Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Parafox]

9 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 

I took your advice and asked her round but she’s replied saying she’s busy BUSTY that day 

Fixed 

[Oxfordfox83]

On 05/12/2022 at 21:19, Wymsey said:

Mince pies are foul.

Alongside Sherry.  🚮 

Two types of wrong. You know mince pies though, so fair play. But Sherry is incredible, and there’s so much of it that’s not Harvey’s Bristol Cream. If you find yourself in Oxford I’ll spot you a glass…

[tom27111]

You should have to pass a drug swipe to be allowed entry in to a football match.

[Jimothy]

7 hours ago, tom27111 said:

You should have to pass a drug swipe to be allowed entry in to a football match.

Are you talking about the fans or the players? Because the Leicester team yesterday looked they were on a come down from something.

[oakman]

Twerking is the unsexiest dance around.  Your arse flapping doesn’t impress me.

[oakman]

It’s the male equivalent of:

 

[Shane]

Tielemans is not irreplaceable like Mahrez and Kante.
 

There’s plenty of midfielders out there who either have a similar play style or can match his current output.

[Jon the Hat]

Nicola Sturgeon coming undone on the TWAW issue is long overdue.  Terrible politics.

[SpacedX]

14 hours ago, Shane said:

There’s plenty of midfielders out there who either have a similar play style or can match his current output.

...Who probably aren't inclined to sign for Leicester City right now. 

[LiberalFox]

@Alf BentleyI'm not going to argue with Jon because it will probably just make me angry but why are you liking that post? Are you anti-trans now or don't like Nicola Sturgeon or you think the Scottish GRA reform was somehow bad politics?

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

@Alf BentleyI'm not going to argue with Jon because it will probably just make me angry but why are you liking that post? Are you anti-trans now or don't like Nicola Sturgeon or you think the Scottish GRA reform was somehow bad politics?

 

Funny enough, I'd intended to make my own post after liking Jon's post, but thought better of it as I didn't want to end up down a gender rabbit hole, as (1) I'm not well informed on the issue and am unsure exactly where I stand; (2) That debate tends to attract unpleasantness and I wasn't in the mood for it. But as you've asked.....

 

I liked Jon's post as I agreed that it was "terrible politics" (poor political strategy) by Sturgeon to pick a fight with Westminster over such a divisive issue, on which a lot of potential SNP voters would disagree with her. I understand that, to pursue her main goal of independence, she seeks to depict Westminster/England as disrespecting Scottish democratic views. Sometimes she's justified in this (e.g. Brexit), other times she cleverly depicts such disrespect where it may not exist. I found it astonishing that a politician as consistently clever and competent as Sturgeon chose that particular fight. Maybe she did it on principle, but I doubt that, given her disciplined focus on independence. In cynical party political terms, I'm glad it seems to have backfired on her as, while Scottish independence is ultimately a matter for the Scots, I'd prefer Scotland to stay in the UK. Hopefully a future Lab-LD govt will increase devolution to the nations and regions of the UK, further reducing support for Scottish independence.

 

I'm less sure where I stand on the substance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, but....

- No, I'm not anti-trans. I think trans people should be supported and respected. Maybe there are ways in which official procedures could be improved to help in this. I also regret the hostility that some will now face due to this divisive political storm.

- Although under-informed, I'm inclined to think that age 16 is too young to self-identify for an official gender change (though not in medically confirmed cases of gender dysphoria). Age 16 is a time of turbulence, peer pressure and often great immaturity.

- I'm also inclined to think that, for the sake of women's rights, it shouldn't be too easy to self-identify as a different gender. Cases like the imprisoned trans woman who'd raped women prior to transitioning are highly untypical, but shouldn't be ignored - nor should they be used to fan hostility against trans people, as the gutter press has done.

- This may be an outdated view, but I also think there should be more focus on accepting diversity within each gender: e.g. accepting that there are a wide range of different sorts of men and women, including "feminine" men and "masculine" women, as well as people who genuinely need to transition to a different gender. I fear that some teenagers who feel a bit different from the norm (or are abused for that by others) will wrongly see changing gender as the solution, rather than expecting respect for their difference. To be facetious for a moment, did David Bowie sweat in vain throughout the 70s to encourage gender-bending, only for subsequent generations to seek to put people in narrowly-defined "male" and "female" compartments?

- A personal point that informs that last one. At age 14-16, I was on the end of some mildish homophobic abuse (despite being straight). As I was then an over-sensitive, unworldly lad (unlike the self-confident, semi-macho oaf I turned into), that was damaging and I found myself wondering if I should really be gay or a girl (I partly conflated the two), despite feeling myself to be male and straight....those blokes must've been abusing me for a reason, eh? That was a time (1970s) when trans people were much more marginalised than now, but if some kid went through that today, I wonder if they might self-certify as having changed gender? Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if they did, but I imagine it might also cause them serious problems.

 

As mentioned, I don't plan to get involved in heated debate about this, so probably won't say any more - but will be interested in any response, not least as my own views aren't fixed. Well, you did ask, but didn't expect a novel in response... 

 

Incidentally, it's a shame you don't want to argue with Jon. Although he and I disagree on many issues, I've always found him a civilised debater and more open-minded than some on both right and left - a natural Tory, but quite independent-thinking and liberal-minded in many ways. Aside from outright bigots and people who get abusive, it should be possible to argue with those we disagree with and not get angry, surely?

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

@Alf BentleyI'm not going to argue with Jon because it will probably just make me angry but why are you liking that post? Are you anti-trans now or don't like Nicola Sturgeon or you think the Scottish GRA reform was somehow bad politics?

I can answer that for you ..  I’ve known Alf for many many years and once when we were out on a bender a lady walked in the pub dressed in a short pencil skirt and an off the shoulder crop top ..  she also had a full beard, scarred face and a broken nose  ..  and asked for a pint of heavy in a very gruff voice ..  her hands and feet were huge. Alf let out snarl and leapt at her and it was all I could do to pull him off and make our escape.  Back home at his place while he was in the kitchen warming some milk for his bedtime Horlicks I spotted a book on the coffee table ..  ‘From circus clown to politician - The rise and rise of Nicola Sturgeon’ ..  and inside the cover was a signed note ‘To Alf my biggest fan from wee Willie McSturgeon’  ..    I’ll let you draw your own conclusion .. 

[Foxdiamond]

Not sure if unpopular or not but surely there will have to be a limit of how many dogs one person can walk. The recent horrific death of the young woman walking  8 dogs a case in point. Not an expert but common sense suggests something needs to be done

[Free Falling Foxes]

12 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Not sure if unpopular or not but surely there will have to be a limit of how many dogs one person can walk. The recent horrific death of the young woman walking  8 dogs a case in point. Not an expert but common sense suggests something needs to be done

Agree.

On a related but less extreme note: I don't think these multiple dog walkers can keep an eye on all of them. I've seen them on our local park with the odd pooch stopping for a poo and it doesn't get 'bagged'

I've also noticed the odd dog from these 'packs', suddenly break rank and run towards someone.

Edited 31 January 2023 by Free Falling Foxes

[Jimothy]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Not sure if unpopular or not but surely there will have to be a limit of how many dogs one person can walk. The recent horrific death of the young woman walking  8 dogs a case in point. Not an expert but common sense suggests something needs to be done

Don't think it's unpopular, it's probably something most people have never thought about though. They might have seen someone with lots of dogs and thought "That's a lot of dogs, must be hard to control" and then got on with their day. Unfortunately it sometimes takes something like this to make people realise the dangers.

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Funny enough, I'd intended to make my own post after liking Jon's post, but thought better of it as I didn't want to end up down a gender rabbit hole, as (1) I'm not well informed on the issue and am unsure exactly where I stand; (2) That debate tends to attract unpleasantness and I wasn't in the mood for it. But as you've asked.....

 

I liked Jon's post as I agreed that it was "terrible politics" (poor political strategy) by Sturgeon to pick a fight with Westminster over such a divisive issue, on which a lot of potential SNP voters would disagree with her. I understand that, to pursue her main goal of independence, she seeks to depict Westminster/England as disrespecting Scottish democratic views. Sometimes she's justified in this (e.g. Brexit), other times she cleverly depicts such disrespect where it may not exist. I found it astonishing that a politician as consistently clever and competent as Sturgeon chose that particular fight. Maybe she did it on principle, but I doubt that, given her disciplined focus on independence. In cynical party political terms, I'm glad it seems to have backfired on her as, while Scottish independence is ultimately a matter for the Scots, I'd prefer Scotland to stay in the UK. Hopefully a future Lab-LD govt will increase devolution to the nations and regions of the UK, further reducing support for Scottish independence.

 

I'm less sure where I stand on the substance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, but....

- No, I'm not anti-trans. I think trans people should be supported and respected. Maybe there are ways in which official procedures could be improved to help in this. I also regret the hostility that some will now face due to this divisive political storm.

- Although under-informed, I'm inclined to think that age 16 is too young to self-identify for an official gender change (though not in medically confirmed cases of gender dysphoria). Age 16 is a time of turbulence, peer pressure and often great immaturity.

- I'm also inclined to think that, for the sake of women's rights, it shouldn't be too easy to self-identify as a different gender. Cases like the imprisoned trans woman who'd raped women prior to transitioning are highly untypical, but shouldn't be ignored - nor should they be used to fan hostility against trans people, as the gutter press has done.

- This may be an outdated view, but I also think there should be more focus on accepting diversity within each gender: e.g. accepting that there are a wide range of different sorts of men and women, including "feminine" men and "masculine" women, as well as people who genuinely need to transition to a different gender. I fear that some teenagers who feel a bit different from the norm (or are abused for that by others) will wrongly see changing gender as the solution, rather than expecting respect for their difference. To be facetious for a moment, did David Bowie sweat in vain throughout the 70s to encourage gender-bending, only for subsequent generations to seek to put people in narrowly-defined "male" and "female" compartments?

- A personal point that informs that last one. At age 14-16, I was on the end of some mildish homophobic abuse (despite being straight). As I was then an over-sensitive, unworldly lad (unlike the self-confident, semi-macho oaf I turned into), that was damaging and I found myself wondering if I should really be gay or a girl (I partly conflated the two), despite feeling myself to be male and straight....those blokes must've been abusing me for a reason, eh? That was a time (1970s) when trans people were much more marginalised than now, but if some kid went through that today, I wonder if they might self-certify as having changed gender? Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if they did, but I imagine it might also cause them serious problems.

 

As mentioned, I don't plan to get involved in heated debate about this, so probably won't say any more - but will be interested in any response, not least as my own views aren't fixed. Well, you did ask, but didn't expect a novel in response... 

 

Incidentally, it's a shame you don't want to argue with Jon. Although he and I disagree on many issues, I've always found him a civilised debater and more open-minded than some on both right and left - a natural Tory, but quite independent-thinking and liberal-minded in many ways. Aside from outright bigots and people who get abusive, it should be possible to argue with those we disagree with and not get angry, surely?

I don't have a problem with Jon outside of the opinions he appears to hold on trans people and how he expresses them. Anger is an emotion, something you feel in response to certain things. For me this is an issue that means something different to me probably compared to most other people. For about two years now I've seen myself as non-binary, but that's because I believe it's who I am. I know probably more (binary) trans people than most. So the whole thing is a bit personal. My opinion is that transphobia is a moral panic. Lies, misrepresentations of the truth, conspiracy theories. I feel like I've heard it all now and I don't really get anything from arguing with someone who thinks they know better and I don't really want to think less of people like Jon over one issue. I don't know where people get their opinions from or what 'normal' people believe because one of the astonishing things about transphobia to me is that it's permeated all the 'left-wing' mainstream media with very little pushback. 

 

I'm glad you're not anti-trans! I think on the Scottish GRA it's actually the other way around. It's a bit of good (but dirty) politics by the Tories. The Scottish GRA reform has been in the pipeline for years. It wouldn't have been possible to just scrap it. There was no indication until after the vote that Westminster would intervene - something that has never been done before. It may or may not be legal to just decide to use Section 35 of the Scottish Act to veto this. It's certainly not how it was intended to be used - as a last resort if negotiations broke down over something that impact the UK as a whole (not as a first strike). If this is legal then Westminster has established in law that Scotland has very very little autonomy because most things will have some indirect interaction with UK wide law. But it seems most people are willing to blame Nicola Sturgeon for this, and Kier Starmer is trying to play both sides despite Scottish Labour whipping their MSPs to vote for the bill. Sticking it to the Scots it seems is quite popular in England at least, and it also appeases a portion of the Tory vote who are anti-trans. 

 

There's a ConHome article that I think I agree with: https://conservativehome.com/2023/01/20/luke-tryl-the-conservatives-inconsistent-approach-to-woke-issues-reflects-public-attitudes/

 

One of the curious things was right before the section 35 announcement, the government announced it would include trans people in the ban on conversion therapy. That's quite a big deal. 

 

As for the views you hold I'll give my brief answer to them in order.

 

1. I think the reason for age lowering is related to Scotland's decision to treat 16 as the age of majority. You can get married at 16 in Scotland and you must be 18 in England&Wales. A Gender Recognition Certificate(GRC) affects marriages and death certificates. So if you're going to say people can marry at 16 then it makes sense for trans people to be able to change legal gender too. Everything else like passport and driving license is already totally self-ID and has been for years. In fact the current GRC rules require someone to have lived as their acquired gender for 2 years.

 

2. The short answer to this is that trans rights don't affect women's rights at all. The prison question is simple - putting dangerous criminals with their victims is never okay no matter what the genders are. 

 

3. Sure. I think it's a shame that people see trans and non-binary rights as somehow an alternative to allowing men and women the freedom to be themselves. 

 

4. I've heard that sort of thing a lot and I'm not one to invalidate people's experiences or concerns but it always seems incredible to me that people think they might have changed gender on a whim. It really feels like people are confusing just discovering their own gender identity which for most people is their birth gender. That said I'd love there to be much more availability of therapy and counselling for young people, not just for gender identity confusion but all mental health and life struggles because it's a critical age for personality development. 

 

Thanks for your response. It's nice to get a balanced and reasonable perspective. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SkidsFox]

If Germany had invaded England in 1940 they would have steamrollered us.

 

People often object using the argument "the Royal Navy would have stopped them crossing the Channel." Well the combined British, French and Norwegian forces failed to stop Germany taking Norway (a far greater distance). Yes, the Germans had losses, but similar to their taking of Crete, they ploughed on regardless. And the summer of 1940 our troops back from Dunkirk were demoralised and had lost most of their equipment.  

At this point someone pipes up with  "but we had a war game and Germany didn't succeed..." Prior to 1940 the Maginot line was meant to be impassable. The German forces didn't listen to the western "experts". They went ahead and got the job done. In the early years, whenever Tommy faced up to Fritz he came off worse. It's to our credit that we kept trying and eventually learnt how to win on the battlefield against strong German forces, more or less from El Alamain in 1942. But in 1940 we were nowhere near strong enough. 

[MPH]

36 minutes ago, SkidsFox said:

If Germany had invaded England in 1940 they would have steamrollered us.

 

People often object using the argument "the Royal Navy would have stopped them crossing the Channel." Well the combined British, French and Norwegian forces failed to stop Germany taking Norway (a far greater distance). Yes, the Germans had losses, but similar to their taking of Crete, they ploughed on regardless. And the summer of 1940 our troops back from Dunkirk were demoralised and had lost most of their equipment.  

At this point someone pipes up with  "but we had a war game and Germany didn't succeed..." Prior to 1940 the Maginot line was meant to be impassable. The German forces didn't listen to the western "experts". They went ahead and got the job done. In the early years, whenever Tommy faced up to Fritz he came off worse. It's to our credit that we kept trying and eventually learnt how to win on the battlefield against strong German forces, more or less from El Alamain in 1942. But in 1940 we were nowhere near strong enough. 

 

they wouldn’t have steam rollered us.  We were a far better match for them than Ukraine are for Russia, for example and that’s a nation that shares a land border with Russia.  If Germany had gotten through the Navy then they would have faced a huge onslaught from our Airforce. We’d also have had the ability to put a weapon in the hand of everyone willing to hold one. A land attack against GB would have also accelerated the U.S’s involvement in the war too. So, no, there would have been no steam rollering.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, SkidsFox said:

If Germany had invaded England in 1940 they would have steamrollered us.

 

People often object using the argument "the Royal Navy would have stopped them crossing the Channel." Well the combined British, French and Norwegian forces failed to stop Germany taking Norway (a far greater distance). Yes, the Germans had losses, but similar to their taking of Crete, they ploughed on regardless. And the summer of 1940 our troops back from Dunkirk were demoralised and had lost most of their equipment.  

At this point someone pipes up with  "but we had a war game and Germany didn't succeed..." Prior to 1940 the Maginot line was meant to be impassable. The German forces didn't listen to the western "experts". They went ahead and got the job done. In the early years, whenever Tommy faced up to Fritz he came off worse. It's to our credit that we kept trying and eventually learnt how to win on the battlefield against strong German forces, more or less from El Alamain in 1942. But in 1940 we were nowhere near strong enough. 

This is an interesting viewpoint.

 

Are there any military historians about right now that would agree with it? I thought the general consensus was that Nazi Germany was never in a position to invade successfully due to both naval and air inferiority and even most of the higher echelons of the German leadership knew it (that being said, they thought the same about the Manstein Plan and that went OK, but that was army, not navy and Air force).

[SemperEadem]

Providing we stay in the league I would like Forest to also stay up.

[Izzy]

11 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Providing we stay in the league I would like Forest to also stay up.

[Foxdiamond]

On 11/02/2023 at 00:43, leicsmac said:

This is an interesting viewpoint.

 

Are there any military historians about right now that would agree with it? I thought the general consensus was that Nazi Germany was never in a position to invade successfully due to both naval and air inferiority and even most of the higher echelons of the German leadership knew it (that being said, they thought the same about the Manstein Plan and that went OK, but that was army, not navy and Air force).

The Germans needed to defeat the RAF and failed. There is a major doubt they could have protected their invasion barges from RN. 

[ealingfox]

41 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Providing we stay in the league I would like Forest to also stay up.

 

Why? Fair play thats certainly unpopular with me. They clearly are going to so I've made my peace with it but if I could wave a magic wand they'd be 20th no question.

Edited 13 February 2023 by ealingfox

[SemperEadem]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why? Fair play thats certainly unpopular with me.

Gives us two exciting games in pretty mundane league now. You look for these fixtures as soon as they are out. 

Plus the songs and the history, pretty crap singing wings of an eagle against Brentford at home for example when you could be belting it out against those twats themselves.
 

Also from a UFS point of view its been enjoyable having a dingdong some what with FG. Your rival having a ‘group’ has been excellent. I want more of the same on that.

Edited 13 February 2023 by SemperEadem

[grobyfox1990]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why? Fair play thats certainly unpopular with me. They clearly are going to so I've made my peace with it but if I could wave a magic wand they'd be 20th no question.

'clearly are going to' is optimistic. They were terrible at Fulham. Only a few defeats away from being right in it