The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

enabling delusion

and there you have it

Using the phrase twice in one post really lets us know where the PP stands and why they like the podcast. Such a time-saver!

NP. No, the first use of "delusion" was in the context of the Salem witch trials. If you don't want to be accused of using hysteria to try to shut down discussion, you need to be a little more careful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

enabling delusion

and there you have it

Using the phrase twice in one post really lets us know where the PP stands and why they like the podcast. Such a time-saver!

NP. No, the first use of "delusion" was in the context of the Salem witch trials. If you don't want to be accused of using hysteria to try to shut down discussion, you need to be a little more careful.

Yep. I thought the same.

[Anonymous]

JKR may be extremely wealthy but at the end of the day she is just one more woman who has received countless graphic rape threats for saying and doing something men didn’t like.

[Anonymous]

I don't really have a dog in the fight and am pro trans. But I think when you silence people with differing views, you really create a discontent in society that festers. What happened to public debate and discourse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So someone entering the bathroom of their choice is now a right? If there is a bathroom available to them what is the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

[Anonymous]

I really enjoyed the beginning of the second episode that focuses on what was happening in the 1990s.

As a Gen Xer, it really resonated and helped connect dots to where we were and where we are now—particularly when using the new 24 hour news cycle’s coverage of Columbine, noting how “facts” weren’t actually true yet all of us consumed what the networks were saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

What rights is Rowling trying to take away from trans people?

She thinks there should be some parameters around accessing public bathrooms and being kept in prison with someone of the opposite biological gender. She is generally fine with trans women accessing bathrooms but would like some parameters to prevent men who aren't trans from entering.

So convicted rapists who self-ID as women now have inalienable rights to be housed in women’s prisons?

Yes, in Scotland. And she is concerned because in some cases, male rapists have identified as female after the arrest and demanded to be housed in a women's prison, where they raped female prisoners. She feels that this is not an acceptable approach.

It should be 100% obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that it’s unacceptable, yet here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

Also, for gd's sake, go read a book about the actual witch trials some time and ask yourself if any of the people who were murdered at the time were also billionaires whose biggest complaint is that a few people on twitter don't like them.

JK Rowling is doing fine. I would really ask you to find someone else as your martyr.

DP, not the person you're replying to, but wow. Talk about cognitive dissonance and logical fallacies. I actually wrote out all the ways you deliberately ignored the parallels, deliberately mischaracterized/minimized Rowling's experience and your ignorance of the historical witch trials...but you know what? You clearly don't want to know the truth. You're brainwashed and you won't listen to the podcast anyway. Good luck in life.

Oh yeah super brainwashed. That's the only reason that I find it distasteful to compare one of the richest, most powerful, and completely alive people in the world with people who were murdered in the 1600s. I'm the troublesome one here, fer sher.

People got mad at her on Twitter. Her books still sell gazillions of copies. She is free to travel where she likes. She is free to say what she likes. But yeah, some people disagree with her on Twitter and oh POOR JK Rowling. Won't anyone think of JK Rowling. Why all she wants to do is deny a vulnerable group of people their identities and rights - as the Republican party is essentially gearing up to round up trans people and put them in camps - but won't anyone think of poor JK Rowling!

And pray tell - what is the "cognitive dissonance" that you are noting here? What are the fallacies? Or are you now practically a witch trial victim too because someone on the internet isn't being all "WOW thank you for sharing this IMPORTANT podcast with me!"?

This is why these threads get deleted. Too much insanity.

Camps? My God, the narcissistic delusion is real.

I've noticed you use a lot of buzzy words but I don't think you actually know what they mean. Do you know what narcissism is? How about a logical fallacy? What about cognitive dissonance? Can you provide even the loosest definition of any of these terms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

...that's not her position at all. Maybe don't comment here until you actually listen to the podcast?

Why do we have to listen to a podcast when we've actually seen her tweets, and read her position letters, and have already spent more time thinking about JK Rowling's thoughts about trans people than I really ever care to do again.

She is the one who keeps making this an issue! Maybe if she talked about something else every once in a while, we could engage with her differently, too!!

Wow. WOW.

1) you're literally revealing that you actually want to silence all respectful debate on trans issues. Because if you actually think reading Twitter vomit threads and one blog post means you've understood everything about her position - when Rowling has bought and read dozens of books from the opposing side, which YOU'D KNOW IF YOU LISTENED TO THE PODCAST - you either are dumber than a brick, or you're afraid.

2) she's speaking up for herself after being mischaracterized, abused, and thrown under buses by people who wanted to appeased their fans. When her platform is that huge, and when the issue is so wide-reaching, she is allowed to discuss hr position 400 times if she wants to. And anyone actually invested in TRUTH, not ther power, would gladly want more information.

You don't want truths that are inconvenient though...and you're enraged that Rowling and the rest of us won't just shut up and take your abuse, gaslighting, and blindness.

Just...wow. I am still stunned by your post. You revealed yourself. You can't take it back now...you revealed who you really are. I saw you. I will never again feel guilty for agreeing with Rowling. I will never again doubt myself.

I know you love being a victim. But no one is "trying to silence" anyone here. I am telling you that I have paid attention to what she's said, I don't find it persuasive and sympathetic, and I don't really feel the need to engage further with her thoughts. That's not the same as being silenced.

I guess I am starting to understand how you think that JK Rowling's situation is comparable to a witch trial. You really lack a sense of proportionality. I can't wait to hear what buzzy, misunderstood term you use to describe this, now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

This is exactly how the public gaslit JKR, who actually doesn't hate trans people.

As long as they don't expect any rights, JKR will allow trans people to exist. What else could anyone want (besides rights)?

...that's not her position at all. Maybe don't comment here until you actually listen to the podcast?

Why do we have to listen to a podcast when we've actually seen her tweets, and read her position letters, and have already spent more time thinking about JK Rowling's thoughts about trans people than I really ever care to do again.

She is the one who keeps making this an issue! Maybe if she talked about something else every once in a while, we could engage with her differently, too!!

Wow. WOW.

1) you're literally revealing that you actually want to silence all respectful debate on trans issues. Because if you actually think reading Twitter vomit threads and one blog post means you've understood everything about her position - when Rowling has bought and read dozens of books from the opposing side, which YOU'D KNOW IF YOU LISTENED TO THE PODCAST - you either are dumber than a brick, or you're afraid.

2) she's speaking up for herself after being mischaracterized, abused, and thrown under buses by people who wanted to appeased their fans. When her platform is that huge, and when the issue is so wide-reaching, she is allowed to discuss hr position 400 times if she wants to. And anyone actually invested in TRUTH, not ther power, would gladly want more information.

You don't want truths that are inconvenient though...and you're enraged that Rowling and the rest of us won't just shut up and take your abuse, gaslighting, and blindness.

Just...wow. I am still stunned by your post. You revealed yourself. You can't take it back now...you revealed who you really are. I saw you. I will never again feel guilty for agreeing with Rowling. I will never again doubt myself.

I know you love being a victim. But no one is "trying to silence" anyone here. I am telling you that I have paid attention to what she's said, I don't find it persuasive and sympathetic, and I don't really feel the need to engage further with her thoughts. That's not the same as being silenced.

I guess I am starting to understand how you think that JK Rowling's situation is comparable to a witch trial. You really lack a sense of proportionality. I can't wait to hear what buzzy, misunderstood term you use to describe this, now.

Aren’t you the PP fantasizing about imaginary death camps, with no apparent understanding of how offensive that is? I mean you are not one to be lecturing on proportionality here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This feels like the same person posting over and over, trying to convince us that it's ok to dislike trans people.

+1

"delusional"
"something men didn’t like"
women's prison!
and other faux hysterics

Standard RWNJ/TURF talking points.