Gervais on Twitter

Unfortunately we've reached a weird point in our society where it's more important to respect someone's pronouns than it is to talk about their interest in abusing women, races, and, most importantly, children.
.
People would rather talk about how "brave" it is to force someone to touch their genitals than talk about how depraved it is to demand anyone uncomfortable with it to do so in the first place.
.
And for the record iirc these were all female-only salons as well. Which makes it pretty clear to any person with two brain cells to rub together that they are wanting to deal with vaginas exclusively. Regardless of how you identify.
.
I believe Yaniv specifically picked them that way. It's almost like Yaniv wanted to specifically have women looking at and touching their genitals. Much brave.
.
But we won't talk about that.

Because a lot of people seem to think talking about this shit will just make people go "ha! See! I told you! The trans community is a disgusting haven of predators!" Or something.
.
Reality is, if we DON'T talk about it, that's exactly what these communities become. Predators are experts at exploitation. If they think they can be shielded behind political correctness they absolutely will hide behind that shield whenever possible.
.
And it's not okay.
.
A lot of the trans community is horrified and enraged by the way Yaniv has behaved and are terrified Yaniv set them back years with this behaviour. And the fact that Yaniv used them to get away with this for so long.

Jonathon lied about being born with a vagina then said he had a spiritual vagina and also said little girls should be naked with no privacy and I hope they get jailed for a long time.
He does not represent anyone in the LGBT community. Especially since he is not a part of it. He is using it as a guise.

Indeed.
.
Supposedly they were arrested recently for assaulting a journalist. Haven't seen anything much about them being arrested for hate crimes, harassment, or sexual solicitation of a minor yet, mind you.
.
Now I can only assume we get to spend time arguing over whether they serve their time in a male or female prison.
.
Given they're still being referred to as "Jessica" by a lot of places, and this is Canada, I'm not sure I'm gonna like the answer

Holy shit. Thank you so much @xvarnah
That is absolutely disgusting. I'm so glad that I know now. Thank you

If you offer “waxing of the vulva” then you wax vulvas. If you offer of the labia or etc etc. if you offer a more general wax covering a clients pelvis and or genitals than you wax genitals. All genitals. This isn’t so difficult. It’s lazy. Imprecise language is used where there is little risk or consequence (or care for consequence) for interpretation. If you need precise language- use precise language.

@xvarnah- They may be a predator. I’m honestly not familiar with their story. If they are a predator then they certainly should face consequences for that behavior. That said- last I checked that had nothing to do with discrimination- or Ricky’s reply about a lady getting her balls shaved. I am unaware of the clause that says a High school teacher convicted of sleeping with her underage students is not allowed to get her vagina waxed. In fact- I’m pretty sure that save as it relates to being around children or those thingsbrelating to their crimes- there aren’t laws that punish sex offenders or other convicts from regular commerce and protections from class based discrimination?

Telling someone you won’t hire them because they are a creepy predator isn’t the same thing as saying you won’t hire them because they are transsexual- and of course- everything I’ve said applies to protected class like gender. So I don’t actually know of this person is trans or in drag- or just uses “women’s clothes” and other things to look like a woman so they can commit crimes.

If they are a trans woman- they are a woman. If they drag- the same principals apply- if you wax privates you wax privates. If you only cater to women and they are a “cross dressed male” they aren’t a woman obviously- they self identify as male. But.... it’s immaterial as the existence of a woman’s only or man’s only business can be questioned as discriminatory anyway if certain factors aren’t met- ask the boy scouts and Girl Scouts about that one.

Women’s only gyms have also faced legal losses in many jurisdictions as have “ladies nights” and similar practices at venues to encourage female attendance through discounts or compensation.

She was "discriminated" against because it was a small women's salon and they felt uncomfortable and can refuse service if it's a dude forcing women to touch him and going to gynecologists and trying to talk to children around 10 about inserting tampons and trying to see "girls things hanging out" and possessing a taser (illegal where Jonathon is from) they are a liar and tries to force women to touch him by saying it's "transphobic" when he says he's trans but he also said he was born with a vagina and a penis. Point is he lies don't take his side and say assault is okay if they identify as a women. He is trying to force people to touch him.
This is a big spit wad on the whole trans community. LGBT hates him for a reason. He isn't trans. He is a predator and he is disgusting. He is not just going to salons. He is going to small mom n pop shops and when they tell him they are uncomfortable he tries to sue them. He said little girls should be naked and have no privacy

You guest_ always analyze the wrong thing and have fucked opinions and write screenfulls of bullshit while pretending to make a point. Don't stick up for Jonathon. Stick up for good people.

Don’t stick up for good people- stick up for all people. There’s circumstance and principal. Circumstances are considered case by case- principal is considered as a whole. I didn’t stick up for this person anywhere. I’m sorry you lack the intelligence to consider things discreetly and assume that for instance- saying it is wrong to torture and accused murderer means you support Charles Manson

Ricky doesn’t comment on this specific person- the reply in the actual thread is to the concept of women not being able to get their balls waxed. Not about this person or about their specific instance.

This persons behavior has nothing to do with wether or not transsexuals should be able to get their balls waxed.

Which you are running with. Do not defend every single human being. Don't defend people like onision and Jonathon. Besides if a worker feels uncomfortable it is okay to deny service and suggest other places. This was about a shitty person trying to force women to touch him.
As always you focus on something that isn't the point.

Honestly every debate or conversation ends the same. You act all righteous like you're sticking up for people and think you're right when it's actually just spewing bullshit and repeating it for paragraphs at a time about something that wasn't the issue or not the point to begin with. And when people show you you just run with your own "I'm sticking up for a group and u obvi r not even tho u r not sayin anything about it"
Like why even make these novels on the same shit every post on any topic

I don’t know about “every post” but of you want to throw sand perhaps you could:
1. Try to stick to the post we are presently in.
2. Stop trying to make a post about Ricky Gervais making fun of transsexual issues into a post about what one specific transsexual did?

The density of certain folks often requires repetition. Trying to say the same thing over and over in different ways that the person may hopefully understand. I can’t use sock puppets for you. It’s the internet. I just have words and a sincere hope you might be able to understand if I can find just the right ones to fit your vocabulary.

Because you’re calling me out for being off issue when nothing in the original post was about this one person. Many people hate Trump. Many hated Obama etc. what they do or don’t do doesn’t mean that we don’t give them the same rights or considerations of process that we would any other person just because we find them distasteful. That’s why we give criminals public defenders. Why a lawyer any say “this person is too gross to defend.” Because there is the person and there is the principal.

Idk if this was touched on but these salons are women only. This does not mean "excluding trans." This means "our technicians are only trained and comfortable dealing wth female genitalia. If you do not possess these, kindly go somewhere that is suitable to your needs." As far as I know not one single person said "I'm sorry, we don't deal with transgender here." Iirc most of the salons Yaniv portrayed themself as a fully transitioned or even biological woman. I seem to remember at least one salon even potentially ASKED if they were transitioned fully and Yaniv confirmed it (but may need to double check that).
.
Yaniv blatantly lied, essentially ambushed the technicians, and then tried to punish them for it.

I don’t have to try to be righteous if you’re so small minded you can’t understand that.

Idk how my comment ended up in the middle of yours but sorry bout that - wasn't attempting to interrupt. You weren't there when I started is the only explanation I have

someone being incorrect about one thing does not make them incorrect in another. the idea that someone should never be listened to or allowed to be considered correct because of something to do with them on an unrelated or only haphazardly related topic.
you wouldnt get away with refusing to sell a new bath tub to an alleged murderer who is said to have drowned people in a river.
"This is a big spit wad on the whole trans community. LGBT hates him for a reason. He isn't trans. He is a predator and he is disgusting. He is not just going to salons. He is going to small mom n pop shops and when they tell him they are uncomfortable he tries to sue them. He said little girls should be naked and have no privacy "
none of that matters. character evidence is bad evidence. unsupported conjecture.
plus seeing with the fact that resorting to personal attacks on someone you disagree with is a thing, you need to take that 10 and bring it down to a 2. that shit is unbecoming of such a good website.

@xvarnah- no worries- and I didn’t see it until now and would like you to know my response was not directed towards you. I understand what you are saying and largely agree- as I said originally- it’s fine if a specialist only does vaginas. That’s no more discrimination than an auto mechanic who doesn’t fix toasters- unless we use it for discrimination in ways that make no sense- such as a McDonald’s that won’t sell burgers to people without vaginas or a job as an accountant that requires applicants to have a penis.

And nothing in anything I have said has said that this salon or any salon should be forced to accept THIS customer. My comments were to the general issue and Gervais’s comment that it is a sad day when a woman can’t get her balls waxed. It IS when A woman can’t because she is a woman with balls. It is not sad when a creepy guy gets turned away in a non discriminatory way. Gervais didn’t speak on that and neither did I. Everyone else did.

@bethorien- not 100% sure who the last part of your message is addressed to. I can say this- I agree with your bathtub example and overall logic. I am not nor did I ever say I support THIS person or think THIS shop should be forced to serve them. I was very clear and precise and many people seem to be placing words in my mouth I didn’t say and making a topic about Ricky Gervais sarcastically commenting about women getting their calls waxed about one specific person.

Yes- Gervais was responding to a person that all accounts seem to label a scum bag. But he was not specifically putting down this person- his comment wasn’t on their character or situation but on the broader topic effecting any Female transgender person with a penis. I didn’t not say a business should t be able to turn away customers for legitimate reasons- I said that Having balls alone is not a legitimate reason to discriminate unless your service precludes having balls.

As to wether they are tans or not- I can’t say. Who gets to decide a person is trans? It seems rather shaky to me that we’d put it to a vote- given the history of transgender rights struggles I’m rather reluctant to say that a person needs to meet certain criteria or pass a vote to be trans. This person doesn’t represent the trans community. I can understand the trans community not wanting to be associated with this man. But I suppose there’s a nuance there? The “Black” community or individuals within can of course say “so and so isn’t black” and refuse to consider them or accept them as part of the community- but...

... they may still consider themselves black regardless- and regardless of the perceptions of them and the community or identity they self identify as- those outside their community will identify them as they will. Princess Meg is a prominent example- some would identify he as white with a mixed black background- some would say she is black and mixed white- some consider her one or the other and so on. What does she consider herself? Which one defines who she is?

And truly- it could be a case where this person doesn’t self identify as trans. As I said before- I don’t know them or of them well. So I won’t label them and will merely say that as I have been saying- my issue is with Ricky Gervais’s comments as they relate to trans individuals as a group- not anything specific to whoever this person is.

@guest_ ioh I knew your comments weren't directed at me specifically overall, or even at this specific situation. I still think it's important to keep in mind what was going on IN this specific situation. A lot of people have lauded this person as a hero in the past and will condemn the salons for their "bigotry"

I agree. But I also think it’s important to divorce and not conflate the two issues. It’s of course ideal for context to offer up this individuals history. However the history of the individual has nothing to do with the non specific comments Ricky Gervais made in the topic of women with balls getting waxed- not this specific person not getting their balls waxed.

It’s the difference between someone replying to something said by Hillary Clinton or AOC or Sarah Palin etc. and saying that THEY are incompetent or a hypocrite or criminal etc- and saying that women are incompetent etc. if Gervais comment had been directed at this person or their specific instance that’s what I would be discussing. It was not- it was a sarcastic lament about “women with balls” which is not specific to this person or this situation.

In point of fact- if what others have said is true and this person was not refused service for having balls, but for conduct etc- then Gervais’s comment doesn’t even apply to this persons specific situation. Regardless- this specific persons situation has nothing to do with wether it is a shame or not when “women with balls” can’t get them waxed. It is in fact a shame when “women with balls” can’t get them waxed simply because they have balls.

the second part of my statement was directed at the person ive never seen nor heard of before, not either of yall.

It wasn't character evidence or was things he said himself. In the comment you posted I had no 'personal' attacks in it. Though guest had had several against me.
And guest, most waxing salons do not cater to male genitalia as most of the women there aren't trained or may feel uncomfortable. That's fine. They can simply say "why not try this place" it isn't an attack on any community. Like if someone doesn't feel attracted to someone it isn't an attack on anything of them. Seeing as you'll only talk about how awful it is salons won't wax the genitals most of the workers posses or are uncomfortable with. Ricky Gervais is a comedian. He makes jokes. "some guy is lying to salons to make them touch his penis and now he's suing them for being transphobic wow how brave" "haha sure Jan" is basically that post but you wanna act like a simp to groups so go ahead bro like anytime I see your comments there's only dislikes so people probably feel the same I was just stupid enough to respond

“Most” is not a number I can find statistical backing for. “Many” is perhaps a more acceptable vaguely for purposes of this conversation- but perhaps you can find or have some hard numbers to back “most.” Certainly a lot don’t. And that is fine. As I’ve said- numerous times. If a doctor specializes in Cardiology it isn’t discrimination for them to refuse to treat a patient with genital warts- even if they theoretically have the means and basic medical training to do so- if they say that they are comfortable with that and we can say objectively that their odds of doing harm or no good- or just plain being uncomfortable with the process- are based on that then that’s a practical matter.

In the case of this “Jess” or whoever I’d say the evidence doesn’t support they are being discriminated against for being a trans woman- and specific to them they are an inherently problematic person who seems like they would be genuinely unpleasant to deal with- which again- is not discrimination regardless of what race or whatever else a person is- it’s fine to refuse service to someone who would be just as unpleasant or creepy regardless of how they were born or what those beliefs are etc.

You don’t read. You don’t listen. You come to me with your 99 comments- I’ve never heard of you or from you- and if I have I don’t recall it. You seem to know me. You seemed eager to tell me from the get go what you thought about me and my comments that you didn’t read or didn’t comprehend. And you got offended when I told you that you either didn’t read, didn’t understand, or just aren’t capable of doing so and having a discussion with me. You did make the choice to discuss this and that may we’ll have been foolish of you because you seem incapable of listening, and unwilling to learn. If you were at least up for one or the other- then perhaps it could be an exchange of ideas but you’re trying to talk about waffles on a conversation about airplanes and that doesn’t really work. But I for my part at least tried to indulge the conversation you seemed to want to have even if it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

Ricky Gervais is a comedian. He was given a woman almost no one likes regardless of their politics or feelings about transgender issues- a universal target that almost no one would be unhappy if he tore her up. As you said- he was given a great set up. An unpleasant creep and troll bullying small business owners because they wouldn’t touch their genitals. And of ALL the amazing, funny, biting jokes that could have been made about the situation or at this persons expense with basically a free pass- Ricky chose to make a joke that isn’t about this specific person or situation but about “women with balls.”

I don’t know how much you understand about humor or language- and English seems like it might not be your first language (which as a compliment you are doing very well with t for a non native speaker, and I should have considered that earlier as a possible reason for your lack of understanding and apologize.)

So let me try to explain this simply- a “negative joke” can still be very funny. WHO is the target of a joke is important. We can make a joke about Hollywood- or we can make a joke about a specific person in Hollywood. If I say: “Ricky Gervais’s agent is just a mailbox, and of the flag is up he knows he has a job...” I’m making fun of Ricky Gervais. The joke is “at his expense.” If I say: “Man. With the me too movement male comedians agents are just a mail box...” the subject is “male comedians” but I’m actually making fun of either the me too movement or the state of affairs in Hollywood. The meaning there is contextual. If I say: “Comedians agents are just a mail box...” I’m making fun of comedians.

There is a school of thought to freedom of speech and comedy which says nothing and no one should be off limits- and I believe in the truth in that. Comedy is a powerful tool for shining light on social and other issues. Unlike these long dry posts- comedy takes the same issues and puts them in a digestible form that people are not only more likely to consume, but are more likely to pay attention to and absorb. We casually consume comedy which makes it also a great (for good or bad) tool to shape ideas without people realizing they are having their ideas shaped.

No joke exists without reason or in a vacuum. I’m not here to teach nor is the this best forum to teach analysis and concepts of humor and psychology of humor. Where a joke exists there is a form of truth in way way or another. A piece of the speaker is there- and for us to laugh there is some relation to that truth in us. That doesn’t mean a person making or laughing at a racial joke is racist- for example the humor can be in the exaggeration- or a form of parody- people laugh when Borat or Colbert do their “extreme right” or “extreme capitalist” etc bits not because they think kindergarteners should have guns- but because the exaggeration of the stance is beyond what one would expect anyone to actually hold- because the parody of their caricature of a certain type of person is outlandish.

The psychological root of humor lies in safety. When a joke is “too close to home” people tend not to laugh because that safety doesn’t exist. Now- deconstruct the idea that it is a shame that “women with balls” can’t get them waxed and what is our root there? The exaggeration comes from a thought process that it is outlandish either a woman would have balls- or that a person with balls would be considered a woman. At its root the joke feeds from and off of a latent disregard to the existence of transsexuals as outlandish.

"You guest_ always analyze the wrong thing and have fucked opinions and write screenfulls of bullshit while pretending to make a point. Don't stick up for Jonathon. Stick up for good people. "
no personal attacks you say?

Actually not personal. I never said anything about them as a person just shit they do. Saying someone is continously waving isn't a personal attack.
And guest honestly I've stopped reading your comments because it's novels of the same thing and it's continually something either off topic or something that technically pertains to it but no one is bringing up and it's repetive as with all comments I've seen

Dude- you’re the one in my comment thread talking about things that have nothing to do with my comment. You can try to gas light and posture but that’s not even close to reality. Regardless- It’s the internet- why are you here if you don’t want to be here? Keep walking.

that is indeed a personal attack. You are attack him rather than his current arguement. trying to make him look bad and potentially trying to make him feel bad instead of attacking his current aguement. that's a personal attack. thats character evidence and completely and utterly useless in anything other than than the court of public opinion. its also completely your negative opinion of him stated as fact which is slander as well.

Not that it matters but I'm fairly certain nothing of what he's said could be construed as actual slander. Or, in this case, libel.
.
They've stated guest_ posts long comments (which guest_ does and has acknowledged in the past), and they've stated their thoughts on guest_ doing that. They've also said guest_ goes off-topic (something I've said before as well btw), and behaves in a self-righteous manner while doing so. Essentially Faith called guest_ a windbag in a conversation with guest_ on a public forum.
.
No one's obligated to agree with Faith, but slander and libel are actual criminal offenses as far as I know, and accusing someone of committing them is a pretty serious thing to do based on a difference of opinion.

“You... always analyze the wrong thing and wrote screens full of bullshit and have fucked opinions...” This was one of the first comments faith entered the thread with. Before I had ever replied to them or even had a chance to read their preceding point, and without bothering to even try to communicate. Just to be clear.

Now, slander in the more serious sense you describe xvarnah is a noun- the legal definition of slander. Slander as a verb is merely false or misrepresented and defaming statements. As you say- I DO often write long posts. That is true. Do I get off topic? I’m sure I do, we all do, we can split hairs on where, hoe often and so on- although as I’ve pointed out- there is a certain irony in posting that when the person saying it is themselves responding to a post completely off the topic of what they are responding to, and then dedicates a whole post to discussing their personal opinions or feelings about a person.

Is it slander? In the strictest sense I suppose the qualifier “always” would be false- as hardly anything if anything is “always,” is it defamatory? I dunnoh. My feelings aren’t too hurt all things considered. But in casual parlance we can certainly say that faith has misrepresented statements and facts- by their own admission disregarded them entirely by not even being bothered to read the responses given (they say plainly that they didn’t read the response before replying to it- I can quote it if that helps.) So slander is certainly a strong word but it isn’t an incorrect usage of a word. Personally I consider this more of a tantrum myself- or some form of cognitive dissidence perhaps. But to each their own. We do have to consider the difference between opinion and stating as fact in the use of slander- and we could likely go on for some length debating those fine points but ultimately I don’t know that it is worth that level of precision as no charges are being filed.

Tl:dr- “slander” doesn’t always rise to criminal burdens and has use in language outside the legal definitions of slander. We could say the term may or may not be slightly hyperbolic in this this instance- and we would really have to sift through the question of stated fact versus stated opinion- but I suppose in a non legal sense one could freely consider parts of this thread slander or not as they so choose without abusing the word.

So I stated you write too much and I don't agree and how you get off topic and you mock my intelligence
So- yea I'm def the problem here
-Yall (guest and bethori-whatever) blatantly ignore how guest_ had personal attacks and only focus on "mine" when you didn't even call me out on calling him a simp almost as if you wanna paint me the bad guy and make yourself look better-
But yall ain't ready to talk about that

@guest_ waxing genitals takes different techniques depending on what genitalia they have. Yaniv doesn’t deserve to be defended, he’s a pedophile with a period fetish and gets off on forcing people to do things they don’t want to do, for the sake of “equality”

@faithismrwhiskers- I didn’t mock your intelligence. I said that I felt sorry that you lacked the intelligence to consider discreet aspects of a topic. That isn’t mocking- it is my opinion based on our conversation and the fact that you cannot separate the fact that ONE “trans” individual who is disgusting doesn’t warrant a reply from a public figure that undermines ALL trans people even if they have nothing to do with the person in question. I later apologized having realized from further conversation that it may not be a matter of intelligence but that you just might not be a native English speaker which could certainly explain why you don’t seek able to understand the subtlety of what I’m saying.

@sassyllamaaeswuire- I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth. I doubt you will read this whole thread and do not blame you for not- it is long and mostly pointless. Anyone is welcome to dig up a quote and prove me wrong- I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS PERSON AND NEVER HAVE. I don’t care about this person beyond what I know making me feel they are slime. My post never had anything to do with this person. My post is about Ricky Gervais and trans rights.

I said that any waxing shop that CAN and DOES wax balls should wax trans balls- and that any shop that cannot or does not wax balls on “men” is fine to continue not waxing balls. The key here is wether a person is being turned away fro being trans or for having balls. I never said THIS PERSOM should have been waxed. I said that Gervais comment about “women with balls” isn’t targeted at one person but any person who is a “woman with balls.”

Talking to you is pointless, you're too much of a "I'm always right and I am on the good side and every one not on my side is stupid"
And I understand that you believe you are fighting "the good fight" by ignoring the actual topic and focusing on a tiny detail and blowing it out of proportion to get it up to 5 paragraphs. You act as though I must be stupid to have any other opinion than yours or call you out for being self righteous so you try and pin whatever narrative you wish on me which I would say is more "character" whatever the hell bethor- whatever was trying to push
Tl;dr surprisingly enough I'm not stupid you're just too self righteous to "stick" up for people that the post isn't about whilst not supporting anyone. You're pretending to be supportive much like simps do to women. Speaking to you at all is completely pointless as you nit pick everything that isn't the main focus.
-I've been on funsubstance for years and holy shit when did it become cancer-

Let me make it simple. If a store refuses to serve a Latino man who has been caught stealing there and assaulted an employee- or who has assaulted employees elsewhere- that’s fine. If a store refuses to fix Hawaiian woman’s watch because they sell dog toys that is also fine. If a store refuses to serve ANY Latino men because one Latino man stole and assaulted an employee; or a store that fixes watches refuses to fix one Hawaiian woman’s watch when they fix watches of her brand but they don’t like Islanders- those last two are wrong.

No it would be like a man going into a salon and asking for a wax when they don't service dicks and saying "sorry but maybe you can try elsewhere"
Edit: Even if someone is trans it's okay to say "I apologize maam but we cannot service you. Please try X"

It's like you don't understand that the whole post was a man trying to force a woman to touch him and someone stupid acted like it was "so brave" and you ignore that to just jump on the "omg so brave"
Like it wasn't about actual trans rights going into salons it was about a pedophile trying to force a woman to touch him and people acting like that's okay. Then a comedian makes fun of him.
Is it from your lack of intelligence or are you not a native English speaker?

@faithismrwhiskers- I can admit when I’m wrong and have done so many times on this very site. The problem is YOU ARENT TALKING ABOUT WHAT I AM. READ. I’m not focused on her- I’m talking about Ricky Gervais’s response. If someone was talking to Osama Bin Laden complaining about not getting waxed and said: “It’s a shame when an Arab can’t get waxed...” That has nothing to do with HIM- that’s aimed at ALL Arabs. If Gervais had come after HER and HER BEHAVIOR I wouldn’t have a problem with it. He said it is a shame when a “woman with balls” can’t get a wax.

Omfg it's a type of joke, it's a way to be like "wow yea much sad" because most all salons- it's not aimed at- oh my fucking God it truly is hopeless.
Again you didn't even addresses the bit when I spell out the entire post just for you.
Keep thinking whatever you wish there's no showing you anything. Continue to focus on something that isn't even addressed about a literal pedophiliac man. Like you're on the same side as the reporter that posted it bruh
Holy shit I hate funsubstance now like people like you and that one super racist girl and all the other simps and incels I can't holy fuck dude

You’ve said you’re frustrated and pointed out my inability to converse. This will require you to read if you are genuine about anything you’ve said.

You care here and immediately accused me of missing the point of the post, of missing the important parts of the subject, of not relenting or considering other people. Consider your behavior. You cake into a post about a specific aspect of the content and began chastising me for not discussing what you think should be discussed- what others are discussing elsewhere in this thread and could be discussed there.

I am discussing one specific aspect of this thread. Based on just the information in the post- not inference or extrapolation or conjecture I am discussing what was said- the words used. I’ve reiterated this to you multiple times. I’ve agreed that this specific predator shouldn’t have to be served and is gross- but that outrage at a single predator doesn’t excuse language which targets all members of a group.

If you want to discuss how horrible this person is walk down to Xvarnahs thread below this where people are talking about that. That isn’t what I cake here for. We don’t need 16 threads all saying the same thing. I saw another aspect of the post that seemed interesting to discuss. You haven’t made one comment on that other than to say: “Ricky Gervais is a comedian...” as if being a comedian excuses everything a person could say or do. “Kramer” is a comedian... why’d everyone get so upset they started spewing N bombs on stage...? Derp. Comedy isn’t a job that automatically makes anything you say free from scrutiny.

Tl:dr- you’re getting mad at me for starting a thread that isn’t discussing what YOU want to talk about, then getting upset at me that I am continuing not to discuss what you want to discuss, then getting upset and accusing me of refusing to stay on topic and ignoring what people have to say in “self righteousness” when you have said clearly you refuse to read most of what I wrote before replying; you got upset that I can’t see anyone else’s view and insist I’m right.. and you’re still in a thread discussing a totally different topic insisting I’m some sort of stubborn idiot because I won’t agree that my post should have been about what your opinion is and what you want to talk about? Examine your behavior.

I'm not at all upset you're talking about this post. It's the fact you're all angry at a comedian making a joke about a man that harrasses him and is obsessed with him. Yaniv CONSTANTLY tweets about Gervais whilst also saying girls shouldn't have privacy and how obsessed with tampons. This wasn't an attack to anyone but yaniv. Obviously you don't know but I assumed you would have tried to look into what you were talking about since people talked about yaniv. Then you got mad that an only female salon was uncomfortable with waxing nuts when the person lied to make it seem as if they had a labia. Salons can turn someone down if they feel uncomfortable. Gynecologists can turn away trans women that have penises. As a gynecologist did to yaniv. Because they specialize in vaginas. As do most salons.
Gervais made a joke about one person. The one person that constantly harrasses him and talks about him on Twitter because they are obsessed.
This is the whole post. That's all.

The requirements for libel and slander are different in various places, in quite a few places the statements don't even have to be false, they just have to be said or structured in a way meant to put the person or entity in a negative light or harm their image

@bethorien- that is a good point I failed to consider. I do still maintain that I don’t consider the word to misused- but do allow that individuals may feel they would use a different word or not.

@faithismrwhiskers- what part of “it’s a sad state of affairs when a lady can’t get her balls waxed” is targeted at Yaniv, specific to Yaniv- or is about ANY of that? “It’s a sad state when a creepy pedophile can’t get their balls waxed...” “it’s a sad state when a sexual abuser can’t get their balls waxed...” THOSE would be targeted and relevant to Yaniv or at least to a group affiliation we can agree is relevant to her getting her balls waxed. What do “ladies with balls” have to do with it other than her being a “lady with balls?”

Think about it please. David Berkowitz aka “Son of Sam” is not a nice man who deserves allies. He is also Jewish. If you wanted to insult David Berkowitz when he complains that the prison guards refuse to give him treatment other prisoners get would you say “it’s a shame when a serial killer can’t get preferential treatment...” or would you say: “It’s a shame when a Jew can’t get preferential treatment?” Is this something you understand? (I’m asking in earnest- not as an insult.) The words he used don’t apply directly to Yaniv- they imply that ALL trans people in ALL circumstances are included in the mockery.

I can't tell if you either don't know the yaniv case or you feel like you're too far into this to say "yea yaniv is trash I'm glad Gervais called him out"
He said lady with balls because yaniv always says she's a dainty/lgbt/lesbian/period lady like yaniv want people to not see him just as a female but as a dainty lady that's oppressed and can't fight back because this dainty lady is disabled. It's all to make yaniv seem vulnerable. Someone can't be abusive if they're so weak right?
So Gervais uses yanivs words against him to use it as a comedy joke and to be all "oh yea sure yaniv" if you don't know the whole yaniv case then you can't just go off on a tiny aspect that isn't the main point of a comedian roasting a pedophile through a lying reporter

Faith... please. Read. Don’t just speak. Read. We aren’t too far for me to say Yaniv is a pedophile or anything else. I literally just said 5 posts above this that Yaniv is a predator. I’ve said it multiple times. Do you want me to go back through this WHOLE thread and show you every single time I have condemned their actions or said I do not condone them? I know I’m never too far to say I’m wrong. Do you? You make valid arguments but they have nothing to do with what I am discussing. We don’t disagree that Yaniv is a creep.

As for “Yanivs own words..” has Yaniv called themselves a lady with balls? Is it just that Yaniv calls themselves a lady- because you know who else does... rhetorical question.

My entire point was that's the whole point of the post. The post is about that. About yaniv. Solely yaniv. You keep going on about Gervais and making it seem like he's transphobic and something about salons when the post is about yaniv. It's a joke. About yaniv. Only yaniv. That's my whole point.
I'm saying either you don't know about WHY this post was made or to WHOM the joke was aimed towards

When they say "harms reputation" they mean in an egregious and often irrevocable manner by saying things like "that guy rapes children."
.
Saying "that guy is a long-winded idiot" may be seen as MEAN, but harmful to his reputation? Hardly. It won't impact his ability to work. It won't change peoples' interactions with him. You can't measure his actual intelligence - it's an opinion.
.
He'll, I've been in conversations/disagreements where guest_ more or less implied I was an uneducated bigot on this same forum which is honestly far closer to actual defamation. (Fyi only using it as an example)
.
Slander and libel also require a certain degree of third-party involvement. Guest_ is here, defending himself, and the comments were directed TO guest_. faith wasn't going around telling people Guest_ was arrested for attempted murder. He didn't contact Guest_'s places of work and say guest_ cheated on his wife or whatever

If you're going to try and label every possible insult and opinion as an act of defamation then you may as well start with yourself. Go back and review every insult you've ever slung. Heck, any even *possibly* offensive statement. If you didn't start it with "I think," then you're now slandering/libelling that person apparently.
.
And apparently free speech doesn't exist in any sense of the word either
.
This is a very unsettling world you're trying to create here and I'm 99% certain no one is going to want to live in it

@faithismrwhiskers- oh. I see now that I was wrong. Everything I’ve said here is wrong. You are right. I apologize for not being able to see it your way sooner, and for my many failings as you have stated- or feel free to add more and consider this an endorsement of whatever else you would like to add. Well. That solves this problem. Have a good one and see you around, having closed this one out I am on to enjoy other areas of the site. Have a good one.

Ah yes be a manipulative dickhead as all your comments continue to be. Honestly surprised it was under 5 paragraphs

As a side note - Why are you guys even still talking about this? You don't see eye to eye, you could spend the next 5000 comments talking and I don't think you'll ever see eye to eye. At this point I can't imagine either of you are getting any value out of this back and forth...
.
It doesn't make any difference to me if this is what you guys want to do. Just doesn't seem like this is making either of you particularly happy