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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Ok but like, do you have to shit on the Dark Knight though?
Yes
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.
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.
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.
Lol
…………………………….¸„„„„ …………………….……………„–~‘¯…….’
………….…………………… („-~~–„¸_….,/ì’Ì …….…………………….¸„-^“¯ : : : : :¸-¯”¯/’ ……………………¸„„-^“¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-” **¯¯¯'^~-„„„----~‘“¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-” .:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-" :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯ .::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯ :.’ : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~" :.:.:: :“-„”“*/‘츒¯ :.': : : : :“-„ : : :”
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : , :.: : : : : : : : : : : : 'Ì : : : : : : :, : : : : : :/ "-„::::„-__„„~”FAIL.
?
It astonishs me that someone can have so many experts on their show, and remain so stupid.
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”
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
If you talk like Joe, you are stupid. Plain and simple.
Check out Mr Brain over here
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.
Idiots pay $99M/year for that.
You have devalued money by only allowing fucktards to accumulate it without effort.
A lot of astroturfing bots are also really mad about it as you can see with the tens of “I’m going to use this to report Humza Yousaf for anti-white racism” highest top-level comments you can see in UK subreddits right now.
Oh no
Anyway
deleted by creator
Do you have any other groups you don’t respect that you’d like to disparage?
free speech tho
Aint America tho
Three dumbasses think alike.
Cry more emo kids, your tears are delicious.
professional haters don’t like a hate crime law? Color me surprised.
Calling those people professional haters is giving them far too much credit. Their hatred is amateur at best.
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’s okay to censor people who disagree with me.”
Yeah, cause that worked out so well in the past…
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
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.
I don’t care who they are, personally.
They shouldn’t go to jail because they don’t call you the words you want.
Stfu cunt.
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.
The thing is, you people are literally saying she should be arrested for not calling you what you want to be called.
I’d say you’re calling to violate way more rights than she is.
It’s interesting to see her timeline is full of Trump hate considering how much she hates LGBTQ
This is why we can’t have nice things… Just because two people agree on one topic doesn’t mean they agree on all other topics.
I’m not even sure they agree on that topic tbh, I’m no expert in the matter but I believe JK’s transphobia stems mainly from her radical feminism and wanting to protect what she thinks of as true women, whereas trumpers just hate everyone for unknowable reasons. Same end result though.
radical feminism
Right wing feminism is a more apt way to describe it, I believe. Some would argue excluding people isn’t feminist at all, but we can at least clarify that it’s the right wing of feminism that focuses on things like excluding trans people and sex workers.
I couldn’t agree more. Radical feminism outside of America could be considered something like removing your hijab despite oppressive laws. Radical feminism can be a good thing. But right-wing feminism? Fuck right off.
As a left-leaning feminist, why would she like Trump? Whatever your opinions of her, even her enemies call her a TERF; RF stands for Radical Feminist. Hardly Trump’s primary demographic.
I don’t know shit about Rowling yet alone have an opinion about her. I just saw that she posts transphobic shit and clicked on her profile to find that she also posts A LOT about Trump.
So you’re comfortable being vocally opinionated about topics you admittedly have next to no knowledge about. Seems like you yourself might have something in common with the average Trump voter.
What they said was:
It’s interesting to see her timeline is full of Trump hate considering how much she hates LGBTQ
I wouldn’t call that “being vocally opinionated about topics you admittedly have next to no knowledge about.” They’re just saying they noticed something and found it interesting.
She’s actially a Feminist Aligned Radical Transphobe. She only uses her feminism to disparage trans people
Yes, obviously her evil plan was to pose as a feminist since her youth just to enable a devious undercover attack on trans people late in life. A good thing so many people online are seeing through this malicious disguise.
No True Scotsman and all that.
A FART?
I’d take it one step further; Feminist Appropriating Radical Transphobe
deleted by creator
“Nazi” is short for National Socialism, yes, as in social ownership of the means of production in service of the national state. Don’t confuse the lazy modern usage of the term “socialism” for the actual historical definition.
And the whole point OP was making is Rowling and Trump are not working together. In fact, they take diametrically opposed stances on most, if not all, issues. And even if you see the end result as equal, they do not agree on this issue either. Their motivations are very different.
deleted by creator
So, you like to make “guilt by association” arguments and guess at hidden motives instead of countering someone’s actual arguments. Did JK Rowling speak at a Heritage foundation event? Does her views generally align with the Heritage foundation, do you find?
that’s how you know scotland’s hate crime law is good.
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?
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
Please stop advocating for trans people, you’re only hurting their cause.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
Haters gonna hate…
…up to and until they face real consequences for their behavior. Then they’ll just whine about being treated unfairly.
Oh no someone disagrees with me. Better ban political dissent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, wouldnt some biological women also assault women in bathrooms?
The term you’re looking for is cisgender. Trans = “on the other side of”, cis = “on this side of”
Thanks.
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 bizarre thing about Rowling is her hatred for trans people only extends to MtF trans people. She has no problem with FtM.
*Apologies, I did have these mixed up, I typed this while walking and only just read it back now.
That’s the M. O. of terfs. They’re “feminists” who think MtF trans people are taking away or invading female spaces and achievements.
Don’t you have it exactly the wrong way around?
Also, since the hate itself is already irrational, any additional “quirks” in that hate shouldn’t be surprising anyone.
Yep, had it the wrong way around! Oops, was typing while walking.
As mentioned, I think you have those reversed, but yes, as do all the so-called “anti-woke” brigade who are worried about crimes they’ve made up (which don’t happen), and have no real solution. There is, however, anti-trans hatred which they are riling up, resulting in violence and murders of transfolk at an alarming rate. If you ever ask about FtM people, they are suddenly quiet, because it completely messes with their logic.
TERFs generally in fact do hate both, just in different ways. While I haven’t heard Rowling’s take, I’d be somewhat surprised if it wasn’t some version of the usual patriarchal agency denying thing where trans men are just confused by society telling them lies about escaping repression as women and how horrible it was that these poor girls were going to damage their bodies because they were just too dumb and weak-willed to know what they really wanted, which is a marriage to a good man and pumping out eight or nine kids. They want to take choice and self determination from all trans people, that version just plays better currently.
Incidentally, FtM and MtF are generally deprecated terms. Usually these days the terms, relative to my ordering in the prior sentence, are trans men and trans women, it’s less alienating than the older terms that tend to describe people as a segment of their life that isn’t them.
Oh no… She doesn’t like any of us. The transphobia she levies at FtM is just different. Rowling is notorious for Championing the works of Abagail Shrier who is famous for her work trumpeting the very discredited but viral “social contagion” theory that frames trans men and non binary trans masc people as being misguided lesbians and women fleeing from misogyny who spread transness to their friends who need to be protected from making terrible decisions and undermining the worth of femininity.
Transphobia is best described as framing trans people as a problem for other people. Naturally the problem framed is different for the two groups. In this instance trans men are still framed as being dangerous but rather dangerous by association…
"If we let them exist then they will tempt our perfectly healthy daughters into pursuing surgeries to make themselves into sterile parodies of men! We must stop them! Save the children! " Clutch pearls, repeat.
Did you mix those up?
Yes I did, wasn’t paying attention while I typed it! Fixed now.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
That’s what makes you average.
