It was no April Fool’s joke.
Harry Potter author-turned culture warrior J.K. Rowling kicked off the month with an 11-tweet social media thread in which she argued 10 transgender women were men — and dared Scottish police to arrest her.
Rowling’s intervention came as a controversial new Scottish government law, aimed at protecting minority groups from hate crimes, took effect. And it landed amid a fierce debate over both the legal status of transgender people in Scotland and over what actually constitutes a hate crime.
Already the law has generated far more international buzz than is normal for legislation passed by a small nation’s devolved parliament.
If the only thing I knew about a given law is that those three complained about it I would immediately and wholeheartedly support and endorse that law. It’s probably awesome and badly needed.
However, in this particular, case the law is wildly criticized and these 3 are just part of the crowd. And even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
In fact, do you know who should make you mad? Politico.eu. This “news story”/“opinion piece” uses those names just to generate views and bring money. The subject is not being handled in any meaningful way. Your time is just wasted and you’re being used as a product to be sold to their advertisers. And you should be mad at yourself for continually falling in this trap of forming opinions on baseless information.
Casual reminder that Politico is owned by Axel Springer SE, the german Fox News
That’s how Trump people work.
Removed by mod
Removed, civility.
Removed by mod
The problem with your attitude is that, by definition, free speech is only a useful right when it protects unpopular speech. The law at hand here isn’t a surprise (the UK hasn’t got free speech as an enshrined right), but it is certainly a particularly glaring red flag that there is absolutely nothing stopping them from e.g. passing a nearly-identical law copying Thailand about the royal family and putting in prison anyone who calls Prince Andrew a pedophile.
The vast majority of important free speech cases throughout history have involved the most deplorable people making the most deplorable kinds of speech, but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent if the KKK hadn’t won their landmark case.
The problem with your attitude is …
No. That’s your problem with my attitude.
“Free speech” absolutists don’t convince me with their hypotheticals.
Believe it or not: absolute free speech is not the end goal and not as valuable as you all believe.
Forbidding some kind of speech can be okay.
Because not forbidding it creates an awful lot of very real and very current pain. Somehow the theoretical pain that a similar law could create is more important for your argument, than the real and avoidable pain thatthis law is attempting to prevent.
but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent
And I say that the specific American flavor of free speech is not very valuable at all.
My dude. The person you’re replying to said nothing about whether or not they should be able to say what they want. They simply stated their opinion about what they said.
Log off for a bit and work on your reading comprehension.
Huh? The parent commenter said that without knowing anything else, they would support a law that (if you know something about it) would impact whether or not they should be able to say what they want. Now, that commenter may or may not support such a law knowing more about it, but the response addressed the danger of blind support for it.
How did you get to your interpretation of the parent comment?
It’s not blind support. It’s an educated guess based on the fact that those 3 people tend to froth at the mouth in rage against laws that are good for society and support laws that are TERRIBLE for society. So far their track record has been good enough that if they’re mad about a law, it’s probably a good law.
I don’t know why this needs to be explained to you. I’m going to log this as a donation to aid the mentally impaired on my taxes.
(the UK hasn’t got free speech as an enshrined right)
In practice, does the US?
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
It seems to me there are a lot of exceptions to free speech in the land of free speech. I wouldn’t see any harm in adding hate speech to the list given how large it already is.
e.g. passing a nearly-identical law copying Thailand about the royal family and putting in prison anyone who calls Prince Andrew a pedophile.
That seems more of a problem with flawed democracy or autocracies, than to do with free speech. Any awful thing could become law under a flawed democracy/autocracy. The UK has plenty of undemocratic elements and they’re abused to pass horrible laws right now, and we need to fix those elements - the laws are just the end result.
Yeah but what about, just… you know the whole vibe of the thing. I mean these people are really loaded and successful and they just do what they want and I’m drawn to their gravitas because my own life seems so hopeless and just don’t seem to be able to control my own television let alone an entire government so whatever they think and say is just an amazing breathtaking righteous truth bomb.
Removed by mod
Anyone who disagrees with the tribe is “trolling,” that’s how bad it’s gotten.
That would be bad enough if they didn’t then also advocate incarcerating people for disagreeing with them.
I think Denolition Man should be required viewing for any conversation about good vs bad laws. It’s worrying how few people seem to be aware of the ideas in that movie.
Haters gonna hate…
…up to and until they face real consequences for their behavior. Then they’ll just whine about being treated unfairly.
Rowling was literally on Twitter breaking the law and daring anyone to do anything about.
They likely won’t, because she’s rich as fuck.
So yeah, they’re being treated unfairly, just not how they think.
Her hostile fixation with trans people is just bizarre at this point.
I understand she is concerned about biologically-born women (sorry, I don’t know what the correct term is) being at risk from a very small minority of criminal trans women assaulting them in bathrooms etc. But statistically that risk seems far out of context to the shouting she keeps making on it. And her ranting is just doing harm to the vast majority of trans people who just want to live their lives, because it sows animosity towards them and emboldens bigots and their hate crimes.
It’s basically an axe-grinding exercise on her part. And she probably keeps going due to the fact that people keep calling her out. So she then doubles, triples, quadruples down out of pride.
It’s just irritating. I wish she’d just calm down and either keep her opinions to herself or be more tactful.
Her hostile fixation with trans people is just bizarre at this point.
It makes perfect sense.
Bigots are rarely just bigoted about one thing. And this is the current “battleground”.
If they win this and this kind of discrimination becomes acceptable again, they’ll go back to homosexuals. If they lose they’ll move to another group.
It’s why you can never stop fighting them and the facsim they want, they’re never honest about their end goals
If you don’t defend the human next to you, there might not be anyone to defend you later. So we don’t even need people to get this for the right reasons, they should agree with it on a base instinct of self preservation.
The same thing the bigots exploit to gain followers.
Good points.
That kind of anger and fear towards people who are different from yourself just sounds exhausting. But I guess what’s exhausting to me and many other ‘live and let live’ people is invigorating to some people. Just seems like a really shitty way of wasting your life.
Transphobia, more than any other bigotry, seems to rot the mind. It’s not obvious to me why it’s that way, but there are several cases where you can watch someone start at some vaguely terfy position, and end by losing their work and nobody wanting to hire them and getting divorced because they just will not shut up about how trans people, a subset of humanity roughly on par with genetic redheads in the general population, are destroying society and making everything awful and ruining their bodies and on and on and on.
The term you’re looking for is cisgender. Trans = “on the other side of”, cis = “on this side of”
Thanks.
ThePowerOfGreek
Also, wouldnt some biological women also assault women in bathrooms?
Great point! I doubt Rowling, Musk, or Rogan would ever bring up that inconvenient point.
I’m not quite sure why anybody gives a fuck about what she tweets.
She wrote a handful of successful books (I can’t comment on the content, I never read them), made a fucktonne of money, wrote a few other plays and books under a rando name… and yet she’s being quoted and reported on every five seconds.
Taking a step back a bit - my entirely personal opinion is that 95% of the people ranting and raving about this new law are the people who are gobshites anyway. The other 5% are quite rightly asking the question whether the law is proportionate, whether the police service is the right way to enforce the laws, and whether this could have been delayed to launch with the misogyny bill.
edit while I’m on a soapbox: as for Musk and Rogan, who gives a fuck what they have to say? Musk has probably been in Scottish airspace more than he’s been on Scottish soil, and Rogan is so far removed from Scotland politics that he might as well be on Pluto.
I’m not quite sure why anybody gives a fuck about what she tweets
Well, in this case people care because she breaking a law…
I didn’t quite catch your username first time round, a happy co-incidence!
I was under the impression that her tweets weren’t illegal - even if she is being a bit of a bellend about it. I’m not sure whether it is outright legal, or whether it just doesn’t meet the threshold to secure a likely conviction.
Not 100% sure but:
The recent law is against “deadnaming” so Rowling keeps dead naming people on Twitter and daring cops to do something about it.
Which I don’t think they will, because she’ll throw millions of dollars worth of lawyers at them.
So she is (as far as I know) breaking the law
I don’t understand how throwing millions of dollars at lawyers will help if she’s indeed breaking the law. Wouldn’t that be something easy to prove for a regular lawyer?
Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance? It states, “if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate.”
Seems to me like something we all have to care about.
I have yeah, it’s a fine line where to draw the line though. That can equally be used to silence people whose views are entirely sensible but inconvenient to whoever is writing the rules.
The question I’m struggling to grasp is why her? How come she’s the lightning rod for these opinions when she’s just spewing nonsensical bollocks and bile?
She might be “just spewing nonsensical bollocks and bile” OR she might be publicly and seemingly proudly flouting Scottish law.
So why not her?
I mean in fairness it will probably end up being both. It would appear she’s danced along the line of being incendiary-but-not-enough-to-get-charged up to now, but I can’t see it being long until she talks enough shit that she ends up with a fine - which is a bit pointless in her position as it’s probably lost in the noise of whatever riches she sits on.
As for why not her, I’d argue that - based admittedly on some pretty big assumptions - what experience has she had of being marginalised in recent times? How have the struggles for trans rights recognition negatively (or positively) affected her? What has she done to constructively make life better for the LGBTQIA+ communities which may have averted the need for a hate crime law?
My assumption is that the answer will largely be fuck all, where there are people - a set that I couldn’t possibly quantify - who are actively struggling with getting to grips with their own identity, or have lived experiences of marginalisation or ill-treatment that can actually speak on the issue of how the hate crime law is a net positive or net negative for those communities.
Those are the people I feel are the ones who are best placed to make for a constructive discussion on the matter, not someone who’s opinion is somehow disproportionately amplified because of her bank balance and status. That’s the argument I’m trying (and probably failing to do so articulately enough) to make - not just for Rowling, but for Musk and Rogan too seeing as they were named in the initial article.
Interesting stuff though, and I appreciate your input!
the answer to your question is basically that we’re just seeing the sort of, crystallized wisdom that anger is a great marketing motivator. musk, rogan, and rowling sell news headlines, not in spite of their brainlet idiot takes, but because of their brainlet idiot takes. people (broadly, also, said disparagingly), don’t want to hear from a well-spoken, humanized, smart trans woman who knows what the fuck she’s talking about, both because, on a meta level, that works to cut down on the propaganda driven controversy, but also because the things which she might say would not be as controversial as these dickheads.
free market news, and in free markets, everyone tends to race to the bottom, because, given an even playing field, the cheapest possible growth strategies tend to be the ones that win and accumulate mass quicker than the others.
Yes, we have all heard about the paradox of tolerance, because it gets posted in every thread.
It doesn’t really add much to the conversation, because it’s really not that insightful - if you let the wolves amongst the sheep then eventually there won’t be any sheep left.
wrote a few other plays and books under a rando name
A man’s name, at that.
Not even just a man’s name, but the name of one of the most infamous conversion therapy “psychiatrists” from the 20th century.
U wot.
Edit: I just went through the wiki of the book and I cannot see any mention of the fact she tried to pass her work off under a male name. Has this been washed of it so that she can continue her ridiculous campaign without apparent hypocrisy?
She didn’t write the Harry Potter books under her pseudonym, but a lot of her mediocre crime dramas are written under the name Robert Galbraith. The conversion therapy psychiatrist I’m talking about was named Robert Galbraith Heath.
Yes, and I checked the Wiki for The Casual Vacancy and it conveniently does not mention that she did that.
Oh no someone disagrees with me. Better ban political dissent.
I am anyways dismayed at how Joe Rogan stays relevant. He’s such a moronic ape, who pushes misinformation and hate, and yet he’s always at the top of the charts and half my relatives listen to him
This is how I know I’m in an information bubble. I never hear anyone mention Joe Rogan in real life, but apparently he’s hugely popular? It’s crazy to me too.
Most people I know don’t mention that they listen to him unless specifically asked. Then they start scrambling to justify why it’s ok.
Because Joe talks like a normal person. He has bad takes sure but that’s for you to decide. I am sure if you talked on stream for as long as he has you will have some bad takes too.
It astonishs me that someone can have so many experts on their show, and remain so stupid.
It’s incentivized for him to remain that way, it’s what his audience gels with. I feel pretty confident that if you look at the episodes that get the most views, they’re gonna be the ones that have the most stupid controversial figures, political candidates, and higher tier celebrities, rather than any episodes where he talks to actual experts about what they know.
He talks like a regular person would… if you think he’s stupid then you are basically saying “regular people are stupid cuz I’m a big smarty smart pants look at me with my big smart brain”
If you talk like Joe, you are stupid. Plain and simple.
Check out Mr Brain over here
Yes, the average person is an idiot.
Imagine shitting on people just because they are AvErAGe
Hurrrr I’m just a dumb average person who eats crayonss
Lol
…………………………….¸„„„„ …………………….……………„–~‘¯…….’
………….…………………… („-~~–„¸_….,/ì’Ì …….…………………….¸„-^“¯ : : : : :¸-¯”¯/’ ……………………¸„„-^“¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-” **¯¯¯'^~-„„„----~‘“¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-” .:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-" :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯ .::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯ :.’ : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~" :.:.:: :“-„”“*/‘츒¯ :.': : : : :“-„ : : :”
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : , :.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì : : : : : : :, : : : : : :/ "-„::::„-__„„~”FAIL.
?
Idiots pay $99M/year for that.
You have devalued money by only allowing fucktards to accumulate it without effort.
It’s basically just because he’s like, a moronic ape. He is able to kind of, wear the aesthetics of your everyday college dorm bro, who thinks the dark knight is the greatest movie ever made. Or at least, wear the aesthetics of their middling 30 year old, balding, divorced versions, because that movie came out in like 2008, or whatever. You can basically put him in any context, and he’s able to function as the same idiot self-insert character. He’s the vessel through which they can imagine themselves talking to famous celebrities, academics, comedians, and right wing conspiracy nuts.
Ok but like, do you have to shit on the Dark Knight though?
Yes
Bro is sparing no punches
i think this has a lot to do with it.
and i think he’s also boosted a lot by the fact that he doesn’t really communicate that many original thoughts. instead, it seems like he tends to blindly agree with whoever he has on camera. so he simultaneously cultivates these personas of “having intellectual curiosity” while also being a stand-in for the average college dorm bro.
(i’m not trying to defend him here, he still causes serious harm by platforming bad actors and endorsing their views.)
“having intellectual curiosity” while also being a stand-in for the average college dorm bro.
I think these are kind of one in the same. College dorm bros, ime, and just your general kind of like libertarian white dude, are pretty vulnerable to JAQing off unintentionally, engaging in a lot of logical fallacies, and priding themselves on a kind of half-baked intellectual curiosity that really just serves to reaffirm their own worldview. It’s how they can square the circle of supporting free speech, and it’s uses, right, while not actually being intellectually curious enough to dig themselves out of their holes through legitimate means. The college dorm bro is closely related to the debate pervert, is basically what I’m saying.
What does “square the circle of supporting free speech” mean in this context?
If I had to guess I reckon you are saying that they delude themselves into believing that they are free speech absolutists but only when it is politically convenient for them - or something like that?
Kinda like that, yeah, but, I think, less when it’s politically convenient, and more just, that it’s like a fundamental character flaw. They wear the coat of free speech, but then they aren’t actually capable of engaging in what I see as legitimate speech or communication, and they’re not capable of engaging with or internalizing outside ideas. They’re not capable of actually using it, basically.
It’s sort of like how, you know, you can support free speech, but then also, most people would end up blocking commercial spam, or like, very blatant trolling. Only the stupidest people would see that as a kind of hypocrisy, because their definition of “speech” doesn’t encompass spam and blatant trolling. Most people would kind of leave it there, but I also think it’s potentially a good idea to block out (hard to distinguish as it is) bad faith communication, under the guise that it’s not actually communication. At least, if not to block it outright, then to ignore it, or maybe, take a different approach to it. Logical fallacies are like intellectual spam, disguised as real thought, to make it harder to distinguish and boost engagement. I don’t qualify that as being like, real speech, basically. So I find it mildly amusing that people who are so vested in free speech are not really capable of using it, basically.
I don’t necessarily think it’s like, bad, that they defend free speech, at least conceptually, right, but I do think it’s terribly ironic that they’ll defend everyone’s ability to do something, but then they have no capacity to engage with it or really use it themselves. My cynical tendency is that they’re realistically not defending real free speech, when they say they’re “supportive of free speech”, but they’re really just defending their own ability to suck down bad faith arguments, conspiracies, bro-culture grindset shit, and maybe even hate speech, from their information pipes.
So, that’s kind of a long-winded way to say that you’re correct, yeah.
Thanks for clarifying!
I just don’t get the Joe Rogan hate. I’ve watched a fair number of episodes of his, maybe a few dozen. I’ll sometimes agree with his take on something, other times I’ll disagree (often in the same episode), but it’s usually at least interesting. I watch them for the topics not in some kind of idol worship of the guy. Despite whatever hot takes people are going to throw at me from his hundreds or thousands of hours of hosting his podcast, I still think he asks good questions and that his long-form interviews and laid back discussion format fosters more interesting discussion than I see in other places.
I’m not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater if I find someone I watch on YouTube or wherever says something I disagree with or holds a viewpoint I don’t like, though.
Because moronic apes need representation. That’s how.
Humans are a kind of ape, so just “morons” will do.
No they’re not.The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of panins (bonobos and chimpanzees) and their subspecies, and humans in a single extant subspecies.
I’m wrong, thanks! I was thinking gorillas and that humans were only technically primates.
Nope, we’re also great apes! We just always tend to think we’re above other animals.
We’re also monkeys, if there is such a thing. Some monkeys are more closely related to apes (and thus to us) than they are to other monkeys, so if there’s any group that can be called the “monkey clade,” we are in it.
I don’t think he’s a malicious actor, just an uneducated jock type dude. Suspect his audience is partly comprised of people who are also uneducated and enjoy seeing someone who is not an expert pontificate on things.
Reminder that he was on Infowars on 9/11. He actually pushed back on some of Alex Jones crazier statements that day, but not quite enough, and he’s lost that subtle praise since then.
I still can’t believe Rowling ended up in the same sentence as these fucks. What the shit happened yo. Remember how happy people were when she made Dumbledore gay?
BITCH THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HATED YOU WERE RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS
Remember how happy people were when she made Dumbledore gay?
No? Most people I know thought it was cheap to just say he was gay long after the books were released and not having any part of the story. Right there with implying that Hermione could be black in the books.
Honestly I respect the Hermione comment. Obviously Hermione was written as white, like duh. She was expressing her support for a black-casted hermione because her race is unimportant. It was just a cheeky way of supporting the casting choice amid the backlash from racist fans.
The Dumbledore being gay thing is… idk. I think it makes sense that he can be gay but JK should have been explicit and not canonized his queerness after the fact for clout.
Obligatory fuck JK for being a TERF.
I remember watching a video where she talked about how in the first movie Dumbledore was supposed to passingly mention a former love, but rowling told them to cut the line because Dumbledore was gay. He might not have been explicitly gay (which imo he should have been) but at the very least I believe he was gay in her mind while writing the books.
What happened was she was severely mistreated by men growing up and she’s now so scared of men that it completely clouds her judgment. To her, women are vulnerable and all men are predators that can never ever be trusted. It’s been there all along, it just wasn’t visible until she made some comments on trans women (that she’s terrified of, because “men”). And then people went nuts, and she tried to explain herself, and people didn’t care about her explanation and instead of going “hey that sucks, let us help you overcome that trauma and become a better person” they went to war which made her defensive and double down instead of changing her mind, as always happens, and it’s only been getting worse ever since.
What happened is she is from TERF Island and plenty of people there hold the same exact bullshit viewpoint. Many of which are males.
Its that she hates women, or thinks women are inferior to men. You see this with all terfs.
So she invented some magical bullshit about why she was a full person.
But the magical bullshit is magic; doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which trans people inherently bring/are.
So trans people must be stopped (from existing), the territory must be flattened to match the map!
Its that she hates women, or thinks women are inferior to men. You see this with all terfs.
No, she doesn’t. You just operate from a (shockingly common) perspective in which any case where anything gender-related that doesn’t conform to your particular flavor of progressive feminism must collapse into misogyny.
She literally just believes that men are evil monsters who will do whatever they have to to prey on innocent-by-default women. Including pretend to be women if needed to get to their prey. It’s like the white supremacists who believe black folks are inherently criminal, violent monsters except with men instead of blacks.
So she invented some magical bullshit about why she was a full person.
She’s never believed she wasn’t, or needed to invent magical bullshit to believe she is, at least related to gender. She just needs to believe that men are evil monsters who will pretend to be women to attack “real” women, which is shockingly common.
But the magical bullshit is magic; doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Which trans people inherently bring/are.
Her problem isn’t that she sees trans people as fuzzing up her hierarchy in which men are superior to her.
There’s a reason why transphobic dialog is rarely about trans men (despite them also violating the same “magical bullshit”), and very often framed in terms of “men in dresses”, and that’s because it is most often about how men are monsters and women need to be protected from them, and trans women are forever tainted by the original sin of having been born male sexed.
believes that men are evil monsters who
Ive read her books. Some of them at least. That’s a bit much. She does not believe this. Or didn’t when she wrote them. Also, I think that some days, and I’m not a transphobe.
invented some magical bullshit
She didn’t actually have to invent it, it was already floating around since at least the middle ages.
transphobic dialogue isn’t ever about trans men
No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.
You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here
male sexed
Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.
No the rhetoric is just different, more transparently objectifying; ‘protect the titties’ discourse. TERFs talk about them as ‘mutilated sisters’ or some shit, because its still about tge myystical divine feminine bullshit to them. You hear it more direct from patriarchy than from its proxies.
-
Rarely about trans men, not never. The dialogue is mostly framed in terms of men being a predatory danger to women so taht women need spaces where men are kept away from them and men being such predatory monsters that they will pretend to be women in order to get access to their prey. This is more or less the standard TERF (and amusingly also the right-wing tradcon) perspective. They don’t even really hide it.
-
It feels like you’re just jumbling things up here - if the core premise is that men are better than women and trans people disrupt the patriarchal hierarchy, why wouldn’t the focus be mostly on trans men, framed in terms of them trying to steal patriarchal power for themselves rather than mostly focusing on trans women being framed as predatory “men in dresses” using gender identity claims to have easier access to their prey?
You’re reading a little transphobic and under informed on the topic here
Transphobic how? By not accepting your interpretation of transphobic arguments that requires ignoring the actual arguments made in favor of all transphobia just being that trans people represent a disruption of a patriarchal gender hierarchy? Because that doesn’t really align to basically any transphobic arguments that transphobes actually make. It requires ignoring what transphobes actually say almost entirely.
When people tell you what they believe, it’s usually better to believe them. They generally have the better view of both what they believe and why they justify those beliefs.
Oh yeah fuck you stop talking to me.
For what, drawing an explicit difference between sex and gender? Or am I supposed to pretend now that there is no difference - there is only gender?
-
I sincerely doubt she hates women. She’s been supportive of women’s causes for a very long time afaik. Based on what I’ve read she seems to feel extremely weak and vulnerable among men due to her experiences, especially when she’s alone with a man or men, and it’s very likely she ascribes that “weakness” to all cis women. But that doesn’t mean she thinks men are better, it’s that she thinks men are dangerous to cis women. Seriously, she’s written things that made it seem like a legit phobia, like breaking down and crying and hyperventilating because she happened to end up in a room with some random man in the middle of the day, and he didn’t even interact with her iirc. I’m guessing her broken brain sees trans women as if someone put a hat on a tiger and called it Bob and let it near her. She’s a bit messed up and the small window of slight opportunity to maybe help her see straight was obliterated by counterproductive behavior based on understandable emotions. Something that happens all too often these days.
But with all that said, it’s been a long time since I heard or read anything from her, so she could have gone off the deep end and I don’t know it.
But that feeling of vulnerability is part of what informs the misogyny, which they compensate for with an essentialist fairy dust woowoo articulation of ‘the divine feminine’ or some shit, never clearly defined, which requires hating trans people, because trans people are walking talking de/re constructions.
And since you’re (hypothetical terf you. Also has terrible hemorrhoids and a crippling tobacco addiction, wanna go beat the shit out of them later? Would feel weird without you on side.) already misogynist and essentialist and a bigot, and tge only things you care about are completely made up; nazis are your natural allies.
Just out of curiosity, since I haven’t seen or read anything from her in a very long time, can you give examples of what misogynistic things she’s said? And I have to say it feels rather convoluted, the notion that she, a woman who’s been supporting women’s causes for a long time, hates women, so she boosts herself with undefined ‘divine femininity’, which in turn means she has to hate trans people because they present something different. It’s too high level and fluffy. I mean, hey, I don’t know what’s going on in her head (neither do you btw), but I find it a much simpler, more logical, foundational and believable explanation that she’s just scarred from her trauma related to men and therefore is also scared of trans women because with her phobia she doesn’t trust them to not behave like men at some point. And she probably has built a whole structure of beliefs, opinions and arguments on top of that, that gets bigger (and thereby expands further away from the core) and more reinforced with every argument she has online. And somewhere in that structure might sit ‘divine femininity’, as a coping argument.
I haven’t read her shit in years, but I remember reading something like a decade ago, and there’s a straight line from the ‘goddess feminism’ of the 80s, which seemed like her thing, to terf shit. Please don’t make me look it up; only one of us has to see this to convince you.
I’m sure she doesn’t think she hates (cis)women. None of them do; not even dudebro Nazis.
I’m not putting it on you to prove it or convince me, but just as a general statement, I need solid and concrete proof before I ascribe a feeling to someone else contrary to their own claims. Something that’s generally a bit of an asshattery thing to do imo since they’re the one feeling their feelings and I can’t actually know.
It’s like she became a lich without any of the advantages.
She’s just two letters off.
She’s a lichen?
My kid loves Harry Potter. I’ve never once brought up Rowling because I don’t want the books ruined due to her horribleness.
Fuck a Tesla driver though. I tell them straight up.
A lot of them though, are either ambivalent or just deny his instability
That’s true, some Tesla drivers must be like “Elon who?” After all Twitter isn’t a real place.
A guy I used to follow on social media would post about once a month a picture of a wasp larva emerging from inside of the bug it had consumed from inside with the caption “your brain on Terf”.
It summarized it well for me. Doesn’t matter what you were once you get infected with the anti-trans virus it will either not take or eat you within, then discard you when it is done.
Oh man…Woke with hate juice drooling.
My guess is $$$billionaire$$$ money is involved somewhere in this woven tale of bigotry. Nobody is doing this level of terf shit for free.
You honestly think she tanked her public opinion for money? That she doesn’t actually believe this? One of the richest women on the planet?
She believes it, I mean that she is making big money off this.
She was making big money as is. You think there is better money in tweeting transphobic shit then being then being the author of Harry Potter?
Do you have an idea of who you think is paying her to tweet?
Fuck you money just means she can be honest with her true opinion. Making dumbledore gay is easy, because it doesnt infringe on “her rights” as she sees it.
it’s amazing how few people care about evidence and facts, it’s all conspiracy theories and feels.
I mean, this is how Trump is a politician, but it’s so damn pervasive in general.
Billionaires don’t do anything for free. Her hate speech is an investment in the platform to make more money. Her public opinions make her more money. Nobody is paying her to say it. But consider her stance an investment into more money.
I don’t know where people are getting the idea that I said anything about someone paying her to say this stuff.
So…she’s trying to drive traffic to twitter? Thats her real motivation? And that funds her…how again?
Yeak ok. K thanks.
Nah, she’s entirely capable of being cold wet garbage on her own, and for free! She was just smart enough to come out with her shit takes after making tons of bank on her average storytelling. The again, Harry Potter is still stupid popular even after she piped up, so maybe it wouldn’t have matter if she’d shown her whole ass right after the fifth book, people don’t care.
She is a billionaire in her own right, she doesn’t need to be paid off, she’s rich enough to do what she wants without consequences. Like blatantly break hate crime laws solely to flaunt her legal immunity.
The only billions that corrupted her were her own, but all they did was expose who she is deep down.
She’s not a billionaire anymore. She gave away nearly 200 million to lose that status. It was kind of a big deal back when we all still liked her. She is, a million times over, not a person who would be out there tweeting for cash.
Her hate is her own.
She can also do what she wants without social consequences. Trans allies don’t mind gifting her another few million here and there in royalties for spin off products like Hogwarts Legacy. She has outright said she feels justified on being a bigot because people keep making her richer, “allies” included. Allies are only allies when they don’t have to contend with even the most minor temptation.
Because the internet can’t handle shades of gray? Perhaps there’s more to her than “she’s a liberal” or “she’s a conservative”? Hive mind will be the end of society - if someone doesn’t agree with the party line on EVERY point, they’re suddenly an extremist.
Perhaps, PERHAPS there are people who are otherwise liberal that have some pretty strong feelings about the trans movement? Outside of the trans thing, Rowling is pretty liberal by the classic definition of the term based on everything I’ve seen. But because she’s taken a stance here she’s put in the same sentence as Musk and Rogan. I have a tough time taking anyone seriously that tries to make that comparison. Musk is literally defending fascists and Rogan regularly has Alex Jones on his show. She’s not even on the same continent as those two.
Because yes, she literally made Dumbledore gay, which both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk would tell you makes her a woke libtard… but they’re the same!!!1111
She literally pals around with nazis and denies portions of the holocaust, if you’re gonna try and argue you can hang out with nazis, deny the holocaust, and still be a liberal, I implore you to reevaluate your own values.
Also… even barring hanging out with literal nazis, if your whole fucking thing is trying to deny human rights to vulnerable segments of the population, you’re a piece of shit, even if you are actually “pretty liberal” otherwise.
I’m so sick of hearing about this irrelevant piece of shit and everyone who makes excuses for her.
Seriously. If someone’s support is transactional, it isn’t worth shit. It’s not like having an okay position on some issues means you “get” to call for a little extermination, as a treat.
You don’t have to be perfect on every issue, but for fuck’s sake, there are hard lines when it comes to people’s right to exist, and live free. And even any decent takes she had are long past, since nearly ALL she does nowadays is rage tweet about trans people from her fucking castle.
Godwin point jackpot
I’d argue you also can’t support censorship and be a liberal.
Removed by mod
Civility…
I never said you did? But this law does
professional haters don’t like a hate crime law? Color me surprised.
They’re only “professional” because they get to bypass all the filters in society and skip to the front unlike us amateurs who drown in the background noise.
Calling those people professional haters is giving them far too much credit. Their hatred is amateur at best.
Disagree; I’ve met some pretty terrible professional chefs abd some pretty amazing home chefs.
that’s how you know scotland’s hate crime law is good.
To be honest it’s not. It’s extreme and the content of the bill itself breaks the very law it describes.
Basically if you say any comment about a singled out group and anyone over heard you and takes offence you can br prosecuted.
So you’re in your own home, on the phone, talking about how all black guys have massive dicks. A neighbour overhears, gets offended and reports you. Even if you don’t get arrested, prosecuted or go to jail that incident goes on your permanent record.
that’s literally not what the bill is…
Except for the fact that Scottish police already came out to say that she wouldn’t be charged for recent comments.
Because it doesn’t mean what the screeching idiots think it means.
that’s never stopped them. Jordan Peterson got famous by misinterpreting a canadian law to mean people would get jailed for misgendering trans people.
because she didn’t actually say anything that should could be charged for. jk rowling just was desperate to be a martyr.
Israely bombs sometimes hit Hamas, not just civilians. Does not make them good. Just like (supposedly) doing a good thing in this one case does not make it a good law.
And it was confirmed Rowling won’t even be prosecuted. Because of course these kind of laws don’t apply to the rich and famous hatemongers. They apply to the poor schmuck making a bad taste joke.
deleted by creator
What the fuck are you on about?
Please stop advocating for trans people, you’re only hurting their cause.
deleted by creator
I am not advocating for anyone. I’m just telling you that you shouldn’t either.
Really says a lot about you that you would immediately try twist my words this way.
I was talking about this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
They can go fuck themselves.
How dare people disagree with me!?
He says, clearly salty that somebody disagrees with him.
Wrong, but ok lol. Believe what you want sweetie.
Lol you really are defending Joe Rogan, Elon musk and Rowling. They’re not worth it. One is an obnoxious podcaster, one is a conman and one is a mediocre writer. A damn weird hill to die on.
Don’t forget that he defended Israel and Russia.
The guy is very clearly a troll.
Removed by mod
When people disagree with me that humans should have some basic human rights, then yes, fuck those sub-humans who disagree.
Nothing good in all of human history has ever come from conservatism. Not one single thing. Yet nearly every act of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia and other bigotry ever committed has been by conservatives.
It sounds like what we disagree on most is if there is such a thing as a “good conservative” anywhere on planet earth. I’m not convinced there is.
Removed by mod
Your account is one day old and, of your 50 comments, nearly all of them are downvoted into oblivion. I don’t think the progressives on Lemmy are falling for any of your weird conservative takes. You might want to try out Truth Social instead. They might be more receptive.
Removed by mod
Stfu cunt.
The fact that your comment is not deleted by moderators but the comments of the other guy are… man… this network is losing tha basic principles of what reddit signifies.
Oh no, I said a bad word to someone that supports genocide, Israel, Russia, and hates gay people.
I don’t know what he said or what he is cause its deleted by the mods… but I see what you said ! You insulted him! No mod cared about it!!
Imho This is what the worst Russia looks like . Bullies and no freedom of speech. Hate first, talk later. Corrupt police.
Full disclosure: I can’t agree with the latest JK but I fully understand how she got there… you fabricated her.
Money transformed her. She got those royalty cheques and figured out she can say whatever the fuck she wants cause litigation against her is impossible. She is just another Pharisee parading her obscene wealth and influence. Also, free speech is made the fuck up. No speech is free. What you speak into the world transforms it. Especially with their reach.
Give her some credit. She had donated a lot of her money. At least she puts her money where her mouth is.
You know exactly what he said, and you cuntinue to defend a homophobic troll.
Good for you.
Removed by mod
Man… it isnt like I agree with you but the mods are deleting your comments like… automatically. I really though Lemmy was a better place than that… I guess I’m going back to the cavern (or reddit)
Lol, the bigots are mad. Good.
I did wonder what all the fuss was about. I don’t live in Scotland, I live in the UK though. So it’s kinda partially relevant to me. It’s also relevant to JK Rowling I guess. But really not sure why Musk or Rogan feel the need to weigh in.
So, the act itself is not that long and is here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/introduction. There was also a 70+ page consultation/memorandum document that I also read (here https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/policy-memorandum-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf).
So, I think generally the law is well-meaning and a good thing. I think there were a few things I took issue with in the consultancy. Those were mainly that they had a review of the law by a lord, and a consultancy with individuals and organisations. However, they seemed to just not take into account some of the recommendations from either source when it didn’t suit them.
When the consultancy didn’t turn up a result they liked, they would just state that it’s likely the people didn’t favour hate crime law overall. Now to me that’s kinda the point. If most people don’t want an extension of hate crime law, and you’re asking them about creating an extension of hate crime law, that consideration should have been taken into account.
I also think that Lord Bracadale raised a few good points which were also dismissed. The main one being about not including insulting as a qualifier for the new hate crime law. Here, I’d agree with what the people surveyed said. The term is far too subjective to be used in a law with such a maximum sentence. There’s nothing wrong with the spirit of the law, but I believe it should be abundantly clear when the line for breaking the law has been crossed. Saying “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting” isn’t a clear objective statement. It makes it very subjective and very interpretable by the police officer(s) involved and the CPS.
Of course, none of the above is why the aforementioned people are complaining. But having read through it, those are just my concerns.
I have the same concerns about the Public Order Act (UK law, 1986) that has similar subjective definitions. However, that doesn’t include “insulting” and only has a maximum sentence of 6 months and is almost always dealt with by way of a fine. So, the threshold being low and subjective isn’t as concerning. This law seems to have a lower threshold to satisfy (despite the memorandum document stating it was meant to have a higher threshold than the existing laws it replaced and augmented) but a considerably longer maximum sentence (1 year summary, 7 years on indictment), which will almost certainly mean higher values in the sentencing guidelines. This is my main concern with it.
In summary, I think as an act and new law overall, it’s fine and I do hope if used appropriately it will make people safer. I just feel like there’s scope for over-zealous application due to the subjective language used. Time will tell I guess if that happens or not once cases and convictions start to happen.
Thanks for your analysis. I was busy being angry about Bro Jogan and this diffused it and brought me back to the more important topic. I’ll give the memorandum a read.
The issue I have is unintended listening to deliberately inflammatory jokes between friends. And that any reported incident, crime or not goes on a permanent public record.
Yeah, I did notice the lack of exception for a private dwelling as exists for the Public Order Act. On one hand, I don’t think there’s a place for some jokes. But on the other hand, if they’re happening between people in a private setting, then I don’t think it should be the law’s business.
In terms of reported incidents. I think recording for anonymous statistics is fine. I’m very wary of naming people that haven’t even been charged, for example. It’s a slippery slope. But, keeping the number of reported incidents is good for statistics. I am aware of the risk that also entails, though.
A lot of this is in the “it might be fine” territory, but weaponisable laws concern me. It’s not like public trust in the police is particularly high right now either for good reason.
How dare you protect a marginalized minority!
Got to admit, despite knowing next to nothing about the law, if those three are against it I am most likely going to support it.
Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.
They didn’t say they’re decided, they’re just talking statistics
Yes exactly.
I also said “generally speaking”, you know.
Right I was talking about what most likely will happen while you were offering advice which is where you describe what you want to happen.
If people I don’t agree with on much agree with X when I get around to learning about X I will very likely not agree.
I agree it is a good advice
We all have to make judgements based on the information our tools feed us. These 3 are some a-grade tools, so just make sure you know how to interpret the information they put out, and you’re fine.
nazis dislike law aimed at countering hate speech and harassment.
Yeah don’t use the word Nazi when describing opposition to censorship, however well intentioned the censorship is
this has nothing to do with censorship…
Well what is the law?
Someone already described the law but I think there should also be a good explanation why it’s not censorship. That explanation in short form is called the paradox of tolerance. If a society strives to be more tolerant they may also end up being tolerant of intolerance. That tolerance of intolerance then prevents society from becoming tolerant, that’s the paradox. So the only real course of action for a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance.
Attacking someone based on their sexuality is intolerance. Thus to be tolerant those attacks cannot be tolerated, hence the law. Why people are calling it “censorship” is because those people want to be intolerant. They cry “censorship” because they’re being prevented of acting out their own form of censorship, the kind where they try for instance to censure someones sexuality. Calling this thing “censorship” is the wording of the right-wing and unless you want to associate with the right I suggest you stop calling it that. It’s not censorship, it’s being intolerant of censorship.
I think you’re onto something, but this still fits the definition of censorship. I feel like you’d have a better rebuttal if you argued that some censorship is actually good for society. I’d agree with you there, in this case. But no need try to dress it up like it isn’t censorship when it is.
It is censorship if you get into the philosophical weeds, but I don’t see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary. I also don’t see how the philosophical definition changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.
see the benefit of being philosophically correct when all it does is empower the right-wing vocabulary
To be honest
changes my point which is what censorship of censorship is not censorship.
Because censorship is a description of an action, not a judgement of it- think “killing” vs “murder”
I understand you oppose allowing speech that could lead to the rights of others being trampled. And that is a fair belief to have- it is however still censorship. Even to censor people calling for total thought control would still be censorship.
Not being allowed to kill other people also infringes on your personal freedom, is that censorship as well?
Censoring is about speech, but that is a limitation on actions.
Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.
Attacking someone specifically because of their gender, sexuality, politics, religion, race, ethnicity, etc is worse and more illegal.
The new law adds ‘transgender’ to that list.
JK Rowling thinks that is a problem.
Attacking someone at random is wrong and illegal.
Attacking meaning what? Verbally?
Yes it is true I agree with both of those statements, I don’t know specifically about Scottish laws- but I remember hearing about this especially dumb case.
The dumbness was on the part of the government. It was censorship then, and it is still censorship now. I am nowhere near a fan of celebrating someone’s death. Still censorship, expanding what is censored is expanding censorship.
Limiting any speech is censorship. Speech is censored in some capacity everywhere, to use that as a basis for redefining it to not actually be censorship is very disingenuous.
Yes. “Fighting words,” credible threats, and other such aggressive language are generally illegal, even in the USA.
If any language being illegal is automatically censorship, then I don’t think censorship isnecessarily bad in every case.
Yes it is censorship, and it’s fair think sometimes censorship is okay, I generally disagree but I’m sure you could think of a case where I would tolerate it. Censoring fighting words I definitely oppose though for example.
Rowling literally did holocaust denial not too long ago
Idk if she did or didn’t, but censorship isn’t a liberal solution
It’s telling that you stopped replying to the thoughtful explanations on why this isn’t censorship and decided to keep calling it censorship.
deleted by creator
“Its telling you stopped replying once I pointed this out”
I’m sorry but that was just a ridiculous thing to say- it had been a couple hours, and I was doing other things in my life- plus was half asleep as it was 2am. I think its important to try to understand the situations others could be in aren’t identical to your own- that is empathy.
Also just checked the thread, I did not get notifications for some of these replies
Me shoving my rapist father into a woodchiper wouldnt be a pacifist solution. Thank fuck I aint a pacifist.
Rip
And that should tell you everything you need to know about the law. Which is to say it’s clearly on the right side of history.
It tells me everything I need to know about you, jumping on the hate train.
Forget about those 3 people’s and read this guy’s comment; https://kbin.life/m/world@lemmy.world/t/173338/-/comment/2549722
I’m sorry. The hate train? The hate train???
Are you trying to use a mirroring technique to try and manipulate me or other readers with some cheap psychological trick, or did you just sort of stumble into those words like you stumbled into this thread?
The purpose of the law is to protect people who are actually receiving hate trains. Like the kind that fucking kill them. Every fucking day.
Remind me again how many self absorbed narcissistic Billionaires die a day due to hate trains?
What’s that fucking number again?
Zero?
Yeah. That’s what I thought.
Fuck off with your nonsense cheap psych101 shit trying to make, literally the most powerful people in the world, into victims, while the real victims: trans people, are actually getting murdered, and beaten, and raped, and tortured.
But, fuck do go on. Really.
Tell me how much these billionaires are suffering because they can’t turn their massive insecurities into dog whistling hate speech that ends with innocent people dying.
I’d hate to upset their mamosa mornings on their private fucking yatch you absolute waste of space in a human skin.
Get the fuck on the right side of history and stop sucking the dicks of the oligarchs that have never, and will never give a shit about you or anything you care about.
Fuck man, you need a doctor stat.
I don’t like billionaires, I don’t give a fuck about them. I like logic. You don’t have much of it.
Good luck.
Your link didn’t work. I can’t even register on kbin because the captcha doesn’t work in FF. Maybe you could SS it and post here or something.
I do not have the context you’re implying I should have read to hear the side you’re arguing for.
I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and read it if you’ve got something that might change my views. I’m not trying to be ignorant or illogical.
I’m sure there are legitimate criticisms of the law as it was written, but that’s true of most laws. We never get them right, especially out of the gate, but at least the attempt is being made.
My issues are with the “clout” those 3 billionaires have and how they’re influencing their followers to believe in dangerous and hateful logic that hurts trans people at the end of the day while they sit in their ivory towers, safe from all the problems they’re causing for us little people.
“It’s okay to censor people who disagree with me.”
Yeah, cause that worked out so well in the past…
No. You don’t get to make that weak bad faith argument that keeps getting used here by the intolerant.
Additionally, I said no such thing that you straw manned my argument with, which tells me everything I need to know about your motivations.
You do not get to use our system of tolerance against us.
There are limits to tolerance. There must be, or else fascism will always creep in. Whether or not you yourself are a fascist, you are using one of the oldest arguments of fascism to undermine a functioning society.
You know what we call someone sitting at a table full of fascists?
A fascist.
For a bunch of miserable whingeing bastards, the Scots are pretty progressive.
Lol
So stop being a bigot?
