The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[Jace, Extat]

 

Love ya, out!

 

Edited January 23 by Jace, Extat

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I too enjoyed the Witch Trials podcast miniseries; it was really well done.

Yes, social media is just such an absolutely awful way to have serious impassioned discussions and arguments about complex real life matters. 

It makes individual people quite unreasonable and nasty, creates giant waves of mass anger for real societal destabilization, and amplifies culture war dynamics into a petri dish of reciprocal radicalization. Just, absolutely abhorrent.

And yes, there is plenty of craziness that exists among the more radical-identifying activist types on the left. With and without social media, but especially with.

I thought it was tragic that no one extended a hand toward Rowling (even after criticizing her stance), but it's so much worse than that. She is now treated as "basically a Nazi," and any association with her or praise toward her is enough to "infect" someone else with the status of untouchable. And the same type of moral panic and mass ostracization happens all through social media for the smallest and dumbest of reasons, for people much less contentious in culture war issues than Rowling.

Of course, Rowling herself is not innocent here. She too immersed herself in the folly of social media "discussions." She's an author, she should know better. The magic of language can sometimes come in the form of an aphorism, but when has a conversation ever taken that form? One trying to get at complexities and nuances, no less?

And she too got radicalized, entrenching herself further into a reactionary self-identification as a TERF.

Yet from the interviews on With Trials, I get the sense that she's still eager for good faith dialogue. She seems far more open to reason than the people saying she is literally a Nazi who is literally killing trans people.

I also think that trans rights activism of the past 10 years looks so much crazier and counterproductive compared to the gay rights campaigns from just a few years earlier. Gay marriage was not won because of people shouting that their opponents were on the wrong side of history. That cause was largely a success because of campaigns that humanized gay people. They were painted as people, "like you and me," your neighbor, your co-worker, your uncle, and they just want the freedom to love whom they love. It was about this minority fitting snugly into the larger society, or at least not disrupting anything meaningful.

Cut to a few years later and then its: "Gender is a social construct! Gender is fluid! Agree with me or you are causing literal violence!"

In other words, the activists decided to skip Intro to Trans Rights: The Human Factor and go straight to Level 4: Revolution.

So unbelievably stupid. The hubris. But also: this nuttery spiked just as social media was getting into peak crazy. It's not a coincidence.

*****

Ah, Noam Chomsky. He's a hero of mine...yet his recent criticisms of Ukraine have really fucking depressed me. Like, if a brilliant mind like Chomsky can get lost down those Russia-adjacent rabbit holes...what hope do I have in escaping some form of nuttery? I think we're all potentially susceptible, and maybe it depends on life circumstances in the moment.

Yet like Megan Phelps-Roper makes clear with her own life story, you usually don't know when it's you in the crazy bubble. Trying to keep that in mind and stay humble is maybe the best thing we can do!

 

 

[TrackerNeil]

I've also listened to "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling", which by the way I found immensely enjoyable. I am not a Harry Potter fan, and I haven't followed the controversy around the author, so most of this was new to me. 

 

The host of the podcast, Megan Phelps-Roperlaid out six questions she asks herself when evaluating a belief of which she seems certain, and since I think she's on to something, I'm going to reproduce those questions here:

1. Are you capable of entertaining real doubt about your beliefs, or are you operating from a position of pure certainty?
2. Can you describe the evidence you would need to see to change your position, or is your perspective unfalsifiable?
3. Can you articulate your opponents' position in a way they would recognize, or are you strawmanning?
4. Are you attacking ideas or attacking the people who hold them?
5. Are you willing to cut off close relationships with people who disagree with you, particularly over small points of contention?
6. Are you willing to use extraordinary means--forcing people from their jobs or homes, using violence or threats of violence, or celebrating misfortune or tragedy--against people who disagree with you?

I saw a lot of comments in the "woke" thread that would have failed #3, and I wish I'd brought it up at the time. 

[Heartofice]

I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, it is on my list however.

The treatment and demonisation of Rowling is pretty insane. I have always disliked her and found her irritating before this all kicked off and still think she is irritating. 
 

But I don’t think she’s transphobic. 
 

We’ve been over this before but the claims that she’s transphobic are seriously tenuous. They boil down to ‘she liked a tweet by someone who went on to do something bad’ and ‘she said sex is real’… and that’s basically it. 
 

Problem is the whole issue is overloaded with people misrepresenting each other on both sides, but it’s especially bad on the trans activist side who say anyone who doesn’t agree with every single position they hold is ‘anti trans’. So you literally cannot win. 
 

Rowling doesn’t deserve the vitriol sent towards her, that she gets death threats really does smell of witch hunts. 

[BigFatCoward]

I do think she is very very mildly transphobic. But I think the venom directed towards her compared to what she has actually said and done is fucking insane. 

Separately it must be lovely to have 'fuck you' money. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by BigFatCoward

[Raja]

I don't think there's any question that she's transphobic, it's fairly clear and she's shown it multiple times. As for the response she's got, I think criticism of her transphobia is totally fair game, but shouldn't extend to death threats or threats of violence.

I have sympathy for the threats of violence/ death threats, but more sympathy of a group of people that she regularly demonizes.

Also, I imagine discussion of a podcast series should be in entertainment? But I'll let the mods make that call.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Raja

[Zorral]

The right question is "What is anti-woke?"

You asked: Why are Republicans so focused on ‘wokeness’?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/17/republican-wokeness-gop-primary/

Quote

 

My colleague Ashley Parker asked Republicans what they mean by “wokeness” — here’s her story! Some struggled to put it into words.

Republicans use “woke” for social justice issues or positions they view as misguided or performative. But it’s really become a catchall for things the GOP views as liberal excess — from diversity and inclusion programs (DeSantis wants to ban them at state colleges) to school discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation (many state legislatures have restricted that or are moving to).

GOP contenders for 2024 are all jockeying to be the standout fighter against “woke ideology.”

 

To be honest, what it means to be anti-woke is to advocate for racism and authoritarianism, which means White people of a certain class/wealth/gender etc., can abuse and mistreat anyone else They like, physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, legally, etc. with impunity and immunity.  Without have that  for these White sorts, life is just not fun.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Raja said:

I don't think there's any question that she's transphobic, it's fairly clear and she's shown it multiple times.

It would be really easy for you to demonstrate it then right?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

The host of the podcast, Megan Phelps-Roperlaid out six questions she asks herself when evaluating a belief of which she seems certain,

Let's call it the Phelps-Roper Index of Ideological Orthodoxy ^TM 

28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

• Are you willing to cut off close relationships with people who disagree with you, particularly over small points of contention?

This one here is a little trickier, at least in instance where the ideology you are opposing is itself an illiberal or authoritarian one. I guess such a point of contention would not be considered small, but in practice, it's hard to assess what would actually merit a breaking off point.

I am not against breaking away from someone given certain extreme circumstances, but social media madness makes it harder to make that call. For instance, I have family who are still MAGA-nutters. I regard their movement as the greatest threat to US democracy and basic function, period. But I also acknowledge that they are merely individual droplets in this giant collective tidal wave--and what's more, they're mostly clueless about the damage that their movement poses, as their perspectives are colored by highly biased and often distorted media feeds.

Part of me wants to use them as an example to exact some sort of control over this dangerous movement---but that feeling doesn't seem rational, given the circumstances. They are my family; they love me, and are older, less educated, and lonely. Not to mention, breaking off from them would probably make them even more radical. Both from the seeming injustice of my actions, and their increased social detachment.

Still, I do think that some of the people who are on the more reactive orthodox side are struggling with these types of calculations. It's just that they seem to be more certain about their judgments, which is perhaps is what makes it more dangerous.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Zorral]

How is it only the anti-woke are the ones who endless howl for intolerance and cruelty, and call those who say "No!" to that witch burners -- when, of course, it is they who say "No!" who get burned/shot/incarcerated?

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It would be really easy for you to demonstrate it then right?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy

This article does that pretty well with everything sourced.  You'll probably even appreciate that they took the time to specifically check the dictionary definition of transphobia.

[Heartofice]

Yes that article was posted before and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tweet liking and ‘sex is real’ 

point to one thing she did that is transphobic. Just one. 

[Kalbear]

Holy shit.

Your name is Jalen???

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes that article was posted before and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tweet liking and ‘sex is real’ 

point to one thing she did that is transphobic. Just one. 

Quote

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes that article was posted before and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tweet liking and ‘sex is real’ 

point to one thing she did that is transphobic. Just one. 

 

 

Calling trans rights activism "dangerous" and "misogynistic":

S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them.

I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes that article was posted before and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tweet liking and ‘sex is real’ 

point to one thing she did that is transphobic. Just one. 

I can't say for sure, but based on what she said on the podcast, I imagine that Rowling would accept something like a "Third Sex" interpretation of transgenderism. It's a minority case in which some people don't fit so well into one gender or another.

She definitely does not accept the prevailing interpretation of transgenderism as "gender is fluid/just a social construct/mostly arbitrary/limited only by our imaginations/or whatever I feel it is."

That's the more radical genderqueer version, and it's one that seeks to shatter the norm of how people view gender, rather than simply exist as a special exception to the larger rule.

If trans activists allowed other people to indulge something like the "Third Sex" interpretation of trans people without calling them evil bigots, there would be a lot less contention and poison in the air. That's not to say that there wouldn't be arguments about specific policies and whatnot, but right now activists are taking any challenge to their specific concept of gender and transness as dehumanizing. Sometimes it is, and that likely comes from someone who doesn't want to be any sort of ally.

But often the older, more normie people are simply clinging to the norm of gender that works for most of humanity. I am left handed, and I thank the Lord that I wasn't born in a time or place when being left handed was interpreted as evil or some kind of defect. It certainly has been, as the word "sinister" reflects. Offering basic protection and acceptance as a human is paramount. But that's different from saying that handedness is arbitrary, or the word "sinister" should be expunged due to its oppressive history.

And most trans people out in the real world indeed just want to live their lives without much of a fuss. It's the "radical" (i.e., too-online) folks regurgitating academic theory making it a lot more difficult--as well as the too-online older people radicalizing themselves in opposition to them.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

 

Yes that is a comment about men abusing the self identification system to get into women’s spaces. Not a comment on trans people. 

This is pretty much at the heart of the misunderstanding of trans activists, who aren’t really listening to what gender critical people are saying.

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Calling trans rights activism "dangerous" and "misogynistic":

So trans right activists = trans people?

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes that article was posted before and it’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tweet liking and ‘sex is real’ 

point to one thing she did that is transphobic. Just one. 

Here's a second one for free JK Rowling reports three protesters outside her residence for criminal activity, believing that they are trying to reveal her home address - despite that address being so well known it is a tourist stop. 

I don't know how literal you want to get, but this is literally being afraid of trans people.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Yes that is a comment about men abusing the self identification system to get into women’s spaces. Not a comment on trans people. 

This is pretty much at the heart of the misunderstanding of trans activists, who aren’t really listening to what gender critical people are saying.

So trans right activists = trans people?

"I don't have any problem with gay people, but this push for equal rights is dangerous".  

Does that sound homophobic to you?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes that is a comment about men abusing the self identification system to get into women’s spaces. Not a comment on trans people. 

This is pretty much at the heart of the misunderstanding of trans activists, who aren’t really listening to what gender critical people are saying.

So trans right activists = trans people?

It is being afraid of trans people. You're fond of dictionary definitions- what do you think transphobic means?