Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Turns out it was pulled from the site recently and here's why:
Genuinely haven't read or heard about the article, sorry about that. Don't know if we should sit around speculating about the death of someone, or giving the Daily Mail any more publicity.
brought about by reading both articles and my extant feelings towards that man and that newspaper
but I don't think such a flippant response befits this thread. this is a thread of inchoate rage, not smartarsery
it's not if there's a direct causal link. it's the whole juxtaposition of it all, the aesthetic horror
as i said, i haven't really read the piece, or don't know too much about the story but i don't understand why someone would choose to read the original article knowing where it's come from and what the general tone of it will be. i think you can sympathise with a sad news story without either needing to read tabloid columns on the matter or voicing your outrage online.
so long as people are getting annoyed by the Daily Mail, they're winning, and so long as people are arguing about the Daily Mail's opinions on things, the more they're probably not actually addressing issues sensibly or genuinely.
it's about a very, VERY important issue, namely the ostracism and bigotry aimed at transgender human beings
and not just Richard Littlejohn's opinion on it, or the Daily Mail's continued questionable approach to journalism.
It's still taboo for a lot of people. Mainstream acceptance can only come through exposure - let's hope that one upshot of this tragedy (horrible as that sounds) is the reaction that follows it - the positive exposure that must surely follow negative
The local news story points to a letter written by Lucy, which asked for her privacy to be respected. The Daily Mail after being approached by a member of the public disregarded this in favour of an article which attacked both her reputation, her privacy and her identity.
By suggesting that by discussing this the Daily Mail is winning, you're essentially saying that the real issue here is that anyone is unsettled by the fact that they may have, indirectly or otherwise have contributed to someones death, and they are now trying to cover it up.
Let's not keep this going any further, though. My point was only that the way you approached the topic doesn't bode well for positive discourse. Hopefully i'm wrong and we'll get an intelligent debate about what for some people must be a hugely important issue, rather than 250 posts of people bashing a notoriously distasteful tabloid newspaper.
I'm sorry but this is some nakedly cheap derailment even by your standards. First you offer a glib response to the OP, then you admit to not having read the article, then you proceed to classify the terms of valid debate, then you suggest everyone stop talking your little side-bar.
It's interesting that you still feel comfortable worrying about whether other people are able to engage in 'positive discourse'.
earned by being shit at what he does.
And are still engaging the issue now?
to being a man whose linguistic style is now a curiosity. If people are really counting points then I guess that's a win but there's absolutely no heat in this. He didn't even earn a comment about it being a bit crass to fool around in a thread of this topic, which is pretty much standard.
and that definitely deserve publicity.
"...provided it’s a genuine medical necessity and not a lifestyle choice." Fucking hell...
Hopefully they can put something less offensive in its place.
He just wants to make money out of talking about them
he is odious.
Stewart Lee does a sketch about him rechisseling the gravestones of the women who were murdered in Ipswich a few years ago.
Because Richard littlejohn earned his money by writing an article in which he felt that he had to point out that the women who were murdered were not "women who were working as prostitutes" as the police had reported but should have actully been referred to as "prostitutes"
Cos he is horrible.
If you are religeous please make this prayer tonight.
If anyone has to get randomly beaten up tonight, please make it be richard littlejohn rather than someone else.
There's a transgender member of staff at my wife's school and it's not an issue at all. I think columnists just imagine their own schooldays with a transgender person incongruously inserted, but times (and kids) have moved on, even if Littlejohn hasn't.
It is just him projecting his own prejudice, bigotry and hatred onto children isn't it? As if children come into the world loaded up with ideas of what is 'right', 'normal' and 'natural'.
Littlejohn is normally of the school of thought where kids should not be mollycoddled and just get on with things, but suddenly he is all worried about their sensitive little souls not being able to handle their teacher transitioning to be a woman? As if they give a shit, they are probably far better equipped to deal with it than many adults. Including Richard Littejohn it would seem.
and I was absolutely staggered. What a vile excuse for a human.
Right in the eye
Littlejohn is a cunt.
Litteljohn is an outrageous cunt.
A hate-filled, fear-mongering wart on the face of humanity.
A poor man going through turmoil about his gender decides to do something brave and he's openly mocked and vilified by a national "journalist".
It's people like Littlejohn, with their strict code of what's normal "right" and what's abnormal "wrong" that stops people like that guy actually living the life he wants.
I'd quite like to punch Littlejohn in his face. This whole thing pretty horrible anyway and now the poor bloke/woman is dead.
I hope he wasn't driven to suicide.
I'm clearly making an impassioned rant about how wrong it is that these people are seen as weird or wrong.
I said a bloke was in turmoil about his gender as HE was. As in the past.
I used both genders at the end to relate to the fact that he had become a she.
And you decide to pick up on this as if I'm some kinda cunt?
This is why this site is literally fucking ludicrous.
Strange you're getting all annoyed about this.
because you don't do fucking anything without someone ticking you off in some way for being sexist/racist/homophobic/transgenderist no matter what.
Does my fucking head in. Massively.
"oh, yeah typo". no need to get angry. chill out.
It's clear my feelings on the topic. It's clear what the ethos of the post is.
It's this constant bullshit that annoys me.
Of what, exaclty? What "constant bullshit"?
Look, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks you're a hateful person – I know I don't – and yes, the positive intention in your post is clear. But if someone gently pulls you up on a slip you've made, is it not easier just to say "Sorry, you're right, I should have used a different pronoun"? Nobody would think any less of you. This habit of blowing every mild disagreement into a full-on row, on the other hand...
It actually makes me less likely to respond to moker nowadays than to other people on here. I almost abandoned that post for this exact reason.
if you actually care about transgender people, you should gratefully accept help correcting your language to what has been widely established to be inoffensive to them.
same goes for all of your other hissy fits on here: stop taking it as a personal attack on you and start just learning.
Or as I said a mistake as I'd read that Mail article and had his face in my mind.
To literally skim over what it a pretty heartfelt rant about how these people are mistreated and misperceived in society and skip straight to a typo at the end (or even if you didn't think it was a typo) is kinda fucking wack.
The ethos of the post was very clear but don't worry about all of that.
I dont' need a fucking lecture on transgender rights. That's more than clear. But offer one up anyway.
it looked exactly like you considered her a man/woman hybrid, rather than a woman, as she wished to be known.
I didn't anything to say about the other things you said, no.
That's completely putting words into my mouth.
And thisis my point. You make a great post, make a typo or mistake of some kind and the entire post is disregarded so someone can have a pop.
I actually posted that thinking it might get some good responses, but instead I fell foul of the DiS narrative of bullshit. You might have just been correcting me but it snowballs so people are offering up explanations of transgender rights. It's utterly patronising and misguided.
Then I get angry (as anyone who is *constantly* misrepresented would) and it's like "oh look, moker IS a dick".
I apologise for taking your thing the wrong way initally.
DiS is literally this:
Is the problem that not enough of us have congratulated you for your "great post"? Your "pretty heartfelt rant"? Should alcxxk have given you points for effort before he pointed out the slip you'd made?
As you're the ones to show me the way?
Thank goodness you're all here.
it's absolutely delusional that you consider your post "thought provoking" and our replies "idiotic", as per that link.
I didn't mean it literally. Fucking hell. Everyone can agree that I'm a dick about this too.
Oh look, your comment has been this'd by several people anyway.
Haha, moker's delusional. Look! Now he's endulging in his "habit of blowing every mild disagreement into a full-on row"
What a prick!
Can you see what's happening here? This is what I'm talking about.
I thought it might actually dis-spell some bad feeling.
I was wrong.
Let's whip up more support
One typo, maybe. Four? Not likely.
I think cruel sports like fox hunting with hounds and chasing down DiS users are still banned.
I was upset about it and ranted.
I'm sorry. It doesn't mean I'm Hitler. READ WHAT I WROTE and stop whipping up shit.
So I tried my hardest to overshadow the death of 32 year old human being by arguing on DiS?!
You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.
That is exactly what has happened.
If you post something that is in one instance "great" and then in another "a rant" and then some people in good faith (at least, I was) point out you made a mistake, just step back and admit it.
If you keep on trying to peddle this idea that you're unfairly victimised on here or something, you're strangely deluded about this forum man.
I've apologised twice. Not noticed?
Look how it's just me vs wishpig/you/alcxxk/joe/cillacrack and a few others.
I defend myself and I'm playing victim? Or as someone else put it I'm indulging in my "habit of blowing every mild disagreement into a full on row".
I can't row by myself. I'm defending myself. But let's carry on the narrative of me playing the victim card as otherwise people might have anything I'm written seriously.
EPYMIAOTTARB, for short.
Also, where have I been sexist?!
You're being ludicrous. Absolutely out of order and ludicrous. But I guess you can say that about me and it's fine but my response will be...
Choose from the following options all said about my responses in this thread so far:
1) "playing the victim"
3) a product of a "persecution complex"
But I guess there isn't a collective bullying going on here at all. I should just take being called all those things and being called sexist and being called transgenderist.
Imagine defending myself! What a twat I must be.
as otherwise you'll hit the gas main and blow yourself up.
accept it and move on.
Anyway, it's because of this: I hope he wasn't driven to suicide.
FUCK. FUCKING FUCK.
FUCK THIS CUNTING SITE.
I'M LITERALLY NEVER COMING BACK.
BUNCH OF TWATS.
I honestly wrote (I will) after that bit but DIS ate it. I think.
Can that happen? More typos.
Damn my imperfect typing skills.
I clearly have so much to learn.
Your second was flaming up as if a simple correction, which is as joey says is the whole fucking point, was some sort of coordinated attack to catch you out.
This is what you have to learn.
and you've said I "have to learn".
Good thing there's not a collective sense of superiority going on in this completely unbiased and friendly thread.
How offensive and reactionary you can be. You didn't take too kindly to it.
But when it's me doing the same thing, I'm wrong?
within transgender communities it is unanimously considered respectful to refer to people as the gender the identify as, because to do otherwise is to endorse the idea that trans women are 'really' men who have just made an unusual lifestyle choice, which is exactly the kind of idea that underlies articles like littlejohn's. if you actually do care about trans people's rights, why on earth would it make you angry to have to slightly alter your language in a way that makes them feel more comfortable and respected and less ostracized?
Look what I wrote. You think I don't care? I MADE A TYPO.
I missed one letter off the beginning of a word. I *might* have even written "he" by mistake as I read that Littlejohn article and had a picture of the (then) guy in my head.
But don't worry about the big rant I made in support of the transgender community, pick up on that and run with it.
It's a great narrative.
and i made a typo correction, and then you cry
Perhaps I took that in a way I shouldn't have.
It's pretty difficult to filter out the baiting from the actual sensible posts.
that's not really a typo.
Forget what I wrote I'm clearly a cunt.
Thank goodness you pointed that out.
don't bother reading above if you haven't already.
They've pulled the article because, presumably, they deem it insensitive in light of this lady's suicide? So... they basically let Littlejohn write this, and then they published it without principle, I assume? If Littlejohn's words, which they endorsed through printing it, were so truthful and needed to be expressed - surely the sentiment shouldn't be hidden by removing it from their website. I mean, if the article is from a principled position of analysis, and was fit for publication in line with the paper's ideologies, then why do they need to withdraw it. Why?
I mean I know pointing holes in the logic of the Daily Mail is an endless and tedious task but... the morality and the sentiment behind this one has really gotten to me. Really gotten to me.
Finally - I really, really hope this article had nothing directly to do with this lady's suicide. Really.
And you're absolutely right to call me up on that until the facts are established. Apologies.
"hey can you write something inflammatory and bilious richard? ad revenue could do with a boost"
"np, how about this"
"nice, gotta get bare hits"
time goes by...
"aw fuck, suicide, better pull that article so we don't get in the shit"
That's literally it.
I just cannot fathom sometimes how this actually happens though. It's just a bit too much for my mind to contemplate the nastiness which is abundant in this publication. I mean I know they're nasty - sometimes it's not nice to know that they're *this* nasty, y'know?
I'm only half way through and this is amazing:
LITTLEJOHN: Well, you can't comment until you have read the other 200.
SELF: Why? Does it suddenly turn into Tolstoy?
LITTLEJOHN: You'll have to read it and find out, won't you.
SELF: Well it won't take me long.
LITTLEJOHN: I am absolutely delighted. If I get the Guardian to call it racist, sexist, homophobic and goodness knows what else, we will put that on the cover too.
SELF: It is homophobic isn't it?
SELF: The baddies are typed up as being gay.
LITTLEJOHN: Not necessarily.
SELF: Well they are.
SELF: Does it turn into Tolstoy at page 205?
LITTLEJOHN: No it doesn't turn into Tolstoy. I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that.
If you're angry then it worked! N-no, you are angry because you responded!
LITTLEJOHN: You are not still on heroin are you?
SELF: No and listen, I would thank you kindly not to insult me in that fashion.
LITTLEJOHN: Well you have accused me of being the recruiting sergeant of the BNP!
[There then followed travel, weather and news and sport reports]
so everyone's reading it as screen captures or web archives.
I would say they know exactly what they're doing.
or threadsmash? threadsmash then
But I've seen people on here posting quite transphobic stuff before as well as a lot of people making a joke of any discussion about non-binary or non-normative gender identities. Im not comparing anyone to this case (which I can't help but find a genuinely hateful intent to destroy someone's career and chance to be happy) but we could be better at creating the conditions for everyone - the parents at that school, her pupils, daily mail readers - to understand and accept trans people as equal. And do more to challenge the behaviour that creates the conditions for violent transphobia, expressed in people like Littlejohn. I can't say everything I ever post is perfect but I get that being oppressive towards people can result in them ending their lives. This is such a devastating thing and I hope those kids grow up to be better at this than our generation :(
Throwing a tantrum when someone asks you to use the correct pronoun is an example.
Throwing a tantrum when the entire focus of what you said is twisted and/or ignored and you're misrepresented once again to the tine of being exactly the oppostie of what you were trying to say.
I shouldn't have got so angry but this happens a lot. It's collective bullying. It happens a lot to certain users. It's a joke and when it's challenged it whips people into even more hysteria - It's self justifying / prophesying.
Absolutely nobody is persecuting you.
Or did you think I was just turning every diaagreement into a full on row.
And it's abundantly clear that that's what you've done here. Funny thing is, after you apologised at 11:07 that could have been the end of it, and we could all have walked away going "That moker, he's alright. His heart's in the right place." But then you kicked off again like you just couldn't help yourself.
Just chill out a bit, yeah? Nobody's got it in for you. This persecution complex is mental.
a "persecution complex"?
Look how many people are (for want of a better, less evocative word) attacking me?
As I've said before, I can't argue with myself. I'm defending myself when someone writes something I feel is unfair or incorrect.
Like wishpig saying I'm turning the death of a 32 year old woman to be somethign about me. Which is a ludicrous accusation.
I hate HATE this shit so much. But also I won't back down because of DiS regulars decide to lecture me on transgender rights for no reason or say some fairly off key remarks. I'm not here to be patronised or belittled and so I retaliate.
Then I get called mental.
and you are retaliating, insulting and accusing. this is exactly what joe's saying
when you're fairly under fire by numerous people.
So far it's been said that I'm
) "playing the victim"
3) a product of a "persecution complex"
Is that not being under attack? Are these not insults?
calling us fucking idiots and telling us to fuck off.
also, almost all of those are the same thing, a thing which you've clearly demonstrated and continue to demonstrate.
anyhow, i should stop posting in here. have a nice weekend
nobody bullied you or got angry at you or called you a cunt until you started self-immolating over being so horribly bullied and misrepresented and how nobody would appreciate your deep and heartfelt passion for trans rights, all because somebody wrote, and i quote, 'she was female'. that's literally when you started ranting.
just take a step back, yeah?
i have no idea why i'm bothering
Or did I start defending myself?
But cheers for telling me to fuck off. I should probably just take your judgements and shut up.
You seem nice.
2) Please show my what I have said that you deem unpleasant or insensitive.
It seems to me that the majority of unpleasant and insensitive comments have been reserved for me but nice people like yourself.
part 2) of the previous post
'she was female'?
and slowly it has got a lot better, and of course has a long way to go. I have hope that in the future gender and sex will be seen far more as a spectrum rather than binary too. I know my children will be brought up that way.
but i know i've been guilty of making comments towards trans people in the past that I wouldn't want to say to that person's face. fair play to you, tiramisu and others for making casual types like me stop and think about what we say.
considering the tragic nature of the subject matter.
in the reponses to moker's little outburst.
pretty much sums this thread up. Cheers, Chris.
i am starting to think moker is not well
same time next week?
whether he is being smug or not.
And Im sorry if thats a bit phobic
but thats just the way it is.........a typo
An awful read. Forzaborza and CG should be ashamed of trolling in here
fucking hell, DiS
I for one hang my head in shame.
helped lay some cracking foundations
Assumed you were joking. Thought your post may have been a riposte to zxcvbnm-'s post above.
I think the tone and wording of an opening title/post often dictates how they'll go. Any mention of the Mail, plus any sort of opinion on it either way encourages people to be either glib or preachy, not to mention not concentrating on the crux of the matter, which here is the woman who died, not what Richard Littlejohn thinks, as i tried to (genuinely) explain above.
In any case, i'm a bit disappointed you'd finger me for alleged trolling when moker and a bunch of people have spent several hours shouting at eachother.
because one of the guys on my team went through gender reassignment last year.
It's interesting and gratifying to see the interns, who are as young as 18/19 on occasion, not making a deal out of it whatsoever - no jokes, no jabs, no funny looks. He pointed that out to me the other day and said he'd wanted to be honest with everyone but had expected a real backlash, especially from the younger staff (that in itself had surprised me as I'd have assumed that older members of the team would be the ones to worry about in terms of prejudice/difficulties)
Obviously what's happened here is absolutely heart-breaking. But it's nice being reminded that attitudes are changing fast. Oh and I hope Richard Littlejohn is sandpapered to death one day.
he didn't have to, and it wasn't anyone's business either way but he let people know from the off because he hoped people would, despite any initial backlash, eventually just understand it.
it's been awesome that it was an immediate understanding, then. Good for him/everyone.
Fucking hell. Of all the threads.
Wasn't even making a point I skim read the salient details. I LITERALLY was not making a point just being a cretin.
Less of the jibes more of the boat booking dickonthestairs.
Just accept that you've made a mistake, and apologise for it.
Also a visual reminder to book the boat.
dis made a man* out of me
*slightly more cynical and cold bedwetter
Fry's face was for wilykit
i thought with his post he was seeing whether i'd react (i know now it was an honest typo obvs) but i have learned to remain a little calmer on here these days*
*until i have a proper tantrum some time down the line of course
I bet you if a straight man came to the office one day in a vaguely frilly shirt he'd never live down the 'tranny' jokes, but if he actually started dressing in women's clothes no-one would say a word.
In a modern work place it's depressing that people expect open ridicule for things like this. Even if people harboured prejudices like this couldn't see anyone being open with them, unless there was an culture of bullying in the work place.
Gender reassignment and how its received in the workplace has little to no precedent at this point and I can see why there'd be a fear. Tolerance exhibited elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean tolerance for everyone, even from those who until that point consider themselves 'open-minded'. It must be an absolute hell having to anticipate how that knowledge will be received by just about anyone from family and friends to colleagues and strangers. And, indeed, the internet.
To discrimate (indirectlty. directly, through victimistion or harssment) on the basis of gender reassignment. This includes anyone who is anywhere in the process of reassignment. This isn't inclusive of all trans people but it gives very clear protection in law to many. Think equality law should love towards gender identity as a protected characteristic in itself but this is a start.
but I don't think that gives someone confidence when they're worried about how a workplace will react. Yes, you know that you could take someone to court if they were discriminatory, but that might not be something you're prepared to do, or have the confidence to do.
In fact, the sheer weight of anticipating the possibilities of thinking that way before you've even started work must be a double nightmare.
When I say it doesn't have precedent, I am talking very specifically about the scary unknown of telling people you've had gender reassignment because workplace acceptance and understanding of it is not something widely reported in the media as yet, although hopefully the Guardian piece will be the start of more of the same.
feeling really christmassy
I really believe that such a decision to change sex provides an opportunity for the parents to plant the seeds of tolerance and respectful curiosity in their children.
I can't help thinking when newspapers go on about protecting children of copies of The Sun or Daily Sport lying around in people's homes with Page 3 in easy access of kids and of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone messages, or of celebrity-obsessed articles dominating their content with a focus on body image that insttils the breeding ground for eating disorders, female lack of self confidence and misogyny.
Littlejohn? Rent-a-cunt. The sad fact is that I can't ever see him suffering for any of his misguided or hateful moral crusades, or even being held accountable for his words.
for starting this thread.
there's been some great discussion, plus the main point of me making the OP was to draw attention to something the Mail clearly wanted people to forget about.
I've met quite a few of you LME types already actually.
Might have to see if this is on youtube
The Will Self incident
On a June 2001 edition of Nicky Campbell's show on BBC Radio Five Live, a discussion took place between Littlejohn and Will Self. Both were on the show to promote their novels (Littlejohn's To Hell in a Handcart and Self's How the Dead Live). Campbell cited David Aaronovitch's description of Littlejohn's novel as a "400-page recruiting pamphlet for the British National Party". Littlejohn responded (referring to Aaronovitch): "What else do you expect from an overgrown student union leader who used to be a member of the Communist Party? I think it is a badge of honour to be attacked by people like David Aaronovitch to be perfectly honest. I might put it on the cover".
Self agreed with Aaronovitch's comments, said that he had read half of Littlejohn's book, and he described its author as "a kind of Tom Sharpe for the far right". Littlejohn said that he should "read the book in its totality", to which Self retorted "Why?... Does it turn into Tolstoy at page 205?". Littlejohn's response was: "No it doesn't turn into Tolstoy. I don't set out to be Tolstoy. It is a much more complex book than that". In the same interview, Littlejohn enquired of Self, who is a recovering addict: "You are not still on heroin are you?".[
So anyway, it regarded someone hoping that Littlejohn's article had no link to the loss of the woman's life. I don't think the circumstances of her death are known in particular detail, so to begin with it cannot be assumed that it was suicide. But if it was...it is a tragedy in any case and the impact by such a nasty article, whether real or not, would be inconsequential in context...unless it actually lead to retribution against Littlejohn for spouting such bile.
remember that the mail welcomed back littlejohn to his spiritual home......here is some of littlejohns 'work' that he got paid for by dailymail buyers,
talking about the 5 women who were murdered in ipswich
"We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame.
It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work'=", death by strangulation is an occupational hazard.
That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.
They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html#ixzz2OMmE6RBO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There can be few lower methods of making money, I doubt if he could see the irony that for most decent people HIS is a "grubby little existance" and that with the righteous anger he can make people feel towards him a good beating or stabbing would be an "occupational hazard" for him.
If he did die, it would be "no great loss" indeed it would be a boon for humanity.
However he does do missionary work for the BNP and NF and hatred in general.