Free speech.

[Katman]

Really thats not what your original post was now was it.

Dude, it's a screenshot of the post that you fucked up the editing of.

Total utter moron indeed.

[husaberg]

Dude, it's a screenshot of the post that you fucked up the editing of.
.

No ones denying that it was edited as i was busy actually working but you never replied to the full quote in the first place which is why you are a total egg.
thus proving the point that you only wish to select what suits your agenda.
I have lost track of the times you edit your replies or my own.

But you get real wound up when someone does it to yours.
I use the WYSIWYG Editing function which does some odd stuff if you hit the wrong key.

Going back through the autosaved history here is the original text that was lost

Thats how adults work they dont need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. they watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view. then they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed.
I can see how this confuses you being a conspiracy theorist where they seek out a single piece of data that the seek to manipulate and use out of context. While ignoring the rest of the data completely.

[Katman]

No ones denying that it was edited

Except you were trying to suggest that it was me who edited it.

[TheDemonLord]

You attempt to say you know better than vast numbers of other people not just journalists when it comes to pigeon holing kooks.
They are guilty by association, thats why they get grouped together they share ideals and so much common ground and supporters

Okay - So is Sam Harris Alt-Right? Either he is and therefore I'm wrong and you can provide evidence he is.
or
He isn't and therefore I'm right.

This is a simple challenge, to test the veracity of the opinion held "Vast numbers of other people" (again, that's a fallacy, but we'll ignore it for now).

As above especially sconsidering why the term was coined an attempt in itself to make out they were different from the other kooks when they were not.

Doesn't mean it's automatically right if lots of people believe it though.

Here you go tring to turn a comment about AKA's and make it more palatable.
there is nothing in the culture or religion that makes this okay. just as there is nothing in the culture or religion of Catholicism to do the same and commit sexual abuse.
The individuals are accountable for their actions not the religion. You seem to be not able to separate that.

Cool - so why does it keep happening from one particular segment of society? If you want to compare - then I'd say that the Catholic practice of abstinence is absolutely a factor in their history of Sexual Abuse.

Id wager you sure have i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

If we could have a totally unbiased arbitrator - I'd take that Wager and end up a rather richer man.

I need to remind you that aka's focus was solely on rapes carried out by people of the Indian subcontinent, he not interested in anything unless its a platform to increase racial tension.

Could it be, because they worked in a particularly detestable, organized manner and that the Police were not forthcoming in properly investigating it? That seems like something to focus on.

But again, it's not because of their Race, it's because of their ideas that their behavior is acceptable.

I also need to remind you most sexual abuse is not carried out by people from the Indian subcontinent at all. its carried out by people like AKA.

Except you aren't being precise here - your lumping all types of Sexual Abuse under one umbrella to avoid conceding the point that almost ALL of the organized pedophilia gangs in the UK are from the Indian subcontinent.

And lets fuck off with the false insinuation. I've defended you when other members have accused you of impropriety towards young ladies.

How long has it taken for the clergy to be held accountable for that.

Due more to the actions of the Catholic Church than inactions by the police - different scenario - especially because the Vatican is a sovereign country.

Coool so you will be able to back that up with evidence as i have asked you to multiple times, you will also need t counter who actually owns most of the media and who they are aligned with left or right.

Okay - Evidence that there is a Malevolent Left-wing - open your History book - look up the page that talks about "Communism" - there's your evidence.

As for the ownership - its more about the editorial and journalistic direction so lets start here:

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/rele...y-findings.pdf

2 Data points I want to draw your attention to:

1: Increase in Journalists being University graduates (Universities have a Left-wing bias as a general rule)
2: The Party affiliation of Journalists - in the 1970s - there's a fairly even spread (32/35/25) whereas compared to today, those who identify as a Conservative make up the smallest segment of Journalists.

He was open about his views hes also one person one swallow does not make a spring

She was indeed - however, would the claim "I'm literally a Nazi" have been treated in the same manner? We both know it would not have been. As I said, it is one datapoint, but one of many.

[husaberg]

Except you were trying to suggest that it was me who edited it.

Its clear you did and you edited out portions of it in an attempt to only reply to what suits you.

[husaberg]

Okay - So is Sam Harris Alt-Right? Either he is and therefore I'm wrong and you can provide evidence he is.
or
He isn't and therefore I'm right.

This is a simple challenge, to test the veracity of the opinion held "Vast numbers of other people" (again, that's a fallacy, but we'll ignore it for now).



Doesn't mean it's automatically right if lots of people believe it though.

Vast numbers of people haven't accused sam harris of being alt right. he holds some rather biased and odd views in relation to some religions which he does not apply to all.
As i said one swallow doesn't make a spring.

Cool - so why does it keep happening from one particular segment of society? If you want to compare - then I'd say that the Catholic practice of abstinence is absolutely a factor in their history of Sexual Abuse.

Only its not only catholic priests nor does it account for the cover ups.
Nor does it account for the lack of condemnation for the church rather than the individuals

If we could have a totally unbiased arbitrator - I'd take that Wager and end up a rather richer man.

I disagree Tommys intersts dont lie in the crime they are only in feeding the fired which go with it as evidenced by his lack of comments on other crimes not involving people from the indian sub continent
Lack of balance

Could it be, because they worked in a particularly detestable, organized manner and that the Police were not forthcoming in properly investigating it? That seems like something to focus on.

But again, it's not because of their Race, it's because of their ideas that their behavior is acceptable.

No we already had that one out and i provided ample evidence that this was not the case
PS you could say the same out the sexual abuse by the church and under the state care. So your point lacks balance

Except you aren't being precise here - your lumping all types of Sexual Abuse under one umbrella to avoid conceding the point that almost ALL of the organized pedophilia gangs in the UK are from the Indian subcontinent.
And lets fuck off with the false insinuation. I've defended you when other members have accused you of impropriety towards young ladies.

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse you are trying to limit it now as it doesn't suit your agenda.
Ps what false insinuation have i made, people like aka refer to white and middle class.

Due more to the actions of the Catholic Church than inaction by the police - different scenario - especially because the Vatican is a sovereign country.

Due to both including the reticence of the victims to come forward exactly the same of the child grooming issues
its not a different scenario at all its exactly the same only the perpetrators are a little closer to home.

As for the ownership - its more about the editorial and journalistic direction so lets start here:

I think that you will find its the owners that decide the editorial style and leaning of the paper or media.
As they are the ones that own and control the organisation.
You might want to see how Packer, Murdoch, etc and co operate/d if you dont think that's the case

Okay - Evidence that there is a Malevolent Left-wing - open your History book - look up the page that talks about "Communism" - there's your evidence.

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/rele...y-findings.pdf

2 Data points I want to draw your attention to:

1: Increase in Journalists being University graduates (Universities have a Left-wing bias as a general rule)
2: The Party affiliation of Journalists - in the 1970s - there's a fairly even spread (32/35/25) whereas compared to today, those who identify as a Conservative make up the smallest segment of Journalists.


She was indeed - however, would the claim "I'm literally a Nazi" have been treated in the same manner? We both know it would not have been. As I said, it is one datapoint, but one of many.

I will get back to you on the last point when i have read it.

Okay finding of the report

slightly more likely to be college graduates,
more likely to call themselves Independents politically, and less likely to identify
with both the Republican and Democratic political parties

Job autonomy goes against your bias theory as well. it actually suggests that they have less choice in the stories they cover and seeing as the ppaers are owned by people that are more likely right wing.......

While a majority (60 percent)of journalists said that they had “almost complete freedom” in selecting their stories in 1971 and 1982, only a third (33.6 percent) saids o in 2013.

Then you have a smaller mass audience so less influence. Not only that its only the audience that the organisation targets ie left right and middle.

[Katman]

Its clear you did and you edited out portions of it in an attempt to only reply to what suits you.

I quoted it exactly as it appears in the screen shot.

[husaberg]

I quoted it exactly as it appears in the screen shot.

Odd becuase even your your screenshot contains many many more words than what you quoted me.
did you miss that bit?

[Katman]

Odd becuase even your your screenshot contains many many more words than what you quoted me.
did you miss that bit?

Total utter moron indeed.

Repeatedly.

[TheDemonLord]

Vast numbers of people haven't accused sam harris of being alt right. he holds some rather biased and odd views in relation to some religions which he does not apply to all.
As i said one swallow doesn't make a spring.

Stop shifting the Goalposts. He's been accused (multiple times) by the same sources you cite as proof of others allegance with the Alt-right.

My retort is that those sources are at best ill-informed and at worst flat out lying.

So to prove this out - I've submitted a Test Case: Sam Harris. If you are right, then you should be able to find something, if not - then I'm right and using the media/popular opinion (which is guided by the Media) isn't a valid test.

So - is he or isn't he? But let's cut to the chase - we both know he's not, so your Media/Popular opinion yardstick is useless.

Only its not only catholic priests nor does it account for the cover ups.
Nor does it account for the lack of condemnation for the church rather than the individuals

The Cover ups are quite easy to account for - If you are trying to push yourself as paragons of virtue and morality, it's rather inconvenient if people know about Pedophilia - therefore a coverup. And I can assure you - there's been plenty of condemnation for the Catholic Church...

But let's not get side tracked - the specific type of offending that we are talking about happened almost exclusively from members from the Indian sub-continent who were adherents to a specific religion.

I disagree Tommys intersts dont lie in the crime they are only in feeding the fired which go with it as evidenced by his lack of comments on other crimes not involving people from the indian sub continent
Lack of balance

Then perhaps you should listen to the Man speak... Most other crimes in the UK are dealt with appropriately by the UK police force - we accept there will always be a degree of offending. However - as you will be aware - most western Pedophiles act alone. This type of offending was totally unheard of in the UK before it was imported.

No we already had that one out and i provided ample evidence that this was not the case
PS you could say the same out the sexual abuse by the church and under the state care. SO your point lacks balance

You provided an interpretation that is not shared by either myself nor most of the UK. You have to understand that to get the Working classes to take a day off work to protest something - they must be really really fucked off - they can't afford that luxury.

As for Church and State care - both of which have received wide condemnation and discussion.

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse you are trying to limit it now as i doesn't suit your agenda.

Actually no - it's not. And this is where your attempts to over-generalize is not going to fly - This type of systematic, group based offending was unknown in the UK prior to it's importation from overseas. Yes, the UK had Rapists and Pedophiles but none that acted in this manner.

Ps what false insinuation have i made

You know exactly.

Due to both including the recistence of the victims to come forward exactly the same of the child grooming issues
its not a different senario its exactly the same only the perpetrators are a little closer to home.

Simply not true - since offending Priests were frequently 'relocated' by the Catholic Church. But again - it's not the same scenario. With the Catholic Church - the Police attempted to investigate, but were thwarted by the efforts of the Catholic Church. Whereas with Rotherham (and others) the Police efforts were non-existent, despite social workers, local council members and other groups repeatedly raising the alarm.

That happens to be a BIG difference.

I think that you will find its the owners that decide the editorial style and leaning of the paper or media.
As they are the ones that own and control the organisation.
You might want to see how Packer, Murdoch, etc and co operate/d if you dont think that's the case

Or, we can look at what is actually published - that's a bit of a better test.

I will get back to you on the last point when i have read it.

Okay finding of the report


Job autonomy goes against your bias theory as well. it actually suggests that they have less choice in the stories they cover and seeing as the ppaers are owned by people that are more likely right wing.......

Except - there are virtually no Conservative Journalists. You can see that right? Even if we take the self-reporting of "Independent" as accurate - you still have to contend with the fact it shows that there is a bias.

Then you have a smaller mass audience so less influence. Not only that its only the audience that the organisation targets ie left right and middle.

I disagree, Good News Media should be as centrist as possible - but in recent years some of the biggest names (The BBC springs to mind) have taken a definitive left wing bias. When you look at the stats around trust in the Media is failing, it's as a direct consequence of News outlets having a Bias.

[Graystone]

So you agree then, It is not the case that "ToS means ToS" - And therefore the CEOs (and the wider companies) biases (self-confessed as you agree) have relevance.



The context was contradictory - You've yet to explain how you can monitor behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content. If you can do that, then I might be inclined to put the additional statements in.

But you can't, because you know it's impossible. Therefore, I left it out.



No, because I knew you'd play word games once you were trapped in a corner.



So you are denying it's validity, based on what exactly? You know (as do I) that the concept of "White Male Privilege" was born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" and so using the definition of the latter is entirely appropriate. You've claimed it's not a scholarly work, and yet it's written by a PHD holder in the field in question and has received awards from Academia (despite your attempt to downplay them)

You know that in Academia there are specific words (or phrases) that have very clearly defined meanings that are different from the common usage of those words and phrases. For example - the word Theory.



See below - as to how well you've interpreted that "Important context" - Maybe you are need of some ESOL lessons, it seems basic English is too taxing for you.



Wrong, on multiple accounts - since it wasn't Peggy that wrote the book...

it was referencing her work. Which would be her 1988 (not 2000s) essay "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies" which is where the 2 concepts "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege" were discussed together as being analogous - It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies.

However, the material is clear - although not all Males benefit to the same degree, it explicitly states (twice) that "Male Privilege" applies to "All Males" - which fits your criteria for being Sexist.

You are quite correct on one count - you DO need to believe in Male Supremacy to believe such nonsense - which is why I don't believe it, however I challenge you to find anyone within the Gender/Womens studies part of Academia that also doesn't believe in that (or a variant - such as Patriarchy or the Wage Gap) and is still accepted by their peers.

ToS does mean ToS, stop ignoring the bit where they reserve the right to apply it however they see fit.

The context showed how he meant those words to be interpreted, you left it out so they could be interpreted a different way, that is very dishonest.

Word games like knowing what they mean?

It is not from a scholarly definition, again you sought to take the words out of context, and play them to suit your agenda. This is not one of those cases where the term has a clearly defined meaning which supersedes the normal use of the words like you claim; one reason for this, is the term you refer to, is not even in the article, when a term has a meaning which supercedes common use in english, it only does so for that term, it doesn't change how words work. It should also be obvious that the 'definition' you posted does not count as such, it is whatshername describing her interpretation of it.

Why don't you reference Peggy's original definition of the term then? What you have posted is not a definition of the term. It'd also be interesting to see how she managed to create the term 20 years after it started being widely used

[husaberg]

Stop shifting the Goalposts. He's been accused (multiple times) by the same sources you cite as proof of others allegance with the Alt-right.

My retort is that those sources are at best ill-informed and at worst flat out lying.
So to prove this out - I've submitted a Test Case: Sam Harris. If you are right, then you should be able to find something, if not - then I'm right and using the media/popular opinion (which is guided by the Media) isn't a valid test.
So - is he or isn't he? But let's cut to the chase - we both know he's not, so your Media/Popular opinion yardstick is useless.

Only you are not proving your point you are taking on person and attempting to create an impression that as someone pigeonholed him all the rest that were put in that same boat must be wrong.
Its something you are doing very often now as for shifting goalposts they have never been moved by me. I am unmoved by your argument though

The Cover ups are quite easy to account for - If you are trying to push yourself as paragons of virtue and morality, it's rather inconvenient if people know about Pedophilia - therefore a coverup. And I can assure you - there's been plenty of condemnation for the Catholic Church...

Really the cover ups is something you said was only racially motivated and a result of the religion when it came to rotheram.

But let's not get side tracked - the specific type of offending that we are talking about happened almost exclusively from members from the Indian sub-continent who were adherents to a specific religion.

Side tracked you mean lets avoid it as it doesn't suit your agenda in painting a whole part of a community to be solely responsible for the deeds of a few when it turns out their is a parallel that you wish to avoid because it doesn't involve the part of the community that Tommy wishes to cause and escalate tensions about.
lets look a bit deer into the figures
the sites left wing but the story is rather interesting
https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/g...t-cc834b57fcf3
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...n_8710834.html

Then perhaps you should listen to the Man speak... Most other crimes in the UK are dealt with appropriately by the UK police force - we accept there will always be a degree of offending. However - as you will be aware - most western Pedophiles act alone. This type of offending was totally unheard of in the UK before it was imported.

Bullshit

A 2011 report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit found people convicted of grooming offences were 38% white, 26% Asian and 32% ethnicity unknown.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/n.../#.W6t3eWgzaUk
https://www.news.com.au/national/cri...73203d4d74b934
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7432441.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/features/ho...-hate-11212245
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/en...ng-as-a-child/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...m-1559081.html
https://www.newstimes.com/local/arti...s-13180964.php
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/mich...-swetnick.html
Most but not all, the police are not the issue as i have pointed out to you umpteen times, the reticence of people coming forward the lack of communication between authorities where the social worker councilors never passed information on the general lack of evidence was the issue. not the difference in how its carried out its equally abhorrent. I Note you continually try and make out its different only because most sexual assaults are carried out by your own ethnicity in the UK
Sexual assault is sexual assault stop trying to make out one type is different than another.

You provided an interpretation that is not shared by either myself nor most of the UK. You have to understand that to get the Working classes to take a day off work to protest something - they must be really really fucked off - they can't afford that luxury
As for Church and State care - both of which have received wide condemnation and discussion.

SO where they radicalised by how speeches as these and attempts to make out it was a police and political cover up.

“every single Muslim” in the UK had “got away with” the 7/7 bombings and when, in January 2016, he tweeted: “I’d personally send every adult male Muslim that has come into the EU over the past 12 months back tomorrow if I could. Fake refugees.” Tommy Robinson 2011

Every single Muslim watching this... on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens... you had better understand that we have built a network from one end of the country to the other end... and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defense League if we see any of our British citizens killed, maimed, or hurt on British soil ever again.

• Tommy Robinson, 2011.

Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is fascist and it's violent and we've had enough! They're chopping our soldiers' heads off. This is Islam. That's what we've seen today. They've cut off one of our army's heads off on the streets of London. Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It's not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam. Everyone's had enough. There has to be a reaction, for the government to listen, for the police to listen, to understand how angry this British public are.

Actually no - it's not. And this is where your attempts to over-generalize is not going to fly - This type of systematic, group based offending was unknown in the UK prior to it's importation from overseas. Yes, the UK had Rapists and Pedophiles but none that acted in this manner. which is a bit inconvenient for your claims.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/child-sexu...-rates-1436162
Unknown or not reported and prosecuted, No one manner worse than another is sexual assault not sexual assault, these sort of rings have happened in NZ in the USA,Australia in india none carried out by those you claim to say are the only possible perpetrators in the UK.

You know exactly.

No i don't you clearly misunderstood what was said. hes white and middle class the most common sexual offender in the UK is just that.
On the subject of AKA he recently taunted a victim who said they had been sexually assaulted, basically saying she was a stupid bint and she had clearly made it up.
his reasoning for doing so?
She said they had only been sexually assaulted by white males.
Does that sound like a guy that doesnt have an agenda?

A 2011 report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit found people convicted of grooming offences were 38% white, 26% Asian and 32% ethnicity unknown.

Experts reckon about 0.5% to 1% of everyone, of every colour, is a paedophile - someone who responds sexually to children more than adults.
By that token there should be about 641,000 of them in the UK. As of 2007 the Prison Service had just 8,865 sex offenders under lock and key.
If they were in proportion to the racial diversity outlined in the 2011 census, they'd be 87% white, 7% Asian and 3% black British.
But according to the Ministry of Justice, in 2010 those convicted of any sort of sex offence were 76% white, 7% black and 8% Asian.
So then we're back to asking whether a black rapist might be twice as likely as one of a different colour to get banged up, and if some of the white men are getting away with it.

Not only that due to the recent rings that have been prosecuted the stats are bound to be a bit lop sided.

research reinforces the evidence that girls and women are most at risk of being sexually exploited by men from their own backgrounds. We already know that the majority of victims and offenders are White. In the study, the vast majority of perpetrators were men of the same ethnicity and faith as the victims. Two thirds of the victims were of Pakistani background and in most of these cases the offenders were also Pakistani. When victims were Bangladeshi, the offenders tended to also be Bangladeshi. Other offenders included Afghani, Indian (Sikh and Hindu) and White men (including mixed heritage). In the few exceptions where the sub ethnic group varied, there was a shared heritage between victim and offender such as being ‘Asian’ or having the same faith. Paedophiles are therefore not only targeting the most vulnerable but also the most accessible girls.
If an investigation were conducted of the sexual exploitation of girls from different backgrounds e.g. Black Afro Caribbean, Chinese, Eastern European etc., most perpetrators are therefore likely to be from their own backgrounds. However, there is a tendency to talk about one type of offender / victim model, that of Pakistani men grooming White girls. Those who portray sexual exploitation as a ‘Pakistani only’ problem can only be interested in furthering their own agendas. They don’t really care about the sexual abuse of girls. If they did, then they would criticize all offenders with equal vigor regardless of background. If they really cared they would speak out against all forms of sexual abuse whether carried out by individuals, online, within families, in religious institutions or by groups – not just focus on sexual exploitation by gangs and groups by one ethnic group.
Claiming the moral high ground is not only unhelpful but also dangerous: it is resulting in both victims and offenders being missed. Some sections of the media, some politicians and right wing groups such as the EDL and BNP portray sexual exploitation as an ‘Asian or Muslim only’ problem. Meanwhile the Indian Sikh and Hindu communities challenge the Asian label and claim it’s a Muslim problem

But if we want to focus on AKA he has a history of violent crime and assaults.

Simply not true - since offending Priests were frequently 'relocated' by the Catholic Church. But again - it's not the same scenario. With the Catholic Church - the Police attempted to investigate, but were thwarted by the efforts of the Catholic Church. Whereas with Rotherham (and others) the Police efforts were non-existent, despite social workers, local council members and other groups repeatedly raising the alarm.
That happens to be a BIG difference.

Incorrect there was a veil of silence a lot of it was not reported to the police. police need evidence to bring people to justice.
You seem hell bent on saying there was a cover up in rotherham when nothing is further from the truth.
None of what you are attempting to imply has an actual factual basis there have been a number of investigations into the response carried out and that is not the conclusion. You know this but you still claim it over and over again.

Or, we can look at what is actually published - that's a bit of a better test.
Except - there are virtually no Conservative Journalists. You can see that right? Even if we take the self-reporting of "Independent" as accurate - you still have to contend with the fact it shows that there is a bias.
I disagree, Good News Media should be as centrist as possible - but in recent years some of the biggest names (The BBC springs to mind) have taken a definitive left wing bias. When you look at the stats around trust in the Media is failing, it's as a direct consequence of News outlets having a Bias.

No that does not indicate a bias it indicates what they said was their affiliation.
As you notice political votes people make change over time which is why different parties are elected.
You indicated the whole world had a bias and it was a fact but even though i have given you days to support it the best you can do is produce one paper from one state that docent support you view at all.
Here is a natty lil overview clearly not 100% scientific but pretty neat

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

[TheDemonLord]

ToS does mean ToS, stop ignoring the bit where they reserve the right to apply it however they see fit.

So you agree, it's not an absolute standard and therefore the bias of the company is a factor. You cannot have it both ways.

The context showed how he meant those words to be interpreted, you left it out so they could be interpreted a different way, that is very dishonest.

Except it was a contradiction: How can you monitor behavior without monitoring Content? If you can answer that question, then perhaps you can quibble about interpretation.

It is not from a scholarly definition, again you sought to take the words out of context, and play them to suit your agenda.

Oh? How do you claim it's not a Scholarly definition? Considering all the attributes about it. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of reality.

This is not one of those cases where the term has a clearly defined meaning which supersedes the normal use of the words like you claim; one reason for this, is the term you refer to, is not even in the article, when a term has a meaning which supercedes common use in english, it only does so for that term, it doesn't change how words work. It should also be obvious that the 'definition' you posted does not count as such, it is whatshername describing her interpretation of it.

So, a PHD holder, in the field, compiles an Encyclopedia of terms for the field she works in, publishes it via a well known Academic Publisher, It receives awards, from academia for it's work and yet...

Graystone knows best...

Just the sort of denial from a closet Racist and sexist I expected.

Why don't you reference Peggy's original definition of the term then? What you have posted is not a definition of the term. It'd also be interesting to see how she managed to create the term 20 years after it started being widely used

People had talked about "White privilege" and "Male Privilege" separately - but Peggy McIntosh is widely regards as the first to combine the 2. Thus, people referencing her Work is entirely valid.

But again - you just don't like that you've been caught in your Bullshit.

[Graystone]

So you agree, it's not an absolute standard and therefore the bias of the company is a factor. You cannot have it both ways.



Except it was a contradiction: How can you monitor behavior without monitoring Content? If you can answer that question, then perhaps you can quibble about interpretation.



Oh? How do you claim it's not a Scholarly definition? Considering all the attributes about it. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of reality.



So, a PHD holder, in the field, compiles an Encyclopedia of terms for the field she works in, publishes it via a well known Academic Publisher, It receives awards, from academia for it's work and yet...

Graystone knows best...

Just the sort of denial from a closet Racist and sexist I expected.



People had talked about "White privilege" and "Male Privilege" separately - but Peggy McIntosh is widely regards as the first to combine the 2. Thus, people referencing her Work is entirely valid.

But again - you just don't like that you've been caught in your Bullshit.

As I spelled out quite a number of posts ago, the company has discretion in its application; so the bias of the company could be a factor if they did not take any steps to remove it. You have not provided any evidence to show that bias is a factor.

I'm not referring to your interpretation of the full quote, I'm referring to his obvious intent for the part you quoted to take out of context and change the meaning, I'm reffering to your clear dishonesty in this matter.

It's not a definition. Nor has it been published through peer reviewed methods.

Did it receive awards for that specific paragraph? for the specific interpretation you placed on it? I think not.

So she first combined the two, but failed to combine them into the "White Male Privilege" term? Fuck you're grasping at straws now. Common use of all the defined terms also predates her work. And how are you going at finding her actual definition of the term from her original work? Not keen to share because it doesn't show what you want it to I presume

[TheDemonLord]

As I spelled out quite a number of posts ago, the company has discretion in its application; so the bias of the company could be a factor if they did not take any steps to remove it. You have not provided any evidence to show that bias is a factor.

I've shown multiple instances where the rules have not been equally applied - the best example being Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong.

You've also not shown how they have taken steps to remove it. You know there is a difference between saying and doing, right?

I'm not referring to your interpretation of the full quote, I'm referring to his obvious intent for the part you quoted to take out of context and change the meaning, I'm reffering to your clear dishonesty in this matter.

Which is a rather round-a-bout way of saying that you can't describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content - because you know it can't be done. Which means the "Full context" you are harping on about is BS. It's a series of statements designed to placate the audience, but when analyzed are actually impossible.

It's not a definition. Nor has it been published through peer reviewed methods.

More attempts to downplay the obvious. Even funnier because you've not posted up anything as a competing definition...

Did it receive awards for that specific paragraph? for the specific interpretation you placed on it? I think not.

Doesn't need to, what the awards show is that it isn't some fringe lunatic work, but something well respected in the field. All these character assassinations on the part of the work is really showing how desperate you are to avoid reality.

So she first combined the two, but failed to combine them into the "White Male Privilege" term? Fuck you're grasping at straws now. Common use of all the defined terms also predates her work. And how are you going at finding her actual definition of the term from her original work? Not keen to share because it doesn't show what you want it to I presume

Not at all, by her peers (IE Feminists, Gender studies professors etc.) She is regarded as the first person to associate the two and as the instigator of the concept. As for her "actual definition" - it's irrelevant, since I've posted a definition from a scholarly work (which you keep attempting to downplay) and her work is an extension of that, in case you've forgotten:

"Male Privilege" is clearly defined as being applicable to "All Males", "White Male Privilege" is born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" therefore (by transitive relations) "White Male Privilege" applies to "All White Males" - which would make it wholly Racist and Sexist.