Geldof has later mentioned that, "[Spencer] wrote to me saying 'she was glad she'd done it because I'd made her famous,' which is not a good thing to live with."
The girl was and remains seriously not right in the head.
Classic tune, though.
Seemingly nothing is fully immune to being infiltrated by policitally woke activists, though by the sound of it, the Church of Satan must have mostly told them to fuck off, hence them founding their own thing and spending so much time over the past couple of decades pulling attention-seeking publicity stunts.
Pretty much every time you've seen some big PR seeking shenanigans from Satanists over the last twenty years, it's been the Satanic Temple iirc.
Luciferians are in the Church of Satan as well, and they do worship Lucifer and do evil in his name.
I mean, maybe? I've no first hand experience either way, but the book that the Church of Satan is supposedly built around is very clear on that particular topic. It's also one of the cringiest things I've skimmed of my own free will, but that's another matter altogether.
So what you're saying is, you have...
From what I understand, the CoS has a bit of that, but also a kinda libertarian just leave us alone streak. The above story being the Satanic Temple, which are the woke activists who considered that approach unforgiveable and went off to found their own version that seems to be more-so just standard issue woke activism with Christian belief inspired edgy cosplay.
Neither the Church of Satan nor the Satanic Temple are actual Satan worshippers. Church of Satan is basically just an atheist philosophy with inexplicably larping magic nonsense thrown in and some drama student level edgy theming.
Satanic Temple is an aggressively woke activist offshoot of the above.
NB - It's the Satanic Temple in the story, not the Church of Satan.
Which is to say, the group that broke away from the Church of Satan for them not being woke and politically active enough for them.
Not sure exactly what the Church of Satan lots opinion on all this would be, but on pretty much any topic you can pre-emptively guess where the Satanic Temple stands because it's just standard issue woke with a bit of random edginess thrown in.
As I understand it.
For example : The UK stated the AstraZeneca vaccine was unsafe for under 40s today. Their stock price still rose by 0.6% and 0.5% on the US listing.
That's not the phrasing I caught, to be fair.
As I understand it, the current advice is to recommend the other type for under 40's if doing so results in no delays etc. If that would result in a delay, by implication they're still recommending AstraZeneca instead of waiting.
Hardly a condemnation, really. (And I'm still less than sold on the idea that the more experimental RNA types are likely to be safer, personally).
I mean, the moment Corbyn confirmed that he would consider putting Tony Blair on trial for war-crimes, or at least having an inquest or something, his fate was pretty permenantly sealed. It was very much the Blairites that were at the heart of the Labour push to ensure that Labour under Corbyn lost at any cost.
Haven't looked deeper, but "quitting the labour front bench" doesn't mean leaving labour, it means becoming "a back bencher", still presumably doing the work of an MP but no longer being part of the "front rank" or the shadow cabinet etc, or something along those lines. I forget the specifics off the top of my head.
Back benchers retain party affiliation, but are less directly under the control of whoever is nominally in charge of the party at the time, and are much more free to vote against party line, etc.
Well I mean, that isn't news. It's exactly what the Corbynites were fighting against, it's the exact battle that has been raging in the party for a while now, and why Corbyn was both so embraced by the grass-roots and so feared and loathed by the media and establishment wing of the party.
If you wanted to do something about it, then you should have done more back before Corbyn's fate was sealed.
Ultimately, that fight was lost a while back though, and there's nothing to be done anytime soon. This is all that's left of the "Labour Party". The battle for it's soul is over, and Starmer and his establishment types are who won.
The fact that the grass roots won't suddenly abandon their core principles to rally around the victors, the knives they used on their fellow labour party members still in hand, should come as no surprise.
The next general election is likely to make the one that led to Corbyn's resignation look like a tour de force, and they'll still be parroting the nonsense that Starmer is an asset all the way.
This comes after the historic election loss for Labour in local elections, where the party bled even more in working-class areas than it did in 2019.
One way to put it. They even lost a seat so hardcore Labour that it had only been in Tory hands once or twice since the end of WW2. A seat in a region that voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. A seat that they put forward a noted Remainer for, and who in the aftermath of a crushing and frankly not that surprising defeat, are still describing as a good candidate and the correct one to have put forward.
EDIT - There's a bleakly fun parallel here. The establishment wing of Labour didn't oppose Corbyn because they were afraid he would fail, they opposed him because they were terrified he might succeed. This paralleled the Rino/Trump situation, but it's also pretty much the reason why the Tories spent so much time trying to prevent a Boris Johnson leadership, and this is perhaps the exact fate they tried to prevent in the last couple of leadership elections.
Somewhere in the mid twenties looks about right, aye.
Seems safe to say then, the central problem here is one of accurate communication of ideas.
Anyway, that'll have to do me for now. Fun as this has been, I've got to get some kind of rest. :)
I'd probably describe him as crazy. Psychopathic. I can't bring myself to use feminist created deflection words and give them unearned legitimacy.
Well, then I have good (or possibly bad) news for you, then.
The word predates feminism by hundreds of years. Back to a specific incident in 1615 or so, apparently. Entirely unrelated to the feminist movement.
Needless to say, she didn't take the job.
I'll admit, I laughed. Public transport is one hell of a way to get around, and no mistake.
Are these people all women?
EDIT - Or is the problem anyone who fits that definition?
At this point, aren't you making the same point that our feminist "friends" do about the danger of the incel that's hiding under their bed, or in the gym they don't go to, or in the workplace they got diversity hired into?
The SJW's use a hypthetical like I spelled out to justify whatever action it is they want to do anyway. SJW's spell out a hypothetical like that as part of a claim that such an incident is frequent, widespread and common, as well as *secretly the views of all men who do not sufficiently publically express their subservience and opposition to such ideas.
Me? I'm just posing you an entirely hypothetical situation, concerning a someone who does not exist and a specific person you know and are close to, to aid as well as complicate your ability to visualise the hypothetical situation.
Do I believe that classifying hate speech against women (as they define it) as justified would cause violence? Honestly, no. Calls for violence will still not be justifiable, regardless.
This is interesting, but none of it really answers my actual question. I'm not saying you do or do not do anything of the sort.
Our central premise is the idea that misogyny doesn't exist. How would you describe our imaginary asshole? Would you describe him as a misogynist, and if not, how would you describe him? Imagine for a moment, that the next time you go visit your Mother, she tells you a story more or less exactly as above. If you honestly believed it had legitimately happened and wasn't just a silly hypothetical, how would that change your reaction and view on the situation?
Here's a follow up, (but only tackle this after the above); The exact same situation, but the anti-social, probably high thug was actually an extremely radical female leftist of some kind, whose views on women trace back to a philosophy about women being inherently greedy and immoral and only through rejecting womanhood and becoming a political lesbian or identifying as some special new gender could the crime of being a regular woman begin to be atoned for.
The problem I see here, is that you are effectively misrepresenting what you actually believe. That both means that you will be frequently misunderstood and dismissed without people actually taking you seriously at all, but also that you can fall into a lot of mental traps.
Inaccurately defining things both hinders your ability to convey your ideas and risks hindering your ability to accurately form ideas.
The reason I don't use qualifiers is because they are just misleading. If I said 55% of women are our allies, it projects an overly optimistic view, when in reality our backs are up against the wall and the guns are already being loaded.
In terms of communication, if you mean young women it's better to say young women. It lets people more easily understand what you're even saying, and it makes it easier for you to keep track of what you're actually trying to say.
For example, you talk in terms of us and our allies, with the "them" being those who are against us, but you frequently slip into suggesting that the "us" is "all men" and the "them" is "all women", as if there is any uniformity in either of those groups.
If you actually mean by us, "men who believe in men's rights" and the them is *young women who oppose men's rights (possibly for political reasons or because of some kind of urge to preserve social advantages" then you have a much more specific and understandable situation described. There's significantly more room to interestingly examine the issues in the latter than the former, given how easy it is to find examples in anyone reading's personal life that would seem to easily debunk the central tenets.
Understand, I'm just shooting shit here because it's late and I'm waiting for a washing machine.
So, if she met someone who felt like I do generally? Well, considering my "hatred" is mainly social media comments, boycotting, and refusing interaction...I don't think I'd really notice.
Hypotheticals are fun, so let's run with this. The prime assumption here is that you started all this nonsense with Antonio by claiming there was no such thing as misogyny, so no. We're not using you as the model here, let's say she's out and about and she has met someone who not only feels like he does about your mother because he's mentally grouping her with all other women, he's also a low IQ person with a criminal record and a history of public antisocial behaviour.
Our hypothetical thug met your mother at the Supermarket, and was rude to her while they queued for the tills.
Then he pushed past her on the way out of the building, nearly knocking her over while she tried to pack her groceries.
People confronted him because that's more than just rude, she nearly fell over and could have hurt herself, but he was unrepentant and he shouted a lot of angry things at her, accusing her of all manner of bad things and generally being really hostile.
When your Mother collected herself and went back to the car, she found him waiting for her. He was still furious at being called out and blamed her for getting him barred from the Supermarket. He verbally harrassed her, repeated some of the accusations he made in the supermarket, dismissing her as a social parasite who hated men and who would stab anyone in the back just to improve her personal situation.
The incident was broken up when the store security became aware of the brewing altercation, but not before he was able to spit in her face and tell her that she better hope she doesn't meet him in a dark allyway, because next time she might get what's coming to her.
They have never met of course, our hypothetical thug and your Mother. Chances are, he wasn't even in his right mind as that kind of criminal record often goes hand in hand with drug abuse, but he seemed pretty sincere about his views. He's not a smart guy like you, he's not a primarily online person who at most will be rude about people where they won't ever really encounter it. He's an old-fashioned, meat-space asshole and he genuinely believes that your mother in particular deserves whatever bad treatment he metes out, purely on the basis of her shared guilt.
Just mull this silly hypothetical over for a minute, and reconsider my previous question.
How do they not realize that all men means all men?
When you say Women, people think you mean all Women.
Am I right in saying that what you actually mean is some Women, but that you are happy enough to offend that you don't care if people think you mean all women, given that you expect the people to be reading to fall within whatever percentage it is that you are arguing are bad?
Going great.
To be serious for a second, that's genuinely good to hear.
She wants me to visit for Christmas but Covid will probably deny that. I'm certainly not taking that AstraZeneca vaccine.
I won't be seeing family this Christmas either, due to a mixture of my job putting me at much greater risk of exposure/of transmitting and some other factors I won't be getting into. Fingers crossed, the folks will manage to do something nice involving other close family members who are not in the same situation, however.
Personally, I've been sticking to quite strict contact rules throughout the year, often above the legal requirements. Widespread vaccinations (if safe and successful) would be great if and when they finally roll out, but I'm unlikely to be at the front of any queue to try things out, and I'm a whole lot more hopeful for the Oxford one than the various less practical and more hyper-capitalistically priced/motivated ones. Personally, I'm happy to continue as I have been and just see how things pan out for a while yet.
Right, that's enough of the serious, back to the less so.
Going great.
You are aware she is a woman, right?
How would you define the state of someone hating specifically your mother for no other reason than her sharing a sex with various people who have attracted the ire of that hypothetical person?
We already had this debate. For misogyny to exist, it would have to be hatred that is unjustified by the actions of the target.
I don't know about you, but I think they justified being hated as a group several times over, just in this year.
How's your relationship with your Mother going, dude? :)
When the tactic is to slowly and politely walk through no-man's land in a civilized manner, there's an argument in favour of carrying a nice big metal xylophone, to be fair.
Soon to be the US's first Unelected Female President.
That's something, right?
Not even close, but it's a pretty funny clip regardless.
I'd object to the description of him being stupid because dementia takes it's toll even on incredibly intelligent sufferers, but to be entirely fair, Biden seems to have been a bit of a prize dumbass even before the disease started taking it's toll.
So, fair enough.