It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Censorship and Gaslighting: Meet Jonathan Yaniv

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: stonerwilliam


Phage
Sure. But you sure take note of it. For some reason.



But every advert now seems to be cool if it has a mixed couple in it and i do mean every advert .
Or maybe there is a demographic they are targeting. That being, everybody. Except for you, of course. They really don't care about you.




I just do not like things being shoved in my face every 10 minutes the adverts last 5 minutes so the average joe watches television adverts for maybe 8-10 hrs a week

The kids of today phage do not know where milk comes from or how to tune a radio in or use a tape measure unless Facebook tells them




posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam




I just do not like things being shoved in my face every 10 minutes the adverts last 5 minutes so the average joe watches television adverts for maybe 8-10 hrs a week

I don't particularly like TV commercials either.
edit on 11/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Its not Trump trying to re-define gender that's just more gaslighting. For hundreds of years, gender was defined by and determined by one's genitalia at birth -- literally from the root word for "genesis". So the current definitions are the new definitions... The re-definitions.

And in the process, Trans Activists are stealing identities -- because, of course, "man" and "woman" are already taken. And there are certain realities and issues that each of us must deal as anatomical men and women. Women especially are increasingly denied the opportunity to meet and discuss such issues because it's "not inclusive" to men identifying as trans.

Other cultures accommodate and even embrace gender non-conforming in their own right without un-defining and re-defining men and women. And many transgender persons would agree. They would prefer a third option, or even not to be gendered at all.

The status quo however silences dissenting voices by hook and by crook.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stonerwilliam

Oh dear... I cannot unsee that!!!



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Boadicea

The moral of the story is don't offer services to wax people's genitalia if you are going to discriminate.

Maybe there's better types of employment available!


Nope. Not even close. Everyone has a right to say "no." It's our first and primary defense against those who would do us harm.

The moral of the story is that govt shouldn't force women to put themselves in vulnerable positions with sexual predators... Much less enable and protect a sexual predator's persecution of women under color of law.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Boadicea

The moral of the story is don't offer services to wax people's genitalia if you are going to discriminate.

Maybe there's better types of employment available!


Nope. Not even close. Everyone has a right to say "no." It's our first and primary defense against those who would do us harm.

The moral of the story is that govt shouldn't force women to put themselves in vulnerable positions with sexual predators... Much less enable and protect a sexual predator's persecution of women under color of law.


Equal Rights laws do not agree with you.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Indeed... To the detriment and injury of many.... As I obviously well know, and object to in no uncertain terms.

There is no virtue in protecting one class only to put another in danger.
edit on 18-11-2018 by Boadicea because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Indeed... To the detriment and injury of many.... As I obviously well know, and object to in no uncertain terms.

There is no virtue in protecting one class only to put another in danger.


Oh, poor you.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Indeed... To the detriment and injury of many.... As I obviously well know, and object to in no uncertain terms.

There is no virtue in protecting one class only to put another in danger.

Transexuals are more dangerous than others? Well maybe sometimes.


Poor Eddy.
Happy Thanksgiving.

edit on 11/18/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Oh, poor you.


No... Not poor me at all. Others are being hurt far more than I am. And more will be hurt with these insane laws. I'm not one of them... yet... But I can sure be outraged for them and shine a big fat spotlight on the unconscionable and therefore unacceptable.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes, poor Eddy... may he RIP.

And a happy Thanksgiving to you too!



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee


Oh, poor you.


No... Not poor me at all. Others are being hurt far more than I am. And more will be hurt with these insane laws. I'm not one of them... yet... But I can sure be outraged for them and shine a big fat spotlight on the unconscionable and therefore unacceptable.


Right.

We've seen how the majority is hurt by Equal Rights laws.

What was I thinking?



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

By definition, if even one person is harmed by equal rights laws, then the law is not "equal" for all. And that's a problem.

Also by definition, "protecting" one class at the expense of another class is not "equal."



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I suppose you'll have to define "harm" more narrowly.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Not a hill to die on.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea
I suppose you'll have to define "harm" more narrowly.


Sure. There are 16 women in Canada suffering financial harm and persecution by their government for not providing a service they do not offer, and most likely do not have the skills or supplies to provide, under color of "equal" rights.

The chilling part is that their "crime" is not providing this intimate service to a sexual predator in a secluded setting... who only "identifies as a woman" part-time while the women persecuted are real women 24/7...

"Equal" rights my foot.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
Not a hill to die on.


Obviously not yours.

Others -- often the weakest and most vulnerable among us -- have no choice.

Especially when so many will turn a blind eye to the injustice and suffering and simply say, "Not a hill to die on"...



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Too early in the morning for this "real woman".




posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I agree with you to a degree, but also some of the pronouns are very difficult to use, remember, etc linguistically.

There is someone at work who is “they/them,” and everyone has trouble slipping to an individual pronoun when busy, in the middle of a convo, etc. the reason why in my view is that psycho-linguistically we aren’t trained to think of individuals aa prural pronouns.

There are also other new pronouns that while I umderstand the idea, such as xir, are again not in our language or training linguistically. I think people aren’t recognizing what such a shift means, how difficult it is, and how long it would take.

a reply to: okrian


edit on 19-11-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Just so people know. This is not new.


"Singular they" had been the standard gender-neutral pronoun in English for hundreds of years. However, in 1745, prescriptive grammarians began to say that it was no longer acceptable. They instead began to recommend using "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun.This started the dispute over the problem of acceptable gender-neutral pronouns in English, which still goes on today.


nonbinary.miraheze.org...



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join