reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on whether school policy penalizes students for misusing pronouns and whether such penalties amount to harassment or suspension. The first speaker raises the core question: “For clarification, is this the policy that's used if a student misuses a pronoun they are suspended? An intentional. Yeah. That's part of the definition, bullying.” They illustrate the concern with a hypothetical: if a student’s parents raise their child to respond to a female with she pronouns, but that student says “I want to be something else,” will their child be suspended for that? The implication is that misusing or resisting pronoun usage could trigger disciplinary action under the policy. The chain of reasoning then states: “Oh yeah that would be harassment.” The speaker expresses disbelief upon learning that students might be suspended “because they are using the wrong pronoun,” stating they were aghast and did not realize that such suspensions occur. The subsequent line shows a pushback from another participant: “Should be disagree with you saying that's incorrect.” This introduces a contest over whether suspending for pronoun usage is correct, but the rebuttal immediately pivots to a claim about biological facts: “Well, one is biologically facts.” The conversation asserts: “It's actually XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes. Those are facts. We can't change those. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. We can't change those things.” The speaker emphasizes that these chromosomal facts are immutable. From there, the speaker clarifies their main question: “Those are immutable facts. And I'm wondering, are we what I'm asking, my question is, are we suspending students for immutable facts? That's what I'm asking. Not for making it as genuine.” In sum, the exchange presents a concern that disciplinary actions related to pronoun use might target individuals based on disagreements about gender identity and pronouns, and it juxtaposes this with a claim about immutable biological facts (XX and XY chromosomes) as a basis for questioning whether suspensions are being applied to immutable facts rather than to conduct. The dialogue frames a tension between policy definitions of harassment and a set of assertions about biological determinism, seeking to determine whether suspensions are being imposed for immutable factual claims rather than for misbehavior.

An individual questions why their picture was taken at a public protest, suggesting it's a tactic used by an organization to "geo attack" and dox them, further claiming their picture will be uploaded to a database. The photographer states they are documenting the protest for an article. The individual expresses fear of being doxxed, especially after the photographer took their picture. They inquire about the reason for the picture, with the photographer responding they like their face. The individual finds this "creepy" and asks for information about the protest, specifically the difference between the orange and yellow groups and who organized the event.

I have an issue when it comes to targeting our kids and trying to change their gender. I don't care if a 40-year-old person wants to undergo gender reassignment, but I don't want to hear about it, pay for it, or be forced to acknowledge their chosen identity. Leave me alone and stay away from our children.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 for some history regarding their gender dysphoria to help with writing a letter. Speaker 1 explains that when they were in school, they wrote an essay expressing their discomfort with their biological sex and how they felt. However, people dismissed their feelings because they appeared to be male.

A creator states they went to the police station because a prominent creator incited mob violence against them, their property, and family due to differing views on pesticide use. The speaker claims their phone and social media accounts were flooded, and they received death threats, which have been reported to the police. The speaker alleges the other creator is targeting them for posting about not using pesticides like glyphosate on their Facebook page. They claim the creator wants the posts removed and has threatened to continue doxxing them and ruining their life and business if they don't comply. The speaker says the creator commented on their appearance in a video. They state they are now working with the police and attorneys and that people are sending them screenshots and emails expressing fear for their safety due to the mob violence allegedly encouraged in the creator's Facebook group.

A woman yelled at the speaker, accusing them of implanting things in her and tracking her. The speaker is surprised by the misinformation and the difficulty in trusting the government and collaborating with it. They advise the younger generation to pay attention to and reverse these trends, emphasizing their importance.

J'ai été victime d'identité erronée sur les réseaux sociaux. Au début, ça m'a blessé, mais j'ai pris du recul et j'ai entendu parler de cela.

Speaker 0 argues about genetics, Speaker 1 shifts to brain scans. Speaker 0 threatens violence. Speaker 2 mentions a criminal case involving a transgender person. Speaker 3 corrects someone on their gender, leading to a heated exchange.

There are allegations of mass doxing occurring on Community Notes, specifically targeting a conservative woman with children. The speaker blurred out names to prevent identification but claims this is a recurring issue. The concern is that Community Notes is allegedly being used to dox people simply because of differing views or in retaliation for being exposed for harassment. Two accounts, Enterprising Desert Raven and Resplendent Cedar Osprey, are allegedly linked to this activity. The speaker emphasizes the importance of privacy on X and expresses particular concern when children are involved, stating that doxing mothers by revealing their government-issued names publicly is unacceptable. The speaker says the goal is to protect children.

A person is confronted and accused of being a transphobe who believes "trans kids should be cis kids." The person asks what makes a child trans and what gender is. Another person states you are born trans and gender is a spectrum, like a rainbow. A trans person says the person is playing god and "it fucks kids up." The trans person says the person should be ashamed and that they matter. The person being confronted asks someone to call the police, claiming assault. The trans person says the person is abusive and is spewing hate, not even knowing what gender is. The trans person encourages people to come down and tell the person that trans kids have rights. The person states they are waiting for police because they were assaulted.

Speaker 1 admits that mentioning being armed was to deter threats. They regret their choice of words and clarified their friend never said that. They received threats and harassment online even 14 months later, with a recent influx after a court subpoena.

First speaker: says "Calcula is cut. I'm unable to work or go to school. I understand. Fraud is bad." Second speaker: says "I'm sure what happened there at the end trade. I admit that she thought that was not supposed to be in there, but fraud is bad, and it's it's a bad issue publicly with the gun types in Minnesota."

Speaker 0 asks for an ID from Speaker 1, insisting, “Do you have an ID on you, ma'am?” Speaker 1 replies, “I don't need a ID to walk around in in my city.” Speaker 0 presses for IDs, warning, “If not, we're gonna put you in the vehicle. We're gonna ID you.” Speaker 1 refuses, saying, “I don't need to take out you take out your ID.” Speaker 0 presses again: “Hey, ma'am.” Speaker 1 asserts, “It's ma'am. Am US citizen. I am US citizen.” Speaker 0 asks, “Alright. Can we see an ID, please?” Speaker 1 repeats, “I am US citizen. I don't need to carry around an ID in my home. Well, where were born?” Speaker 0 questions, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “This is my home,” and then, “Minneapolis is my home.” Speaker 0 clarifies, “Ma'am, that's not that's we're doing an immigration check. We're doing a citizen check. We're asking you where you were born.” Speaker 1 insists, “This is where I belong. This is my home.” Speaker 0 pushes, “Ma'am, can belong here, but where were you born? Not gonna give you a ID.” Speaker 1 repeats, “I belong here. I should be walking around here at three. I shouldn't be afraid in my life at this point.” Speaker 0 presses, “Ma'am, do you have an ID to give us? Skirt? Yes. You're correct.” Speaker 1 protests, “You're making me a skirt. You're making me a Do you have an ID?” Speaker 0 again asks for an ID, and Speaker 1 repeats, “This is my home.” Speaker 0 states, “Ma'am, where were you born?” Speaker 1 responds, “I am US citizen. I am US citizen. I don't think so. You have a right to picture me while I am in my home or walking around in my home. This is not acceptable.” Speaker 0 continues, “You guys, you terrorizing people.” Speaker 1 emphasizes, “Ma'am And it's not.” Speaker 0 asks again, “Where were you born?” Speaker 1 states, “It doesn't matter where I was born. Belong here. I am US citizen.” She adds, “What else can I say? I am citizen. This is my home.” Speaker 0 warns, “Menia realize that if… [you] lie,” and Speaker 1 reiterates, “Menia, but this is my home.” Eventually Speaker 1 declares, “I am US citizen. I am not gonna take out anything. What the fuck?”

Speaker 0 checks if the gender list has been updated, expressing frustration that there are 63 genders listed but not their own. Speaker 1 apologizes for assuming their gender. Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1 and claims to identify as an attack helicopter. They explain their desire to have surgical modifications to resemble a helicopter and request to be called a pilot. They demand respect for their right to harm others.

They showed my naked photos in a hearing and twisted my father's love for me into something negative. They have no shame.

Speaker 0 states, “J 6 Insurrection is right over there. What? I'm at this fucking scene. This” as they indicate being at a scene related to January 6. The conversation shows they are physically present at the location and reacting to the surroundings. Speaker 1 describes the situation as “harassment. Stalking and harassment,” and expresses a desire to file a police report, saying, “I’d like to file a police report for stalking and harassment.” They repeat the request, asking, “Can I file a police report for stalking and harassment?” They claim, “She won’t leave leave me alone,” and state they’d like to file a police report for stalking and harassment, adding, “I’d like to follow a police report.” They ask for guidance about the legality of the behavior: “If she follows me, will she be arrested for stalking?” They further describe the immediate scenario as occurring “Across the street.” Speaker 0 interjects with further location detail, saying, “the street,” and then adds a string of hostile remarks including, “Bug pussy bitch,” and “There you go. My Rolly Pole. Back to blue. White is right. Get the fuck out of my country, Patricia.” These lines convey aggression and attempts to assert identity or affiliation. Speaker 1 continues with a distressed tone, muttering, “Oh my god. Take that stress,” before being told, “Shut up, cunt” by Speaker 0, indicating continued hostility and verbal abuse. Overall, the transcript captures a confrontation at a scene that centers on concerns about stalking and harassment, with Speaker 1 seeking a police report to document the alleged stalking; Speaker 0 responds with aggressive commentary and insults, including politically charged and profane statements. The exchange conveys an urgent emotional confrontation regarding harassment, with explicit requests to file formal complaints and questions about potential arrest for stalking.

In this video, the speaker engages in a conversation with Greg about hacked accounts and privacy concerns. Greg denies any involvement in inappropriate messages sent to two girls named Summer and Mandy, emphasizing his right to privacy. The conversation becomes heated, prompting them to move outside. The speaker, representing Kid Protectors USA, expresses concerns about protecting children online, while Greg questions the legality of the messages and his responsibility for others' actions. The discussion also delves into the speaker's past experiences with deception and false accusations, highlighting the importance of freedom of speech. They discuss the speaker's interactions with Summer and Mandy on Facebook, questioning the authenticity of their accounts and the need for proof. The conversation becomes contentious as they debate the explicit sexual content and accusations of entrapment. The accused person denies the allegations and argues against incrimination based solely on text messages. They discuss privacy, determining someone's age online, and the influence of movies. The video ends with the mention of involving law enforcement to further investigate the allegations.

Okay, so there was a social media post you made about three years ago. Because of the circumstances, a woman felt threatened, and that falls under the elements of cyber stalking. I understand. She wears the abaya. I get it, but that's her religion, she can do that. An abaya is very different from a hijab. I understand it's a political statement, but due to the circumstances and the way she... I respect you and understand, but it's part of political speech.

The speaker has spent two years trying to get Johns Hopkins to state that Paul McHugh doesn't represent the hospital's positions. This is to combat misinformation from McHugh, who isn't a gender or sexuality specialist, but whose medical title lends him credibility. The goal is to have these statements ready for courts and legislatures if he testifies, and to educate the media about why he's not a credible source on trans identities. They are actively tracking individuals like McHugh and engaging with their institutions.

Speaker recounts a call from their youngest daughter, Zandra, telling them to delete all social media accounts because their name and image were out there associated with a shooting that had happened in The US. They hadn't heard of the shooting or Charlie Kirk. It was shock and horror to be named or implicated. They recognized the photo but couldn't think where it came from. It actually came from an old Twitter account. It's quite alarming that misinformation can get out there and spread so quickly, and nobody's fact checking. "You guys aren't. Nobody on social media seems to be saying, hey. Wait a minute here."

Speaker 0 describes a situation where some individuals “gum felt empowered and emboldened enough to put this picture of me up to try to threaten and intimidate me,” adding that they didn’t succeed because “I signed up for this.” The person who posted the picture “said a bunch of terrible things, not just against me, but against a lot of groups and individuals who, by the way, was arrested today in Wisconsin.” The speaker’s point is that if this person feels empowered or safe enough to threaten them, what would they do to “a kid” or “a Jewish family walking down the street?” The speaker attributes this behavior to the “normalization of this,” describing how people watch such acts on television and feel empowered to imitate them. They argue that while the aggressor may think they can act, they cannot: “a, you can't.” They extend the concern to someone in law enforcement, asking, “if you think you can do it to somebody that's in law enforcement, again, what are you gonna do in an alley or in a street to a Jewish family or a kid walking down the street?” The message is a firm prohibition: “We say no. We're drawing the line.”

Speaker 0 introduces a disturbing video about Brandy Vaughan, an ex Merck employee and whistleblower who founded learntherestisk.org, stating she was found dead yesterday. The video documents intimidation tactics used to silence her and ends with her claim that mandatory vaccinations are for profit, not public health. The speaker notes Merck is the vaccine company that makes the MMR vaccine and explains they screened the video due to censorship and disappearing videos, urging sharing to keep the fight going for Brandy. Speaker 1 identifies herself as Brandy Vaughan and explains she has been an activist opposing SB 277 in California and questions how rights have deteriorated. She describes herself getting heat for speaking out, and she documents intimidation tactics used against her to silence her voice. She recounts her background: she worked for Merck in Santa Barbara from 2001 to 2003 selling Vioxx, which was eventually pulled from the market after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke and cause harm. After losing faith in the healthcare system, she traveled to Europe, returned with a six-month-old son, and faced bullying at a pediatrician’s office in San Francisco when requesting vaccine inserts and questions about vaccines. Four years ago, she began researching vaccines, concluded they were not very safe or effective, and chose not to vaccinate her son. When SB 277 surfaced in California, she decided to raise her voice against it, knowing she would face heat. She then details a series of intimidation incidents beginning with a break-in and home intrusion after returning from a Sacramento rally against SB 277. A key left on the doorstep was found open, despite having been hidden previously. She had recently installed a $3,000 alarm system; the alarm was triggered at 03:45, then the hallway sensor active at 03:46, and the dining room window opened and closed at 03:48. The intruders allegedly re-entered via the front door at 03:49 after disarming the alarm with the master code, which only she possessed. Security experts suggested the house was tapped, implying that everything she says and does could be listened to or watched, and they noted the back window was opened during the incident. After the break-in, the police checked for stolen items, found nothing missing, but two days later her computer, hidden above the microwave, was moved from its hiding spot to the middle of the floor. She left town for two weeks to go off the grid. Upon returning, she found a ladder left in front of the door, used to look into the bedroom window from the garage; a neighbor confirmed the ladder was new. Later, a Buddha statue in the garage was moved from its usual place, pictures were knocked over, and two days after that a duck appeared on her kitchen table, which she interpreted as a message signaling they were watching her due to conversations about staying at her house. Vaughan describes these events as intimidation and fear-inducing. She reiterates that the intimidation is designed to silence discussion of mandatory vaccination bills, which she claims have nothing to do with public health and everything to do with profit. She vows not to be silenced, emphasizes the importance of exposing what’s going on behind the bills, and frames the events as part of a larger ongoing struggle. She concludes that there is evil at play and hopes documenting the intimidation will prevent future silencing of others.

The speaker expresses confusion about reporters who focus on finding people doing wrong things, while giving someone a free pass. They mention not understanding why this person can't obtain a birth certificate, as there is a dispute within their family about which hospital they were born in. The speaker questions the authenticity of newspaper ads claiming the person's birth, as they believe it is unusual for two poor individuals to place such ads. They find the entire situation suspicious.

I was doxxed by an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group called Libs of TikTok, which shared my name, town, employer, and TikTok account, including two of my videos: one celebrating Pride and another about my positive experiences with Planned Parenthood. This malicious act has led to threats, harassment, and defamation against me. This is part of a three-year pattern of harassment from the same individual. In response, I filed a police report with the FBI's cybercrimes division through ic3.gov. Online harassment and threats are crimes, especially as they relate to my LGBTQIA identity.

An 18-year-old high school student raises concerns about transgender individuals claiming to be women and using women's spaces. They mention an incident at MLK High School where a transgender woman, who is biologically male, had an altercation with a young woman. The student questions why the safety of women is being compromised by allowing mentally confused men to use women's spaces. They express that true girls like themselves, who are female down to their DNA, should have a say in this matter. The student urges action to protect the safety of women and calls on the school to address the issue. Another student shares their experience of being continuously bothered by the transgender individual and expresses frustration with the lack of action from the school.