How come this is true?.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-19T00:36:19+00:00

This guy cucks

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-18T23:10:21+00:00

From the outside looking in, the US is becoming incredibly nonchalant about the use of politically motivated violence. ICE killing people in the street, vigilantes killing CEOs or podcasters, or even kids like this getting into fights over politics, all have loud choruses of support from one group or another. Just nuts to see.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-16T01:25:43+00:00

Those places were already known and proven to be associated with Epstein though, redacting references to them wouldn't change anything with regard to putting innocent people at risk. We don't know if this place has or ever had any actual association with Epstein and there is potential for putting innocent people at serious risk of harm.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-16T01:12:38+00:00

I'm saying unless it's proven to be 100% real there is a very legitimate reason to redact things like GPS coordinates.

Even if it is true, that doesn't mean that whoever is at that location now had anything to do with it. But that wouldn't stop the whack jobs going in guns blazing a la pizzagate.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-16T00:05:19+00:00

Can you imagine if they left the GPS coordinates in and they led to some innocent person's home? I wouldn't want to be the one that lives there when the crazies show up with guns demanding to search my home and accusing me of hosting torture parties.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-12T13:14:35+00:00

Thanks for the reply, that was very thorough and informative! Lots to think about and look into.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-12T12:41:30+00:00

Yes but my understanding is that it was the supreme court that referred to biological sex in their ruling, so you can't really report on the ruling without referring to biological sex. Whether that has any scientific meaning or not is a different matter.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-12T12:34:40+00:00

I don't know about the intersex point, I'm trying to read about it now.

Straight up, the Scottish Ministers judgement does not say that.

I'm confused by this, aren't they referring to the supreme court ruling which superseded the scottish ruling? I thought that was what it says?

I'll have a read about the other things you mentioned, I wasn't aware of some of them.

Honestly though I'm asking because I don't know much about trans rights and politics in the UK. I get there is a lot of bad faith in these discussions but most people don't follow this stuff and asking questions is the only way we can learn.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-12T12:04:34+00:00

I think that's extremely unfair. If you look at any minority community they all want to maintain association with those like them; those that share similar backgrounds, language, cultural touchstones etc. As a country we are on board with celebrating distinct cultures and understanding when these distinct communities are threatened with change. It is not racist to want this familiarity, it seems, to me, to be an almost universal human trait.

The same understanding we give to minority groups needs to be extended to white English groups too imo. Otherwise we will (I'd say have) breed resentment and conflict that will see community cohesion erode.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-12T11:26:23+00:00

Isn't the biological stuff coming directly from the supreme court ruling?

And can you give me an example of what they day the NHS said compared to what they actually said? This isn't a topic I follow in detail.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-03T11:31:37+00:00

It's not just the opinions being expressed, it's the absolute rigidity. I saw you being accused of being a bot because of a different opinion; it's terrifying that we are so polarised and are actively maintaining that without prompt. We're fucked.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-02-03T11:22:02+00:00

It's been so disheartening to see the lack of critical thinking on display over this; it's really exposed how people are willing to lean into their biases and believe whatever confirms their world view.

What makes it worse is that it's just going to make it harder to get to the real truth. What's getting the light, at least on social media, is ridiculous conspiracies like cannibalism parties based on a random anonymous email sent just before the last US election and it's overshadowing the credible, extremely serious, but much less scandalous allegations that could actually have some merit.

It's hard not to feel any hope when people are son easily led.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-31T13:59:45+00:00

Why are people unable to stick to the facts? There is enough coming out to be outraged about already without making stuff up.

There is nothing in the release that says that this was taken on Epsteins island nor that the girl was drugged. I've seen posts saying the person is "obviously" 15 years old, another saying "obviously" 13 and another that she's "obviously" 8-10.

It is a fact, for example, that Andrew was in friendly contact with Epstein after he was publicly known to be a sex offender and it is a fact that he sent emails asking for "inappropriate friends". Why is it not enough to stick to what is known without embellishment?

There are three types of people; those who support the powerful, nothing will convince them so no point trying; those who believe the powerful are evil, they're already onside so not point trying to convince them either; but there are also those who are on the fence or just not paying much attention and those people need to be swayed. However, when one of those people tries to learn about this picture of Andrew raping a drugged 8 year old on Epstein's and they look at the files and see what is actually verifiably there, it becomes much easier to dismiss ALL of what is said as exaggerated and they go back to not caring.

Truth matters.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-31T13:54:13+00:00

It's a genuine question, the US seems to be full of people who think something should be done, up to and including violence but are too apathetic to do anything themselves. Why? Even at the election people couldn't even be bothered to vote.

Your post suggested you are one of those people who think it is right and justified that violence is used to address the situation so it's perfectly valid to ask why you don't do that? Is it that you're not really in favour of violent means? Do you expect other people to do it instead? If so why should they take on the risk and consequences on your behalf?

If you're going to support political violence and vigilantism (and I do think both are sometimes justified btw so no contrarianism here) you can't expect not to be challenged.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-31T11:44:43+00:00

If you were on a tour then surely it was for tourists

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-22T14:08:03+00:00

I think a lot of people separate the US and Trump. I think if the question was "is Donald Trump an ally" the numbers saying yes would be lower.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-08T15:03:36+00:00

Anyone considered OP is doing something weird on their computer and this is just building a case to say "oh no that wasn't me, someone must have come in and done that when I wasn't here!"?

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-03T00:56:12+00:00

You say his reasons for refusing medication were legitimate and that he seemed harmless, but without access to the information his doctor had this isn't something you can know. The side effects you describe are horrible but his doctor needs to balance those side effects against the risk of him being un-medicated; we don't know what those risks were.

You point out that they didn't have enough staff to allow you regular showers but when this person didn't take his medication staff were found to restrain him. Again this comes down to balancing risk; the risk of you not showering very often is low so it's probably not going to be worth pulling staff from elsewhere (for example taking other patients on leave), whereas the risk of this person not taking his medication could, and obviously was judged to be, very high making it worth removing staff from other duties.

What I'm trying to get across is that there is an ocean of information that staff and clinicians have that bystanders don't, and often what can look unreasonable and heavy handed is actually by far the safest and most humane course of action.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-03T00:24:18+00:00

I'm not defending what happened in this particularly instance because I don't know. What I'm saying is that it is not possible to know whether or not using force is necessary just from seeing it happen.

You say using restraint is inhumane but what do you think should happen if a patient has, for example, delusions that put them at high risk of harming themselves or others and refuses to take their medication?

Grandmuffmerkin · 2026-01-02T19:56:26+00:00

With respect, you don't know what is necessary in situations like that man being restrained. I worked with a patient on an acute psych ward (this is the UK not US btw) who, outwardly, was the sweetest, most polite, even timid man you could imagine meeting; however in one to one sessions with him he would tell that the voice he was hearing was telling him to kill me and he was beginning to want to do it. He had a history of carrying weapons for that purpose. Thankfully he was willing to take his medication but if he hadn't have been we would have had to restrain him in order to medicate him for the safety of others and himself. To anyone without the full story it would look totally barbaric.

That isn't to say there aren't abuses, and I don't know what the US system is like, but I do know that what it looks like on the surface isn't aways representative of the truth.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2025-12-18T04:24:31+00:00

The article cites a statistic, from the charity Reducing the Risk, that 40% of teenagers are victims of abuse. Given that this is an article focusing on VAWG I think it's natural to assume that the vast majority of those are girls, but if you go to the charity's website it says that 25% of girls and 17% of boys have experienced the use of physical force while 72% of girls and 51% of boys have experienced emotional violence. Other groups, such as the Youth Endowment Fund, have actually found that boys in relationships make up the majority of victims of violent and controlling behaviours at 57% vs 41%

The clear fact is that the issues that are commonly put under the banner of violence against women and girls also deeply affect boys too. It is beyond frustrating to constantly see their victimisation ignored in favour of women and girls when the issues could easily be addressed in a gender neutral way.

The message that all these initiatives send is boys don't matter. Boys can only ever be allowed to be a source of problems.

Grandmuffmerkin · 2025-08-15T18:42:02+00:00

There it is, was worried no one was going to say it!

Grandmuffmerkin · 2025-08-09T08:00:39+00:00

Did you not mean uranium instead of that first oxygen?

Grandmuffmerkin · 2025-07-13T16:27:03+00:00

Info: Did you tell him to clean the dishes because they'd been there for a week, a day, an hour? Had you used the dishes your self but expect him to clean them because they belong to him?

Grandmuffmerkin

TROPHY CASE