not same- gender ones) feel a need to publicly demonstrate their commitment. Those couples want “other people’s noses in their business” in that respect at least.

  48. thefrollickingmole

    BorisG

    Any comment on this?

    During a Saturday luncheon on the sidelines of a United Nations summit in New York, Merkel was caught on a hot mic asking Zuckerberg how his site is working to curtail incendiary comments that are critical of “the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany,” according to CNBC. As participants took their seats, the pair could be heard on a live transmission broadcast on the U.N. website.

    Zuckerberg was heard responding that Facebook “need[s] to do some work” on censoring the anti-immigrant posts regarding the refugee crisis.

    “Are you working on this?” asked Merkel in English.

    “Yeah,” responded Zuckerberg before the dialog was cut by introductory comments to attendees at the event.

    Thas one exchange caught by accident, any other issues you think large companies might be “asked” to favor one side on?

  49. None
    #1950332, posted on February 19, 2016 at 2:19 am
    Government does not witness marriage. It’s sole purpose in regulating marriage is for the protection of children, citizens of the state.

    Sure it does…by forcing people to GET A MARRIAGE LICENCE.

    Since the eggs have been scrambled (recognizing de facto marriages, same sex unions etc) and can’t be un scrambled, claiming that marriage is still for the protection of children is pis sing against the wind.

    Furthermore

    who gives a flying toss about what sort of appendages and implements THEY shove up their orifices. As long as I don’t have to pay for YOUR haemerroid cream and ruptured anus and YOUR sexually transmitted diseases.

    (My emphasis)
    My ruptured anus? FUCK off dick head, we’re trying to have a civil conversation here.

  50. @Leo

    In any case, many couples in relationships (whether or not same- gender ones) feel a need to publicly demonstrate their commitment. Those couples want “other people’s noses in their business” in that respect at least.

    They can demonstrate whatever they like in front of as many people -family, friends, strangers, whatever- as they want. What’s the govt got to do with it?

  51. Tim Neilson

    If our politicians and courts can define what “marriage” means in the Constitution, presumably Parliament can pass a law declaring “marriage” to include the relationship between a person and their food, and then pass a law imposing dietary restrictions ‘for people’s own good”(TM). If that’s just not possible, then why is it possible for government to declare LGBTQ whatever it’s up to now relationships to be “marriage”?

  52. cynical1

    So out with respectable facts and common sense – and in with delusion and irrationality.
    Down the rabbit hole we plummet.

    Once upon a time slavery was considered normal – not anymore.
    Once upon a time only men were allowed to vote – not anymore.
    Once upon a time racial segregation was normal – now it is prohibited.
    Once upon a time it was considered natural that wife should obey husband – not anymore (in th west anyway).
    Once upon a time Jews who did not wish to convert were burned at stake (not to mention atheists). Now this practice is unpopular.

    At the moment, bestiality hasn’t become normal.

    Still, perhaps Boris lives in hope…

  53. losing a public debate is not the same thing as being silenced or bullied.

    What debate is he talking about? As with the CAGW fraud there has been no debate. Just a bunch of nasty, fascist fuckwits telling people what they should think and then dispatching the Thought Police to monitor and punish anyone who steps outside their cerebral prison.

  54. cynical1

    who gives a flying toss about what sort of appendages and implements THEY shove up their orifices. As long as I don’t have to pay for YOUR haemerroid cream and ruptured anus and YOUR sexually transmitted diseases.

    Well, I suspect quite a few people care, eg: If these habits are carried out by schoolteachers, doctors etc.

    I’d like to know so me and mine can stay clear of them…

  55. Leo G

    What’s the govt got to do with it?

    Curious question. I neither raised nor commented in this thread on a government role. If you want me to respond to your views on the role of government, don’t imply that it was I who raised the question.

  56. @LeoG

    Yes I see why you think it’s a curious question. You joined a conversation I was having with ‘none’, go back and read the comment trail, you’l see that ‘other people’s noses’ includes government noses being stuck into people’s business.

    I won’t imply anything if you inform yourself before joining a conversation. Deal?

  57. Leo G

    You joined a conversation I was having with ‘none’, go back and read the comment trail, you’l see that ‘other people’s noses’ includes government noses being stuck into people’s business.

    Incorrect. My relevant comment quoted Lem, whose comment was the first on the thread.
    And I did not, with my 11:08pm comment, join a conversation on this thread in which you had already contributed. You subsequently asked me direct questions. I later responded.
    As to your other argument, other people’s noses may include those of some in government, but I was clearly not specifically referring to the government ones.

  58. DrBeauGan

    His right to free speech is protected by the first amendment to the US constitution, and the second amendment too. Here is Australia we have none of those rights.

    Yes we do. I have all those rights and more just by being born. The amendments to the US constitution do not give those rights to US citizens, they prohibit the government from attempting to infringe them. The entire RDA is an attempt to infringe my rights. I deny its legitimacy. I shall also deny the legitimacy of any law requiring me to pretend that two blokes can be married or that a bloke with a preference for dresses is a woman.

    I may be in a minority, but I have reality on my side.

  59. BorisG

    Cynical, you may still hold nostalgia for slavery etc. it is just that the community has moved on.

  60. BorisG

    And btw Facebook is a private company. It can block accounts if it wants to. You don’t have to be on Facebook. You can start your own media company.

Comments are closed.