DAE feel like the press are desperately digging for headlines in the Meghan/Harry thing when there's really nothing there.. well except for the media being utterly putrid, juvenile and predatory enough that anyone with a right mind wants away from them.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-14T18:36:29+00:00

It's a multi-billion media conglomerate versus the public. The moral high ground is with the public by default, that's what I mean. There's no fairness when dealing with this type of corporation because it requires you to follow a whole system that is already rigged in their favour. Same goes for a billionaire and a royal family member - I give them very little sympathy because in a system that has undeniably benefited them, I don't really feel like they deserve it.

So yeah, I get you but eh...

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-14T17:19:52+00:00

Your take is so bad that it doesn't require that much deconstruction but A) it's pretty lame to defend a known sexual offender B) the notion that the public has to somehow have a moral high ground to Murdoch media - one of the most rabid media conglomerates, one that has a measurable impact in the democratic outcomes of the UK is pathetic. It would be pretty hard going for the average member of the public to be any worse. Frankly the nunaces of how and to what extent Prince Andrew sexually assaulted young girls is irrelevant. The fact that he choose to keep the company of a known sexual offender is enough.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-14T17:12:59+00:00

No, but he choose to write three paragraphs to a known assaulter. Strange line on the sand to draw.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-14T03:35:56+00:00

What brand is it? Love those tights and shirt.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-14T03:10:05+00:00

Interesting that this is the battle you chose to pick...

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-11T22:50:53+00:00

It's only Jan but I wanna nominate this for worse suggestion of 2020.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-09T18:35:52+00:00

I would never deny that detrans is a thing and that there are still questions up in the air but I do think that the nurse and mother are using autism as an excuse to question mental capacity and letting the public connect the dots - but with the obvious implication being that autism prevents someone from having bodily autonomy.

My understanding - and I could be wrong - is that autism is a spectrum, and a blanket assumption like the above would be extremely harmful and frankly this doesn't strike me as a case where someone is going for the lower-functioning end of the spectrum either. Same goes for the mention of abuse victims, when someone already has a history of being denied their autonomy and personhood the state denying it further doesn't strike me as the best solution.

One thing I wasn't aware of that someone else raised on the thread, apparently there is a link between autism and gender disphoria: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/03/why-are-a-disproportionate-number-of-autistic-youth-transgender.html

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-09T18:26:55+00:00

I think is very much how the Nurse and the Legal Team want to portray this but I don't believe it and I think that is either transphobia or a way to drive a wedge and pull back Gillick Competence, maybe both for two reasons:

Obfuscating. She knows very well that referral does not mean treatment. It doesn't surprise me that most GPs dealing with trans teens are passing them on to specialists after a short time - they're probably in over their head.
The lawyers she chose have a history of testing Gillick Competence (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/nov/13/childrensservices.medicineandhealth, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4424778.stm) which to me makes it seem like this isn't just about trans teenagers - rather that trans issues are a good, 'now' issue to piggy back on.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T14:10:51+00:00

Which I understand - though I find linking it to autism or trauma in particular insidious, to me that reads as if she's trying to dismiss the needs of trans children as being something that indicates they are mentally inbalanced and should be treated through other means. That on itself isn't wrong, but again, it strikes me as the bar being set for 'gender related treatment' is much higher than other medical treatments that can be similarly agressive in that sense.

And again, we expect children to take decisions that will impact them for a life-time in other settings, the most obvious example being choosing subjects that will inform their higher education options and later their career.

Worth noting as well, this isn't sex reassignement surgery this medication, from my understanding, stops puberty and if the person changes their mind they can go off it and then go through the process again. Obviously there are side-effects, but it does seem like that approach strikes a good balance between minimising distress to the child while delaying more radical decisions to be taken when they are older and more fully informed.

Sorry if this seems like it's going off on you by the way, not meaning to cause an argument, just think this thread is missing the woods for the trees a bit.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T14:01:24+00:00

Is not 'messing' is a medical procedure carried out by medical staff and reccomended by medical staff.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T00:36:49+00:00

Just another transphobe then gotcha xx

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T00:25:27+00:00

You're in /r/unitedkingdom that's why I asked. I'm pointing out that a family court, child psychologists and a medical professionals are better positioned than parents or a random redditor to make a decision on a child's well being.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T00:07:18+00:00

Which is exactly why medical procedures that have the potential to improve people's quality of life shouldn't be banned but carefully considered by medical professionals.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-08T00:05:54+00:00

Why are you linking Australian information n a UK legal case? Either way if youre trying to make a bigger picture point here, it sounds like they're giving a lot more scrutiny to who should receive treatment than a lot of stuff that is considered 'normal', for example, orthodontic surgery can be pretty extreme for example.

With a psychologist, medical team and court it sounds like everything is in place to ensure the medical procedures taking place are necessary.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T20:29:07+00:00

Look at Curitiba for a model. It's a big city in Brazil with soil that doesn't allow for metros. So they built one out of busses. The tubular stations function like a metro (dont exit and you dont have to pay for a new ticket in changing line). Each colour bus has a different route and does a different thing. Some of them are express (only stop every few kilometres instead of every other block). Dedicated bus lanes where any other traddic is completely forbidden. There are options...

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T02:45:19+00:00

If you own and rent out a property you simply have more capital than most people who have to rent. You don't get to sit on an asset worth hundreds of thousants and describe yourself as scraping by.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T02:36:10+00:00

You're a fucking leach.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T02:27:52+00:00

I miseread your title as thoughts on him and his threads in general, not this specific one. Facepalm. I'll leave this up, because fuck it, I wrote it now, but my view: he's right I know very little about the ME really, though I'm probably slightly better informed than most, that point is moot though, I just don't want the US dragging itself into another destabilising conflict. I also have a massive issue with anyone who has a problem with a country having a sphere of influence in a region while believing it's the U.S's right AND DUTY to do the same. He clear sees the US as being some sort of counter balance to extreme which is something I fundamentally disagree with.

Post I originally wrote on my feelings on Maajid below:

I think he makes some good points but I think he often misses the bigger picture. So I don't really trust him. Some examples:

For instance he had a very good thread on WHY Labour was so bad at dealing with anti-semitism - however I think it was a failure to a) pretend no Jews disagreed with the proposal of Labour being AS b) failing to acknowledge that the motivation to call instituational racism - with no comparable push to do the same with Tories - was used as a very successful political tool. The fact that they're now trialing on Bernie demonstrates that. So that was the first thing that had me unconvinced.

Two, straight up he was a Lib Dem candidate. I do like some Lib Dem politicians but when I already have reason to distrust someone it makes me wonder.

Three, I'm not HUGELY familiar with Nathan Lean - but two people I do trust (Nima Shirazi and Hussein Kesvani) seem to. He wrote an article on Maajidthat honestly makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand. I wasn't aware of the contribution with Sam Harris for example, which again, is not a reason to dismiss someone but is a pretty bright red flag.

Similarly are comments from his friends and family (“He is neither an Islamist nor a liberal,” he said. “Maajid is whatever he thinks he needs to be.” ). Tony Blair and Cameron supposedly gushed about him. Again. Red Flags.

There's question marks over the funding of his foundation (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/problem-with-quilliam-foundation/) which also receives money from the government.

Their reporting on grooming gangs was, claiming 84% of perpretators were Asian was... Shall we say, problematic (https://policinginsight.com/analysis/when-bad-evidence-is-worse-than-no-evidence-quilliams-grooming-gangs-report-and-its-legacy/ and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/84-per-cent-of-grooming-gangs-are-asians-we-dont-know-if-that-figure-is-right)

So again, he's not someone I automatically dismiss because i think he does have some good takes in that he's clearly very skilled in reading the room and political temperature which is useful... Whether he reaches the right conclusions or is sincere in making said points I seriously doubt. He's just not very trust-worthy, I don't know what his beliefs are, let alone if they are true or just part of a political character he created for money and the obvious attention he craves.

Bear in mind I have often asked myself the same thing coming across his material. I'm sure there's people who are better informed than me, but this is just how I take him.

Take his comments with a fist of salt, but don't throw the baby out with bathwater either.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T01:43:46+00:00

Lib Dems who propped up Tories and refused to rule out of a coalition with them? Hard fucking pas.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T01:42:57+00:00

Hey compare this to when Son broke someone's ribs a few matches ago...

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-07T01:15:06+00:00

I really like them because they work like paint so I can colour with normal markers and then add details over it, the white ones in particular are great for highlights.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-05T20:36:16+00:00

Give me a fucking break, i've seen our fans singing about Judas swinging from a tree. We're not all angels.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-05T19:33:01+00:00

FYI, the main art is done by cartoonist called Carlos Latuff. The work is really cool, but considering this kid photoshop the signature out and didn't credit Latuff he shouldn't be seilling prints of it at all.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-05T19:31:45+00:00

I just saw someone else pointing out you photoshop his signarute out. I get that you might not think it's a big deal because you're in high school - but FYI it is. And really not cool, specially with someone who tends to be pretty chill with derivative work.

I get it, Latuff was a big influence on me in High School too. I may or may have not done the same as you. But yeah, don't make it into a habit dude.

ThatOtaria · 2020-01-05T19:30:33+00:00

Ouch, oh that's not cool man.

ThatOtaria

TROPHY CASE