I find the "ignore" feature of this forum comes in handy in cases like this.
Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
He is a sniveling gutless spinless prick. Ignore him. Associating you with supremacist views? Seriously?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes but one cannot ignore everything without some sort of response. Sometimes.
Vat is a gent and it is pretty disgusting to post something like that in reference to him.
You really can. I never see his ramblings any more.
Inasmuch as the appeal to drunken populism was intended to be taken seriously, no, Chomsky can't save you.
(i.e., We can say what we might about sports fans, but the more important point is that people should not behave like religious bigots.)
Furthermore, given that you tried to re-establish your footing by correcting me—
—according to a false pretense (see #71↑ in re #48↑, 69↑), maybe you should take a moment to reflect on your own point about "using words responsibly".
What, really, do you think I should think when you're so transparently bullshitting me like how many before you? Are you new? Because, neither am I. We have to go through this every few years about something; black people and women are in heavy rotation, and in the time since Obergefell, anti-trans has gained popularity among the passionate but clueless advocates who always start in medias res, bearing traditionalist and even rightist talking points. (James Lindsay, the notorious antifeminist, anti-communist, and anti-antiracist, describes it as being a really slow learner↱.)
Look at this thread; it's not just about trans people, but, ostensibly it's about J.K. Rowling in some way, and it's true, anyone pretending their concern for cis girls needs to realize who these people are, because they've already told us, repeatedly.
True story, and more than tangentially related: Someone told me, not so long ago, "I am part of your community so respect that", and it's true, these words have meaning to me. The part that doesn't make sense is why that should mean I must abandon and forget my own experience. But that was, in fact, the meaning.
And that's kind of how the latest anti-trans hullabaloo seems to go. Sports fans worrying about cis girls is on its third or fourth rehash over the last fifteen years. It's not too different from the time, several years ago, Billvon↗ found himself rehashing↗ the history of redlining for Seattle↗. For all Seattle's gruff talk, we're supposed to take that kind of naïveté seriously: "Redlining was outlawed 50 years ago." ¿And?
The amount of history we're supposed to just abandon and forget in order to accommodate the latest iteration of the same old is not so easily papered over with indignance and Chomsky.
Will you hear it from the eighty-six year-old woman↗?
Notes:
@ConceptualJames. "Ask questions about the definitions. 'So, when you say 'racist' and 'anti-racist,' you don't mean, like, the normal definition?" Sound confused. This is important. You're there to learn, after all. Don't fight back, just be a *really slow* learner and ask questions to expose." Twitter. 16 June 2020. X.com. 27 March 2025. status/1273080586178002944
@JoyceCarolOates. "by 'men' do you mean 'transgender women'--? do you know anyone in this category? you may have met them, & even liked them; one would guess that they have never threatened you, & are bewildered by your animosity." X. 27 January 2025. X.com. 27 March 2025. status/1883872507423543733
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
He is back on ignore.
I just listened to an excellent podcast titled "The witch trials of JK Rowling".
The podcast does a deep dive into JK Rowling - including interviews with her over several days.
Think what you like about trans people. However, the attempt by the rabid mob to cancel JR Rowling and anybody else who isn't on a particular ideological bandwagon actually raises important questions of freedom of speech and the importance of being able to have discussions.
Anybody who resorts to violent acts to try to prevent thoughtful people from speaking is a danger to civil society. Trying to shut down discussions you'd rather not have is not the way to go about changing hearts and minds. It's what fascists do.
The podcast does a deep dive into JK Rowling - including interviews with her over several days.
Think what you like about trans people. However, the attempt by the rabid mob to cancel JR Rowling and anybody else who isn't on a particular ideological bandwagon actually raises important questions of freedom of speech and the importance of being able to have discussions.
Anybody who resorts to violent acts to try to prevent thoughtful people from speaking is a danger to civil society. Trying to shut down discussions you'd rather not have is not the way to go about changing hearts and minds. It's what fascists do.
Of course, the left has no clueless advocates.
JK Rowling is named in the thread title. What do you think the thread is about? The clues are there, and not hard to spot.
It is your contention, then, is it, that JK Rowling is pretending concern for cis girls?
It's a pity you bring nothing to the table to support that view. Because, without it, you look like a small-minded bigot who has jumped in to join a lynch mob. Be careful of the company you choose. They'll end up policing you, too, if you ever stop toeing the line.
Have you considered the possibility that trying to shout down the opposition and intimidate it into silence might not be the best way to reach the consensus you're looking for?
Maybe, at some point, you need to consider listening to what the other side has to say. Try to remain civil, if you can. Many on your side of this cannot, apparently.
Whoever "Naomi" is, she is wrong about this being an issue "only because" specific US-centric political view.
If you agree with her, you're wrong too.
You don't have the first clue about why JK Rowling stuck her head up on this issue in the first place, do you? Hint: it wasn't because she wanted the notoriety or the death threats from the people who want to shut down public debate.
Not only should we, but we can, if we are able to (1) Empathise with everyone else's position (and right to that position) while not having to accept it as true; (2) Recognise the reciprocation of that - which is that others' may find our own position reprehensible, but we expect them to recognise that we have the right to hold our own position; (3) That nobody whomsoever, both present and absent, participant or bystander, are harmed in any manner that we would not wish upon ourselves or those we hold dear. Chats are not the right approach to dish out punishment - and if we were so inclined to punish, just who are we, really, to hold such a high horse? We are all mere creatures of culture, superstition, and fashion.
Harm. If you claim that my beliefs or positions harm you - albeit they are only my beliefs or positions - then you fail on points (1) and (2). If your intention is to smear and damage my position, then you also fail on point (3). If you believe that my positions would (or could) be harmful to myself, yourself, or others - then that is an incredibly fair and important point to make. But it doesn't make my position either wrong or indefensible - that is only for me to determine: You (or anybody else) are not the arbiter of my mind - I have a conscience of my own for that.
Hosted by Megan Phelps-Roper:
Megan Phelps-Roper - Wikipedia
Indeed.
Maybe you could also lecture us about how people ought to just trust police, as you did in a thread about Bigotry ad Prejudice in Law Enforcement,
(specifically, the murder of George Floyd), or about how you "don't think that teaching anything that is true is necessarily a bad thing" with respect to Florida public schools teaching that slavery was basically an unpaid internship.
parmalee:
I'm fully aware of who Megan Phelps-Roper is, and who she used to be. Maybe you aren't (?)
It sounds like you're upset by something I wrote. Can we talk about that, instead of trying to chase up whether your reporting on posts from old threads accurately reflects views I have actually expressed? My impression is that you're deliberately mischaracterising things I wrote in the past on unrelated topics. I'm wondering why you want to do that, but I'd really rather discuss the current thread topic.
Do you have anything you'd like to say about JK Rowling, or about trans people, for instance?
I'm fully aware of who Megan Phelps-Roper is, and who she used to be. Maybe you aren't (?)
It sounds like you're upset by something I wrote. Can we talk about that, instead of trying to chase up whether your reporting on posts from old threads accurately reflects views I have actually expressed? My impression is that you're deliberately mischaracterising things I wrote in the past on unrelated topics. I'm wondering why you want to do that, but I'd really rather discuss the current thread topic.
Do you have anything you'd like to say about JK Rowling, or about trans people, for instance?
Just providing context, and I've already commented on such within the thread--are you trying to shut down discussion or something here?
Also, are you capable of responding without speculating upon how people feel about something? It's not especially relevant and it's generally what trolls do.
I see. Why do you think that Phelps-Roper's former affiliation with a fundamentalist religious hate group is relevant, in this context? Are you aware that she left the Westboro Baptist church and is now estranged from many members of her family as a result?
No. I'm very eager to have a discussion about your concerns.
Okay. Tell me how you feel. Then I won't need to speculate. I merely commented on how your post came across. You sound upset and angry. Am I wrong?
Do trolls also tell lies about what other people have said in the past?
How I feel is not especially relevant to anything, and that's a known troll tactic--which presumably you know, yes?
You sound upset and angry about something, James, would you like to discuss it?
Probably. Though I suspect that you are insinuating, without evidence, that I am "telling lies" about something here--care to detail precisely what I have allegedly lied about?
I'm feeling slightly generous, so I'll elaborate (slightly):
As for the rest, I consider history somewhat relevant generally and you have a history for posting some rather curious takes (to put it politely) on a number of contentious subjects, such as your seeming inability to understand that some populations simply do not have the luxury and privilege to just trust the police, and assume that they typically are honest and decent and intent on helping, as you posited in the thread to which I linked--surely you can see how one might find that a rather odd take, given the subject matter of the thread, yes? Also, your belief that "teaching anything that is true is (not) necessarily a bad thing" was a rather odd thing to say about a Florida curriculum which included the teaching that slaves learned valuable job skills--as I noted:
"I see it as a bit like saying that a child who is routinely beaten by their parents likely learns some valuable skills about avoiding or evading violence done unto them. It's probably true, sure, but why would anyone bother to point this out other than to diminish the nature and severity of the harm done unto said child?"
www.sciforums.com
IOW, context.
Reply
Re: Rowling: As I've already stated (did you not read the thread, James?), she tends to undermine whatever legitimate concerns she may have by also regularly spouting just outright bigoted bullshit.
As for the rest, I consider history somewhat relevant generally and you have a history for posting some rather curious takes (to put it politely) on a number of contentious subjects, such as your seeming inability to understand that some populations simply do not have the luxury and privilege to just trust the police, and assume that they typically are honest and decent and intent on helping, as you posited in the thread to which I linked--surely you can see how one might find that a rather odd take, given the subject matter of the thread, yes? Also, your belief that "teaching anything that is true is (not) necessarily a bad thing" was a rather odd thing to say about a Florida curriculum which included the teaching that slaves learned valuable job skills--as I noted:
"I see it as a bit like saying that a child who is routinely beaten by their parents likely learns some valuable skills about avoiding or evading violence done unto them. It's probably true, sure, but why would anyone bother to point this out other than to diminish the nature and severity of the harm done unto said child?"
CRT: Critical Race Theory as Bogeyman
Bells: Dude! Come on! Is this really a hill you want to die on? No. It's not important. Have you not been aware that in red states in the US, a certain revision is taking place when it comes to American history? Well, that really depends on what you mean. The US is a diverse place. Lots of...
www.sciforums.com
IOW, context.
Reply
Agreed that she should not be "cancelled." But given how often she is quoted, interviewed and invited to speak, she has not been.
There's a tendency for people to get pushback when they cite an unpopular viewpoint - whether it's anti-trans rhetoric, Nazism, people should eat less meat, whatever. All too often, overly sensitive types characterize this pushback as "being cancelled." But as long as the person being "cancelled" is loudly complaining about it, and people like yourself are echoing that - they are, by definition, not being cancelled.
As I have said before, she's a member of an older generation, one whose Overton window simply cannot move to allow trans rights. Her opinion is, of course, as valid as anyone else's - if somewhat bigoted.