RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)

did kier starmer really say that? no he did not. it is a lie

starmer was apprently responding to a tweet from jk rowling. the tweet asks if starmer would ban biological males from womens only spaces. note biological males. starmer said no they dont have that right.

now, i understand rowling uses biological males when referring to trans women. i understand she was really asking starmer about trans women not biologicical men. but she didnt say trans women she said biological males. i am certain starmer read biological male and took that to mean biological male. when he says they no right, he means men have no right in womens only spaces. various news papers have reported this a starmer being asked about and referring to transwomen unambiguously. the tweet is absent in most and they certainly dont say the tweet talks about biological males. all the newsreports have transwomen in the headlines and starmer is knowingly talking about and passing judgement on transwomen. the tweeted question is rephrased to asking starmer specifically about transwomen, and one would have the impression that it wax a clear and unambiguous question and transwomen where rowling and starmer are both referring to trans women. i cannot see the the times interview whete starmer is responding to the rowlings tweet - its paywalled - but i betting it wont change the fact that these stories are dogs shit.

unless someone can show that starmer responding to a tweet that is worded specifically biological males, but his response is about transwomen, then i am removing the clog. he was asked and biological males and his response was about biological males. to suggest otherwise is an egregious lie. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Respectfully, this comment is incredibly confusing and I don't fully know what you're trying to say. I feel you may have accidentally copy-pasted "biological male" more times than you meant to? Keir Starmer has a history of transphobia, and, my assumption would be that when he reads "biological male", he himself is thinking of trans women, especially when the person asking the question is J. K. Rowling.

At least, it sounded like you were trying to say Keir Starmer was actually referring to cis men, and not trans women, but please correct me if that's not what you're saying (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The term "biological male" is near universally understood to refer to people born with a Y chromosome, male genitalia, etc - ie cisgender men and transgender women. When JK Rowling says "biological male with a gender recognition certificate" she is clearly talking about trans women specifically. Keir Starmer isn't an idiot, he understood the question he was asked. Christopher (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

After reading this Times article and this Telegraph article I also agree that Starmer knew what the question meant. One also gets the impression that Labour as a whole is also deflecting on this issue with a muddled message, which IMHO actually is appropriate here. The "trans toilet question" is legitimate IMHO in some ways, but the way right-wing politicians (and over-obsessed oh noes panic-stricken lot like Rowling) have handled it is essentially to create a manufactroversy in order to create a moral panic - thus making it not a legitimate debate at all. The truth is (and this is similar to the "trans in sports" question), you rarely hear actual instances where a problem occurs. One of the Labour responses ("I'm not a toilet monitor") is exactly right, no one who isn't super creepy is inspecting people's genitals in a bathroom. BobJohnson (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

'Official' Labour is dancing very closely on the transphobia wire and has been for some time; one day it says 'it is firmly against transphobia' but then says they 'support gender-critial views', the next day Wes Streeting attacks 'gender ideology' in schools but then vaguely-promises to ease up on the conditions of getting a GRC. The answer to this is simple; it's fucking MumsNet. Labour wants those folks to vote for them and they are a hive of everyday TERFdom [the issue is somewhat different in accent vs in the USA - ours is much more a 'all men are rapists!' type]. Starmer fucking fully well knew what he was being asked and what he was saying in reply; his goal was to simply not give any cracks to allow the Tories to hammer a transphobic wedge in. Problem is, this will piss off social progressives to the point it will cause some to switch to LD/SNP/Green - but their bet is almost obviously they think there's more gainable TERF votes than lost trans ones. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

yeh ok it is pretty clear what was being asked in the tweet, on reflection. i was unfamiliar with the snide obsfucation rowling is using. the grc thing read me like they making some facetious point about them. i havent had much sleep AMassiveGay (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Canary news story posted falsely claims Hamas didn't rape anyone

In the story posted about the sick journalist who advocated rape, it does its own form of promoting sexual violence by absolving Hamas of any sexual violence, falsely claiming, "a UN inquiry, which looked at forensic reports and witnesses, found no evidence that Hamas raped anybody during the attack." even though the UN report made no such claim. Plus, The Canary goes so far as to promote those who have those views in their "social media reaction" part of the story. This news source is ghoulish in of itself. https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/06/20/un-evidence-sexual-violence-hamas/ I recommend it be removed and replaced with another source.-Ryan1257 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Though the Media Bias on Canary isn't too bad, I replaced the source with Times of Israel as it is less of the "let's cherry-pick Twitter" story variety. I also reworded the story for better context, as it relates to the ongoing clash between the "shithead Jewish supremacist" faction in Israel that is defending IDF forces sodomizing prisoners and... er... everyone else. As bad as Benjamin Netanyahu is, there are people further to the right in Israel who are perfectly fine justifying torture, something that as far as I know even Netanyahu seems reluctant to do... BobJohnson (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the new article does a much better job at providing more information rather than reaction bait.-Ryan1257 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Those shithead Jewish supremacists you mention are by no means fringe in Israeli society. Schlesinger also has a history of making dehumanizing remarks about Palestinians, so I doubt his sincerity in retracting those comments he made. Carthage (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump selling virtual trading cards

If you didn't see the video, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQHQvbVy67M No matter how bad you think it is, it is far, far worse. I would talk about it but I don't want to spoil any of it. -Thesenate (Talk) 00:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't new... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63995563 KarmaPolice (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Zei Squirrel

Who the fuck are they? RW doesn't have a page. Do they deserve a clog entry? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone who says dumb shit on Xitter to a moderately large audience. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am once again wondering

Why statements from world leaders including US presidential candidates get put here instead of other WIGO sections. Chillpilled (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Because they talk shit? Not all politicians' utterances are of equal value or significance. London Grump (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)