Philosophy Tube / Oliver Lennard / Oliver "Olly" Thorn / Abigail Thorn - Breadtube's Patrick Bateman.

[esmeggs]

someone send photo of an orange to the shops for a pint of milk, cos we are back on the Geordie train.

---

(archive)
People can't disagree with gender ideology? Is no philosophical debate allowed on gender/gender identity? I know of the Stock situation but what is he talking about?? It looks bad when there are people that have different stances on an issue? Isn't a huge point of Philosophy to discuss and debate different ideas? Wish the original tweet wasn't protected.

 

[narcissistic injury]

 

[Boris Blank's glass eye]

View attachment 2689069View attachment 2689068

I've dealt with my share of used car salesmen and insurance agents and none looked this sleazy. The lad's a natural! He's got a future even if this whole troonout shitshow doesn't work out in the end.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

_

View attachment 2689069View attachment 2689068

He's so pudgy and pasty. He was right to be ashamed of his body, but it should've made him hit the gym instead of trying on spinny skirts.

 

[narcissistic injury]

Go outside and build self confidence.

I go on a hike and explore some ideas around loneliness.Check out Maxx's video here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPg6MjFeyyc- Merch!http://www.teespring....

www.youtube.com

i hate claire's..... language skills?

in this video, a few times she says "straineous" when meaning to say strenuous (just after 1:05, 2:25)

similar to my disgust with "gender fluality", i googled it to make sure it wasnt me that's crazy

she's really not the brightest

all the videos have a vacuous quality.... the "content" is almost entirely faux awe and inspiration and reflective contemplation

 

[AfghanBlue]

View attachment 2688717

---

View attachment 2688750
(archive)
People can't disagree with gender ideology? Is no philosophical debate allowed on gender/gender identity? I know of the Stock situation but what is he talking about?? It looks bad when there are people that have different stances on an issue? Isn't a huge point of Philosophy to discuss and debate different ideas? Wish the original tweet wasn't protected.

JOIN IN!

yea i have no idea who the protected account is. spicey.
who the fuck this Niqua think he is man, writing to fuckers cautioning them against other fuckers?

some fucking phil BA who does crap youtube videos who everyone online thinks is a rapist at worst, a skinwalker at best, or if extremely autistic, pretends to want to fuck?
literOlly whube?

@narcissistic injury lmao americans always calling going for a walk “hiKiNg!”
get the fuck over your journey off the couch, lol.

the credits- Claire Michelle in every single frame!- are VERY Tubular aren’t they. I still cut her more slack cos i feel she’s stupid enough not to be expected to know why this is cringe and narcy.

 

[fax machine]

View attachment 2688750
(archive)
People can't disagree with gender ideology? Is no philosophical debate allowed on gender/gender identity? I know of the Stock situation but what is he talking about?? It looks bad when there are people that have different stances on an issue? Isn't a huge point of Philosophy to discuss and debate different ideas? Wish the original tweet wasn't protected.

The Royal Institute of Philosophy hosts an annual debate. Kathleen Stock was invited to speak at the 2019 event by the academic director, Julian Baggini. He reflected on the drama last year, and it went down exactly as you'd expect:

When I started organising the Royal Institute of Philosophy debate on the topic of “What’s the point of diversity?”, the trans debate was only on the periphery of my vision. In inviting speakers, I was not looking to pick people for their views but their ability to debate them openly.

I invited one woman because I knew she was the target of a lot of abuse on social media and in real life for her views on trans issues. I also knew that many good and decent philosophers I knew had voiced their support for her. However, I was soon to discover that she was a hate figure for more than just a handful of extremists.

In short, the philosopher was a gender critical feminist, meaning that she questions the emphasis placed on gender as social construct and believes that biological sex is a significant factor in distinguishing male and female. Such feminists are labelled by their critics as “TERFs” – trans-exclusionary radical feminists. This is because their views on sex mean that a trans woman is not a woman in the same way that a cisgender woman is.

This position is considered transphobic by those who insist that “Transgender women are women” and “transgender men are men”, full stop. As one trans woman put it to me, she saw those who denied this as “people who want to deny my right to exist”.

Recognising how controversial a figure my invited speaker was, I tried to find someone else to add to the panel who took a different view. This was not to set up a fight or to turn it into a debate about trans people: the other two speakers had nothing at all to say about this. It was simply to ensure some balance. But none of the people I invited would share a stage with the “TERF”, except one who couldn’t make the date.

I despaired. My intention for the debate was to jettison the traditional for/against format to show how philosophy could model a better way to discuss our deep differences. As I said to one who refused to speak, “If two philosophers cannot discuss these matters, then how can we ever expect anyone else to? If this debate can’t happen then how is any rational discourse possible? We might as well all go home and throw metaphorical Molotov cocktails at each other.”

I could not and still cannot see why it is transphobic to believe that gender and sex is not quite as simple as the “Transgender women are women” implies. I accept I could be wrong about this. I am open to persuasion. People like myself, JK Rowling and the trolled gender critical feminist could be tragically mistaken and our views could be deeply damaging for trans people. But if that is true it needs to be shown why it is true. It is not self-evident that it is.

Let me give just a few examples of why someone might reject the “Transgender women are women” doctrine without being in any way clearly, deliberately or consciously anti trans people.

First, one of the invited speakers who refused told me that since they would be speaking for gender diversity, it must be that the “TERF” was speaking against it. But it seems to me that to insist that the category of, say “man” must include both cisgender and trans men without distinction is to argue for less not more gender diversity. I could be wrong, but if so I am mistaken, not transphobic.

Also, if biology is irrelevant to gender, why do so many trans people have surgery to change their anatomies? Again, there may be a good answer to this question, but it is at worst naive, not transphobic, to ask it.

“TERFs” are often criticised for trying to keep people with penises out of certain all-women spaces such as rape shelters, which critics complain characterises trans people as threats. But as a cisgender man, I do not think that my exclusion from these spaces implies that all men are sexual threats, or that I am personally under any suspicion. Nor would I think the rule should not apply if I were gay and so uninterested in sex with women. So how is it transphobic to argue that some all-women spaces should exclude trans women with penises, even if that argument can be shown to be misguided?

What these examples all show, I stress, is not that the gender critical position is correct, but that it is not self-evidently wrong and certainly not inherently prejudiced or hateful. It could be the the gender critical position is inherently harmful to trans people. It could be that despite all the reasonable-sounding doubts, in all law and practice gender self-identification should be the end of the matter. But it is so far from being clear that this is the case that the argument still has to be won. And how can it be won if people who disagree are dismissed as phobic?

In an attempt to seek some clarity, I ended up talking to pretty much every woman philosopher I met, asking them to explain what I was missing. Almost all were on the side of the so-called “TERFs” but were too afraid to say so publicly.

We have to do better than this. This should be a calm, reasoned debate about the very specific question of whether sex has any important role to play in determining gender. At the moment, the debate can’t be had because one side believes there is no debate, there are only supporters of trans rights and transphobes. As a result, discussion is shut down.

My appeal to defenders of the “trans women are women” argument is stop dismissing those of us who are not yet persuaded as transphobic. Instead, engage with us, show us the errors of our ways, while being prepared to question the absolute rightness of your own.

tl;dr

• Baggini invites Stock to speak at the debate.
• Baggini tries to invite pro-trans speakers to ensure balance, but none with availability want to share a stage with a TERF.
• Baggini wrings his hands in despair, trying to wrap his mind around the mob, to reason with their fury, to see their side, to admit errors where he makes them — to engage rationally, as philosophers do. (Poor, sweet, silly man. Philosophy is powerless against a mob.)
• He comes away from the drama fully soured on the intellectual competence of TWAWers and writing a blogpost packed with TERF logic. Excellent maneuver by the anti-Stock crowd. A slam dunk for trans rights.
• Also he talks to "pretty much every woman philosopher" he meets and almost all were on the side of the so-called “TERFs” but were too afraid to say so publicly lmaooo bless Kathleen and her working spine.

According to this interview with Stock,

a failed campaign to bar her from speaking at the Royal Institute of Philosophy’s annual debate generated 6,300 likes on Twitter, but just five emails from outraged complainants.

So is Olly claiming authorship of one of those five emails? Or did he slide into Julian Baggini's DMs? In any case, it's almost too funny that HE had the nerve to "caution" (!) a professional philosopher (!!) that inviting another professional philosopher to philosophize (!!!) would "bring the profession into disrepute" (!!!!!!!!!). Disrepute! From the mouth of the man who dubbed himself a philosopher after clumsily regurgitating his professors' lectures for YouTube clicks. So terribly concerned about the reputation of philosophy, that one.

Olly is everything that alienated Baggini from TWAW types: the threats, the smugness, the indistinct accusations of harm, the despotic compulsion to squash ideas that annoy him, the smearing of debate as bigotry for fear that his own ideas would collapse in the ring. His belligerence plays well on Twitter, but he makes quiet enemies of normies every time he smacks the transphobia hammer down on something perfectly normal and desirable — which is often. He's poison to the cause. I hope the likes are worth it.

Spoiler: extra context

The private account to which he replied belongs to Nathan Oseroff-Spicer, who has a long, fraught history with Stock and supported the letter in which "she was condemned by several hundred of her academic peers." What Olly doesn't mention is the other letter written in response: a repudiation of the first letter in defense of academic freedom, also bearing hundreds of signatories. Trans issues are divisive — who knew?

Nathan also tweeted at the Royal Institute of Philosophy executive committee, trying to pressure them into signing the witch hunt letter. They did not. Good on them.

 

[Shotgun Badger]

I can't quote the previous post for some reason but I just wanted to say, I distinctly remember that Olly publicized an email he sent to some organization complaining about them platforming a 'transphobe' philosopher at one of these debates for all the usual reasons (ie, they oppose our right to exist, there is no debate, trans women are women, bigots must not be given a platform etc etc) but the organization responded back saying they weren't willing to drop the speaker. Now I can't remember if this specifically was Kathleen Stock speaking at the Royal Institute of Philosophy but may well have been. Somebody could try looking through his old tweets to confirm or deny (and of course that somebody won't be me).

 

[AfghanBlue]

I can't quote the previous post for some reason but I just wanted to say, I distinctly remember that Olly publicized an email he sent to some organization complaining about them platforming a 'transphobe' philosopher at one of these debates for all the usual reasons (ie, they oppose our right to exist, there is no debate, trans women are women, bigots must not be given a platform etc etc) but the organization responded back saying they weren't willing to drop the speaker. Now I can't remember if this specifically was Kathleen Stock speaking at the Royal Institute of Philosophy but may well have been. Somebody could try looking through his old tweets to confirm or deny (and of course that somebody won't be me).

the proper philosophers letter is so reasonable- where the fuck does Tube get off calling himself one, when he fundamentally oppposes the possibility of debate over this certain sacred cow?

they looove “debating our right to exist” bitch no, you can’t be debated out of existence, the same way that if someone lols at me for saying i’m a 58 year old jamaican man, contrary to obvious appearance, i don’t disappear in a puff of smoke.

it goes against every academic and philosophical impulse to pretend like this- that no debate is reasonable- and Tube knows that but he’s having too much fun finally be able to live his narc dreams as Che Jesus Superman which he clearly seethed about when he was just a fat rich white upper class fuck.

the fact they are seething over the very existence of differences of opinion- be it trying to grind netflix to a halt, or protest the BBC for an interview in one long think piece- it’s like chill out.
what do they think it’s like to be black or jewish or a woman (lol) and that there’s been tons of hate websites and well known, well playfoemed hate figures saying awful shit against us, pretty much non stop for ever.
What we do is just get on with it, let the morons moron, try to make positive moves amongst ourselves working for good things rather than against retarded things, and do not grace them the oxygen of publicity, because at the end of the day, people are free to have their own dumb fuck opinions and it literally doesn’t effect us.
try to find an actual incidence of terf rhetoric having a consequence.
the difference is we are dealing with autistic rage combined with narcissistic injury here.
they will not stand for any unbelievers, they need to hear you say you love big brother.

 

[scathefire]

People can't disagree with gender ideology? Is no philosophical debate allowed on gender/gender identity? I know of the Stock situation but what is he talking about?? It looks bad when there are people that have different stances on an issue? Isn't a huge point of Philosophy to discuss and debate different ideas? Wish the original tweet wasn't protected.

It's part and parcel of the ideology to reject debate; Contra's whole "JK Rowling" video was basically about how saying you want to debate trans ideology is fundamentally on the same level as wanting to genocide transpeople.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I never noticed it before, but there's something off about Olly's skull shape.

I agree, and in my opinion its that his head is massive and his flab obscures some of the lines, making it confusing to look at. It's especially bad at the jawline. I added these helpful science lines to narcissistic injury's images.

Spoiler: images

It's enormous. Like handsome squidward head, in a bad way. He's already realized you can't dress away your skeleton, and now that you can't make up your way out of your skull. Those vast planes and angles will show through.

 

[AfghanBlue]

Spoiler: Sperg about Tubes skull, and personality

Someone who was saying there's something off about Tubes skull shape is correct. It looks like a gigantic football when he's fat, and moon face now he's less so.

Thats probably why he had that stupid unfashionable posh-boy mop, as anything shorter would look even weirder. I still will never be able to get over his goatee.

Someone on the reddit posted about meeting him on a train; apparently he asked them about a shit posh pub in the posh suburb of newcastle and wether it was still about.
This says to me that he either never goes home, or has nothing to do with any of his old friends if he does. More red flags.

I have actually never seen someone who lives as much as their life bragging about everything online, mention friends less than him. Poor old claire is the only person he seems to have socialised with in a few years, and she got her face blocked out by muh fetish old glory emoji.

The one time he did mention knowing any human beings was his weird braggy ''omg sorry but my friends are so amazing and talented??! they are writing books and bla bla"

Which i guess was possibly referencing Lindsay...it just doenst look good.

Maybe thats why he's all about being top tran, it gives some kind of feeling of communion.

Posh cunts always ave to have their friends officially organised. its all about official societies and whatnot

Hah. I reckon Tube wont quite resist the urge to 'not steal the show' at this particular one. Not when aunty might be watching! Game face, babes.

 

[AssignedEva]

Spoiler: Sperg about Tubes skull, and personality

Someone who was saying there's something off about Tubes skull shape is correct. It looks like a gigantic football when he's fat, and moon face now he's less so.

Thats probably why he had that stupid unfashionable posh-boy mop, as anything shorter would look even weirder. I still will never be able to get over his goatee.

Someone on the reddit posted about meeting him on a train; apparently he asked them about a shit posh pub in the posh suburb of newcastle and wether it was still about.
This says to me that he either never goes home, or has nothing to do with any of his old friends if he does. More red flags.

I have actually never seen someone who lives as much as their life bragging about everything online, mention friends less than him. Poor old claire is the only person he seems to have socialised with in a few years, and she got her face blocked out by muh fetish old glory emoji.

The one time he did mention knowing any human beings was his weird braggy ''omg sorry but my friends are so amazing and talented??! they are writing books and bla bla"

Which i guess was possibly referencing Lindsay...it just doenst look good.

Maybe thats why he's all about being top tran, it gives some kind of feeling of communion.

Posh cunts always ave to have their friends officially organised. its all about official societies and whatnot

Hah. I reckon Tube wont quite resist the urge to 'not steal the show' at this particular one. Not when aunty might be watching! Game face, babes.
View attachment 2691351

I might pop down for a laugh, but either way I'm sure I'll have friends going to this. Hopefully I can get some juicy details of what a state Ollie is.

 

[AfghanBlue]

I might pop down for a laugh, but either way I'm sure I'll have friends going to this. Hopefully I can get some juicy details of what a state Ollie is.

lmao imagine if he turns up on a livestream to give a speech there or something. if he's got any gumption, he'd stage a scene from his cringe play, get some eyes on it ! BBC Production for Tube! Is all in the works.

Talking of said play, i wonder what kind of sized cast it has? or if its just gonna be him playing every part.

 

[esmeggs]

I distinctly remember that Olly publicized an email he sent to some organization complaining about them platforming a 'transphobe' philosopher at one of these debates for all the usual reasons (ie, they oppose our right to exist, there is no debate, trans women are women, bigots must not be given a platform etc etc) but the organization responded back saying they weren't willing to drop the speaker. Now I can't remember if this specifically was Kathleen Stock speaking at the Royal Institute of Philosophy but may well have been. Somebody could try looking through his old tweets to confirm or deny (and of course that somebody won't be me).

He did once share a letter declining to show up for a debate on how radical/gender critical feminists are being silenced. Is this what you're referring to?
The invitation:

His response:

Re-reading it now I forgot just how stupid his response was. I really can't get over how he decided to share this publicly as if it doesn't make him look like an absolute fool, similar to how mortifying it is that he decided to brag about writing a letter "cautioning" Julian Baggini against letting someone with critical thinking skills speak at an event.

Talking of said play, i wonder what kind of sized cast it has? or if its just gonna be him playing every part.

He said there would be around 8 people I think, he will be playing a role in it though. Probably the lead.

lmao americans always calling going for a walk “hiKiNg!”
get the fuck over your journey off the couch, lol.

the credits- Claire Michelle in every single frame!- are VERY Tubular aren’t they. I still cut her more slack cos i feel she’s stupid enough not to be expected to know why this is cringe and narcy.

There are amazing hikes in the area but that looks like he just strolled through someone's backyard. I imagine he'd find Rattlesnake Ridge to be a "straineous" hike, he's just as out of shape as his boyfriend. Not to hate on him too much but I also get the impression that he's too stupid to realize how narcissistic he comes off, not in the same way that Olly lacks self-awareness but in a more naive way. Not sure how to explain it.

 

[AfghanBlue]

There are amazing hikes in the area but that looks like he just strolled through someone's backyard. I imagine he'd find Rattlesnake Ridge to be a "straineous" hike, he's just as out of shape as his boyfriend. Not to hate on him too much but I also get the impression that he's too stupid to realize how narcissistic he comes off, not in the same way that Olly lacks self-awareness but in a more naive way. Not sure how to explain it.

yeah really doenst seem like a bad sort.
Tube is very much one of those people, who you can tell, after some 'bad experiences' decide that they're only gonna have relationships of any sort with people they are comfortably more intelligent than. For obvious reasons.
That actually explains his content, especially his more recent stuff. Whereas contras feels more like a discussion on more equal terms, Tube has gone full force into the 101, you're an idiot niche.

Particularly insulting how as of late, whenever there's long quotes, he just 'bla bla bla's them and piles them 'comedically' all over the screen, like, you dont have to worry about that, AbiGaOuL will think it all out for you.

As has become the refrain of this thread, I just dont know how more people dont see it.
Though I do think that that refrain is going to become dated, as happily, ever more people seem to be cottoning on.

 

[Shotgun Badger]

He did once share a letter declining to show up for a debate on how radical/gender critical feminists are being silenced. Is this what you're referring to?
The invitation:
View attachment 2692980
His response:
View attachment 2692979
Re-reading it now I forgot just how stupid his response was. I really can't get over how he decided to share this publicly as if it doesn't make him look like an absolute fool, similar to how mortifying it is that he decided to brag about writing a letter "cautioning" Julian Baggini against letting someone with critical thinking skills speak at an event.

No I distinctly remember this was before he came out as a weal woman.

Its a funny thing, I can almost see why he wouldn't partake in this debate because the framing from the first email it sounds like the organizers are starting from a more gender critical position and taking it as a given that cancel culture exists and that people like JK Rowling have been unfairly treated. 'Abigail' would probably be fighting an uphill battle.

But then, as one of the most visible trans people in Britain (lol), and a self proclaimed educator on such an important subject, and, of course, being so natural in front of the camera and having such a solid grounding in serious philosophy that she should be able to hold her own in a debate about an issue that's so important to her and such a big, hot button topic that will have ramifications for people like Abigail, isn't it kind of her responsibility to engage properly with this and take the bull by the horns?

 

[esmeggs]

Tube is very much one of those people, who you can tell, after some 'bad experiences' decide that they're only gonna have relationships of any sort with people they are comfortably more intelligent then. For obvious reasons.
That actually explains his content, especially his more recent stuff. Whereas contras feels more like a discussion on more equal terms, Tube has gone full force into the 101, you're an idiot niche.

Particularly insulting how as of late, whenever there's long quotes, he just 'bla bla bla's them and piles them 'comedically' all over the screen, like, you dont have to worry about that, AbiGaOuL will think it all out for you.

As has become the refrain of this thread, I just dont know how more people dont see it.
Though I do think that that refrain is going to become dated, as happily, ever more people seem to be cottoning on.

Yeah not to be too rude but I feel like Claire is just a dumbed-down Contrapoints replacement for Olly. As for how Olly frames himself as an authority that you need to rely on- I do think that's what his audience wants. I knew someone who would watch Contrapoints videos and when I asked them why they said that they don't really understand what Contra is saying, they just like that the videos make them feel smart (and tell them what to think). Breadtube's main audience seems to be teens and young adults that don't want to read any theory or think critically for themselves, they just want to feel intelligent and productive by listening to someone they deem smarter than them ramble on in an entertaining way.

Its a funny thing, I can almost see why he wouldn't partake in this debate because the framing from the first email it sounds like the organizers are starting from a more gender critical position and taking it as a given that cancel culture exists and that people like JK Rowling have been unfairly treated. 'Abigail' would probably be fighting an uphill battle.

But then, as one of the most visible trans people in Britain (lol), and a self proclaimed educator on such an important subject, and, of course, being so natural in front of the camera and having such a solid grounding in serious philosophy that she should be able to hold her own in a debate about an issue that's so important to her and such a big, hot button topic that will have ramifications for people like Abigail, isn't it kind of her responsibility to engage and take these kinds of things by the horns?

If trans rights activism is so obviously correct you'd think he wouldn't sweat a debate with some feminists that want to challenge that. Even Contra used to attend debates with "right wing" figures, which he said was to persuade any centrists that were present (in reality I think this was because he wanted to see Theryn and Blaire White). TRAs aren't willing to engage in actual debate because they know their ideas won't hold up to scrutiny, so they just resort to threatening and silencing any opposition.

 

[AfghanBlue]

But then, as one of the most visible trans people in Britain (lol), and a self proclaimed educator on such an important subject, and, of course, being so natural in front of the camera and having such a solid grounding in serious philosophy that she should be able to hold her own in a debate about an issue that's so important to her and such a big, hot button topic that will have ramifications for people like Abigail, isn't it kind of her responsibility to engage properly with this and take the bull by the horns?

what, and have any one of his flagrant, bare faced inane lies challenged by someone who has done their research and has working faculties of critical thought?

No, Tube is doing very nicely off of those mistruths...well, he's trying to.
I suspect he's starting to feel like he's treading water a bit now...wondering when the big payoff for being Trans Princess is properly going to come.

Maybe if his post-Troon output hadnt been so poor..
and once he's embarrassed himself with his pity part, hasty zeitgheist cast role in 'Django', he'll be done professionally; then it will be the painful diminishing fade-out..

Thats why he's making another big attempt with his desperate play, this is his grand gesture, that he's a bit annoyed he had to self actualise...;
Narcs always have a dream, usually a vaguely specific fantasy, where they are fulfilled, and he thought this was going to be it, or it might happen sooner.
Lol, maybe he thought he could get Contrapoints as a gf, who knows.

There is no way he would do that debate, ironically it would have possibly given him the leverage, if he'd done a good job, of propelling him further, making him like a pro trans Jordan Peterson, but he frankly knows his arguments dont hold water.

And this fact, is why he seethes about how transphobic the world is- because it is, to him.
the mistruths he feels he needs to unpromptedly propagate...are not reality, henceforth, reality= currently transphobic.

HIs head is fucked, babes. And i dont just mean the shape and size.

He is a bad actor, a mediocre talent across the board, but his aspirations painfully go beyond his capabilities.
That would be shown in harsh relief at this- if there was a single chance he would reign victorious at said debate, my god he'd have taken it.

But dont worry, soon he'll be desperate enough to take some punts like these (see: possibly the BBC protest later today) and we will be here with the milk pail.

 

[PennyAni]

Go outside and build self confidence.

I go on a hike and explore some ideas around loneliness.Check out Maxx's video here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPg6MjFeyyc- Merch!http://www.teespring....

www.youtube.com

i hate claire's..... language skills?

in this video, a few times she says "straineous" when meaning to say strenuous (just after 1:05, 2:25)

similar to my disgust with "gender fluality", i googled it to make sure it wasnt me that's crazy

she's really not the brightest

all the videos have a vacuous quality.... the "content" is almost entirely faux awe and inspiration and reflective contemplation

I want to say that she's saying "extraneous". That's what it sounds like to my ear, but that doesn't seem to....make any sense....given the context.

One of us here is Englishing wrong.