[Beso]

I laughed at a joke once.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It was only a couple of weeks ago you were posting how much you like me

What?


To address the point itself, I can like/dislike anyone and still agree/disagree with their opinions or pull them up on whatever they're doing that I think is wrong.
That would be blindly supporting those I like and blindly disagreeing with the ones I don't.

But in answer to your question about your posts, maybe you don't realise you're doing it? Fair enough, but it's there a lot.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, aggressively ordering someone to do what you want is definitely the way to go about it.

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

A journalist? Seriously?

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Livia

A journalist? Seriously? And she wrote that?

JK Rowling is entitled to her own opinion, whatever it is. The world doesn't actually revolve around transsexual women, although you would think it kind of does. We rarely hear about women who have transitioned to men... oh no... that is not where the drama lies.

Do what you need to do to make yourself happy, but don't round on born women if their opinion isn't exactly the same as yours.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

I don't think the blue tick means you're necessarily a celebrity, it just means that the identity of the user has been officially verified so it's definitely who they say they are.

Anybody can pay to have that done, you won't always be approved though. I think they take into account how many followers and the amount of "public interest". So "celebs" are more likely due to their high profiles.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maru

Twitter is confusing to me now, because I don't understand their checkmarking system anymore. It used to be that the people with it were notable, and I would be like oh I learned something today... now 50% of the them either fit into some activist category (LGBT for example) or a semi-journalist, or a semi-actor and I'm still confused why they have a checkmark... it's like CBB's definition of a celebrity. Like who is going to bother to dupe those accounts when they have almost no activity on them...

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

This is exactly why I do not participate in 'Social Media'. I think it's a 'scary' thing.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As far as I know, it's just a confirmation of identity? Like they have supplied evidence to Twitter that they really are the person in their pic / bio, and not a "fake account". I guess back in it's earlier days it would mostly be celebrities that needed verified / official accounts because they would be the most likely to have their account cloned, but these days I guess anyone who "uses their name professionally" might need to protect themselves from cloned accounts and imposters. Especially people who get into "heated subjects" and are likely to be targetted by someone with an axe to grind.

I think it should be offered to everyone as standard really... a "certification" mark if you supply proof of identity. My wife had her facebook account cloned by a malicious little **** half way around the world a few years ago, who she had argued with on a random page, and he had taken her pictures and name and started posting slanderous crap everywhere. It took facebook FOREVER to sort it out and have the account removed.

It's not offered to everyone. It never used to even be something we could request I don't think? I remember first seeing it and looking it up to see how to get them and there wasn't an article. Sometimes a celebrity would have an account, we would know it, but they never received a checkmark for the longest time until they had more activity... enough to get noticed anyway.

Now they take requests, but they don't generally give it to them unless they meet some unknown criteria, and it's cherry picked. They decide who gets them.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is exactly why I do not participate in 'Social Media'. I think it's a 'scary' thing.

Smart man

[Maru]

Twitter verification circa 2013 sounds like a BB audition

7 Ways To Get Verified on Twitter -- Including the Story of How I Did
https://www.xojane.com/tech/how-to-g...ied-on-twitter

Option 1: Have a good agent, and ask him or her to do the dirty work. Trust me, a good agent will be able to hook you up.

That's how Guy Raz, host of NPR's All Things Considered did it. He's not a celebrity, per se, but he does have an agent with a connection to Twitter to make it happen. His agency: UTA.

It's also how any new celebrities joining Twitter -- like the site's newest addition this week of Drew Barrymore -- get it done. They have people.

Option 3: See if you can angle (but don't beg) to get noticed by Twitter's @Verified account, and in a sense, "dress for the job you want" by following the best practices Twitter recommends to its newly verified users.

Anil Dash has a great post explaining what the new Twitter verification process entails, including the randomness of selection -- and how, literally, you might wake up one day to find that you have a direct message from @Verified. The message reads: "We at Twitter would like to verify your account. Please click this account and follow the instructions."

There are then three steps that essentially test you on your Twitter knowledge of how to get more followers and tweet effectively. Right before you get to the verification page you are told to "increase your trustworthiness by following other verified users."

Well, at least we don't have to sext with @Verified

Option 8: Photoshop it -- but risk getting suspended on Twitter.

Thanks to the header design of Twitter there's a hack that lets you embed the checkmark, although if you have fairly discerning vision you can tell it's not the real thing because the layers throw the shading off. Also, if you do this: Twitter might just suspend your account so, yeah, there's that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well a quick Google search says she writes for something called the Bay Area Reporter, "a free weekly newspaper serving the LGBT communities in the San Francisco Bay Area".

So kind of a journalist, I guess... ... you know in the way "community support officers" are kind of police. Except they're actually Edna the primary school dinner lady in a high-vis jacket telling you to pick up litter.

You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

[Kizzy]

Has anyone else seen this?

Trans filmmaker Jake Graf and Hannah Winterbourne, the highest ranking trans officer in the British army, have called out The Sun’s headline about their wedding day.

The couple’s exclusive interview appeared on the front page of the paper. The headline read: "Tran and wife. Jake who used to be a woman weds Hannah who was a man."

On Twitter, Hannah called the headline "offensive" while Jake said the article, which he praised, had been "cheapened by such a sensationalised and misleading headline".

I have a theory, that is that men from all socioeconomic backgrounds are coming round to the fact that some men would rather be women...Which of course is great I applaud this 100%

What I don't think is being embraced quite as readily are women wanting to become men, I don't feel there is equal support... In fact I'd say they are victims of hostility, mockery and abuse as seen here.

https://www.indy100.com/article/tran..._campaign=i100

[Marsh.]

So now we're calling out those not accepting female to male transitions after some rather offensive comments concerning male to female transitions?

Diversionary tactic?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You sound quite prejudiced here, which paper would you have to work for to be considered a professional journalist in your opinion?

I'm not answering for TS, but as I originally questioned her credentials.... I would expect someone describing themselves as a journalist would know not to use "here" when they meant "hear", wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and would understand how to use a full stop in a sentence that contains parenthesis.

It's actually interesting what your other post said about male to female and female to male, and the difference in the way they are treated. I have a theory about that... I think it's as simple as men expecting to be heard, they are used to it, to having their opinions heard and getting their way (generally). So when they transition to women they have no idea what it's like to grow up as a woman and continue to stamp their Y chromosome, insisting that everyone sees things their way. Conversely, women who become men are (again, generally) more used to being the peacemakers, the nurturers, and they get on with living as who they want to be without involving the opinions of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how you feel about all that, but I have to say, I mostly agree with your stance on this.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm not answering for TS, but as I originally questioned her credentials.... I would expect someone describing themselves as a journalist would know not to use "here" when they meant "hear", wouldn't end a sentence with a preposition and would understand how to use a full stop in a sentence that contains parenthesis.

It's actually interesting what your other post said about male to female and female to male, and the difference in the way they are treated. I have a theory about that... I think it's as simple as men expecting to be heard, they are used to it, to having their opinions heard and getting their way (generally). So when they transition to women they have no idea what it's like to grow up as a woman and continue to stamp their Y chromosome, insisting that everyone sees things their way. Conversely, women who become men are (again, generally) more used to being the peacemakers, the nurturers, and they get on with living as who they want to be without involving the opinions of the rest of the world.

I'm not sure how you feel about all that, but I have to say, I mostly agree with your stance on this.

I think that is a very realistic and valid point. It makes total sense that the ‘previous gender’ that had been a huge part of their lives for most of their lives would continue to be so. You can’t just erase that to suit. It goes too deep.