The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

35 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

@Phylum of Alexandria

@TrackerNeil

Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this review of the podcast.  

Thanks, I'll give it a look. I will probably take a bit to respond with thoughts, as I also want to check out CP's new video.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was thinking about this comparison after the earlier talk about "bigotry."  If we associate this with the gay marriage debate, then about 80 percent of the US political establishment were "bigots" in the nineties.  Obviously, almost all of them weren't, and many of them knew better than their public position-taking, but that's how it was with DOMA and it took SCOTUS to change things only ten years ago beginning with Windsor.  Might have been a different SC than the current one, but not that much different. 

So..in the interest of lowering the temperature on things, feel like this should be emphasized.  As I said, I am very confident the future will determine certain figures like Rowling are on the wrong side of history in twenty or so years.  But by the same token, Clinton, and even Obama, as well as most of the Democratic Congress were on the wrong side of history in a very recent and relevant comparison.  Which is why I think the vitriol leveled on the internet is, most of the time, very unhelpful.

I see your point, though I think that it is less useful to compare random people or people with no political power to politicians in terms of taking sides or being bigots. Rowling does not need to build a coalition or appease her voter base. 

And sure, some are just going along with the bigotry because their party does jt. Not sure that makes it better or worse, honestly. Regardless I don't think that it means we are obliged to not call them bigots, or somehow coddle them when their support is encouraging actual bigoted laws to be passed.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And sure, some are just going along with the bigotry because their party does jt. Not sure that makes it better or worse, honestly. Regardless I don't think that it means we are obliged to not call them bigots, or somehow coddle them when their support is encouraging actual bigoted laws to be passed.

Well, that was kinda my point.  This isn't necessarily "party based."  There are plenty of people that hold these anti-trans beliefs and still identify as Democrats, or at least Dem-leaning Independents.  Particularly older people, but also just in general.  And I think it's important not to call them bigots unless there is clear demonstration of such attitudes....

Actually, I think we had a somewhat analogous discussion WAY back, maybe six or seven years ago?, when I was talking about the difference between implicit racism as opposed to, well, explicit racism.  Same idea, which I again think is pretty well demonstrated by how long it took for the Democratic party to actually get on board with gay marriage.  

There are certain people that will eventually change their attitudes on these type of social attitudes due to exposure, empathy, etc.  Hell, look at Dick Cheney.  Also, ya know, they'll die off.  Which is, again, why I'm very confident this issue will look a whole hell of a lot different in twenty years than it does today. 

In the meantime, I understand it is frustrating, but I also do not think it is useful to respond to hate with hate unless it is absolutely necessary.  And in this case, education and exposure can actually be a way in which to change public opinion rather than hostility and vitriol.  So, of course I'm going to choose the former.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Similar to @DMC I'm very confident the views of Rowling and those with similar attitudes will be on the wrong side of history.

I never saw the worth of that claim for any figure.

People at future times in different cultures aren’t predetermined to think any particular figure is good or bad at a given moment.

 

5 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

But I also think that you should be aware of those distinctions and not make choices about people's actual lives and safety based solely on political expediency

Also should be wary of taking any groups loyalty as a given because of the threat of x political faction getting in control.

Also there’s a risk of groups who are in very similar struggles seeing the  potential prosperity for another  as a good sign for them or the failure of another as a bad sign for them.

 

[karaddin]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

In the meantime, I understand it is frustrating, but I also do not think it is useful to respond to hate with hate unless it is absolutely necessary.  And in this case, education and exposure can actually be a way in which to change public opinion rather than hostility and vitriol.  So, of course I'm going to choose the former.

I think what I find frustrating about this whole "debate", and to be clear this is springboarding off your post not directed at you, is the way that it treats "hate" as though its not just the only thing being delivered but is actually the only thing possible. I'm a trans person right here, in this actual iteration of the debate happening on this forum. I'm not hating on JKR, I'm not asking anyone to hate her. I'm asking for people to accept that this is filled with bad faith argumentation that obfuscates its true meaning behind reasonable sounding complaints and requests, this extends from random people on the internet all the way up to Jo herself.

I would love for something to get through to JKR and change her mind, and I wouldn't truly give a fuck about any kind of penance - simply replacing the current harm she's doing with a neutral influence would be enough. I don't believe that's actually in the realm of possibility, and certainly not something I can bring about, so I'm not going to waste my time or emotion trying/hoping for it to happen, but it would be pretty easy for her to prove to the level I require if it did. Just change her public statements on the matter, done!

But in the absence of that we're left with the reality that the world is a colossally shitty place for trans people right now. The hint of things improving gave a lot of us enough of a nudge that the subconscious blocks on accepting ourselves were blown off, and now the cynical politics is amplifying blow back against us because they lost the fight on gay rights leaving even very privileged individuals like myself in precarious mental health and a hell of a lot worse for those less fortunate. This argument is absolutely attempting to strip away basic rights, look at certain US red states which are already moving to outright ban health care at all. That's an end point we see and fear.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The hint of things improving gave a lot of us enough of a nudge that the subconscious blocks on accepting ourselves were blown off, and now the cynical politics is amplifying blow back against us because they lost the fight on gay rights leaving even very privileged individuals like myself in precarious mental health and a hell of a lot worse for those less fortunate. This argument is absolutely attempting to strip away basic rights, look at certain US red states which are already moving to outright ban health care at all. That's an end point we see and fear.

I understand it sucks right now and moreover there are a lot of stupid arguments that only perpetuate the violence towards trans people.  I do think that will change though, with time.  It may be small consolation in the meantime - because it is - but, again, I think exposure and empathy is how to change public opinion on this issue.  As opposed to engaging in hostility online.

This frankly has little to do with Rowling.  From what I've seen, yeah, there's a plethora of evidence that makes it hard to refute she's not a bigot.  Point is, I don't give a shit about JK Rowling.

[The Anti-Targ]

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I never saw the worth of that claim for any figure.

People at future times in different cultures aren’t predetermined to think any particular figure is good or bad at a given moment.

For my part I never claimed that history would call Rowling bad or evil, or if that's how you've interpreted my statement then let me be clear in saying that is not the intent of my statement. But if we look at the arc of history it has tended toward affirming rights for minority groups. Which means those who have fought to oppose minority rights have almost invariably ended up on the wrong side of history in their struggle. I see the current struggle for and against trans-rights going the same way.

15 minutes ago, karaddin said:

for people to accept that this is filled with bad faith argumentation that obfuscates its true meaning behind reasonable sounding complaints and requests, this extends from random people on the internet all the way up to Jo herself.

Quite well covered IMO in Natalie's video, including her discussion of the motte and bailey argument.

Hate must always be defeated, but it is typically not defeated with hate in return. Though history tells us it has often needed to be defeated with violence. Would that we could start to see hatred being defeated non-violently, it would be a nice departure from history. Often those who hate cannot be defeated individually, they are very often a lost cause. But their hatred can be prevented from spreading(defeated) by more strongly promoting loving and inclusive or at least benign attitudes among those who have not yet learned to hate. I think this is why haters are so afraid of children being exposed to positive attitudes and experiences of LGBTQ+ people. Such exposures immunise them from the cancerous hate that some of their parents and elders want to ingrain into them. So, Ben Shapiro will openly threaten Pete Buttigeig with gun violence if Pete tries to teach LGBTQ+ normalisation to Ben's kids. Not because Pete is , nor does Ben really believe he is, trying to convert Ben's kids to being queer, but because Ben does not want any opposing attitude to enter their minds to compete with Ben's queerphobic indoctrination of his kids.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

This argument is absolutely attempting to strip away basic rights, look at certain US red states which are already moving to outright ban health care at all. That's an end point we see and fear

Also being a  “male” and “female” impersonator a sex crime. 

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I watched Natalie's video. I don't have any intention of listening to the podcast so I won't comment on it. But I think it does somewhat behove people who have listened to the whole podcast to dedicate just a couple more hours of their time (or less than that if you are able to follow at 1.5, 1.75 or 2x speed) to hear out those contra points.

Interesting that in the few posts I've read in this thread the Motte and Bailey form of argumentation Natalie talks about seems to be being deployed a fair bit.

Link here for ease of access for those willing to hear her perspective.

Similar to @DMC I'm very confident the views of Rowling and those with similar attitudes will be on the wrong side of history.

I haven't watched this entire video because I am still only halfway through the podcast itself, but I do want to address the accusations of transphobia and the 'motte and bailey' accusations.

I have a real problem with all this and I think it is really illustrative of the whole problem of two groups completely talking past each other and not listening to what the other is saying.

In this case Natalie addresses the accusation that Rowling never said anything transphobic, puts forwards a number of reasons why this is demonstrably untrue.. in her opinion.

The problem is two fold. First she accuses Rowling of Motte and Bailey, or never actually saying the bad stuff, because she's not stupid, and then comparing her to David Duke.  This in itself is just pure bad faith and a pretty common tactic that get's thrown around. It's the same as dog whistles as an accusation. Now it could mean that Rowling is not saying the bad stuff but wants to, or that the stuff she says should be taken at face value and we should pay actual attention to what she says instead of what she doesn't say. If we go back to the old Tumblr culture thing, these accusations really do smell of that. 

And then if you go to what Rowling actually said, she points out a tweet where Rowling is making snarky comments about lesbians and 'people with penises and beards who want to shag women'. This was 'case closed' as far as Wynn was concerned, no more evidence needed. This is an attack on trans people and is transphobic. She thinks.
The problem is, if you understand Rowling's position what she is saying is the people she is referring to, are NOT even trans. They are men wanting to shag women and getting offended that lesbians are rejecting them. Of course Wynn is going to take this personally given her situation, but if she looked at what Rowling was pointing to from outside her life she might see it's quite consistent with the entire position that Rowling takes:

That is, that sex is real, you cannot literally change sex , and more than that there are men out there who are not even really trans but just mimicking sexist tropes of femininity to gain advantage over women, and using lax self identification criteria to do so. 

Wynn also makes the case of saying sex is real is transphobic, and this is where I just don't see where a compromise can be found because I just don't think there is enough good faith going around to allow it.

All this isn't to say Rowling is totally innocent. She should be more careful with who she allies with (but this is pretty understandable when you come under attack, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and she could be more considerate with her language because it opens her up to this kind of criticism. I do think however she went from being mostly considered and realising she was still getting shit flung at her to thinking 'nah fuck it' and getting angry. As I said, just becoming entrenched. 

[TrackerNeil]

13 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

For anyone that listened to the podcast, I though this piece has some good criticisms.  I'll quote some relevant passages later but definitely worth a look:

https://sheseeksnonfiction.blog/2023/04/14/witchtrials/

@Phylum of Alexandria

@TrackerNeil

Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this review of the podcast.  

Thanks for this. I didn't read this multi-part review in full, because it's just too long. I feel as though it would take less time to just listen to the podcast.  And I already did that.

I did read selections, though, and what I'm seeing is less a critique of MPR's interviewing style, or specific focus and more a general complaint with the way MPR sees the world. The blogger is within their rights to take that view, of course, but as it is 100% subjective I didn't find it very persuasive. Yes, I know that all reviews are subjective, but the best ones at least gesture towards objectivity. 

However, I think my biggest area of disgreement is that the review is tendentious; basically, it assumes that Rowling is a bigot because...well, if you have certain points of view, you must hate trans people. If Rowling had expressed a belief that trans people should be rounded up and put into death camps, that would be well founded. If Rowling had declared that trans people should not be able to hold jobs or attend schools, that would also be well founded. But when the the subject of the podcast is expressing beliefs that many if not most Americans agree with, I think it's a much steeper climb to call that obvious bigotry. A good reviewer would take that into account. But then, the very title of the review--"The Insidious Transphobia of the Witch Trials of JK Rowling"--tells you exactly what you're going to get in the body of the review. So I shouldn't have been surprised.

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.

So that's my take. I am sure others had a different experience.

Edited to add: I have not yet listened to the Contrapoints video, because I find Wynn a thoughtful commentator and I want to give her viewpoint my full attention.

[karaddin]

It's literally an acronym for a description of their policies. Are you still going to accept it's a slur if someone just says the whole thing rather than the acronym?

If I'm trying to use a pejorative for them I'm going to call them transphobes or bigots or something worse than that. TERF describes who they are and communicates where they position themselves, ie they're coming at this from a feminist framing.

You feel like you're viewing everything from a "woke" source far more sceptically than you do the opposite. 

Also loving the reliable line from HoI that you can't ever take context, a person's other comments or any other subtext into account when judging what someone means, just the explicit semantic meaning of the words they use in complete isolation.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Woke ideology states that the people to whom the slur applies get to decide if it is a slur,

 

This is part of a different topic really, but... what. No it doesn't. Racists get offended by being called racist but you don't see anyone who considers themselves 'woke' going 'aw you poor guy I'm sorry they called you that'. 

[TrackerNeil]

11 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's literally an acronym for a description of their policies. Are you still going to accept it's a slur if someone just says the whole thing rather than the acronym?

If I'm trying to use a pejorative for them I'm going to call them transphobes or bigots or something worse than that. TERF describes who they are and communicates where they position themselves, ie they're coming at this from a feminist framing.

You feel like you're viewing everything from a "woke" source far more sceptically than you do the opposite. 

Are you asserting, then, that something that X person considers a slur might not be, no matter what X thinks? If so, I probably agree with you.

Do I view woke things skeptically? Absolutely.

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's literally an acronym for a description of their policies. Are you still going to accept it's a slur if someone just says the whole thing rather than the acronym?

If I'm trying to use a pejorative for them I'm going to call them transphobes or bigots or something worse than that. TERF describes who they are and communicates where they position themselves, ie they're coming at this from a feminist framing.

It is hardly a term of endearment and is used directly as a slur, and I don't think many would use the term to describe themselves. Pretty much the only people using it, as mentioned in the podcast are using it in a form closer to something like Witch.
 

12 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Also loving the reliable line from HoI that you can't ever take context, a person's other comments or any other subtext into account when judging what someone means, just the explicit semantic meaning of the words they use in complete isolation.

Speaking of bad faith..

I didn't say you couldn't do that. I just think it's a pretty lazy argument, mostly always used by the left to strawman everyone they don't agree with. There is the possibility of actually just examining what JKR is actually saying rather what you assume she wants to say. You can't defend yourself against things you haven't said. 

 

[karaddin]

So I decided to look for something from her feed that hadn't been mentioned yet. This tweet

Features a very selectively cropped photo of Posie Parker with her own security's hand on her neck being framed as "male violence against women [commited by trans supporters]". The purpose of this tweet is to discredit counter protestors at a rally for someone who had welcomed the support of Hitler saluting, swastika and iron cross wearing neo Nazis only a couple of days earlier in another city. 

Either JK is a useful idiot being played by Posie Parker and her friends, or she's knowingly engaging in incredibly dishonest argumentation because she feels "the cause" warrants it. I personally don't think she's an idiot.

This isn't a smoking gun saying that she hates trans people, but surely people can at least incorporate shit like this into the context of the conversation.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

So I decided to look for something from her feed that hadn't been mentioned yet. This tweet

Features a very selectively cropped photo of Posie Parker with her own security's hand on her neck being framed as "male violence against women [commited by trans supporters]". The purpose of this tweet is to discredit counter protestors at a rally for someone who had welcomed the support of Hitler saluting, swastika and iron cross wearing neo Nazis only a couple of days earlier in another city. 

Either JK is a useful idiot being played by Posie Parker and her friends, or she's knowingly engaging in incredibly dishonest argumentation because she feels "the cause" warrants it. I personally don't think she's an idiot.

This isn't a smoking gun saying that she hates trans people, but surely people can at least incorporate shit like this into the context of the conversation.

I'm not sure I totally understand the context of the tweet by Sheridan, but if he is sneering at a woman being assaulted then I'm no at all surprised that JKR is irritated by it, especially by someone from the SNP. As far as I'm aware Parker didn't invite the Nazi's to that event and the organiser explicitly said she didn't want them there. 

I don't see this as a smoking gun at all, in fact it really just sits quite well with the view that Rowling is mainly interested in the protection of women and sees trans activists as not caring about women's safety.

[karaddin]

25 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Are you asserting, then, that something that X person considers a slur might not be, no matter what X thinks? If so, I probably agree with you.

Do I view woke things skeptically? Absolutely.

I don't think the reality of slurs can be neatly encapsulated into a single sentence. In a void your sentence is correct, someone insisting something is a slur doesn't make it so, but similarly it's entirely possible for someone to use a slur in ignorance of it being a slur and that ignorance doesn't wash it away. It's complicated.

Can you please bring the scepticism to the other side of this argument because they seem to be getting an assumption of good faith that isn't extended to woke.

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure I totally understand the context of the tweet by Sheridan, but if he is sneering at a woman being assaulted then I'm no at all surprised that JKR is irritated by it, especially by someone from the SNP. As far as I'm aware Parker didn't invite the Nazi's to that event and the organiser explicitly said she didn't want them there. 

I don't see this as a smoking gun at all, in fact it really just sits quite well with the view that Rowling is mainly interested in the protection of women and sees trans activists as not caring about women's safety.

You don't see how blatantly lying about what the image you're sharing is doesn't indicate bad faith?

The context of the first tweet is that a cis woman who was protesting Posie Parker poured tomato soup on her, which was immediately framed as horrific violence by "trans activists" (making sure to associate trans with the "violence"). He is laughing at the idea of tomato soup being violent and Rowling is then using the cropped image to make it seem like he's laughing at a man choking a woman*.

I'd like to repeat that it was a cis woman who did the souping.

*Which is itself an image with a lot of implicit associations around it, conjuring up domestic violence and the kind of men that do that. It's remarkably efficient for dishonest messaging

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Can you please bring the scepticism to the other side of this argument because they seem to be getting an assumption of good faith that isn't extended to woke.

If you are asking me to criticize JK Rowling for her tweets, I'm going to decline. As I stated previously, I am not interested in what an author of children's books thinks on any topic.

Now, if you want me to opine on, say, banning gender treatments in the US, I'm happy to do so, because that, IMO, is real harm to real people. Rowling's tweets can annoy, but those bans can immiserate.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You don't see how blatantly lying about what the image you're sharing is doesn't indicate bad faith?

Sure if thats the case I think that is dishonest of her. No problem with that, I don't think she is a good person and it wouldn't surprise me.
 

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

framed as horrific violence by "trans activists"

Whats a better term? I mean if TERF is fair game what is the more appropriate term here?

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

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

If you are asking me to criticize JK Rowling for her tweets, I'm going to decline. As I stated previously, I am not interested in what an author of children's books thinks on any topic.

Now, if you want me to opine on, say, banning gender treatments in the US, I'm happy to do so, because that, IMO, is real harm to real people. Rowling's tweets can annoy, but those bans can immiserate.

Then what the fuck are we doing in this thread? I'm calling her credibility as a good faith actor into question to ask that people consider the possibility that she's not being open and honest with what she actually means. Why are we talking about this if anything that calls her good faith into question is irrelevant anyway? Can we only talk about how terrible it is that people are mean to her?

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.

HoI - the descriptor could be both accurate but also used with the ulterior motive. In this case I'm not sure it was, I don't know that she's involved in any trans activism beyond that counter protest and even that could have been about the Nazi association rather than trans activism. You could refer to her as a counter protestor, since that's what she was actually engaged in at the relevant point in time. But when you're also lying on two other occasions in the same sentence (male and violent) I don't think you're too hung up on honesty.