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

DaveC426913 said:
If you are so emotional that you can't participate without torpedoing the thread, that might be a good indication to step back and reexamine your motives.
Click to expand...
Find an example of me not being civil towards anyone in this thread other than James or Foghorn.

I'm civil towards people who generally post in good faith.

Edit: Anyway, I'm getting the impression that you haven't actually read through this thread (note: I'm saying it's my impress; I honestly don't know whether you have or haven't). I'm hardly the one who is "torpedoing" this thread. I think that would be readily apparent on a more thorough reading.
 
Last edited:
parmalee said:
From what I can see, the following persons have indicated that they consider JKR's views transphobic...TheVat.
Click to expand...
I have not. I've said she seems clueless at times on the subjective nature of trans experience. I don't think she is opposed to trans rights or freedom from discrimination.

On the meta discussion: folks here seem to spend undue time nursing old wounds or trying to nail buzzwords onto their foes. I'd rather consult a dictionary and use a formal precise definition for terms like anti-Semitism or transphobia or (good grief) supremacism, and I don't think anyone here fits those terms. Good faith discussion should depend on honoring agreed definitions of words.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Some of these personal feuds, running a decade or more apparently, seem to qualify. I will avoid threads, starting with this one, where these feuds take over and it's demanded that we comb over what everyone said and what they may have said going back fifteen years. Don't. Give. One. Tiny. Shit.
 
parmalee said:
Find an example of me not being civil towards anyone in this thread pother than James or Foghorn.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter to others who, exactly, you talk like that to or about. It drags the thread into a place of shit-flinging, regardless.

You. I mean, you in the shit, dragging it to your personal comfort zone.
 
TheVat said:
I have not.
Click to expand...
OK, so that's three out of seven who desire not to be misrepresented. And that's only the vocal ones who have spoken out, and only so far.


So yeah, I request that everything from the post 524 prediction onward get moved out as a diversion - a self-fulfilling meta-rant.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It doesn't really matter to others who, exactly, you talk like that to or about. It drags the thread into a place of shit-flinging, regardless.

You. I mean, you in the shit, dragging it to your personal comfort zone.
Click to expand...
And compelling people to have to point out that there is a difference between asserting that there are antisemitic tropes present in a work and asserting that a person is antisemitic dozens and dozens of times accomplishes the same thing.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, so that's three out of seven who desire not to be misrepresented. And that's only the vocal ones who have spoken out, and only so far.
Click to expand...
Are you going to bother addressing any of James' misrepresentations?

Or are you of the opinion that people ought misrepresent all they like, as long as they do so politely?
 
parmalee said:
Are you going to bother addressing any of James' misrepresentations?
Click to expand...
James is not filling thread with poo, so I am content to let it evolve organically as a discussion in which there is spirited disagreement, and even plenty of misrepresentation all around.
parmalee said:
And compelling people to have to point out that there is a difference between asserting that there are antisemitic tropes present in a work and asserting that a person is antisemitic dozens and dozens of times accomplishes the same thing.
Click to expand...
Which you should be able to do without filthy cussing-calling, deliberately getting the thread chopped up and sent to Cesspool and getting infracted.

There's a line. You're in the classroom, not the back alley.
 
DaveC426913 said:
James is not filling thread with poo, so I am content to let it evolve organically as a discussion in which there is spirited disagreement, and even plenty of misrepresentation all around.

Which you should be able to do without filthy cussing-calling, deliberately getting the thread chopped up and sent to Cesspool and getting infracted.

There's a line. You're in the classroom, not the back alley.
Click to expand...
IOW

People ought misrepresent all they like, as long as they do so politely.

People have different opinions and tactics, and that's fine by me. But, personally, I find the Southern Strategy (and related) rather repugnant.
 
parmalee said:
IOW

People ought misrepresent all they like, as long as they do so politely.
Click to expand...
You're trying to turn a spirited discussion between many into a street fight between two.
I'm not prosecuting the case at the moment, just requesting a return to corners.

parmalee said:
People have different opinions and tactics, and that's fine by me. But, personally, I find the Southern Strategy (and related) rather repugnant.
Click to expand...
And you are welcome to say so!
 
DaveC426913 said:
You're trying to turn a spirited discussion between many into a street fight between two.
I'm not prosecuting the case at the moment, just requesting a return to corners.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, in so doing, one is effectively allowing for dog whistles and the like. What I mean is that something repugnant/objectionably/morally or ethically "wrong" will be allowed by virtue of it's adherence to form.

That's not to say that I have the "answer" to that (what to do about that, that is), nor that I even know what the "answer" is, but rather just to acknowledge the state of affairs in doing such, i.e. always engaging civilly, etc.

Consider the question "are they?" from before--meaning: Are "Jews happy to portray Jewish stereotypes?" Civil form, certainly; definitely not a "civil"--nor innocent--question. (And, as noted before, I am not "happy" when people assume I'm cheap (even if I am) or that I'm intent on swindling them (financially). Slightly different formation, but essentially the same concept.)
 
Sarkus said:
So you do think JKR is transphobic, and an antisemite! Thanks for clearing that up! ;)
Click to expand...
Har har.

I think labels are dangerous. Too much baggage.

It's easy to make sound bites out of labels. But they lack all nuance. They're black and white.

Or worse, they appear black and white but aren't. Because your bar for transphobia and/or anti-semitism is different from mine.

If you think JKR is "A transphobe" and "AN antisemite" then there's little more to be done but lick the back of the label and stick it on.

If you think there's some grey area (eg. but not limited to "lazy", "traditional", "misguided", or "what rises to the level of transphobia" etc. ), then there's more discussion to be had.


And I think this is what James R is trying to encourage. I have known him for decades and his primary tool is give opponents leading questions that offer some rope to haul themselves out or hang themselves.

This is likely what y'all call misrepresentation. He is putting responsibility back on y'all (ugh) to think through the implication of y'all's own assertions, and hopefully realize y'all've pulled enough rope to hang y'all's-self and maybe it's time to put some back.

He does this moreso with opponents he views as obstinate and combative.

Many people have made the mistake of bashing themselves on a stone wall and then complaining that the wall attacked them and broke their knuckles. I've seen it time and time again.

To clarify: my observation and description of his techniques and views is not the same as siding with them. I just see how he behaves and offer my insight.

I doubt this will go any way toward reconciling your opinion of him, but maybe you can see why I don't hold the same opinion of him as y'all.
 
parmalee said:
The problem is that, in so doing, one is effectively allowing for dog whistles and the like. What I mean is that something repugnant/objectionably/morally or ethically "wrong" will be allowed by virtue of it's adherence to form.
Click to expand...
OK. Can still be done civilly.

I think the problem is, to put it bluntly, you have no way of shutting him down, which is why you resort to ever nastier insults as a kind of desperation, since you can't really "report" him. But I do not think his misrepresentations rise to the level of reporting, so this is not a case of moderator abuse of privilege.
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK. Can still be done civilly.
Click to expand...
However, the dog whistle is the shit. And it's insidious, definitionally, and resistant to civil counter by design-- see especially the Southern Strategy. Moreover, historically, it's pretty potent and effective and, time and again, civil response alone is hardly effective in countering such. Also, for that matter, see all movements which have been effective in countering such in the past--for instance, in US Civil Rights, SA Apartheid, Indian Independence, etc. Successful gains have only ever been achieved through diverse strategies and tactics--both civil and very much not civil.
 
parmalee said:
The problem is that, in so doing, one is effectively allowing for dog whistles and the like. What I mean is that something repugnant/objectionably/morally or ethically "wrong" will be allowed by virtue of it's adherence to form.
Click to expand...
Note by the way, that:
"I do not think that JKR's thoughts/actions rise to the level of transphobe" is not the same as "I am, myself, a transphobe".
"I do not think that JKR's thoughts/actions rise to the level of antisemitism" is not the same as "I am, myself, an antisemite".

A common mistake (or deliberate provocation). One Tiassa makes all the time, one James is very familiar with, and one he does not tend to rise to. And just because he does not rise to it, that does not mean you (or Tiassa) are right.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Note by the way, that:
"I do not think that JKR's thoughts/actions rise to the level of transphobe" is not the same as "I am, myself, a transphobe".
"I do not think that JKR's thoughts/actions rise to the level of antisemitism" is not the same as "I am, myself, an antisemite".

A common mistake (or deliberate provocation). One Tiassa makes all the time, one James is very familiar with, and one he does not tend to rise to. And just because he does not rise to it, that does not mean you (or Tiassa) are right.
Click to expand...
Except no one has done anything of the sort within this thread.
 
parmalee said:
However, the dog whistle is the shit. And it's insidious, definitionally, and resistant to civil counter by design-- see especially the Southern Strategy. Moreover, historically, it's pretty potent and effective and, time and again, civil response alone is hardly effective in countering such. Also, for that matter, see all movements which have been effective in countering such in the past--for instance, in US Civil Rights, SA Apartheid, Indian Independence, etc. Successful gains have only ever been achieved through diverse strategies and tactics--both civil and very much not civil.
Click to expand...
Be honest. Do you honestly think James R is transphobic? Or do you think, perhaps, he thinks others are over-reaching their accusations of JKR, and is not afraid to suffer the slings and arrows?
 
DaveC426913 said:
And I think this is what James R is trying to encourage. I have known him for decades and his primary tool is give opponents leading questions that offer some rope to haul themselves out or hang themselves.

This is likely what y'all call misrepresentation. He is putting responsibility back on y'all (ugh) to think through the implication of y'all's own assertions, and hopefully realize y'all've pulled enough rope to hang y'all's-self and maybe it's time to put some back.

He does this moreso with opponents he views as obstinate and combative.

Many people have made the mistake of bashing themselves on a stone wall and then complaining that the wall attacked them and broke their knuckles. I've seen it time and time again.
Click to expand...
???

More often than not, he hangs himself by this "methodology".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top