The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[karaddin]

Unusual request but can a mod temp ban me for a few days? This is not actually healthy for me and I'm going to feel compelled to be involved. If it's out of my hands I can just fuck off and look after myself.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

 

I think this piece is extremely woke (and yes, I know some people here don't like that word but I'm using it anyway), and it has all the weaknesses of that viewpoint. For example, the blogger blithely dismisses the proposition that, to some, "TERF" is a slur, even though some women think it is. (A link to Pink News does not solidify this claim.) I'm willing to bet my next paycheck (such as it is) that blogger would object most strenuously if MPR were to assert the same thing about any slur that could be applied to trans people. Woke ideology states that the people to whom the slur applies get to decide if it is a slur, so that would seem to mean that TERFs get to decide if they don't like that word. For some reason, that standard is not applied here. Basically, the blogger assumes their viewpoint is right and that those of others are wrong, which, ironically, the very approach to life that so frightens MPR.

.

This is, to me, bizarre reasoning.  You state that the piece is "woke", and the evidence you present to that effect is something you describe as not woke.  

I've listened to the podcast and it did nothing to reveal some "decent reason" for her position.  She clearly fails the strawman component of MPR's 6 questions, simply cherry picking the very worst examples and least charitable interpretation of the what she's arguing against - she characterizes her critics as "wanting to put rapists into prison cells with women" and forcing women to accept their oppressors.  This is hyperbolic at best, and in a climate where trans people are being killed for existing it is absolutely dangerous and irresponsible behavior.   She's speaks in the same absolutes and bad faith that are being labelled as woke.  

Eta: more generally, I think the title of the podcast as Witch Hunt is laughable - it's kind of cute since she wrote books about witches and wizards but the comparison of Rowling's treatment to the actual Salem Witch Trials (which the podcast explicitly makes) is silly.  

[TrackerNeil]

18 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If you don't care what an author of children's books thinks, why on earth would you listen to hours of a podcast about that? Just to bemoan how terrible the woke are? Wish I could have that sort of distance on the whole thing. Instead of feeling like the goal posts are being moved this just feels like being told halfway through the game that there isn't actually a goal, nothing could be said to sway opinions if that's how you feel about it.

If you need to take time away, please do so. I am going to answer your question for the benefit of the others in this thread. 

Those who refer to my original post in this thread will see what I found most interesting about this podcast. I don't know if Rowling is a bigot--I am not inside her head--but I can say some of the things she said I found reasonable, and others I disagreed with. At the end of the day, I'm just not very concerned with what Rowling thinks. Maybe everyone feels they have to have an opinion on her, but I do not.

What I find curious is that anyone wants to sway my opinion, when most people here probably don't know what my opinion on trans issues are. No one has said, "Hey, Tracker, how do you feel about X law, or Y issue, or Z policy?" Because I'm uninterested in scolding a British writer, I have opinions that require swaying? 

Let's make a deal, please: If you want to know what I think about something specific, ask me and I'll do my best to answer.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I stated previously, I am not interested in what an author of children's books thinks on any topic.

Jesus Christ for years she’s written more adult fiction than children’s books and what’s being discussed is her political advocacy and it’s effects which is more than the common person.

Aye Rand never held a political office—it’d be stupid to say it’s pointless to criticize her ideology because she was a sci-fi writer.

Why criticize Matt Walsh? Even when he says gay men are pedophiles when they try to adopt children.

He’s a children’s book author.

 

53 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know if Rowling is a bigot--I am not inside her head-

This is a ludicrous standard of having to read people’s mind before you can ever call someone a bigot.

 

[TrackerNeil]

On second thought, I've decided to tap out of this thread. It's causing Karaddin distress, and I don't want to be involved in that. 

[karaddin]

Chiming in just to say it's the state of the world that's causing me distress, being involved in this discussion just makes me fixate on that. It's not you. 

The reason I care about her opinion is just because she has an enormous platform and her position as a friendly children's author is an opening to sway the opinions of a lot of people that don't think about this much at all, but can be swayed to support harmful policies because they're superficially reasonable. I'd love to not give a fuck like I did before she started talking about this.

ETA: Argh bumped post button early, editing to finish it

[Conflicting Thought]

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

 

This is a ludicrous standard of having to read people’s mind before you can ever call someone a bigot.

 

yeah, its ridiculous, so much good faith discussion jfc

[Heartofice]

30 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The reason I care about her opinion is just because she has an enormous platform and her position as a friendly children's author is an opening to sway the opinions of a lot of people that don't think about this much at all, but can be swayed to support harmful policies because they're superficially reasonable

Edit. Nope misread it

im not sure what these harmful policies are that are superficially reasonable though 

[karaddin]

Given you think puberty blockers are dangerous we don't agree on what's harmful and what's reasonable. 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Given you think puberty blockers are dangerous we don't agree on what's harmful and what's reasonable. 

Well yes because of NHS guidance I’m cautious of them. Not sure what is unreasonable about that.

[Martell Spy]

32 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

yeah, its ridiculous, so much good faith discussion jfc

That was actually the Paul Ryan standard for Trump. He called his comments racist, but could not bring himself to label Trump a racist. Because he can't read minds. I guess we need some Vulcans in here right away before making any determinations about anyone ever.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Given you think puberty blockers are dangerous we don't agree on what's harmful and what's reasonable. 

Also letting kids social transitioning(let kids go by the pronouns they like most and dress how they like).

 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So I think this establishes JKR is a bit of a dick, especially online, but where is the transphobia?

Aja Romano at Vox did a pretty good documenting it.  I don't know if I agree 100%, but it's hard to read that entire article and not come to the conclusion that Rowling is transphobic.  You yourself have repeatedly noted that she's become "entrenched."  So this seems to acknowledge that she looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, don't really see the big deal in calling that behavior a duck.

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Aja Romano at Vox did a pretty good documenting it.  I don't know if I agree 100%, but it's hard to read that entire article and not come to the conclusion that Rowling is transphobic.  You yourself have repeatedly noted that she's become "entrenched."  So this seems to acknowledge that she looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, don't really see the big deal in calling that behavior a duck.

Yes it’s been posted up many many many times and it’s still pretty weak. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

That was actually the Paul Ryan standard for Trump. He called his comments racist, but could not bring himself to label Trump a racist. Because he can't read minds. I guess we need some Vulcans in here right away before making any determinations about anyone ever.

Yeah it’s a common motif for the  far-right when they can’t demonstrate a positive position they agree with to basically attack the idea anyone can know anything about anything.

 

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Rowling is transphobic.

Unless of course you find the premise of transphobia a ludicrous concept by itself—

Then it’s rather easy to.

I do think it’s important to recognize people’s standards for what qualifies as bigotry can be so cartoonishly evil that practically No one can be called it. Or at least their professed standards.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes it’s been posted up many many many times and it’s still pretty weak. 

Not sure how demonstrating her own tweets, writings, and behavior as evidence over the past decade is "weak."  Alternatively, perhaps this is a position in which not only Rowling but you have become "entrenched" upon.  Would you at least acknowledge that after reading that article it is reasonable for an objective person to conclude she is transphobic?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Not sure how demonstrating her own tweets, writings, and behavior as evidence over the past decade is "weak."  Alternatively, perhaps this is a position in which not only Rowling but you have become "entrenched" upon.  Would you at least acknowledge that after reading that article it is reasonable for an objective person to conclude she is transphobic?

The only evidence that would be accepted is if jk Rowling said she would like to skullfuck all trans people to death.

And that would only be accepted after a lengthy discussion of the definition of skulfuck

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And that would only be accepted after a lengthy discussion of the definition of skulfuck

I suspect I'd get a "negative" dictionary definition of skullfuck that somehow summarily refutes my arguments.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Let's make a deal, please: If you want to know what I think about something specific, ask me and I'll do my best to answer.

Can I call man homophobic for saying two gay men who’d have a baby through a surrogacy should be put to death or imprisoned?

Is that too woke though?

[DaveSumm]

Regarding my previous post about language, from the Vox article:

Quote

Rowling then adds an insistence on separating “sex” from “gender,” an essentialist idea that contradicts current medical practice and scientific research, which advocates for treating gender identity as linked primarily to the brain, not anatomy.

This sentence doesn’t even begin to make sense. It would if Rowling was advocating for the opposite, to not separate the two. 

Also, it’s probably best we leave all this dictionary talk in the previous thread, there was clearly a complete collapse in understanding there. Suffice to say that the definition was not brought up to refute the point you think it was. Or that’s my best attempt at making sense of it anyway.