Free Speech in the UK

[mongrel]

The Flaming Quips

I think that was the point where you demonstrated that you had nothing left to offer. By using the word 'predicated' you must demonstrate that the rules predominently rested on the narrow gender social studies academic view.The consultation response paper refers to diverse influences and pisses on your flames.

I should remind you that the point of discussion, originally raised by Aexodous, if my memory was correct , was that the Government itself was responsible for the decision ( he wasn't quite right). The discussion is not about me. I have mentioned this point in other threads

[Cope]

I think that was the point where you demonstrated that you had nothing left to offer.

You've spent the last page or so vandalizing my comments, misrepresenting my arguments and derailing the debate with childish caricatures; for you to now accuse me of having "nothing left to offer" is laughable - albeit totally predictable.

By using the word 'predicated' you must demonstrate that the rules predominently rested on the narrow gender social studies academic view.The consultation response paper refers to diverse influences and pisses on your flames.

I don't have to show that the rules are "predominantly rested on "the narrow gender social studies academic view" because that's not what I argued. The fields of sociology, psychology, biology and anthropology are all involved in the examination of social role phenomena. Despite your repeated insistence to the contrary, the feminist discipline of "gender studies" has only marginal relevance. The report openly conceded that "the literature gathered during this exercise suggests that there is no academic consensus regarding the origin of gender differences, and differences are likely to be a combination of innate differences determined by nature and those constructed by culture" but the regulators accepted the constructionist (that is progressive) position anyway. It then zealously enforced this position in its ruling over the pram advert.

I should remind you that the point of discussion, originally raised by Aexodous, if my memory was correct , was that the Government itself was responsible for the decision ( he wasn't quite right). The discussion is not about me. I have mentioned this point in other threads

What other users have said is irrelevant. If they want to speak for themselves, they can.

[mongrel]

You've spent the last page or so vandalizing my comments,

I guess you don't take other posts into account if the aim is to find a way of flaming Mongrel. I confess that I have indeed spent much of my TWC time vandalising your comments, because I detest flaming.

I think you have to show some kind of connection between your weedy assertion and the rules, because quite frankly, the consultation paper and response document, free for all to read, show that the rules took into account many diverse sources of input, most of which isn't academic at all.

[Cope]

I guess you don't take other posts into account if the aim is to find a way of flaming Mongrel. I confess that I have indeed spent much of my TWC time vandalising your comments, because I detest flaming.

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, your accusations of "flaming" or the fact that you refer to yourself in the third person.

I think you have to show some kind of connection between your weedy assertion and the rules, because quite frankly, the consultation paper and response document, free for all to read, show that the rules took into account many diverse sources of input, most of which isn't academic at all.

You're simply repeating the same rebuked points ad infinitum. I don't know why you're even bothering to demand explanations when you don't read them when they're provided.

[mongrel]

I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, your accusations of "flaming" or the fact that you refer to yourself in the third person.

Any excuse to flame Mongrel rather than address the point. Perhaps I can recommend a new avatar.

You're simply repeating the same rebuked points ad infinitum. I don't know why you're even bothering to demand explanations when you don't read them when they're provided.

Where did you rebuke the material fact that ASA and CAP consulted on the rules widely? It's all documented. Mongrel won't insult the intelligence of forum members, the can scan the website, read the consultation papers and form their own views rather than endure your endless reeeeeeeing.

[Cope]

Any excuse to flame Mongrel rather than address the point. Perhaps I can recommend a new avatar.

You didn't make a relevant point - your posts have just degenerated into accusatory nonsense and cringe-worthy third person narrations.

Where did you rebuke the material fact that ASA and CAP consulted on the rules widely?

If you had actually read my arguments, you'd see that I've have repeatedly exposed this line of questioning as being inconsequential. I have never claimed that academia was the only influencing factor in the regulator's decision. Your perpetual recitation of this straw man merely exposes the extent of your dishonesty.

It's all documented. Mongrel won't insult the intelligence of forum members, the can scan the website, read the consultation papers and form their own views rather than endure your endless reeeeeeeing.

And now we're back to the childish screeching. What a farcical yet thoroughly tedious merry-go-round your comments are.

[mongrel]

Mongreeeeeel

So you are now asserting that the very views of industry and the general public are not relevant to a public consultation that helped develop the framework for the new rules? That reference to hard facts is somehow 'childish'. I'll let the forum decide whether that is bonkers , Captain Ahab. As I said, unlike some, I 'm not thrusting my views down people's throats. Intelligent people can read the sources I had provided and see the facts for themselves.


I can visualise you sitting there at Keyboard Warrior HQ....'Must............ attack ..........feminazi .............SJWs, damn him!'.

[Cope]

So you are now asserting that the very views of industry and the general public are not relevant to a public consultation that helped develop the framework for the new rules? That reference to hard facts is somehow 'childish'. I'll let the forum decide whether that is bonkers , Captain Ahab. As I said, unlike some, I 'm not thrusting my views down people's throats. Intelligent people can read the sources I had provided and see the facts for themselves.

No. I'm asserting that your claim that I had ever argued that academia was the only influencing factor over the regulator's decision is both a lie and an attempt to deflect away from your ludicrous denials that academia was involved at all. You can vandalize my comments, screech childishly and flatter yourself forevermore, but it won't change this basic reality.

I can visualise you sitting there at Keyboard Warrior HQ....'Must............ attack ..........feminazi .............SJWs, damn him!'.

Your inability to "visualise" arguments outside of your narrow SJW vs. alt-right dichotomy isn't something to be impressed with yourself about

[mongrel]

Flame, I'm gonna moan forever......:

Flame on ...........................................................

The thread isn't about me and the discussion wasn't about me. The OP is about ' Free Speech in the UK', the subject of discussion was the reasonableness of the ASA decision. I have provided all the source materials for any reasonable person to draw their own conclusion as to the origins of the code. Some perspective would be appreciated.

[Cope]

Flame on ...........................................................

The thread isn't about me and the discussion wasn't about me. The OP is about ' Free Speech in the UK', the subject of discussion was the reasonableness of the ASA decision. I have provided all the source materials for any reasonable person to draw their own conclusion as to the origins of the code. Some perspective would be appreciated.

Yes, maybe someone who isn't fixated with "SJWs" and "feminazis" and "male genocide" can take your place and actually try to mount a cogent defense of the ASA's ruling.

[mongrel]

THE HULK DOESN’T NEED TO BE A GIRL.

Posted the ruling in full, it can defend itself. I'm sure intelligent readers can understand the reasoning, within the context of the factual and relevant material supplied, even if they see it as a bit harsh.

[Cope]

Posted the ruling in full, it can defend itself. I'm sure intelligent readers can understand the reasoning, within the context of the factual and relevant material supplied, even if they see it as a bit harsh.

If you feel the ruling can defend itself then you have no further reason to be here. Allow someone else who has interest in proper debate (rather than repetitive trolling) to take over where you have failed so comically.

[mongrel]

If you feel the ruling can defend itself then you have no further reason to be here. Allow someone else who has interest in proper debate (rather than repetitive trolling) to take over where you have failed so comically.

What part of this thread not being about me are you not understanding?

[Cope]

What part of this thread not being about me are you not understanding?

Reverting to self-flattery I see. At least you managed not to vandalize my comment this time - even though your response bears no coherent relation to it.

[mongrel]

Reeeeee Mongrel

You did not answer the question. What part of this thread not being about me are you not understanding?

[Cope]

You did not answer the question. What part of this thread not being about me are you not understanding?

The only person who seems to think that the thread is about you is...well you. I don't know what any of this has to do with the topic though. Are you going to make a relevant point?

[mongrel]

you you.

Answer the damned question, is the thread about Mongrel and his global posting history or is it about some minor decision by faceless bureaucrats, giving one the chance to cry reeeeee freeedom of speeech! As the only person who supplied the source material covering the ASA decision, I don't need to answer yours.

[Cope]

Answer the damned question, is the thread about Mongrel and his global posting history or is it about some minor decision by faceless bureaucrats, giving one the chance to cry reeeeee freeedom of speeech! As the only person who supplied the source material covering the ASA decision, I don't need to answer yours.

This continuous posturing over the supply of evidence and bizarre insistence on providing a third-person narration is irrelevant. Neither has any bearing on the discussion. If you have no plans to engage with the topic then I suggest that you give way.

[mongrel]

Mongrel blah.

Mongrel notes yet another reference to him, therefore answering his question. Mongrel thinks you have turned to aggression because you were surprised that someone would turn around the cliched SJW poliitical correctness gone mad trope with hard facts. Mindful of this he will spell out the real issue so there can be no doubt.

Ergo proving that the existence of a Conservative government hasn't prevented English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activism.

This was your key point, yet for some reason when not being obsessed by Mongrel, you said

The fact that the only way you're able to comprehend this point is to construct a "puerile" image of "SJW" commissars hijacking the offices of the CAP/ASA is not my problem. .

Well it is your problem because:

Your main response before retreating behid a wall of whinging makes reference to ' social justice activism.' SJW is no more than a perjorative term for a social justice activist. So pretending that you made no reference to social justice isn't credible.


The ASA didn't 'capitulate to anyone. Under its old rules stereotyping was already banned, bit it wanted to strengthen then. It sought some advice from academics, but the primary instrument of policy change, as it is for any major work was the consultation paper and responses. The ASA didn't 'capitulate' to anyone, even if you could assert that somehow, then they 'capitulated' to industry and public opinion.

[Cope]

Mongrel notes yet another reference to him, therefore answering his question. Mongrel thinks you have turned to aggression because you were surprised that someone would turn around the cliched SJW poliitical correctness gone mad trope with hard facts. Mindful of this he will spell out the real issue so there can be no doubt.

More irrelevant prattling in the third-person. It was established many posts ago that your perception of my involvement as being motivated by a dislike for "SJWs" was false.

This was your key point, yet for some reason when not being obsessed by Mongrel, you said

Well it is your problem because:

Your main response before retreating behid a wall of whinging makes reference to ' social justice activism.' SJW is no more than a perjorative term for a social justice activist. So pretending that you made no reference to social justice isn't credible.

Wrong. The vast majority of social justice activists are not "SJWs". Once again, your inability to comprehend this debate outside of a narrow "SJW"-alt-right dichotomy is crippling your perception. You've been arguing against your own straw man since from the beginning. Congratulations for wasting your own time.

The ASA didn't 'capitulate to anyone. Under its old rules stereotyping was already banned, bit it wanted to strengthen then. It sought some advice from academics, but the primary instrument of policy change, as it is for any major work was the consultation paper and responses. The ASA didn't 'capitulate' to anyone, even if you could assert that somehow, then they 'capitulated' to industry and public opinion.

I didn't say that it capitulated to a person, I said (with reference to the pram advertisement) that it had capitulated to the position on gender roles which is advanced by social justice activists. Remember we were discussing the ASA's ruling with respect to the code not the code itself. I have no particular problem with the BCAP code limiting "harmful" content. The problem is, and always was, that only zealous social justice activists would think that bland depictions of motherhood were either "harmful" or "widely offensive".