6 ms·

“ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“ And where is the evidence for this assertion?

by jdkee 6y ago

bendbro 6y ago
Apologies for the amp link. I would recommend looking at Twitter replies to the Harper's Mag letter about her being a signer, and then other discussions on it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...
michaelmrose 6y ago
Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter. Lets look at the situation clearly. I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.
- jariel 6y ago
  "A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans'. The statement above, ie that her views are 'anti trans' is really a problem. 'Shutting down her voice' is significantly worse than 'taking her money' - because it means the rest of us are not allowed to have a debate or to have our own opinions. I generally agree with her assessment. It's nuanced, informed and not 'anti trans'. Labelling it 'anti trans' is precisely the kind of 'Red Guards killing the unpure' we need to worry about. 'Cancel culture' has succeeded in banning speakers on most University campuses, and systematically disabled tons of voices from being heard. Speakers aren't even on the slot anymore 'can't afford the security' is now a common statement. This is inexcusable. The fact that 100 or so of the world's leading thinkers had to take out page to tamp down people in their own midst is crazy, and a sign of a problem. It's a fairly existential problem right now. A lot of this actually may be a kind of 'anti Trump' anger exhibiting in an odd kind of way, maybe it dies down a little bit, but the 'winds' are heading in one direction right now, and the press in particular seem to have joined in.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    A reasonable reading of her statement is that she doesn't regard trans women as actual women and indeed a lot of people hold that opinion and others hold the opinion that that opinion is bigoted. Pretending its a purity test instead of a debate is disingenuous although I'm not here to debate that particular point. More importantly her voice hasn't been silenced. She and her detractors are equally capable of talking past each other as long as they like. The degree of energy injected into what amounts into rather trivial debates, for example who cares what an author of mediocre fiction thinks about gender, is a byproduct of the stress put on society at this moment in history. We have a charismatic Hitler like cult like figure testing the boundaries of what degree of illegality he is allowed to commit and whether or not he is allowed to end democracy as we know it. This crisis is a hand upon the soul of America twisting its body into a knot and the cracks that are appearing and a sign of that stress. If you want that stress to dissipate taking Lenny's hand off the rabbit is the answer. This didn't start as a wholesale rejection of conservationism or republicans. It is becoming so because they have tied themselves to it relentlessly. If either of those things are near and dear to you then it must be separated as soon as possible.
    - bendbro 6y ago
      I think most people would admit he is a buffoon. I also think most people would not stand by if he did something obviously, materially, directly and apolitically harmful to people. I can't write people off if they continue to vote red until then. I also don't find republican rhetoric to be much different than democrat rhetoric. Both-sides-ism acknowledged, I think prominent Democrat and Republican and messaging both rely almost entirely on emotional argument. I think this is novel behavior for Republicans, since their old behavior was to meekly, logically and unsuccessfully argue their point. The change to unapologetic emotional argument is shocking to the left wing, but it prevails. A scream of "kids in cages" is no more convincing than a growl of "some of them are good people." A "womp womp" is as convicing as a "how absolutely dare you sir." You are right on the result: it pushes common people into irrelevant, trivial debates, preventing meaningful discussion.
    - jariel 6y ago

“ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“ And where is the evidence for this assertion?

by jdkee 6y ago

“ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“ And where is the evidence for this assertion?

Apologies for the amp link. I would recommend looking at Twitter replies to the Harper's Mag letter about her being a signer, and then other discussions on it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...

michaelmrose 6y ago

Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter. Lets look at the situation clearly. I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.

jariel 6y ago
"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans'. The statement above, ie that her views are 'anti trans' is really a problem. 'Shutting down her voice' is significantly worse than 'taking her money' - because it means the rest of us are not allowed to have a debate or to have our own opinions. I generally agree with her assessment. It's nuanced, informed and not 'anti trans'. Labelling it 'anti trans' is precisely the kind of 'Red Guards killing the unpure' we need to worry about. 'Cancel culture' has succeeded in banning speakers on most University campuses, and systematically disabled tons of voices from being heard. Speakers aren't even on the slot anymore 'can't afford the security' is now a common statement. This is inexcusable. The fact that 100 or so of the world's leading thinkers had to take out page to tamp down people in their own midst is crazy, and a sign of a problem. It's a fairly existential problem right now. A lot of this actually may be a kind of 'anti Trump' anger exhibiting in an odd kind of way, maybe it dies down a little bit, but the 'winds' are heading in one direction right now, and the press in particular seem to have joined in.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  A reasonable reading of her statement is that she doesn't regard trans women as actual women and indeed a lot of people hold that opinion and others hold the opinion that that opinion is bigoted. Pretending its a purity test instead of a debate is disingenuous although I'm not here to debate that particular point. More importantly her voice hasn't been silenced. She and her detractors are equally capable of talking past each other as long as they like. The degree of energy injected into what amounts into rather trivial debates, for example who cares what an author of mediocre fiction thinks about gender, is a byproduct of the stress put on society at this moment in history. We have a charismatic Hitler like cult like figure testing the boundaries of what degree of illegality he is allowed to commit and whether or not he is allowed to end democracy as we know it. This crisis is a hand upon the soul of America twisting its body into a knot and the cracks that are appearing and a sign of that stress. If you want that stress to dissipate taking Lenny's hand off the rabbit is the answer. This didn't start as a wholesale rejection of conservationism or republicans. It is becoming so because they have tied themselves to it relentlessly. If either of those things are near and dear to you then it must be separated as soon as possible.
  - bendbro 6y ago
    I think most people would admit he is a buffoon. I also think most people would not stand by if he did something obviously, materially, directly and apolitically harmful to people. I can't write people off if they continue to vote red until then. I also don't find republican rhetoric to be much different than democrat rhetoric. Both-sides-ism acknowledged, I think prominent Democrat and Republican and messaging both rely almost entirely on emotional argument. I think this is novel behavior for Republicans, since their old behavior was to meekly, logically and unsuccessfully argue their point. The change to unapologetic emotional argument is shocking to the left wing, but it prevails. A scream of "kids in cages" is no more convincing than a growl of "some of them are good people." A "womp womp" is as convicing as a "how absolutely dare you sir." You are right on the result: it pushes common people into irrelevant, trivial debates, preventing meaningful discussion.
  - jariel 6y ago