Diseased Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"

[TruffleSpark]

View attachment 5880004

"Uh, what about priests?" Is the standard TRA response to people showing evidence of tranny grooming. BadWritingTakes acting like he doesn't already know that.

 

[Miriam Margoyles]

I had to look that one up, the Wasp Factory.

Sounds like something a 2010s-2020s era porn addicted lolcow would write. I wonder how far the rabbit hole goes.

Spoiler: Spoiler for off topic sperging

The Wasp Factory is a weird one, for me. I didn't study it in school, I came to it freely of my own will, and I wonder if there was something about it that I missed, because I can't imagine learning anything from it, aside from 'Iain Banks had a thinly veiled zoosadism fetish'.

The book was written in 1984, before the rise of the Internet and all the degen shit that came with it, but I feel like if it was written today, people would be a lot less reverent of it and it'd probably be seen in much the same cynical light as Gretchen Felker-Martin's edgy rape coomfic.

I'm not averse to reading unpleasant literature - I do actually consider myself a bit of a fan of horror - but a lot of the violence that happens in Banks' book, compared to like, say something by Clive Barker (who I adore), seems to me to be lurid to the point of needless, unnecessary gratuity, to the point where Banks seemed to be taking a perverse glee in it. There's no artistry in the prose or choice of words, no discretion. China Meiville spoke of 'the pornography of violence' and Ramsey Campbell (another of my favourites) once lamented that the face of modern horror is pornography, so I do wonder what they'd make of the book if they read it.

So yeah, in short, I didn't like the book at all.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

I don't support the genocide of BadWritingTakes for any of his views or identities but merely for being another gimmick account that couldn't stick to the gimmick but never changed their name.

 

[Foltest]

Never thought that I would see JK "Hammer of the Scots was the start" Rowling to become so based.
I never read her books, but I have huge respect for her sticking to her principles.

 

[Miriam Margoyles]

"Uh, what about priests?" Is the standard TRA response to people showing evidence of tranny grooming. BadWritingTakes acting like he doesn't already know that.

I mean, this might be a hot take here, but I'm pretty sure all those priests that abused altar boys were gay too, so that would also make them part of the LGBT+ community by definition, right?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

I mean, this might be a hot take here, but I'm pretty sure all those priests that abused altar boys were gay too, so that would also make them part of the LGBT+ community by definition, right?

Plenty of priests have raped girls as well, can't just blame homosexuals for it. Whether straight or gay they were predators who took advantage of their position to gain access to victims and be shielded from consequences. Just like politicians, journalists, activists, teachers etc. that have been found to do the same.

One can be horrified by all of them and want consequences for them all. Anyone who tries to conceal the actions of one group by pointing at another is completely fine with that stuff as long as it's "their side" doing it. So they're at minimum rapist supporters when the rapists match up to what they support.

 

[TungstenCarbide]

View attachment 5880432

I'll add this too:

Shitposting Rowling is a national treasure.

 

[David Glowie]

Plenty of priests have raped girls as well, can't just blame homosexuals for it. Whether straight or gay they were predators who took advantage of their position to gain access to victims and be shielded from consequences. Just like politicians, journalists, activists, teachers etc. that have been found to do the same.

Victims of clerical abuse tend not to come forward until years, sometimes decades, after the fact. There were no female altar servers or choristers then, so paedophile priests simply had more opportunities to access young boys than young girls.

 

[Random Internet Person]

I'll add this too:
View attachment 5882165
Shitposting Rowling is a national treasure.

Does anybody do it better than her at this point?

 

[FuckedOffToff]

This sparked a conversation in my house about which literary figures would have been great at twitter shit posting.
Obviously, Oscar Wilde would have been in his element, but who else would you think, kiwis?
I reckon that Rabbie Burns would have been a full blown TRA, and James Joyce's fart fetish would have lead to unfortunate paraphilias if he'd been able to internet.

 

[holyhandgrenade]

I think it was the opposite, by the fourth book her editors were not willing to cut as much as they should have. You can see this with other authors and creatives who have editors or some equivalent. As they gain success their work becomes longer, more complicated, and generally more ambitious as their editors become more hands-off (either because they don't want to interfere with genius or they don't want to risk upsetting the talent). While there's value in this, it also allows the creative's worst habits to run wild. As it was, the first book was shockingly long for a children's novel of the time. This was a manuscript that was passed on by a dozen publishers, Bloomsbury had immense power in that relationship, they muse have cut out a lot from that first manuscript to even get it down to 223 pages. They probably cut a lot from Chamber of Secrets, but it was still even longer. Same for Prisoner of Azkaban. By then Harry Potter was a confirmed hit, so that's why Goblet was so long and IMHO the least tight of the series. Order of the Phoenix was longer still, but it also marked such a major tonal shift that it almost had to be. If it was really the publisher taking a greater role in the writing I don't think they would have gambled (even though there wasn't much shot of the Harry Potter novels actually flopping at that point) on taking such a dark turn.

I somewhat agree with this but then she was in the process of making a movie deal while writing Goblet and by the time OOTP came out she already had a movie deal. I know she got a really good deal as far as creative control goes but I can't imagine Warner Bros had zero impact on how the story progressed.
Edit: Hemingway would be the star of the internet tough guys board

 

[Gorillion others]

This sparked a conversation in my house about which literary figures would have been great at twitter shit posting.
Obviously, Oscar Wilde would have been in his element, but who else would you think, kiwis?
I reckon that Rabbie Burns would have been a full blown TRA, and James Joyce's fart fetish would have lead to unfortunate paraphilias if he'd been able to internet.

Poe.

 

[RX-78]

The big exception to my half-ass theory is the Munchausen-by-Proxy mothers who brag on Instagram about having 1 gay kid and 2 trans kids. Still working on how those psychos fit in.

Those exist because shitty women are utterly desperate to prove that they are not like other girls(tm), and will use their own children as tools to further that goal. The lgbtpedophile fixation these women display is because that's what msm told them to focus on.

 

[DoubleD]

The Onion is at it again.

Note that links to The Onion on Google, Wikipedia, etc. display in kiwi green when viewed with the Shinigami Eyes browser extension. This is code for the tranny seal of approval. It is more commonly given to individuals, so a corporation would have to simp for trans folx pretty hard to earn this.

It should also be noted just how rare it is for any news site to receive this dubious honour. To give you an idea of how high the Shinigami people's standards are, the BBC (yes, the entire BBC, not just the news arm) and the Guardian are actually marked as transphobic/anti-LGBT because they occasionally publish the truth.

It speaks volumes that one of the few news sources that clears the bar for trans acceptance is the one that never publishes the truth...

But a lot of people think it does! Last time the Onion did a hit piece on JK Rowling, I discovered no less than twenty of these 'Onion is no longer satire!' remarks in a single FB comment thread. See my full post about it here.

What is the Onion's most recent hot take? Well, it's not actually that recent. As I found when looking for the archive, it was originally published in October 2023. But the team that runs the Onion's social media couldn't resist a second dip.

Archive (mostly working), Link

So that you can see how brilliant the humor is, and because most of you won't click either link, I present to you the slideshow in its entirety:



"Never Shit Again" and "Work To Remove All Toilets Everywhere" are the same joke.
"Kill A Boy" and "Run Over Daniel Radcliffe" are also the same joke.

One of the list items is "Use Cruel, Vitriolic Language To Publicly Bully An Oppressed Minority Group Of People". Another two list items are about genitals (because we all know terfs are the ones obsessed with genitals haha amirite?)

The post on Twitter has about 5 times as many likes as comments, but reassuringly the comments seem to have been mostly negative. I didn't go to the length this time of finding any LOLOLOL Onion is no longer satire! type remarks - mainly because the ones I found last time were on a trans Facebook group - but trust me, they're there.

 

[RonRiot]

There's a gay guy at my work who is always ranting about J.K. Rowling and what an awful bigot she is towards trans people. One day, he came in wearing a shirt that read 'Read Banned Books', which did make me chuckle, because that statement suggests a desire to challenge established orthodoxy and, for some reason, I can't picture someone like him reading Abigail Schrier, Julie Bindel or Helen Joyce's books.

I'd honestly like to tell him to put his money where his mouth is and fuck a pooner, if he feels so strongly about this trans shit. Trans men are men, after all, right?

You’re absolutely right. The gay men who scream loudest about Trans rights aren’t thinking of pooners. They’re thinking of their eternally single friends who couldn’t get layed as shit drag queens, and are having even worse luck as t&h straight women. Or perhaps they’re grappling with their own feelings of inadequacy around masculinity, and are annoyed some old woman is stifling their inner princess with her pesky demands to be seen as a real person. It always come back to some man’s neglected boner, whether literal or metaphorica.

 

[FortyClappas]

Archived her (serious) long-form opinion on this complete mess.

You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes.

I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.

I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn't more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn't stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she's done either of those things, or ever wants to.

Womanhood isn't a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.

Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say 'I thought you didn't want to be defined by your biology,' it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don't want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It's one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don't and can't, because we belong to our sex class.

Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.

I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.

I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.

 

[draggs]

the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men

Holy fuck this is more savage than one of Voldemort's sneks in a room full of mudblood children

 

[isalaide]

This sparked a conversation in my house about which literary figures would have been great at twitter shit posting.
Obviously, Oscar Wilde would have been in his element, but who else would you think, kiwis?
I reckon that Rabbie Burns would have been a full blown TRA, and James Joyce's fart fetish would have lead to unfortunate paraphilias if he'd been able to internet.

Wilde would have been the Final Boss of Twitter, hands down.

I would also put in a vote for Cicero.

A well Terry Pratchett too.

 

[Mola Ram]

Wilde would have been the Final Boss of Twitter, hands down.

I would also put in a vote for Cicero.

A well Terry Pratchett too.

Mark Twain and Winston Churchill would have em all on the ropes.

The real winner would be Diogenes, but I doubt you could get him on social media.

 

[luigismanslave]

The real winner would be Diogenes, but I doubt you could get him on social media.

he would be an anonymous 4chan shitposter