Notices by The Dread Slender Gnome (gnomeshatecheese@spinster.xyz), page 4

@FeartnTired This is actually a big complaint of mine these days.
It seems like nothing can be wholesome or uplifting, everything has to be coarse, ugly, depressing and nasty. There can be no pure adventures and characters must have no redeeming qualities.

It's very clearly justified by calling it "gritty" or "real", or perhaps even "complex". The idea obviously being stories like this are more "sophisticated" and things that aren't like this, are immature and kitchy.

And everywhere, TV and films, that horrible blue filter that makes even the brightest, sunniest summer day look bleak and horrid.

Can you tell I hate it?

@KeepTakingTheSoma @LaylaAlexandrovna @MandyJane I was interested in how she countered the other woman's statement that the study she cited was disputed. She either used the word "deny" or "reject" about it (not watching it again to check), without at all engaging with what the other woman had said.

She's not having a discussion. She wants to tell the other woman she's a bad person with ideas that should be rejected.

@LaylaAlexandrovna @MandyJane @KeepTakingTheSoma I agree it was disconcerting to watch her. I got distinct vibes of a religious nutter screaming at an unbeliever or a sinner. Same kind of set gaze and stringent voice tones, and the weird stone-faced expression.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane Yep. Sooner or later she'll run into people who won't put up with her shit. And then she's in trouble.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane Part of me feels sorry for them, but that's a very small part.
Mostly I find them exasperating and just want to tell them to grow up and drag their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane Mostly, admittedly, I just want to laugh in her face and demonstrate how ridiculous I find their attempts at guilt-tripping and emotional manipulation.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane My department's own library had a section where all the periodicals were laid out. I remember standing there, browsing them, leafing them, looking at the atricles and just having my mind blown by the depth and variety of knowledge it was possible to encounter. Especially knowing that this was just the tiny library of one single department in one university, in one country.

It was a profound experience.

@MandyJane @KeepTakingTheSoma That is so very true. I remember being a teenager and thinking that everything was so obvious. Then I went to uni, and some time around the second year it slowly dawned on me how incredibly much knowledge there was out there, that I didn't even know existed.
At some point in my 30s I realised that an online acquintance was exhibiting exactly the same kind of ways of thinking I had as a teenager, and she was I think in her late 20s or early 30s. It was an odd realisation, and kind of made me feel like I had come full circle in a way.

This young woman probably feels her feelings.

From the sound of her, I suspect there's nothing in her head except feelings. Seems to me she's stuck at the growth stage of figuring out how feelings work, and never progressed beyond them to actual thinking.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane Yes.

"My opinions are correct, of COURSE you respect them".

@KeepTakingTheSoma @MandyJane That.

Additionally, "you should base your opinions based on how they make others feel, not on whether something is factual or not".

@MandyJane @KeepTakingTheSoma Exactly.

She also has the lack of insight to say that HER opinions are easy to respect, unlike the other woman's.

@MandyJane @KeepTakingTheSoma A pretty good case in point.
The young woman in the purple jacket is, towards the end of the clip, complaining how the other woman "will not listen" to women like her, when in fact, the other woman is not agreeing.

They equate "listening" with "agreeing", and lack of agreement as an attack.

https://youtu.be/h0BkVfEDS80

@MandyJane @KeepTakingTheSoma What I'm seeing now a lot is "you have Google", and it always seems to translate to "you have no excuse not to agree with me".

@RadicalCartoons Because forcing court cases is unfortunately how law's content is tested. Sometimes that also involves testing apparently explicitly stated laws.

And unfortunately such guidelines don't seem to exist in other jurisdictions. Mr. Menno stated that in Holland there already is a court verdict saying that a lesbian event broke the law when it told a man he was not welcome, and the decision apparently hinged on it having been a publicly advertised event.

Listening to Mr. Menno speaking with Jenny from Scottish Lesbians about the supreme court case.
The lawyer for the Scottish government apparently argued that the law under question was not a problem for lesbian groups, because lesbians could always just screen out the obvious males in their gatherings, and nobody said they were legally obligated to be attracted to these men.

Obvious point being obvious, this suggestion is absolutely unhelpful for any real purposes.

However, on some level, she was correct. In any given gathering of women/lesbians where men show up uninvited, the women/lesbians are under no obligation to be nice to these men. Nor are they obligated to interact with them at all. Turning their literal backs to the intruder and ignoring him is not illegal.

Now, it would of course be ideal (note the sarcasm) if you could have actual real social gatherings among just women/lesbians, as opposed to essentially political demonstrations with a significant social dimension. But if the Scottish government wins the case, this is something they could do immediately. Especially if the event had security (I fully realise all this has risks, obviously).

Same goes for any female-only or male-only gathering which would be declared illegal by such a verdict. And any jurisdiction where this effectively is already the case.
Of course, this strategy requires there be sufficient numbers of women (or men) willing to publicly support single-sex spaces, and to do so in public gatherings. Unfortunately, I think for example in Finland this is not the case.

So basically, "we have to admit you, but we are not obligated to interact with you, or be nice to you" is presumably the case all over. And that could be used as a tool, at least against individual offenders. And especially together with filmed interactions and social media messaging, this could also just be a straight up protest action.

From the aforementioned Mr.Menno video, a chart someone (@void if removed on Twitter) made based on apparently what the Scottish government has said about what sexual orientation is.

I believe the word "hysterical" is suitable here. In more than one sense.

@KeepTakingTheSoma Or if they don't know how to explain themselves or to back up their claims, but just believe themselves to be correct, they can just say "not my job", and feel extra-righteous.

Below is a purely hypothetical conversation, presented here merely as an illustration of a point.

Person A: Makes an assertion.
Me: Oh. What evidence do you have to back that up?
A: It's not my job to educate you.
Myself: Well, if you're not going to present any evidence for your claim, I'm just going to ignore it.
A: ... !! ... But! You need to Listen to [insert demographic] voices!!
I: No I don't.

"It's not my job to educate you" is not an argument.
If someone refuses to present arguments for their claims, they have only themselves to blame, if people ignore the said claims.

@taylan They certainly do. Hence I was hoping you might've come across something novel to me.

This sounds like a very messy case, and as someone in a comment section pointed out, multiple things can be true at once.
I rather suspect we may never get a proper clear answer to this, unless the perpetrator makes a clear, public statement (where "clear" might also include "clear nutcase").