Charity stream hosted to spite transphobic tosser Graham Linehan [split topic]

[Baron von Klaus]

Ah yes, the stealthy 'no u'. Brilliant insights.

Something doesn't have to be brilliant for it to be true or insightful. The truth is usually pretty fucking banal, and sometimes what people need is to be reminded of the bleeding obvious.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Not even true in this case, or insightful, or obvious, just more knee jerk bullshit

[Barry Admin]

grow up you soft cunt.

Raise the standard here please.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

It's true though... tribalism is making this debate much much harder. (Putative) bad research into certain drugs should be a concern to everyone.

'Tribalism' is usually just a buzzword that is employed to flatten genuine ideological differences and the real material effects of those ideas. It's not tribalism that makes this 'debate' difficult, it's the genuinely different levels of investment in the outcome of the scenarios described, which are based in the wellbeing of people who genuinely exist in real life. There is very little reason to believe that Biggs is correct in his projections, and I don't think that the rather sordid level of investment in him being correct is based in anything else except bad faith. Let's get the facts if we can get them, sure, but until then there's no real debate to be had. Assertions have been made by a person who is notoriously biased on this issue, and that's it.

[chveik]

Raise the standard here please.

fine.  sorry.

[Pdine]

'Tribalism' is usually just a buzzword that is employed to flatten genuine ideological differences and the real material effects of those ideas.

It can be, but I think it can also legitimately describe the bundling of concerns beyond what's reasonable.

It's not tribalism that makes this 'debate' difficult, it's the genuinely different levels of investment in the outcome of the scenarios described, which are based in the wellbeing of people who genuinely exist in real life. There is very little reason to believe that Biggs is correct in his projections, and I don't think that the rather sordid level of investment in him being correct is based in anything else except bad faith.

As I say, my personal experience of this area tells me that the kind of poor analytical and reporting practice that Biggs is suggesting is not rare. On the other hand he's clearly a partial observer, but any inaccuracy stemming from that should be easy to demonstrate. I don't really see any 'projections' in the pdf, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Leaving aside any accompanying political issues, researchers who spend public money and refuse to share their results according to their agreed protocol should be defunded and others allowed to do the research properly.

Let's get the facts if we can get them, sure, but until then there's no real debate to be had. Assertions have been made by a person who is notoriously biased on this issue, and that's it.

I'd be much more uncomfortable if he actually had asserted anything. It seems to me he's implying a lot, but his core request - that the Tavistock Trust fulfill their agreed responsibility to publish their results - is not unreasonable (unless they actually have and the pdf is just fantasy, which is possible).

Anyway I'm sorry to have once again played a role in this thread getting shouty. My main interests in this subject are probably too abstract for me to be able to raise them without being misunderstood as being 'the enemy'. I do think that's a shame though. I rate the intellect of everyone who has got angry with me in this thread, and would value a discussion which assumes good faith.   

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Again, to have a proper discussion about it we'd have to agree that Bigg's arguments are notable, well motivated and most importantly liable to be accurate, and there's no evidence for any of those things so it's unclear as the kind of discussion you desire. Just a bunch of people agreeing with you about the data being released? What is there to discuss? It's a blog post by an ideologically straightjacketed quack. Wake me up when the data is actually there to support this stuff. It's clear that the only discussion you'll accept is the one favourable to your point of view, which is why you keep whining about not being able to express yourself, one of the most boring things people regularly do in public forums nowadays.

[Pdine]

I think that's completely unfair, and unsupported by my posts in this thread.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

God, it's always "I'm only making a single point that shouldn't be controversial" and then "I would say more about this subject but I can't. I just can't. The wolves will come after me." Just fucking give the self pity a rest. You either want to put enough contentious stuff out there to be worthy of discussion or you don't, but don't pretend you only want people to concede one thing, but then get annoyed when they don't concede on your terms, in the language you'd prefer, with the deference you clearly feel you're owed.

[Pdine]

Again, totally not what I'm saying; bewilderingly different in fact.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Really? Because that's very much how it it reads when you whine like that

[Pdine]

Really? Because that's very much how it it reads when you whine like that

Ok I give up. Thanks for the engagement!

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yes, I could have guessed that attempting to assert that you were in fact saying something bewilderingly different to the actual words you've written might have been more than you were willing to bother with. Seems like an uphill endeavour at this point.

Unrewarding, isn't it? When people won't say what they mean. Don't try to blame anyone else for that.

[QDRPHNC]

I've had no trouble understanding Pdine, MV.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

I could have guessed you wouldn't! And indeed that you would feel inclined to say so, with zero elaboration, in the usual style. I don't have any trouble understanding Pdine either, I just don't think there's much there, and that the insistence on being misunderstood is dishonest

[Baron von Klaus]

Yes, I could have guessed that

I could have guessed you wouldn't!

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Wow I am owned

[Baron von Klaus]

Wow I am owned

Nothing as dramatic as that. Just ribbing you a bit.

[Baron von Klaus]

Wow, I said something twice, I am owned

Wasn't about saying it twice. It's just your insistence that you knew what they were going to say that reminded me of Nathan Thurm.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Basic Twitter behaviour.

[madhair60]

About to hit the big one oh oh

[Monsieur Verdoux]

come on lads we can do this

[madhair60]

Glinner's a cunt

[thecuriousorange]

There was a joke in Father Ted about yobs breaking into a priest's house and putting a bra on him, in an incident of "forced transvestism". That hasn't aged well, in light of what we now know.

[worldsgreatestsinner]

There was a joke in Father Ted about yobs breaking into a priest's house and putting a bra on him, in an incident of "forced transvestism". That hasn't aged well, in light of what we now know.

I heard there were 200 cases of forced transvestism involving Mr Sweeney last year.

[idunnosomename]

Ee ay ad ee oh

Glinner is a cunt

[keir]

He's a train wreck, except that a train wreck generally gets dealt with more quickly.

[phes]

got 99 problems but a beard ain't one

[petril]

He's a train wreck, except that a train wreck generally gets dealt with more quickly.

he's a train wreck on an abandoned line that's been forgotten about, all that's left is 80s kids desperately hoping that by jumping about on it they can get into A Scrape, because that was the only break from the bleakness of being a kid in a shithole in the 80s

[idunnosomename]

I see you're an atheist now, father! Should I be an atheist too? Not sure how I'll fit in being a smug bastard about my own superior sense of rationality at the expense of any empathy towards people different to me, what with all the work on the farm!