Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Like a moth to a flame.
I’d also say it’s a call to unite.
Part of me wonders if JK Rowling has the same kind of force.
Diseased Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"
- Thread starter 1440p Curved Monitor
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I’d also say it’s a call to unite.
Part of me wonders if JK Rowling has the same kind of force.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Danger of oversimplification, but I am guessing that the RDS in these daft and misguided alphabet brigade…….1/ Jealousy of her success. How dare she when she doesn’t accept my delusions.
2/ They KNOW they’re lying. They do not have any truth on their side. But they’re so arrogant they’ll never accept the truth so hearing the truth from somebody who is listened to and supported REALLY gets their goat.
2/ They KNOW they’re lying. They do not have any truth on their side. But they’re so arrogant they’ll never accept the truth so hearing the truth from somebody who is listened to and supported REALLY gets their goat.
Gorillion others
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2023
pursuitsnail
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
It's a ludicrous ideology with obvious consequences cheered on by people for whom the idea that anyone hurt by their preferred policy is a tragedy that could never have possibly been foreseen, let alone prevented... when they don't deny that it happened at all or believe that the victim, for whatever reason, deserved whatever happened to them. It can't handle a child calling the emperor naked, but they can crush the child and compel silence or agreement from them to keep their constructed world from shattering.
Rowling, though? She has fuck you money, and these are consoomers who tie who they are on a fundamental level to the products they consume. She dares disagree with the cause, and they cannot make her submit, and that turns this cornerstone of who are think themselves to be into one of those horrible, poisonous caterpillars covered in needles. Spiny, burning, stinging things that are wriggling around, drawing attention to the wound and the lie they wish were true. Normal people would either not care or never have made a piece of media the core of their personality. They simply can't ignore her.
Then there's the male-feminists who get a stiffy from trying to put a woman in her place for calling a man a man. You know, the AGPs-By-Proxy and the GAMPs.
Gondolindrim
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
She's long abandoned subtlety. I can't blame her since being passive hasn't gotten anything doneView attachment 5982191 x
some of the replies:
View attachment 5982189
View attachment 5982190 x
View attachment 5982200
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2023
This is a new tactic I've observed from the troon platoon. The Regina George 'why are you so obsessed with me?' when they get rightly called out by someone with no time for their bullshit.
Why is Rowling continually talking about this? Because she's a feminist who thinks the rights of women are important. It's not just a fun social media hobby for her that she can pick up and put down whenever she likes for clout. Because she's authentic.
Candidate No 7
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
What is funny is that she is clearly having some fun with it, laughing at their nonsense a few times a day, but they are convinced she is ranting in a state of fury non-stop.
She really doesn't tweet much! She is maybe there an hour a week in total.
EDIT: this is a nice illustration.
"gENuinely unSTAble beHAviOr"
She really doesn't tweet much! She is maybe there an hour a week in total.
EDIT: this is a nice illustration.
"gENuinely unSTAble beHAviOr"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2020
that and before she started talking back she was getting constant harassment, death threats, rape threats over a very mild-mannered essay she wrote.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
So how often does Rowling post about trannies? A friend told me recently that she is obsessed with them and is on the verge of becoming a Dave Ruben type of person, only not making up her politics for cash.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
This was anaswered upthread. Quoting relevant posts here.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
An hour a week could be almost ten minutes of politisperging every day.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2023
Oh belt up, you big Jessie.
'Genuinely unstable behaviour' - no, she's making fun of you and the way people like you talk about her, and you're mad because of how accurate it is.
I know you understand this kind of thing, Jessie, because you attempted to do it yourself, when you read out some Janice Raymond quotes in a cringeworthy 'evil witch' voice in one of your videos, while playing sinister music in the background.
Last edited:
Candidate No 7
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
Nice impression of Raymond's *checks notes* Massachusetts accent there.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2023
Um, ackshually, Salem is in Massachusetts. And that's where witches come from!
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I'm regularly mistaken for a man by cashiers/bartenders/homeless people and don't bother to correct them. Small boys with long hair don't say anything when you accidentally call them girls. My neighbour doesn't threaten suicide when I call her by her maiden name because she's only been married a month and I keep forgettting.
Peepeepoopoo Witch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2024
Misgendering doesn't hurt normalgender people because we know it's not true.
Candidate No 7
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
So Rowling is being accused left and right - including by tiresome non-TRA tranny Debbie Hayton in the Spectator - of lapsing into cruelty and bullying over this (reposting from above):
Turns out that just like Himdia he has been barking at her on Twitter for years! (Screenshots below nicked from @galluslass there.)
The lesson once again:
1) JKR always knows exactly what she is doing.
2) Just because she ignores your bullshit for a long time doesn't mean your nose won't end up shoved in it, at the time she chooses.
Turns out that just like Himdia he has been barking at her on Twitter for years! (Screenshots below nicked from @galluslass there.)
The lesson once again:
1) JKR always knows exactly what she is doing.
2) Just because she ignores your bullshit for a long time doesn't mean your nose won't end up shoved in it, at the time she chooses.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2022
"You're mentally unstable!" shrieked the tranny, as he severed his penis with a butchers knife.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2023
Hayton's piece: Archive
The transgender debate has a habit of bringing out the worst in people. It’s no wonder, really. It’s an issue rooted in identity – and therefore close to people’s hearts – and spiced up with the fear that fundamental concepts like the meaning of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ might be redefined by others, and to their advantage. It’s then hosted on social media – an environment where grown adults seem to forget that there are real life human beings involved.
Even the rich and famous can succumb. Over the weekend, JK Rowling became embroiled in an unedifying spat over a transgender football manager. This is not premier league stuff. Lucy Clark hit the headlines in 2018 as the ‘world’s first ever transgender football referee’. Clark has now become the ‘first trans manager in the top five divisions of English women’s football.’
While the news was clearly important to a social media account calling itself @prideukorg, it’s not clear to me why anyone should really care. Football management is open to both sexes, and whoever a club chooses to manage its team is a matter for it and its supporters. However, it bothered Rowling enough to tell her 14.1 million followers on Twitter that, ‘When I was young all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it’s fantastic to see how much things have changed.’
Any uncertainty over her mood was dispelled when she reacted to the inevitable outrage that followed. Mail Online suggested that she had compared Clark to a ‘straight, white, middle-aged bloke’. Rowling’s response was cutting, ‘I didn’t compare him to one. He IS one’.
If Twitter is anything it is a great leveller. Notable people with huge followings inhabit the same space as private individuals. But as well as sharing the same medium, human beings also share the same emotions. We like to be noticed and when the likes and (friendly) replies flood into the phone, dopamine can flood the brain. No matter who you are, this has the potential to become addictive.
Social media followers then often demand increasingly direct and shocking posts to stay on board. Is this happening to Rowling? That’s not for me to say, but her output has become increasingly single-issue. Even the man in charge of the platform has noticed. Last week, Elon Musk told Rowling that, ‘While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex/gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?’ But those ‘other matters’ might not bring in the hits.
Of course, we all have a right to say what we think. But politics is about persuading people as well as playing to the crowd. And while your social media followers might applaud your every word, your one negative comment in a hundred can be dissected, quoted – most likely out of context – and broadcast to startled bystanders who have yet to pick a side. Kindness is a virtue, and lack of kindness can be off-putting.
It does seem that gender identity ideology is on the wane, at least in the UK. There are many people who helped to push it back, but JK Rowling is surely one of the most notable. She came out publicly for the first time in 2019 in support of Maya Forstater who had been forced out of her job for saying that people cannot change their biological sex. Rowling’s courage had a profound impact on campaigners when it seemed more likely that science, reason and common sense would become trampled underfoot.
Rowling’s contribution continues to be immense, but she does not need to attack individuals on social media. Yes her frustration is justified. But as I might ask children in my class who have said what they thought rather than what is wise: is it helpful? Is it necessary? And is it true? Unless all three answers are affirmative then maybe it is best not to say it at all.
Even the rich and famous can succumb. Over the weekend, JK Rowling became embroiled in an unedifying spat over a transgender football manager. This is not premier league stuff. Lucy Clark hit the headlines in 2018 as the ‘world’s first ever transgender football referee’. Clark has now become the ‘first trans manager in the top five divisions of English women’s football.’
While the news was clearly important to a social media account calling itself @prideukorg, it’s not clear to me why anyone should really care. Football management is open to both sexes, and whoever a club chooses to manage its team is a matter for it and its supporters. However, it bothered Rowling enough to tell her 14.1 million followers on Twitter that, ‘When I was young all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it’s fantastic to see how much things have changed.’
Any uncertainty over her mood was dispelled when she reacted to the inevitable outrage that followed. Mail Online suggested that she had compared Clark to a ‘straight, white, middle-aged bloke’. Rowling’s response was cutting, ‘I didn’t compare him to one. He IS one’.
Whether you agree with Rowling or not, her tone is remarkably different to the essay she wrote in 2020 when she set out her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender. Then, she wrote: ‘Trans people need and deserve protection’, and ‘I want trans women to be safe.’ Perhaps she has changed her mind in the four years that have passed? But in a lengthy and considered statement posted just last month she added:
Has she changed her mind in a month? Or is she being manipulated by her environment? Twitter might have rebranded itself as X, but the rules of the game are the same. The quote-Tweet is possibly the most brutal weapon that exists on social media – especially in the hands of influencers with thousands of followers. Anything an opponent says can be captured and broadcast to your audience. Sarcasm, ridicule, or downright abuse then set the tone for the mob who can ‘pile on’ and deluge the original with more of the same, and worse.
If Twitter is anything it is a great leveller. Notable people with huge followings inhabit the same space as private individuals. But as well as sharing the same medium, human beings also share the same emotions. We like to be noticed and when the likes and (friendly) replies flood into the phone, dopamine can flood the brain. No matter who you are, this has the potential to become addictive.
Social media followers then often demand increasingly direct and shocking posts to stay on board. Is this happening to Rowling? That’s not for me to say, but her output has become increasingly single-issue. Even the man in charge of the platform has noticed. Last week, Elon Musk told Rowling that, ‘While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex/gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters?’ But those ‘other matters’ might not bring in the hits.
Of course, we all have a right to say what we think. But politics is about persuading people as well as playing to the crowd. And while your social media followers might applaud your every word, your one negative comment in a hundred can be dissected, quoted – most likely out of context – and broadcast to startled bystanders who have yet to pick a side. Kindness is a virtue, and lack of kindness can be off-putting.
It does seem that gender identity ideology is on the wane, at least in the UK. There are many people who helped to push it back, but JK Rowling is surely one of the most notable. She came out publicly for the first time in 2019 in support of Maya Forstater who had been forced out of her job for saying that people cannot change their biological sex. Rowling’s courage had a profound impact on campaigners when it seemed more likely that science, reason and common sense would become trampled underfoot.
Rowling’s contribution continues to be immense, but she does not need to attack individuals on social media. Yes her frustration is justified. But as I might ask children in my class who have said what they thought rather than what is wise: is it helpful? Is it necessary? And is it true? Unless all three answers are affirmative then maybe it is best not to say it at all.
Response piece: Brendan O'Neill (archive)
I see JK Rowling is being cruel again. Her nasty streak is off its leash. She’s bullying random people and engaging in ‘unedifying’ behaviour. What monstrous utterance has she issued this time? What fresh bigotry has spewed from her tweeting fingers? Brace yourselves: she called a man a man.
Yes, hold the front page: a woman has accurately described a member of the male sex. I’m old enough to remember when a public figure had to crack a racist joke or say something nice about Hitler in order to hit the headlines. Now they just have to use the word ‘bloke’ about a bloke.
There it was, the B-word – bloke. The noun that must never be spoken in the presence of a ‘trans woman’. The unutterable truth of biology. Rowling compounded her moral error with a follow-up tweet in response to the Daily Mail. Rowling is in hot water for comparing Lucy Clark to a ‘straight, white, middle-aged bloke’, cried the Mail. ‘I didn’t compare him to one. He IS one’, shot back Rowling.
It didn’t take long for the digital mob’s thousand fingers of judgement to point Rowling’s way. She was denounced as mean, branded a bigot. ‘You’re punching down’, said every midwit with a web connection. Rowling, who’s clearly had enough of all this bilge, fired back: ‘Calling a man a man is not “bullying” or “punching down”. Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us.’
Preach, JK. It isn’t cruel to accurately describe the world and its contents. Truth isn’t bigotry. The right to tell the truth is essential to the healthy functioning of public life. A society that forbids truth-telling, on the basis that it might hurt someone’s feelings, is a society that has abandoned reason for delusion, sacrificed science to sensitivity. To elevate a minority’s emotional needs over the majority’s liberty of observation, our fundamental right to describe what we see, is to chip away at the very foundations of Enlightened society.
Even one-time sympathisers with Rowling and her valiant crusade for women’s sex-based rights have been tut-tutting at her of late. Debbie Hayton, in these pages, accused her of ‘unedifying’ behaviour. Elon Musk recently tweeted at her: ‘While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex / gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters.’ It rather brought to mind those boors of old who would say to women: ‘Smile, love, it might never happen!’
Here’s what is most infuriating about the shrill denunciation of Rowling as ‘cruel’: she’s actually pushing back against cruelty. Tell me, what’s more ‘cruel’: JK Rowling calling a man a man or government policies that permit men to waltz into women-only spaces? Rowling saying the word ‘bloke’ or blokes stripping off in a women’s changing room? Rowling using a phrase like ‘crossdressing straight men’ or crossdressing straight men invading women’s sports and taking their medals?
In my view, what’s really ‘cruel’ is depriving young women of sporting glory. And risking allowing biological males to mingle in rape-crisis centres. And putting literal rapists in women’s prisons. That last one is literally cruel – it is the very definition of a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to force female criminals to live with male sex offenders. And you want us to lose sleep over Rowling’s firmly worded rejection of such lunatic developments? Listen, if you are more outraged by a woman’s tone of voice as she criticises society’s betrayal of women than you are by the betrayal of women itself, then the problem isn’t Rowling: it’s you.
This is always the way with the culture war. The elites shove all shades of authoritarian nonsense down our throats, from men in women’s spaces to the rebranding of British history as one crime against humanity after another. Yet it is those who stand up and say ‘Hold on, what’s going on here?’ who are damned as mad, obsessed ‘culture warriors’.
Apparently the elites’ ceaseless culture war on decency and common sense is just normal politics, whereas our resistance to such dangerous bunkum is hysteria, bigotry, cruelty, etc etc. This is exactly what’s happening with Rowling. ‘Why are you so obsessed with this issue?’, ask the people who’ve obsessively been dismantling her rights and every other woman’s rights for the past 10 years.
Rowling isn’t an ‘extremist’ – on the contrary, she’s countering the extremism of those who wish to erase entirely the distinction between men and women. She isn’t ‘punching down’ – she’s punching up against an ideology that puts men’s feelings ahead of women’s rights and which has the backing of virtually every wing of the elite. She’s not a bigot, she’s fighting bigotry – the bigotry that says women must give up their privacy and dignity and which defames any woman who says ‘No’ as a transphobe, a TERF, a harridan unfit for polite society.
Bullies calling their victims bullies – it’s the slipperiest trick of the new left.
Yes, hold the front page: a woman has accurately described a member of the male sex. I’m old enough to remember when a public figure had to crack a racist joke or say something nice about Hitler in order to hit the headlines. Now they just have to use the word ‘bloke’ about a bloke.
It was over the weekend that Rowling committed her blasphemy. She was responding to the news that Lucy Clark, a man who identifies as a woman, has become ‘the first trans manager in the top five divisions of English women’s football’. With epic pithiness, Rowling tweeted: ‘When I was young all the football managers were straight, white, middle-aged blokes, so it’s fantastic to see how much things have changed.’
There it was, the B-word – bloke. The noun that must never be spoken in the presence of a ‘trans woman’. The unutterable truth of biology. Rowling compounded her moral error with a follow-up tweet in response to the Daily Mail. Rowling is in hot water for comparing Lucy Clark to a ‘straight, white, middle-aged bloke’, cried the Mail. ‘I didn’t compare him to one. He IS one’, shot back Rowling.
It didn’t take long for the digital mob’s thousand fingers of judgement to point Rowling’s way. She was denounced as mean, branded a bigot. ‘You’re punching down’, said every midwit with a web connection. Rowling, who’s clearly had enough of all this bilge, fired back: ‘Calling a man a man is not “bullying” or “punching down”. Crossdressing straight men are currently one of the most pandered-to demographics in existence, and women are under no obligation to applaud the people caricaturing us.’
Preach, JK. It isn’t cruel to accurately describe the world and its contents. Truth isn’t bigotry. The right to tell the truth is essential to the healthy functioning of public life. A society that forbids truth-telling, on the basis that it might hurt someone’s feelings, is a society that has abandoned reason for delusion, sacrificed science to sensitivity. To elevate a minority’s emotional needs over the majority’s liberty of observation, our fundamental right to describe what we see, is to chip away at the very foundations of Enlightened society.
Even one-time sympathisers with Rowling and her valiant crusade for women’s sex-based rights have been tut-tutting at her of late. Debbie Hayton, in these pages, accused her of ‘unedifying’ behaviour. Elon Musk recently tweeted at her: ‘While I heartily agree with your points regarding sex / gender, may I suggest also posting interesting and positive content on other matters.’ It rather brought to mind those boors of old who would say to women: ‘Smile, love, it might never happen!’
Here’s what is most infuriating about the shrill denunciation of Rowling as ‘cruel’: she’s actually pushing back against cruelty. Tell me, what’s more ‘cruel’: JK Rowling calling a man a man or government policies that permit men to waltz into women-only spaces? Rowling saying the word ‘bloke’ or blokes stripping off in a women’s changing room? Rowling using a phrase like ‘crossdressing straight men’ or crossdressing straight men invading women’s sports and taking their medals?
In my view, what’s really ‘cruel’ is depriving young women of sporting glory. And risking allowing biological males to mingle in rape-crisis centres. And putting literal rapists in women’s prisons. That last one is literally cruel – it is the very definition of a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ to force female criminals to live with male sex offenders. And you want us to lose sleep over Rowling’s firmly worded rejection of such lunatic developments? Listen, if you are more outraged by a woman’s tone of voice as she criticises society’s betrayal of women than you are by the betrayal of women itself, then the problem isn’t Rowling: it’s you.
This is always the way with the culture war. The elites shove all shades of authoritarian nonsense down our throats, from men in women’s spaces to the rebranding of British history as one crime against humanity after another. Yet it is those who stand up and say ‘Hold on, what’s going on here?’ who are damned as mad, obsessed ‘culture warriors’.
Apparently the elites’ ceaseless culture war on decency and common sense is just normal politics, whereas our resistance to such dangerous bunkum is hysteria, bigotry, cruelty, etc etc. This is exactly what’s happening with Rowling. ‘Why are you so obsessed with this issue?’, ask the people who’ve obsessively been dismantling her rights and every other woman’s rights for the past 10 years.
Rowling isn’t an ‘extremist’ – on the contrary, she’s countering the extremism of those who wish to erase entirely the distinction between men and women. She isn’t ‘punching down’ – she’s punching up against an ideology that puts men’s feelings ahead of women’s rights and which has the backing of virtually every wing of the elite. She’s not a bigot, she’s fighting bigotry – the bigotry that says women must give up their privacy and dignity and which defames any woman who says ‘No’ as a transphobe, a TERF, a harridan unfit for polite society.
Bullies calling their victims bullies – it’s the slipperiest trick of the new left.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
Wow, almost ten whole minutes a day. Maybe she just dunks on trannies when she's taking a shit.