JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims - Discuss all the JK Rowling tranny shit here

[Discarded Whopper]

What ever happened to literature anyway? How did bookworms become the most insufferable people on the planet when reading a book was considered a thing that was intellectually stimulating?

EDIT: and when I say the most insufferable I really do mean the worst.

I know I’m screeching but the Bookstagram (book reviewing community on Instagram) is turning rabid. It turns on anyone who doesn’t tow the liberal line. There are policing accounts that send cancel mobs after people if they read books that are “cancelled” or post something like... Harry Potter Funkos that “trigger JKR PTSD”

 

[KingCoelacanth]

What ever happened to literature anyway? How did bookworms become the most insufferable people on the planet when reading a book was considered a thing that was intellectually stimulating?

EDIT: and when I say the most insufferable I really do mean the worst.

Books give the author the ability to create a world, people and situations that all perfectly align with the author's views. If people get the idea "books are good because they're books" then they simply accept the author's views without confrontation.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

Seen tons of butthurt on social media already. It's wild how even though the character is specified to be a cis man troons are still mad.

They're angrier at JK Rowling than they are to real life serial killers who used to do it. Just saying.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not sure if this counts, but Charles Manson's uncled dressed him up like a girl and forced him to go to school like that. Because he was a "sissy." And we saw what his outcome was. Why people are acting like this is new is beyond me. Serial killing and cross dressing seem to go hand and hand, and these people are unhinged.

Then there's Jerry Brodus who used to wear women's underwear, had a fetish for women's shoes and for a time had a transgender period with a female persona. It's not uncommon, it really isn't.

Don't forget Richard Speck and Albert Fish. And both Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, the most prolific duo serial killers in history. Lucas's first victim was his mother, after she humiliated him by dressing him as a girl.

Also Carroll Cole. His mother sent him to school dressed as a girl. Sick of the taunting from his classmates, at age 8, he murdered one of them. He went on to murder over half a dozen women, many of whom he killed just for reminding him of his mother. And Charles Albright, the "Texas Eyeball Killer."

I'm sure it's total coincidence and that being dressed up as a girl by your mother and turning out as a sexually sadistic serial killer are completely unrelated, though.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Books are probably behind only the comic book industry and news journalism as the media to go the most woke.

You probably literally can't get published if you're an unproven straight white male author anymore.

I guess it's only a matter of time until Fahrenheit 451 is reality and unwoke books are burned.

 

[AnOminous]

What ever happened to literature anyway? How did bookworms become the most insufferable people on the planet when reading a book was considered a thing that was intellectually stimulating?

This isn't bookworms. Harry Potter is books for people who don't read books.

 

[Someone in a Tree]

If there’s one thing that fills me with joy during this shithole year, it’s reading the psychotic rantings of frumpy men in dresses spastically shitting on a woman who gave them years of happiness.

 

[Sourceress]

Serial killing and cross dressing seem to go hand and hand, and these people are unhinged.

There are a lot of theories about why this is, but a lot of it has to do with the particular mindset of people drawn to boundary-crossing paraphilias. It's not just that these men dress up as women, but they derive sexual pleasure from doing so and crossing that social boundary. Eventually, the first crossed boundary starts to lose its thrill as they become desensitized, and they seek out another, more serious boundary to cross. They often become jealous or hateful of women for a number of related reasons (they are female and he will never be, they get to wear women's clothing without getting negative feedback, whatever), which fuels the later violence.

It's the same reason authorities tend to take cases of dedicated peeping toms and panty-thieves so seriously: They tend to be the early signs of an escalating boundary-crossing paraphilia. Men who start out by watching women change or breaking into their homes and stealing their underwear often escalate to raping women, and then eventually to murdering them. They have to cross ever more serious boundaries in order to get the same thrill they initially got from stealing panties... or masturbating in their sister's panties, whichever shoe fits.

Or anyway, that's some of the theory. It's similar to the way studies show that men who watch a lot of porn will eventually become desensitized to "normal" or "vanilla" porn and need ever more violent and graphic pornography in order to get off.

But of course, because we live in a Woke Society(tm), we can't talk about crossdressing fetishes being signs of bad mental health anymore. So these men get to indulge their fetishes publicly, and engage in even more boundary-crossing behaviors than they used to be socially permitted... wonder what the consequences of that will be.

(Blah blah obligatory disclaimer that not all men with crossdressing fetishes or porn habits will become serial killers or whatever.)

They're angrier at JK Rowling than they are to real life serial killers who used to do it. Just saying.

Of course they are. They're misogynists, the worst thing in the world according to them is a disobedient woman. I'm sure they think the victims of male serial killers were just "asking for it" or "did something to provoke him."

 

[FaygoFagYo]

How did bookworms become the most insufferable people on the planet when reading a book was considered a thing that was intellectually stimulating?

It started really with those early 2010s hipsters who thought owning a record player and drinking overpriced coffee from some downtown hole-in-the-wall made them “smarter” and “more cultured” as the “unfettered masses” ate up “dribble” from their screens.

Over time, people who were more left leaning started to adopt and profit off old shit like books, vinyl, blogging, etc. to the point they think their the muckrakers of society fighting a “nothin personell” battle against “the man.”

TL;DR: they think liking books makes them smatter because “phone bad,” until it caters to their personal likes.

 

[Drain Todger]

If people want equal representation, then they need to be able to handle books where the minority is a villain, too. Saintly and unblemished token minority characters are bullshit. People want stories. They want stories about believable and flawed people, not perfect do-gooders who shoot rainbows and unicorns from their bums.

 

[Sourceress]

If people want equal representation, then they need to be able to handle books where the minority is a villain, too. Saintly and unblemished token minority characters are bullshit. People want stories. They want stories about believable and flawed people, not perfect do-gooders who shoot rainbows and unicorns from their bums.

I don't disagree. But my favorite part of this is the fact that the character isn't even trans.

They saw "violent man in a dress" and automatically assumed he must be trans. Very telling.

 

[comrade666]

I'm not sure if this counts, but Charles Manson's uncled dressed him up like a girl and forced him to go to school like that. Because he was a "sissy." And we saw what his outcome was. Why people are acting like this is new is beyond me. Serial killing and cross dressing seem to go hand and hand, and these people are unhinged.

Then there's Jerry Brodus who used to wear women's underwear, had a fetish for women's shoes and for a time had a transgender period with a female persona. It's not uncommon, it really isn't.

There is an ongoing effort to disregard the correlation between humiliation and violence. It is inarguably humiliating for young boys to be emasculated against their will - yet this is somehow considered a radical stance by much of the left who actively encourage parents to make political statements using their children. There is no consideration for the autonomy of these young boys, many of whom would not have naturally chosen to wear a dress, had their parents not encouraged them. I see very little difference between radical liberals who parade their young sons around in drag and between the abusive guardians of criminals like Manson. Of course, once they reach a stage in which they murder, my sympathy is withdrawn, but we cannot ignore the correlation between emasculating young boys and later life violence.

 

[Smug Cat]

I'm skimming through out of morbid curiosity, and you're right. The scenes just drag on, and the accents she's putting in there make it difficult reading. Maybe Britbongs are more used to the accent thing, but it's just distracting.

There's also random garbage humor. Chapter 1 starts with an argument about Cornish ethnic politics, which I guess the Anglos might find funny, but it came off as just awkward. Almost like she was trying to imply something based, but sanitized the whole thing out of fear.

Then there's this, the ending of a 19 page scene where two people interview an old lady and her daughter. There's no cleverness or mysteriousness leading up to this, just a mind-numbing exposition dump.



There are many better books you could be reading. I'm not even going to finish this to see if there's a twist or something. It's just dull.

Yeah I unfortunately have to second this take. I bought the book anyway because muh based transphobe kween or whatever, but it's so motherfucking slow holy shit. I was hoping it'd be good (not a HP fan but I remember them at least being readable) but it's almost Tolkien-tier pacing. Oh well.

(If you don't feel that guilt, guess what--you're complicit to transphobia. Congrats!)

Thanks, I work really hard at it.

 

[Dolphin Lundgren]

Yeah I unfortunately have to second this take. I bought the book anyway because muh based transphobe kween or whatever, but it's so motherfucking slow holy shit. I was hoping it'd be good (not a HP fan but I remember them at least being readable) but it's almost Tolkien-tier pacing. Oh well.

Thanks, I work really hard at it.

That's what made me want to screencap that rant. Most of it was boring until the guilt came in. They always have to guilt.

 

[Sourceress]

View attachment 1599045

There is an ongoing effort to disregard the correlation between humiliation and violence. It is inarguably humiliating for young boys to be emasculated against their will - yet this is somehow considered a radical stance by much of the left who actively encourage parents to make political statements using their children. There is no consideration for the autonomy of these young boys, many of whom would not have naturally chosen to wear a dress, had their parents not encouraged them. I see very little difference between radical liberals who parade their young sons around in drag and between the abusive guardians of criminals like Manson. Of course, once they reach a stage in which they murder, my sympathy is withdrawn, but we cannot ignore the correlation between emasculating young boys and later life violence.

I mean, I don't really agree with you. I don't agree with parents letting or forcing their kids to do drag, but I suspect you're just talking about parents allowing their children to wear "girl clothes" in public, and I don't see any similarity there to abusive parents intentionally humiliating their children by making them wear dresses. Intent matters. Letting your son who wants to wear a princess dress wear it because you want them to be happy and confident in themselves and not constrained to outdated gender role bullshit is inherently wildly different from a mother forcing her son to wear dresses specifically with the purpose of humiliating him, which is actually reinforcing archaic gender role bullshit.

Also, the idea that children would "naturally" want to or not want to wear dresses is... a stretch. Trust me, most little girls don't want anything to do with them, either. We certainly aren't born wanting to wear them! I don't understand why forcing a boy into a dress is so incredibly traumatic that it can explain violence, but forcing a girl into a dress is considered entirely normal. Hm.

But I suppose that's off-topic. I would say more though that abusive parents cause violence, and forcing children into humiliating clothing (no matter how that clothing is gendered) in order to punish them is one form of abuse.

 

[Smug Cat]

That's what made me want to screencap that rant. Most of it was boring until the guilt came in. They always have to guilt.

The best part about these sorts of SHAME SHAME SHAME screeds is that this manipulation tactic only has the power over you that you give it, and usually the people using it don't really realize that. They're all high on their faux power-trip and they will visibly error out when you laugh in their face. They don't know how to cope with someone who genuinely doesn't care whether they think you're a good person. It's incredibly fun to do.

 

[DrunkenDozing]

The best part about these sorts of SHAME SHAME SHAME screeds is that this manipulation tactic only has the power over you that you give it, and usually the people using it don't really realize that. They're all high on their faux power-trip and they will visibly error out when you laugh in their face. They don't know how to cope with someone who genuinely doesn't care whether they think you're a good person. It's incredibly fun to do.

I think that's basically why cancel culture became a thing. These individuals cant handle that someone isnt going to fall for the same emotional and baseless arguments that they themselves did. It doesnt work on everyone so they had to find a way to attack people in another way.

 

[comrade666]

I mean, I don't really agree with you. I don't agree with parents letting or forcing their kids to do drag, but I suspect you're just talking about parents allowing their children to wear "girl clothes" in public, and I don't see any similarity there to abusive parents intentionally humiliating their children by making them wear dresses. Intent matters. Letting your son who wants to wear a princess dress wear it because you want them to be happy and confident in themselves and not constrained to outdated gender role bullshit is inherently wildly different from a mother forcing her son to wear dresses specifically with the purpose of humiliating him, which is actually reinforcing archaic gender role bullshit.

Also, the idea that children would "naturally" want to or not want to wear dresses is... a stretch. Trust me, most little girls don't want anything to do with them, either. We certainly aren't born wanting to wear them! I don't understand why forcing a boy into a dress is so incredibly traumatic that it can explain violence, but forcing a girl into a dress is considered entirely normal. Hm.

But I suppose that's off-topic. I would say more though that abusive parents cause violence, and forcing children into humiliating clothing (no matter how that clothing is gendered) in order to punish them is one form of abuse.

The sheer amount of parents who parade their sons 'choice' on social media leaves me in doubt as to what extent these children were involved in the decision making process. Consider Desmond Napoles as an extreme example, and then consider every watered down version of that - my son asked me to fix his make up and dress him up as his favourite Disney princess!!1! #abolishgenderroles #feministmommy

Whether it is humiliating to the child in that moment is up for debate - the child seeks the approval of the parent at this stage. As an adult, or even as an adolescent, the majority of males do not crossdress. It is not the norm. The majority would find it humiliating to have been forced to cross dress, and doubly so to have the evidence immortalised on social media. There is a difference between natural experimentation as a child and forcing a political ideology on a child for internet approval points. It is humiliating to dress a boy as a girl - it is not the norm and you are setting up your child for ridicule if you publicise that experimentation. At no point did I suggest that humiliation was the motive - although I certainly wouldn't put it past some misandrists. Humiliation is an outcome of using your son as an experiment in abolishing gender roles by encouraging or forcing him to cross dress. At a certain age, a child has little autonomy - hence, forced. Slightly older children are encouraged by seeking parental approval.

What many of the real world violent criminals discussed here, many of whom share traits with the character invented by Rowling, have in common is being forced to cross dress as a young boy. They grew up sexually deviant and violent. Studies show that humiliation and violence go hand in hand. Whether you approve of forcing cross dressing on children is your prerogative but best of luck with the fallout.

 

[RejectedLynx]

I never liked jkr since her woke days - and her world building was absolute shit upon shit. Even my family who loved the books got irritated at me for doing all that I could to avoid reading them since I felt they were just shit in general. I even hated her feminism bullshit in later years. However as my friends loudly seethe, I just don't see their anger. I don't think she's dehumanized anyone by saying uteruses have fucking periods or some shit.

I was going to buy the book myself - but a friend got it to hate read and I read about 30 pages and got bored.

I don't know why all my true crime friends see this as fucking weird that some person who kills people also might be mentally bonkers and like dressing up in dresses or deciding to build an altar to tony the fucking tiger. Even if the book was decent, I might go back and read it when I have time, I never read one thing in there that had really anything super good or super bad. I will admit it's at least more in my ball court cause it's not about a wimpy bitch and his stick but the pacing is pretty bad.

 

[Table Country]

This is somehow baste and retarded at the same time.