Like I've said before, I think James mostly provides cover for bigots.
Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That may well be so. And I do not refute it.
But do you see it now?
You most certainly did. Again: Read the thread.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, not a bigot himself. To be clear.
See, this is where the term hysteria comes in perfectly.
I'm familiar with his methods, certainly. I find them very ineffective, generally, as more often than not they read more as baseless and unfounded insinuation.
In certain instances, it can work--and it does sometimes. But I think it's a methodology with fairly limited useful application.
Yeah, James clearly has not read the thread.
But to clarify the bigoted matter: there's a distinction, certainly, but it's not always clear what to do with the distinction. i mean, what does it really matter? Is is that much different to be an apologist for something than to espouse such oneself?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is what I read. can you clarify who is the "lying bigoted troll" in this quote?
Weird. This post appeared a couple of minutes ago, but then it seems to have reappeared as a different post number?
See clarification in edit in post above. There's a distinction, but I don't really know how meaningful or substantive it is practically.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. I see why he is calling it hysteria. You are arguing against an unseen third party, these bigots, that you see James enabling here in this thread, with his views.
I'm not saying bigots aren't out there; they are. But James having a discussion here, in a thread with considered viewpoints does not rise t the level of enabling anyone. That's not what discussion forums are about. This is a topical issue that needs to be discussed among concerned people. it needs the spac to do so.
You are accusing him of harbouring bogeymen, here in this thread. You are driving a movement that encourages the expression of only one allowed view, and we all must share it at all times, lest they "get us".
And doing it in a mob? Shouting down one voice by your own count of seven farmers with verbal pitchforks? Yeah, that's hysteria.
Do you see the problem? Is it what is happening in America, and what happened in "1984". "Any nuanced discussion of this topic shall be crushed by the popular opinion, lest it enable the bad people". Don't be that guy.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well, I don't see a distinction. In case there was any ambiguity, you explicitly said who exactly you are calling (and I quote) "bigot". This puts the lie to your claim in post 557.
The larger picture here is that I see you over-reaching your words, and it is on you to say what you mean in the first place so as not to spend a page backtracking to have you clarify things you explicitly said. We had the same thing happen in the "Shoot Trump" tread. If it were ancient history, it wouldn't keep happening.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes.
Because your idea of bigotry and anti-semitism - as inferred from JKR's views - is not the same as everyone's.
To analogize (badly): You've got hold of a ribbon that's white at one end, black at the other, and million shades in between.
You say "The ribbon is white, and white is the only colour anyone can think it is, otherwise they are clearly black apologists".
???
I think you haven't read the thread, honestly.
Read through the thread and then get back to me.
Again, I don't think you've read the thread.
This has already been clarified, long ago.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, I am literally quoting you, explicitly calling James a lying bigoted troll, just six hours ago. And then thirty minutes ago, saying it didn't happen.
Nope. Didn't say it didn't happen. I clarified by stating that what I really meant there is that James provides cover for bigots. Of course, the clarification wouldn't be necessary if you were to just read the thread. Like I said, it's already been clarified, a long while back.
Where are you claoming that I said this didn't happen?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I read you calling him a lying bigoted troll just six hours ago. And then you said no one said bigoted thirty minutes ago.
You can equivocate all you want, it's on-record.
And a prick, and a fucking idiot.
The point here is not to pick nits or language-check. The point here is you're throwing a lot of black stones for someone living in a glass kettle.
Maybe recognize that your personal beef with James has interfered with your own credibility. You can still make your points without shooting off your own foot by degrading yourself. Sticking curse words and epithets in there, and perverting the thread into a personal vendetta, doesn't make you more righter. But it does pollute thread for everyone else.
Show me where I denied having said that. Also, why would one deny having said what a person has just quoted them as having said? Think this through.
No personal beef. Couldn't care less about the guy, I just don't like liars and people who routinely make baseless insinuations. And I have less patience with them than most people do.
Also, try starting just at post #405, on page 20, to get a sense of this current chapter.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
OK. Maybe I'm wrong. You acknowledge you did call him a bigot, just six hours ago. you;tre not denying that.
Exactly my thought. Which is why it confuses me that you are so hard on James when you make all sorts of blunders yourself.
Nonsense.
You still think this is all about you and James.
Also, review this post--see the clarification?