Once upon a time, you only saw ads like this in dystopian movies from the 80's. This is just creepy as fuck.

submitted by [deleted] from gvid.tv

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slushpilot 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

"Hi, my daughter was radicalised into believing she's not a girl, and now has these intrusive thoughts about cutting off her own breasts, and says everyone hates her and wants her dead. She's stopped talking to her own family and we just noticed she's posting online death threats to her favourite childhood author... Can you please help her?"

"Sorry madam, we can't interfere—that would be conversion therapy."

[–]madcow-5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You'd be arrested for having been radicalized if you suggest she shouldn't get the comic-sized frankenstein dick.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're confusing sexuality with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, this has nothing to do with sexuality. I'm referencing the facts that:

  1. Online enclaves of mostly children—with the help of adults grooming them—are expressing violent threats wherever women assert to still hold basic rights afforded on the basis of their sex. (See: JK Rowling)

  2. Online, these children learn to believe things about gender that lead them to radical steps like surgical mutilation of their own body that they will regret once they realize they were misled to believe crazy things, i.e. radicalized. (See: Keira Bell)

  3. Online radicals encourage children to disown their real family and join their "glitter family" (See: Rhys McKinnon / Rachel McKinnon / Veronica Ivy or whatever that con artist is calling himself this month.)

  4. Laws against "conversion therapy"—originally designed to protect people's sexuality (gay/lesbian)—are paradoxically being applied to gender identity in the same breath. In case it's not clear, protecting "gender identity" means letting girls that are just figuring out puberty believe they are men, and supporting the above insanity. (See: Canadian Bill C-6)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for this.

My reference is to the video, which was created by this government anti-terrorism group: https://act.campaign.gov.uk/

I think I may see your point that 'radicalisation' can include the promotion of 'radical' interests in Sex reassignment surgery (SRS), which is technically gender reassignment surgery (GRS). In the UK (not sure about the US), this is considered a basic human right, to have the gender you identify with, but I the only part of this I might know anything about is the 'human right' issue. I don't know why people want GRS, and especially why they want this at a young age (eg. kids of 14 or 15 wanting this). I'd agree this is radical, but it's not the UK usage of that word, 'radical' in the video or in general. As for those who would actually want to convince kids to undergo GRS, I have no idea about this, but will see if I can find out more about it.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, that makes sense. A precise definition of radicalization is slippery without naming a specific set of beliefs, and I'm admittedly being loose with that. Personally, I would think that calling for physical threats against individuals over their opinions would be covered. It's really the same thing as blasphemy—why should "kill the TERF" be treated any differently than "Death to the infidel"?

The human rights issue is very confused right now and I'm glad you brought it up. It seems that even organizations like Amnesty don't understand who they are denouncing and openly claiming "don't deserve political representation" when they support this gender identity nonsense without question. (I sincerely hope they only misunderstand it. The alternative is unthinkable.)

I would encourage you to watch at least a short bit of the videos embedded in this article, to get a sense of who is on the other side of this issue: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/is-eddie-izzard-a-lesbian

You won't find any neutral or positive opinions of women like this or the LGB Alliance in the cowardly press, though. We somehow got to a point where saying "he's not a woman" speaks against the new fundamentalist orthodoxy and any woman who says it must be brought to heel.

That's a radical extremist belief—at least to me and my old-fashioned liberal values.