Why is JK Rowling suddenly evil?

robmatic · Post by **robmatic** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:55 am

Muttonbirds wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:
CM11 wrote:That's a particularly bad take on the letter to the extent that you'd almost have to have not read it but were just told about it in a rant by someone looking to silence them.
You are right, I haven't read the letter, but that hardly matters does it.
And you have the nerve to call others idiots.
Point I'm trying to make is that the people have spoken and no matter how much monied elites talk about free-speech, those that don't have it are bound to get angry. They have and the monied elite had better digest that.

It's not the monied elites who have to worry about the consequences of 'cancel culture' though. JK Rowling is not in a position to be sacked or face meaningful financial consequences for her opinions. The regular and the marginalised are the people who will suffer if they are on the wrong side of some performative middle class outrage.

MungoMan · Post by **MungoMan** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:29 pm

robmatic wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote:You are right, I haven't read the letter, but that hardly matters does it.
And you have the nerve to call others idiots.
Point I'm trying to make is that the people have spoken and no matter how much monied elites talk about free-speech, those that don't have it are bound to get angry. They have and the monied elite had better digest that.
It's not the monied elites who have to worry about the consequences of 'cancel culture' though. JK Rowling is not in a position to be sacked or face meaningful financial consequences for her opinions. The regular and the marginalised are the people who will suffer if they are on the wrong side of some performative middle class outrage.

I’d say ‘may suffer’ is more accurate since it is not a given that shrieking in the tw@tmosphere will have a material effect on the person on the receiving end, but your broader point seems on the mark.

Mr Mike · Post by **Mr Mike** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 4:33 pm

CM11 wrote:One of the more ridiculous things I've just read is someone apologising for signing the letter, not because he disagreed with the content, but because of who else signed it (he didn't know apparently).

We really are into burning down society and starting again territory.

I enjoyed Gladwell’s reaction to that.

"I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter,"

CM11 · Post by **CM11** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:10 pm

Mr Mike wrote:
CM11 wrote:One of the more ridiculous things I've just read is someone apologising for signing the letter, not because he disagreed with the content, but because of who else signed it (he didn't know apparently).

We really are into burning down society and starting again territory.
I enjoyed Gladwell’s reaction to that.

"I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter,"

Very good!

eldanielfire · Post by **eldanielfire** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:20 pm

Mr Mike wrote:
CM11 wrote:One of the more ridiculous things I've just read is someone apologising for signing the letter, not because he disagreed with the content, but because of who else signed it (he didn't know apparently).

We really are into burning down society and starting again territory.
I enjoyed Gladwell’s reaction to that.

"I signed the Harpers letter because there were lots of people who also signed the Harpers letter whose views I disagreed with. I thought that was the point of the Harpers letter,"

RodneyRegis · Post by **RodneyRegis** » Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:38 pm

Anyway, apropos of nothing, I was chatting with a mate of the missus the other day, who is a midwife. Apparently pre-op trans women are given sanitary pads on the NHS. 'women who menstruate' are of course not provided with sanitary towels on the state's coin.

And most of them wear them.

bimboman · Post by **bimboman** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:57 am

https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Something has to change.

EverReady · Post by **EverReady** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:03 am

bimboman wrote:https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Something has to change.

He sounds very annoying

robmatic · Post by **robmatic** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:08 pm

EverReady wrote:
bimboman wrote:https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/ ... 2986336256

Something has to change.
He sounds very annoying

Yes, let's make sure he loses his job. That seems proportionate.

EverReady · Post by **EverReady** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:35 pm

As good a reason as any and now he gets his dream job working for a libertarian rag

Conservative Eddie · Post by **Conservative Eddie** » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:44 pm

EverReady wrote:As good a reason as any and now he gets his dream job working for a libertarian rag

Well, he's sort of already there. Just with added race realism.

Harveys · Post by **Harveys** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:20 am

msp. wrote:
After reading the letter, and reading Billy Bragg's (who normally i quite like.. I think Billy missed the mark, he is again attacking the singatures of the letter rather than the content.

It one of the marks of society now where the messanger is attacked irrispective of the content of the message. We have banded ourselves into tribal groups, and the most important thing is to attack other groups.

Young people being angry and wanting to change the world is nothing new..

Yup, the generation coming up behind these ejits will have plenty to be angry about and want to change.

Time will sort this nonsense out.

Muttonbirds · Post by **Muttonbirds** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 4:25 am

Harveys wrote:
msp. wrote:
After reading the letter, and reading Billy Bragg's (who normally i quite like.. I think Billy missed the mark, he is again attacking the singatures of the letter rather than the content.

It one of the marks of society now where the messanger is attacked irrispective of the content of the message. We have banded ourselves into tribal groups, and the most important thing is to attack other groups.

Young people being angry and wanting to change the world is nothing new..
Yup, the generation coming up behind these ejits will have plenty to be angry about and want to change.

Time will sort this nonsense out.

Did a millennial steal your ice-cream?

koroke hangareka · Post by **koroke hangareka** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:20 am

Muttonbirds wrote: Did a millennial steal your ice-cream?

Wouldn't be surprised. Little shits.

eldanielfire · Post by **eldanielfire** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:26 am

koroke hangareka wrote:
Muttonbirds wrote: Did a millennial steal your ice-cream?
Wouldn't be surprised. Little shits.

Dark · Post by **Dark** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:58 am

Given the chick is worth about a billion dollars, I don't really care how much Rowling's feelings are hurt. She can handle it, but read the letter and don't see what is particularly controversial about it.

Santa · Post by **Santa** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:16 pm

Chomsky on the reaction to the letter about the thing that is definitely not happening.

https://twitter.com/UD880/status/128231 ... 15075?s=19

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:13 am

Dark wrote:Given the chick is worth about a billion dollars, I don't really care how much Rowling's feelings are hurt. She can handle it, but read the letter and don't see what is particularly controversial about it.

The controversy does not appear to be about the words of the letter, but by who signed it, and therefore the "dog-whistles" within the letter. The interpretation of "dog-whistle" seems rather subjective..

paddyor · Post by **paddyor** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:04 pm

Dobbin wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105

One signatory - Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of liberal news analysis website Vox - was rebuked by colleague Emily VanDerWerff, a trans woman, who tweeted that Yglesias signing the letter "makes me feel less safe at Vox".

Apparently Yglesias was silenced by Vox(told to shut up) on the matter.

Floppykid · Post by **Floppykid** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:58 pm

The whole thing was insane.
If I was Matt Y I’d keep the job for as long as needed (not exactly a thriving industry), and try to jump if/when possible.

I’d certainly never engage with Emily at work again. Just someone who’s potential trouble for anyone working with her.

mdaclarke · Post by **mdaclarke** » Sun Jul 19, 2020 11:15 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

Is World Rugby Evil?

kiwidutchie · Post by **kiwidutchie** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:14 am

paddyor wrote:
Dobbin wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105

One signatory - Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of liberal news analysis website Vox - was rebuked by colleague Emily VanDerWerff, a trans woman, who tweeted that Yglesias signing the letter "makes me feel less safe at Vox".

Apparently Yglesias was silenced by Vox(told to shut up) on the matter.

"Signatory Jennifer Finney Boylan, a US author and transgender activist, apologised within hours of the letter being published, tweeting "I did not know who else had signed that letter"."

which kind of proves the point the letter was making?

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:35 am

mdaclarke wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

Is World Rugby Evil?

Interesting article.. It's going to be a mixture of science, politics and social pressure that determines the future of transgender women and man participating in sport..

eldanielfire · Post by **eldanielfire** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:49 am

msp. wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

Is World Rugby Evil?
Interesting article.. It's going to be a mixture of science, politics and social pressure that determines the future of transgender women and man participating in sport..

The weird thing is, it should just need some common sense and basic everyday obviously knowledge. Not some claims of 'The latest science'.

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:56 am

eldanielfire wrote:
msp. wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

Is World Rugby Evil?
Interesting article.. It's going to be a mixture of science, politics and social pressure that determines the future of transgender women and man participating in sport..
The weird thing is, it should just need some common sense and basic everyday obviously knowledge. Not some claims of 'The latest science'.

It got strong emmotions attached to it (both for and against allowing transgender women to participate), any decision needs to be backed off with research.. Even if that reserach basically says "allowing a bigger person to hit a smaller person will mean the smaler person is more likley to be injured and a person who has gone through male puperty is likley to be bigger than a person who has not.."

CM11 · Post by **CM11** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:00 am

msp. wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
msp. wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns

Is World Rugby Evil?
Interesting article.. It's going to be a mixture of science, politics and social pressure that determines the future of transgender women and man participating in sport..
The weird thing is, it should just need some common sense and basic everyday obviously knowledge. Not some claims of 'The latest science'.

It got strong emmotions attached to it (both for and against allowing transgender women to participate), any decision needs to be backed off with research.. Even if that reserach basically says "allowing a bigger person to hit a smaller person will mean the smaler person is more likley to be injured and a person who has gone through male puperty is likley to be bigger than a person who has not.."

Send that post in to be peer reviewed. Job done.

Santa · Post by **Santa** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:12 am

I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

madman · Post by **madman** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:14 pm

Santa wrote:I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

It will just add to the sport being ruled by old white guy image..

Fat Albert · Post by **Fat Albert** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:47 pm

Be afraid, trannies, be very afraid, they're coming to get you... I know I am

Why Allies Are Becoming TERFs

Wish I could write that well when pissed off

Mahoney · Post by **Mahoney** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:15 pm

Fat Albert wrote:Be afraid, trannies, be very afraid, they're coming to get you... I know I am

Why Allies Are Becoming TERFs

Wish I could write that well when pissed off

Brilliant. You post an article all about how self defeating it is to alienate people who might otherwise be on your side, in a post calculated to alienate anyone who might be thinking about being on your side.

terryfinch · Post by **terryfinch** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:28 pm

Santa wrote:I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

So if, as an example, Maro Itoje suddenly self identified as a woman, she took hormone suppressants for 12 months and then rocked up to play for England’s women’s team, would that be a good idea for the game?

Mahoney · Post by **Mahoney** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:31 pm

terryfinch wrote:
Santa wrote:I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

So if, as an example, Maro Itoje suddenly self identified as a woman, she took hormone suppressants for 12 months and then rocked up to play for England’s women’s team, would that be a good idea for the game?

FFS. It’s Santa posting. He’s being ironic. He agrees with you.

eldanielfire · Post by **eldanielfire** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:33 pm

terryfinch wrote:
Santa wrote:I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

So if, as an example, Maro Itoje suddenly self identified as a woman, she took hormone suppressants for 12 months and then rocked up to play for England’s women’s team, would that be a good idea for the game?

It'd be a f**king good idea in terms of the England Women's Rugby team chances at the next World Cup. Think outside the box.

fatcat · Post by **fatcat** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:37 pm

Mike Brown could resurrect his England career if he changed genders.

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:44 pm

Mahoney wrote:
terryfinch wrote:
Santa wrote:I can live with a 30% increased likelihood of injury if it saves some hurt feelings.

So if, as an example, Maro Itoje suddenly self identified as a woman, she took hormone suppressants for 12 months and then rocked up to play for England’s women’s team, would that be a good idea for the game?
FFS. It’s Santa posting. He’s being ironic. He agrees with you.

Is it not more sarcastic than irony?

Mahoney · Post by **Mahoney** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:58 pm

Probably. No matter how often I read attempts to define it I’m never quite sure where the line between them is.

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Yep and then someone throws in satire to make it more difficult..Most of the time it is easier to use the word "funny"..

eldanielfire · Post by **eldanielfire** » Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:57 am

One publication who called her transphobic has published an apology, probably on legal advice:

https://theday.co.uk/pdf/jkrowling-apology-2020-07.pdf

On 10 June 2020, we published an article entitled “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans
tweet”. We accept that our article implied that what JK Rowling had tweeted was objectionable
and that she had attacked and harmed trans people. The article was critical of JK Rowling
personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into
changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic. We did not
intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted. We
accept that our comparisons of JK Rowling to people such as Picasso, who celebrated sexual
violence, and Wagner, who was praised by the Nazis for his anti- Semitic and racist views,
were clumsy, offensive and wrong. Debate about a complex issue where there is a range of
legitimate views should have been handled with much more sensitivity and more obvious
recognition of the difference between fact and opinion. We unreservedly apologise to JK
Rowling for the offence caused, are happy to retract these false allegations and to set the
record straight. We shall be making a financial contribution to a charity of JK Rowling’s
choice.
22 July 2020

This part:

"The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic. We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted."

This is more ridiculous then someone out of the early Simpsons or Yes Minister. You couldn't make it up

msp. · Post by **msp.** » Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:48 pm

This part:

"The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic. We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted."

This is more ridiculous then someone out of the early Simpsons or Yes Minister. You couldn't make it up

It is full of contradictions, the last thing they wanted to do was "debate" only condem anyone who disagrees.

obviously released as part of a legal agreement..

unseenwork · Post by **unseenwork** » Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:27 pm

msp. wrote:
This part:

"The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic. We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted."

This is more ridiculous then someone out of the early Simpsons or Yes Minister. You couldn't make it up

It is full of contradictions, the last thing they wanted to do was "debate" only condem anyone who disagrees.

obviously released as part of a legal agreement..

Rowling's money sure buys silence pretty effectively.