Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

[Pinball1970]

Never thought of the Goblin thing with JK. Tolkien was mentioned but strictly speaking they were no goblins they were Orcs, a bastardization of Elves.

Dickens however with Fagin and Scrooge is probably a lot closer to what is being discussed here but that was the middle of the 19th Century.

 

[parmalee]

Yes Mel Brooks spring ( times for Hitler) to mind. He took racism head on and made fun of it with another Jew Gene Wilder.

Yeah, and it takes a good deal of talent to do this well. One might even argue that marginalized groups have a sort of "advantage" in comedy, both because they're immersed in what they poke fun at, but also because they might have a bit more license and freedom to say and do things that might be a little suspect when coming from someone else.

 

[Pinball1970]

Yeah, and it takes a good deal of talent to do this well. One might even argue that marginalized groups have a sort of "advantage" in comedy, both because they're immersed in what they poke fun at, but also because they might have a bit more license and freedom to say and do things that might be a little suspect when coming from someone else.

With that stuff certainly, it is their party, they have earned it.

I recommend Chris Rock Sketch - he sums it up. Following the N word appearing in movies, RAP songs by black artists

"So is now ok for a white guy to use the N word? ...........Not reallllyy."

 

[parmalee]

Never thought of the Goblin thing with JK. Tolkien was mentioned but strictly speaking they were no goblins they were Orcs, a bastardization of Elves.

Dickens however with Fagin and Scrooge is probably a lot closer to what is being discussed here but that was the middle of the 19th Century.

Yeah, I almost posted on the goblin thing within Tolkien, but it's so convoluted. I mean, no one seems to know whether goblins and orcs are the same species (or race)--it's really not all that clear. And their being debased and mutated elves certainly complicates matters.

Dickens is an excellent example for this sort of stuff--there's just so much progressivism in Dickens, while at the same time there are aspects that are so cringe. And then when you go beyond simply the text, and consider the personalities and the historical context, it always gets really ugly. I've forgotten the specifics with Dickens--didn't he leave his wife for someone who was basically a child, or something like that?--but then the Overton Window is in constant flux.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes Mel Brooks spring ( times for Hitler) to mind. He took racism head on and made fun of it with another Jew Gene Wilder.

For those that need reminding...

 

[parmalee]

With that stuff certainly, it is their party, they have earned it.

I recommend Chris Rock Sketch - he sums it up. Following the N word appearing in movies, RAP songs by black artists

"So is now ok for a white guy to use the N word? ...........Not reallllyy."

A few weeks back, Jon Stewart mocked Chuck Schumer for betraying Jewish stereotypes by being incredibly bad at negotiation.

 

[parmalee]

For those that need reminding...

And there's always Jerry Lewis' unreleased masterpiece, The Day the Clown Cried. For the record, the film is not a comedy, but Lewis apparently just couldn't help himself. There's a scene in which he's urinating into a basin, and to underscore just how cold it is, the pee turns to ice and "chinks" when it hits the basin. Kinda complicates that whole bit about putting on a clown show and, in Pied Piper fashion, leading children into the gas chambers.

 

[Pinball1970]

Yeah, I almost posted on the goblin thing within Tolkien, but it's so convoluted. I mean, no one seems to know whether goblins and orcs are the same species (or race)--it's really not all that clear. And their being debased and mutated elves certainly complicates matters.

Dickens is an excellent example for this sort of stuff--there's just so much progressivism in Dickens, while at the same time there are aspects that are so cringe. And then when you go beyond simply the text, and consider the personalities and the historical context, it always gets really ugly. I've forgotten the specifics with Dickens--didn't he leave his wife for someone who was basically a child, or something like that?--but then the Overton Window is in constant flux.

I had a quick look in co pilot to see if I could get a decent reference. This from the Jewish Chronicle

"Fagin, a character in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist, has long been debated for its portrayal of Jewish stereotypes. In the novel, Fagin is a criminal who leads a group of child thieves, and Dickens frequently refers to him as "the Jew"—a detail that many critics argue reinforces negative stereotypes.

Dickens later acknowledged concerns about this portrayal. After receiving a letter from a Jewish reader, Eliza Davis, he made efforts to reduce references to Fagin’s Jewish identity in later editions of the book. He also introduced a more sympathetic Jewish character, Riah, in his novel Our Mutual Friend, possibly as an attempt to counterbalance his earlier depiction."

Is Fagin antisemitic?

With a new adaptation of the Dickens classic, we explore the roots of this controversial character

www.thejc.com

 

[parmalee]

Dickens later acknowledged concerns about this portrayal. After receiving a letter from a Jewish reader, Eliza Davis, he made efforts to reduce references to Fagin’s Jewish identity in later editions of the book. He also introduced a more sympathetic Jewish character, Riah, in his novel Our Mutual Friend, possibly as an attempt to counterbalance his earlier depiction."

Is Fagin antisemitic?

With a new adaptation of the Dickens classic, we explore the roots of this controversial character

www.thejc.com

Interesting. I did not know this.

This is partly what this thread illustrates: imho Rowling made a bad judgement, but rather than simply acknowledging this and moving on, she doubled down. Why? Her concerns about the "dilution" of womanhood just don't make a whole lot of sense, and they are very much reliant upon a whole lotta straw men. But when she gets into the bullying aspect, it just makes her bigotry seem more based in hatred than just ignorance.

One of the reasons I like Bill Burr so much is that he actually progresses. He's said a lot of dumb shit in the past--and he continues to do so--but he acknowledges this, and makes it clear that he is trying to be better. That takes a lot and it's quite admirable.

Rowling, on the other hand, claims to respect differing opinions but then she deletes a complimentary post she made about Stephen King on Twitter and then blocks him, because he made a post in which he said, "trans women are women." WTF?! That's not a good illustration of "respecting" and "tolerating" differing opinions.

 

[Sarkus]

I recommend Chris Rock Sketch - he sums it up. Following the N word appearing in movies, RAP songs by black artists

"So is now ok for a white guy to use the N word? ...........Not reallllyy."

*ahem* any excuse to roll out the ol' classic:

 

[Pinball1970]

For those that need reminding...

My favourite Mel Brooks moment, they have just appointed a black Sheriff.

 

[parmalee]

For shits and giggles, I'm gonna field this one again:

Please explain what you see as the problematic aspect of that.

Does JKR identify goblins with Jews in the Harry Potter books? Are goblins Jewish?

Is JKR just being racist against goblins?

Is it racist to say a goblin can be a banker?

What's the problem, parmalee? Explain.

You know what, I'm going to keep my views on goblins a closely guarded secret (because that's what we're really talking about here, right?), in order to lend some credence to this rather curious response to me (from earlier in the thread):

parmalee:

I asked questions like those to clarify where people stand on the issues at hand. For some reason, a lot of people want to hedge their bets and keep their actual opinions a closely guarded secret. I think it's to try avoiding accountability further down the line.

It would be a lot easier if people would just be upfront and say "Well, you know, I actually DO think that X" or "No, I definitely DON'T think that X", instead of all this pussy-footing and hedging that goes on when somebody asks a direct question about what they think.

Right. Cuz I never let people know what I really think. I'm very... withholding when it comes to expressing my views on a matter (that's sarcasm, James, just so we're clear). Instead, I need people to make a bunch of wholly baseless insinuations in order to work out how I really feel (again, sarcasm).

(For instance, the other day I said this:

And to be clear, they're a bunch of fucking racists who will--and do--think nothing when it comes to killing those they despise--see Gaza, disappearing people to gulags and concentration camps, denying essential healthcare, etc. (And a note for whatever idjits happen to be reading: just cuz they're Zionists and support Israel doesn't mean they're not antisemites, as well.)

How would you characterize this, James? Is this an example of me "keep(ing) (my) actual opinions a closely guarded secret"?)

Alternately--now hear me out!--I was responding to this:

Some have said Rowling's Potter books show Rowling is racist.

With some clarification, i.e., this:

Actually, what many have said, going back some 20-odd years now (though not within this thread), is that both the Harry Potter books and films are filled with racist tropes. Do you honestly not see anything problematic about the goblin bankers?

Jon Stewart Goes Off on ‘Anti-Semitic’ Caricature of Gringotts Bank Goblins in 'Harry Potter' Franchise

Jon Stewart called out J.K. Rowling for her anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews in the form of the goblins in the Harry Potter franchise.

www.thewrap.com

See the difference there? For the most part, people haven't said that the Potter books show that Rowling is racist, rather they have said that the books and films are filled with racist tropes. As for the matter of the goblins and Jews, well, some answers can be found within the link I provided. Got it? Or would you rather continue with your trolling? If the latter, perhaps you might consider hanging up your "mod hat", at least for the duration of your trolling, at the very least.

 

[parmalee]

One more time for good measure--and to illustrate precisely how much of a troll this guy is:

Please explain what you see as the problematic aspect of that.

Why? This is what I said:

Actually, what many have said, going back some 20-odd years now (though not within this thread), is that both the Harry Potter books and films are filled with racist tropes. Do you honestly not see anything problematic about the goblin bankers?

Note the "what many have said" there? See anything about my own opinion? So why would it be relevant?

Does JKR identify goblins with Jews in the Harry Potter books?

Nope. And what precisely would that have to do with anything anyway? Are you not aware that antisemitic tropes and stereotypes can be present without even having to mention Jews? Also note that I was referring both to the books and the films.

Are goblins Jewish?

Not to my knowledge. Do you consider Jews to be goblins, James? Or perhaps you consider goblins to be Jews? Why is it, James, that you regard Jews as goblins? (See what I did there? I am adopting your own rhetorical technique.)

Is JKR just being racist against goblins?

You tell me--it's your strawman.

Is it racist to say a goblin can be a banker?

You tell me--it's your strawman.

What's the problem, parmalee? Explain.

Sure, after you explain the reasoning behind your regular inclusion of straw men into your "arguments" and "questioning". What was it that Dave said on the previous page, with respect to Rowling's "argument" re: bathrooms? Ah, here it is:

It's a terrible red herring argument that (not to put too fine a point on it) is a ploy almost universally used by bigots.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure, after you explain the reasoning behind your regular inclusion of straw men into your "arguments" and "questioning". What was it that Dave said on the previous page, with respect to Rowling's "argument" re: bathrooms? Ah, here it is:

Please don't abuse the thrust of my words by quoting me out of context.

 

[parmalee]

Please don't abuse the thrust of my words by quoting me out of context.

I did cite the context (re: Rowling's arguments with respect to bathrooms). Yes, it wasn't directed towards James, but the principle stands: Over-reliance upon strawman argumentation is strongly suggestive of bias or ignorance, and James has been doing that extensively within this thread, along with repeatedly making baseless insinuations against multiple posters under the pretense that he is simply seeking clarification for their position. I have shown, also repeatedly, that that is very much not the case, unless we are to assume that James suffers from some sort of extreme short-term memory impairment.

 

[parmalee]

Please don't abuse the thrust of my words by quoting me out of context.

Anyway, here is the full context:

(Rowling) does not make a compelling argument. It is certainly her personal journey, but it doesn't make many good points that might apply on a more objective scale.

One example:
- the sole requirement for someone to demand they be considered a female is that they decide they identify as female.
- gendered washrooms allow anyone in who identifies as female
- this provides a loophole where men (specifically abusers, predators) have access to women's washrooms.
She wants to close this loophole.

That seems to be using a bulldozer to dig up a teacup. You don't solve problems with "Hey, we've got a safety issue in private spaces, therefore everyone in the world must fall into one of exactly two buckets so we can keep y'all sorted out".

It's a terrible red herring argument that (not to put too fine a point on it) is a ploy almost universally used by bigots.

You will note that James has made precisely the same argument within this thread. So there's that.

 

[foghorn]

So when someone considers it so significant that Helena Bonham Carter and Daniel Radcliffe are Jewish that they need to point this out twice, I'm completely at a loss as to what he seems to think that that means. Anyone?

It means some Jews do not see reds Anti-semitism under ever bed, and are happy with the 'tropes' being shown.

Well, dur! If JKR was an anti-semite then she would certainly have ensured that the person playing the hero would be non-Jewish, right? I mean, can't have a Jewish person being the saviour, right?

If Goblins are suppose to represent Jews, then why is there a human Jewish wizard character called Anthony Goldstein

BTW this racist stuff, only came up in this thread because of one or two of the links provided by Tiassa or Parmalee.
Did one of them see a connection with Rowling's take on trans people.

 

[DaveC426913]

It means some Jews do not see reds Anti-semitism under ever bed, and are happy with the 'tropes' being shown.

It's not limited to Potter.

Star Trek and Star Wars are both rife with races that are modelled after racial stereotypes. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi...

...these guys:

this guy:

 

[parmalee]

It means some Jews do not see reds Anti-semitism under ever bed, and are happy with the 'tropes' being shown.

It means no such thing. For decades, Black people appeared in overtly racist films. Their options were, basically, portray a lecherous, thieving and lazy n****, or be out a job. You think they were "happy" with being portrayed in such a fashion?

 

[Pinball1970]

Checked out The Spiderwick Chronicles too just for a bit of context, written around the same time, American and has goblins.

There is a good goblin but all rest are nasty with one turn coat.

From my gut? I think Goblins are just Goblins from ancient stories like, Ogres, Imps, Elves, Trolls, Jinn and other folky stuff.

Hitchens had a nice anecdote about this sort of thing.