What grinds my gears...

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Oh yeah, I'm sure there are better ways to deny someone a platform (perhaps wiener invited him should have thought about that in the first place, for instance). I'm just taking issue with him acting all victimised and going on about free speech when he was going to use that right to target (or get others to target) vulnerable individuals in malicious fashion.

 

As such, it's a little more than giving a talk with opinions that aren't liked.

It's really not.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's really not.

Really? Outing vulnerable individuals at the university he's speaking at and essentially saying 'go get them!" is merely giving an talk/opinion now, regardless of consequences?

[Royston.]

21 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

True, we've no evidence he likes women.

 

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Really? Outing vulnerable individuals at the university he's speaking at and essentially saying 'go get them!" is merely giving an talk/opinion now, regardless of consequences?

I thought you said he'd denied it?

 

Having seen footage of the riot, the fact he had to be sneaked out by the police means he's not the one in the wrong here.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I thought you said he'd denied it?

 

Having seen footage of the riot, the fact he had to be sneaked out by the police means he's not the one in the wrong here.

Of course he'd bloody deny it - he can't exactly go around admitting that he was going to put someone in danger through what he said, can he?

 

Nonetheless...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uc-berkely-protests-milo-yiannopoulos-publicly-name-undocumented-students-cancelled-talk-illegals-a7561321.html

 

It's probably a bunch of he-said-she-said as there doesn't seem to be much categorical proof either way that would stand up in a court of law for instance, but since he DID out a trans student at a previous talk who then had to drop out due to threats and Breitbart themselves said that this talk would refer to "sanctuary campuses that shelter illegal immigrants from being deported", it's hardly a stretch to think that he could do something similar here.

 

Of course, the only way to be certain is if you let him do it and then deal with the results if/when more vulnerable people get sicced on by his followers.

 

Edit: And I've already said above there are better ways to no-platform someone.

Edited 7 February 2017 by leicsmac

[Darkon84]

16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Oh yeah, I'm sure there are better ways to deny someone a platform (perhaps whoever invited him should have thought about that in the first place, for instance). I'm just taking issue with him acting all victimised and going on about free speech when he was going to use that right to target (or get others to target) vulnerable individuals in malicious fashion.

 

As such, it's a little more than giving a talk with opinions that aren't liked.

Was he not invited by the College's Republican society, who have the right to invite who they like, as I'm sure every other group or society can invite who they like? There's nothing in the Independent article which says the outing of undocumented immigrants was going to happen, just hearsay, whereas what actually happened was vicious attacks, property damage, arson and battery. The level of outrage doesn't necessarily correlate to the perceived problem, that's not how it works.

With regards to outing the trans person. I hadn't heard about that before but it definitely is out of order and he shouldn't be doing that (though it seems they were trying to gain use and access to female bathrooms and changing rooms without going via the proper paperwork/people to obtain that right). 

Either way, he's a provocative idiot and I don't agree with him outing anyone (definitely shouldn't have outed the trans guy, but the immigrant issue is only hearsay), but the level of protest isn't justified. The idea of correlating a level of outrage with justification, ie. the more outraged you are, the more justified you must be, is nonsense. Most of them weren't even protesting him, they were just all the Antifa lot who will use any excuse to smash things up and have a riot. They're borderline domestic terrorists now. 

Edited 8 February 2017 by Darkon84

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Darkon84 said:

Was he not invited by the College's Republican society, who have the right to invite who they like, as I'm sure every other group or society can invite who they like? There's nothing in the Independent article which says the outing of undocumented immigrants was going to happen, just hearsay, whereas what actually happened was vicious attacks, property damage, arson and battery. The level of outrage doesn't necessarily correlate to the perceived problem, that's not how it works.

With regards to outing the trans person. I hadn't heard about that before but it definitely is out of order and he shouldn't be doing that (though it seems they were trying to gain use and access to female bathrooms and changing rooms without going via the proper paperwork/people to obtain that right). 

Either way, he's a provocative idiot and I don't agree with him outing anyone (definitely shouldn't have outed the trans guy, but the immigrant issue is only hearsay), but the level of protest isn't justified. The idea of correlating a level of outrage with justification, ie. the more outraged you are, the more justified you must be, is nonsense. Most of them weren't even protesting him, they were just all the Antifa lot who will use any excuse to smash things up and have a riot. They're borderline domestic terrorists now. 

I have said repeatedly that there isn't really an excuse to wreck stuff and there are better ways to deny someone a platform, so I'm not sure why you keep coming back to it. It's daft and it's a distraction.

 

I also agreed that him outing undocumented students was only reasonably good hearsay that wasn't going to hold up in court, but given his history of doing such things it's hardly a reach to suggest that similar might happen here? When he outed that trans student, perhaps he lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt about his intent, especially considering what the topic of the talk was going to be. (Again, though, there were better ways to ensure that he didn't show.) Or perhaps he should have been let speak and the fallout dealt with afterwards (not much comfort to those possibly targeted by him though).

 

And one more thing...I don't want to make this personal D, as we often have decent conversations on topics like this in here, but your line about trans people and bathrooms is, with respect, utter nonsense that sounds like the pious little senators who suggested such "bathroom bills" in the first place, based on an imaginary predator who dresses up as a woman to prey on kids (and real predators hardly feel the bed to go to the terrible of dressing up to get what they want anyway). It seems that they are the latest fashionable acceptable prejudice, given other groups are now off limits in polite society.

 

Sorry if it looks like I'm going off on one about that and it appeared personal, but the amount of misinformation used to beat one of the most marginalised groups in the world with is...annoying. Hey, that's something for this thread too!

[Darkon84]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I have said repeatedly that there isn't really an excuse to wreck stuff and there are better ways to deny someone a platform, so I'm not sure why you keep coming back to it. It's daft and it's a distraction.

 

I also agreed that him outing undocumented students was only reasonably good hearsay that wasn't going to hold up in court, but given his history of doing such things it's hardly a reach to suggest that similar might happen here? When he outed that trans student, perhaps he lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt about his intent, especially considering what the topic of the talk was going to be. (Again, though, there were better ways to ensure that he didn't show.) Or perhaps he should have been let speak and the fallout dealt with afterwards (not much comfort to those possibly targeted by him though).

 

And one more thing...I don't want to make this personal D, as we often have decent conversations on topics like this in here, but your line about trans people and bathrooms is, with respect, utter nonsense that sounds like the pious little senators who suggested such "bathroom bills" in the first place, based on an imaginary predator who dresses up as a woman to prey on kids (and real predators hardly feel the bed to go to the terrible of dressing up to get what they want anyway). It seems that they are the latest fashionable acceptable prejudice, given other groups are now off limits in polite society.

 

Sorry if it looks like I'm going off on one about that and it appeared personal, but the amount of misinformation used to beat one of the most marginalised groups in the world with is...annoying. Hey, that's something for this thread too!

Yea fair enough, you've previously said it's not really an excuse, but I guess I just feel the level of destruction being caused etc is possibly a larger problem than yourself. I could be wrong. Anyway, we can both agree it's wrong and we can put that to bed.

 

Hearsay is only hearsay though at the end of the day and without anything actually concrete to say, it just becomes he says/she says with no real basis or grounding. Given the outing of the trans student, I can agree to a point and see that it may not be that huge of a leap to come to the conclusion it could happen again, considering the nature of the talk, but I wouldn't say he lost his benefit of the doubt as from what I can tell, it's only happened that one previous time and he's no repeat offender of it or anything. If it was definitely known he was going to out any potential illegals there, I like to think that some words would perhaps be had with him to take that out of the talk (though there's probably little chance he would). If he did speak and he did out them, I wouldn't agree with that and I'm not sure what could be done afterwards. It's a tough one...at that point it probably stops being free speech and becomes something else, knowing that there will be a potential backlash on the students.

 

I'm not 100% clued up on what the actual rules and regulations are with all the bathroom stuff in the schools are so allow some ignorance on the subject (always open to be enlightened), but from the quick part I read/saw regarding Milo and this incident, there appeared to be a procedure or paperwork which needed to be obtained in order to OK the situation. If those are the rules and that's the case, then they should be followed and I assume they are in place for a reason. It doesn't make outing the person right, and I don't agree with the person being outed. It's none of his business. I don't think people are treating it as an acceptable prejudice, but I think there is a bit of backlash from certain sections who feel that trans and all the million new genders etc (which seem to be the flavour of the month themselves) is being forced upon people when it's never really been anything of a problem before (yes I know prejudice will have always been there, but perhaps ramming it down peoples throats doesn't always work the way it's intended). For instance, track meetings being moved from one state to another because they didn't have specific trans bathrooms, therefore costing that college a hell of a lot of money, Caitlin Jenner being given the woman of the year award or whatever it was etc. Now I feel we're going off point here a bit so we should perhaps reign it in a little.

 

In short. Milo = generally bad, but has a right to say things. Rioters/violence = bad. Outing illegals and trans = bad. Trans etc = fine. Prejudice = bad. Media, education & explaining the subject etc = chould be handled far better.

I didn't mean to write so much and most is probably nonsense as I've come back to it a million times between doing work stuff, so most could have been trimmed out (probably like this bit lol) .

 

 Don't worry mate, nothing personal taken there at all. 99% of the time, it's like water off a ducks back and I rarely, if ever get offended. Everyone has their own views and everyone has their right to express them. As people, we don't always get on and won't see eye to eye on every topic, that's human nature, but it's always good to discuss and see other points of view. Our points of view might not always change, but it'll at least open the mind to view things a different way and perhaps take a moment in future to consider other points of view before making our mind up ( as touched on in the protest thread) 

[Countryfox]

 

Fly tippers ....    antisocial b@stards of the first order !!

[Matt]

Mel Giedroyc.

 

She's on everything.

 

She's vile.

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Mel Giedroyc.

 

She's on everything.

 

She's vile.

I don't find her funny at all, but vile? She's not my favourite presenter but she seems like a nice person.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

I don't find her funny at all, but vile? She's not my favourite presenter but she seems like a nice person.

Meh perhaps abit much, but I can't stand her.

[separator]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

Mel Giedroyc.

 

She's on everything.

 

She's vile.

She's less annoying than Sue Perkins

[Firegrande]

Jake Humphrey 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Firegrande said:

Jake Humphrey 

I think he still thinks he's presenting Newsround.

[separator]

Avon / Betterware reps who stick their catalogues through your letterbox, then moan a few days later when they knock at your door to ask for it back because you've slung it out with the rest of the junk mail in the recycling bag. If its not addressed to me or not asked for its junk mail. 

[Izzy]

Insurance companies in general (if I may generalise for a moment)

 

In the last 2 weeks my car, house and professional indemnity insurance have all been up for renewal. On each occasion the three 'new' quotes were all +20% up on last year. What happened to loyalty and no claims discounts?

 

Three phone calls and a bit of haggling later, and this years premiums are now all less than last years prices - how interesting..

 

I guess these companies just chance their arm in the hope people are just too busy to notice and therefore let their policies 'auto renew'

 

Anyway, fvck em. I win this time...

 

 

[Wymsey]

Major brands taking over shops in towns/villages.

Have driven through quite a few semi-rural places recently and noticing big businesses trading where locals can do related business themselves.

 

Heard there's going to be a new Costa shop in Syston opening soon somewhere.

As someone who lives there, don't see any point/advantage to the community for it, given that about 1 mile away (Thurmaston) there's a shopping complex with a big-brand coffee shop there.

 

It would eventually kill off small family-owned ones that have been in the area for years and hence would be an unnecessary idea put forward if true.

Two major supermarkets next to each other is enough as it is imo.

[Matt]

iPhone storage, lack of.

 

Not that many apps or photo's on there and no music as I use Apple Music so no need to store any on the phone anymore.

 

Yet it's always struggling for space and when you delete apps or photos or anything else you think will make space it hardly free's up any space anyway!!

Edited 16 February 2017 by Matt

[Webbo]

22 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Major brands taking over shops in towns/villages.

Have driven through quite a few semi-rural places recently and noticing big businesses trading where locals can do related business themselves.

 

Heard there's going to be a new Costa shop in Syston opening soon somewhere.

As someone who lives there, don't see any point/advantage to the community for it, given that about 1 mile away (Thurmaston) there's a shopping complex with a big-brand coffee shop there.

 

It would eventually kill off small family-owned ones that have been in the area for years and hence would be an unnecessary idea put forward if true.

Two major supermarkets next to each other is enough as it is imo.

I heard about that today. Is it going in the HSBC?

[Wymsey]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I heard about that today. Is it going in the HSBC?

Yes. HSBC closing around May/June time.

 

Some deli place is set to replace DD Soft Furnishings (which is shutting down), opposite a balloon shop near to the medical practice) as well apparently.

Edited 16 February 2017 by Wymeswold fox

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Yes. HSBC closing around June time.

 

Some deli place is set to replace DD Soft Furnishings (which is shutting down), opposite a balloon shop near to the medical practice) as well apparently.

I'll have to see about moving my accounts to Santander. It's a pain in the arse all these bank closures.

[Wymsey]

35 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'll have to see about moving my accounts to Santander. It's a pain in the arse all these bank closures.

I'm with RBS.

They moved their Leicester branch from Belgrave Gate to Market Street, but now there's talk of national restructuring going to take place with more stores set for the chop and the Leicester one is being earmarked for it.

Barclays in Thurmaston closed in December, blaming consumer's internet preference for the decision.

 

Customers preferring to sort finance out etc online is getting strongly preferred, and I'm thinking of switching accounts to another bank (if I know how to) to go with the trend.

 

What next; people wanting to do their own haircut in their home bathroom basin instead of going to a barbers?..

[Stadt]

10 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

What next; people wanting to do their own haircut in their home bathroom basin instead of going to a barbers?..

People do that though, it's not an unreasonable thing

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

What next; people wanting to do their own haircut in their home bathroom basin instead of going to a barbers?..

I shave my hair to size 1 on the clipper scales in my bathroom. Why pay someone £10 to do it every 3 or 4 weeks.