LiberalLesbo wrote:

Firstly, let’s try and define the term “toxic behaviour”. That may be complex, but researchers do that in order to study it in various scenarios. Two papers immediately sprang up when I searched, and I’ll offer their definitions. Monge and O’Brien (2022) defined toxic behaviour in online gaming as:

Harassment and other forms of antisocial behaviors online… which encompasses several types of highly nuanced behaviors across different online environments. Examples of toxic behaviors include cyberbullying, griefing, mischief, sexism and sexual harassment, trolling, cheating, and flaming…

Whilst Si et al. (2022) summed it up in terms of social media discussions a bit more briefly:

… [T]oxic speech—offensive language that involves hate or violent content—in the context of chatbots. Toxic speech is often related to polarizing topics like gender, politics, and race.

Then we could say that toxic behaviour could be defined as a kind of blend of both definitions: Forms of antisocial behaviours including bullying, mischief (e.g., trolling), and harassment, particularly in relation to polarizing topics such as gender, politics, and race. That has no mention of left or right-wing politics, and could be inflicted upon either “side” by the other, depending upon the stance of the majority of people present. So, one person’s genuine opinion could be seen as “toxic” depending upon the majority opinion of a given group, regardless of political position. I could be behaving in that manner in a right-wing meeting, whilst a conservative could be behaving toxically in a meeting of social democrats, just by communicating genuinely held views. And here we have the nature of that polarity, when views are genuinely held by both sides, which––I believe––is the crux of what is driving people mad, right now , whether they be conservative/republican or liberal/social democrat.

Do you think we’d agree so far?

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Well - many people don't agree that a man can become a woman; they don't agree that saying so should be a criminal offence; they don't agree it makes them any kind of -phobic; they don't agree that people should lose their jobs or reputations for saying so; they don't approve of men using female spaces; they don't approve of men going to female prisons; they don't approve of their children being taught the ideology; they don't approve of laws changing to benefit the ideology...and they mostly hate all of the previous being drummed into them by the media over and over and over in an attempt to normalise something that they fundamentally do not agree or approve of.

And––up to a point––neither do I. But I think the reality is more complex than that. There is a difference between sex, gender, and sexuality. Sex is what you might be defined as by chromosomes, and on your birth certificate. Gender is what you might identify as––bear with me, I shall explain. Sexuality is how you express sexual desire (or not). Now let me explain a little further. Do not let anyone tell you that “sex” is binary. There are individuals born and classified as male or female incorrectly. As just one example, I shall cite intersex infants . These are infants born with indeterminate sexual characteristics, including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitalia that do not fit typical ideas of what male or female bodies should be. Yet, because a doctor or midwife fills in a form at birth, they are labelled “male” or “female”. Mills and Thompson (2020) discuss this in their introduction:

“Every year, approximately two million infants displaying intersex characteristics, are born. It is estimated that approximately 1.7 per cent of live births, ‘do not conform to a Platonic ideal of absolute sex chromosome, gonadal, genital, and hormonal dimorphism’. Children born with intersex characteristics are likely to be subjected to medical intervention during the early years of infancy. The rationale for medical intervention is often socially driven as it is considered “necessary” to allocate a conclusive sex to an intersex child. (p. 548)

In the United States alone, there are approximately 3.66 million live births per year. 1.7% of 3.66 million is approximately 62,220 infants per year in the United States alone. So far, this is undeniable science, established by years of physiological study, repeated across the world by different teams of researchers. Sex is not binary, and public science education needs to catch up with that fact. That is not an ideology, it is science.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Moving on, we get into more hypothetical ground. We do not understand all there is to understand about how the brain works, so I would propose the question: “What is so challenging to believe that a brain could have a form of intersex function/feature/variable (call it what you like), such that the mind and all its’ amazing facets differed from the outward appearance of the body? How would you feel if you were raised as female, but you knew internally that you were male (or vice versa)? Just entertain that as a thought exercise and imagine the torture some individuals might suffer.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Without doubt, these waters are muddied by incorrect diagnoses, individuals that may deceive for whatever reason, and any other variable you might imagine, but the underlying, undeniable fact, is that sex is not binary. And––if someone truly believes themselves to have been wrongly classified in terms of sexual assignment––we have only what they self-identify as with which to proceed. Are we then going to condemn more than 62,000 individuals per year (United States alone) to a living torture, because societal attitudes cannot keep up with what science has established?

LiberalLesbo wrote:

For a long time I argued against the use of––what I considered to be––an absurd use of personal pronouns. I am a woman that is sexually attracted to other women. I did not want to find myself being intimate with someone who identified as a woman, but whom I discovered still had a penis. Nothing could be worse for me. However, I slowly encountered more individuals, and I simply began to accept personal pronoun use because I did not want to add to an individuals’ pain just by my use of “words” (to whatever degree that might me). I thought that accepting personal pronouns was simply a small concession to somebody that might genuinely have suffered real mental anguish.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

I would agree wholeheartedly with you that saying whatever someone chooses should not be legally actionable in any way… so long as it is not inciting violence or extremist behaviour. But , whatever someone says can and should be challenged to see if it is supported by evidence. Saying that there are only men and women, and what you have between your legs absolutely defines that 100% of the time, is simply, utterly, wrong. And if you are going to teach science, or anything according to evidence, then you have to teach children that sex is not binary, that because this happens in nature it is therefore natural, and they should not live in shame or fear for feeling whatever they happen to feel.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Representing LGBTQ+ individuals in the media, despite how in your face  some people may feel it to be, is really not that extreme. And when there has been decades of censorship, then redressing that issue can seem a little excessive to some. Yet I’ve got to say, even I get a bit tired of seeing the token beautiful dyke flashing herself for the entertainment of a few, with no real contribution to the story other than she has a nice ass.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

I don’t demand that anybody conform to my opinion, but if their opinion differs, I do expect them to provide superior evidence in order for me to agree with their perspective.

With regard to LGBTQ+ violence, I actually think that we are mostly agreed, and I would certainly echo the sentiment of your final paragraph.



References

Mills, L., & Thompson, S. (2020). Parental responsibilities and rights during the “gender reassignment” decision-making process of intersex infants. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 28(3), 547–570. https://doi[dot]org/10[dot]1163/15718182-02803005

Monge, C., & O’Brien, T. (2022). Effects of individual toxic behavior on team performance in League of Legends. Media Psychology, 25(1), 82–105. https://doi[dot]org/10[dot]1080/15213269[dot]2020[dot]1868322

Si, W. M., Backes, M., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Zannettou, S., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Why So Toxic?: Measuring and Triggering Toxic Behavior in Open-Domain Chatbots. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2659–2673. https://doi[dot]org/10[dot]1145/3548606[dot]3560599

Also, an interesting work by an advanced biologist, but I would not cite it as evidence, simply because it is a book, and anyone can write whatever they like in a book of their own. However, he does support his statements with some of the best research available:

de Waal, F. (2022). Different : gender through the eyes of a primatologist (First edition.). W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist by Frans de Waal EPUB Seeds: 2 / Leechers: 0 / Completed: 138     DL

Lastly, if you are interested in any of the references that I cite, and cannot get them because they’re behind a paywall, please PM me, and I’m sure I can get a copy to you somehow… this is a file-sharing site after all

Oh wow, I feel like I’ve gone back to uni’ and written a dissertation. That’s it for me here tonight boys, girls… and other

) wrote:

wrote:

... the UK government made this same move just recently... it ignored legitimate complaints and labelled ~70% of the country racist...

Wow, that would seem a rather unintelligent move for an organisation that depends on public support for its' very existence. Could you send me a link or something to where they did that please? I've been looking and I can't find anything.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Thanks B$ND1T, it's worth noting that I've just gone through the four links that you sent, and nowhere there does any government member or spokesperson say that "~70% of the country racist". Maybe I missed that bit, point it out for me if I did. That would explain why I couldn't find anything to do with the UK government referring to the majority of their electorate as racist.

The rest of the government responses that I can verify as actual government responses (as opposed to being attributed to them by the media, or figures like Nigel Farage), when taken in their full context, are quite measured and responsible given the circumstances.

Could you also define exactly how Sir Keir Starmer is (i) corrupt, and (ii) a communist (as opposed to socialist, or social democrat for example)?  Also, where you stated that something was "well-documented", could you point me to some of the documentation please? I have no idea what "MSM" is an acronym of either. I'm obviously woefully lacking in UK information these days, sorry.

Thank you!

B4ND1T69 wrote:

Just for the record TwoTierKeir is a foookin Knobhe4d of the highest order, corrupt as they come, communist through and through
(also well documented)

LiberalLesbo wrote:

What are the corruption allegations and their proofs/evidence? I'm sincerely interested guys. Can you give me some good sources please (e.g., not newspapers/online stuff, real verifiable material)?

Foxbase wrote:

B4ND1T69 wrote:

Just for the record TwoTierKeir is a foookin Knobhe4d of the highest order, corrupt as they come, communist through and through
(also well documented)

Agreed - a very weak man, who has found himself with power - doesn't know how to use it, doesn't know how to govern...so lashes out and bludgeons. Very, very dangerous threat to stability and unity....absolutely corrupt.

I knew labour would be bad...I knew they'd be mental...but I thought they'd mostly shamble through and do mostly nothing...so far its been one complete disaster after another.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Hi B4ND1T,

Let's look at that last post of yours...

...no minister or spokesperson (official voice) is going to actually say 70% of the country is racist ffs...don't be that person please

Don't be that person please? No, no government would say such a thing, so why state quite clearly that they "labelled 70% of the country as RACIST"? That is completely incorrect. After a discussion of how context is extremely important, it is fabrication.

Just like Hilary CORRUPT Clinton called half of america deplorable for context

Yep, in a US Presidential election with a record turnout, almost half the voting public voted for a candidate who went on to become a convicted sex-offender and felon. Whilst I think the remark was unwise to make, not politic, or even professional, I can't really fault it for its' accuracy.

Let's also look at some of those allegations about the so-called corruption of the Clintons.

Whitewater, 1992
Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton faced prosecution for their involvement in Whitewater.

Travelgate, 1993
The Justice Department, at least one congressional panel, and special prosecutors all probed the Clintons. Independent Counsel Ken Starr found no blame rested with Bill Clinton, and another independent counsel scrutinized Hillary Clinton's involvement but also found no basis to bring any charges against her.

Vince Foster Death, 1993
Multiple investigations by the FBI, the Justice Department and special prosecutors concluded that Foster died at his own hand.

Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky, 1994
In February 1999, the U.S. Senate acquitted Bill Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Filegate, 1996
An independent counsel uncovered no wrongdoing by the Clintons.

Benghazi, 2012
The House Select Committee, and an investigation by the Accountability Review Board failed to find sufficient evidence to mount any kind of prosecution.

Clinton Foundation, 2015 and the Private Email Server, 2015
Despite investigations right up until the final days of the 45th presidential term, no evidence to support criminal wrongdoing or any kind was found, much less any hope of an actual prosecution.

Unlike the 45th president of the United States, Bill and Hillary Clinton remain entirely innocent and un-prosecuted, despite the best efforts of serial investigations. Your corruption allegations are misinformed. If she or her husband ever become convicted felons on account of any of the above (rather than anything new and unforeseen -- you see, I'm being tentative), I will create a forum on this site for the sole purpose of correcting what I have said here.

Over 70% of Brits have ILLEGAL IMIGRATION or imigration in general, and the amount of money being spent on them, and the resourses we don't have to accommodate them all...as their main concern.

That does not make them racists, you and I are very much in agreement over that. But I would like to look at the data in more detail (e.g., the actual questions asked and a breakdown of responses), because I believe the actuality of that statement is more complex and nuanced than you are describing here.

Starmer, Labour, all lefties...

No, that is not a realistic statement to make, all lefties is a gross exaggeration.

... have "labelled" anyone expressing "concerns" over these subjects as "Islamaphobes" and "Anti-imigration racists" "Far right thugs" etc

No, that has never been said. Starmer actually said that the vast majority of the disorder since July 30 was not “protest”, but instead violent disorder and thuggery that was littered with racially aggravated attacks on mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers. He has also sought to prioritise cracking down on the perpetrators arrests and rapid convictions. This seems entirely appropriate to me. If you can find a direct quote where Starmer has clearly stated that anyone expressing "concerns" over these subjects (see your comment) are "Islamaphobes", "Anti-imigration racists" and "Far right thugs", then please send me some form of real evidence of the statement, and I will wholeheartedly apologize and retract what I have written here. Unfortunately the interpretation of people who earnestly want to see a socially-conscious government fail, and see real wickedness in their actions, does not make that interpretation accurate.

As an arbitrary example, I am certain that you would never trust my interpretation of a statement made by Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Richard Massey, or the ex-US president. Nor, I am equally sure, do you trust many of my sources or their interpretations. As a result, we would do well to stick to direct sources, clearly verifiable as having been made by those we are referring to. In this instance, I absolutely do not believe your statements are supportable by sufficient, direct evidence. Hence, I believe your statement that "Starmer, Labour have labelled 70% of the country as RACIST" is -- once again -- fallacious.

B4ND1T69 wrote:

Find them yaself ffs
Your not interested in actual discussion as your interpretion of a discussion seems to be "someone says something and you just disect it into seperate parts that you then attack"

End of debate

Soup wrote:

One should never be afraid to speak one's mind,  even if you are chastised in the process

Foxbase wrote:

I object - this cuntish behaviour altered the entire feeling and flow of the conversation.

When I came back to the thread it was in flames.

It was lovely, when I left it!!!

If it was Super Admin  miok  would have left it.