Culture J.K Rowling Megathread

All Articles and Discussion Regarding The English Author J.K. Rowling belong here. If you're looking to discuss the Harry Potter series itself, this thread is for you. If you know about any potential cow material in the Harry Potter Fandom, go here. If you're here to bitch about transsexuals' in general, we already have threads for that here, here, and here.

Backstory of the Author



J.K. Rowling is one of the most well known authors in the world today. She was living as a single mother on welfare in England before her first published novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone skyrocketed her to international fame and acclaim. The following six novels, movie and various video game franchises, spin off books, and merchandise, made her the wealthiest author in history. As her books gained international attention many criticized and even protested her works. With feminists claiming her novels conform heavily with gender stereotypes about men and women, and are racist, religious organizations stating that the books contain actual dangerous spells children use to hurt each other, and even a literal book burning back on February 4th of this year because the books are 'demonic'.

These examples and many others over the past two decades exemplify just how divisive even the most innocuous things can be, and how people with irrational thinking, extreme political views and a platform to spread them can cause a worldwide discussion. This is just her first seven novels however. Many people have criticized J.K. Rowling herself for her political views, which are essentially left wing, though of a decidedly less extreme stripe than those coming up. Keep that in mind.

J.K. Rowling's political views have been consistent throughout her life. She believes in social healthcare, welfare, women's rights, gay rights, ect. Her views are garden variety left-wing from the early 2000's. While she has garnered criticisms for these views a number of times, like when she donated a million British Pounds to the Labour Party, which gained some criticism from British Conservatives who felt her books were decidedly Conservative in nature. She has also spoken out against American President Donald J Trump on a number of occasions, earning her the ire of many American Conservatives, and a variety of YouTube grifters such as Paul Joseph Watson. In addition to her political views, Rowling made a number of statements to Harry Potter fans on social media, angering hardcore fans by saying that she imagined characters being different races, and one character being gay when no allusion in the books ever existed. Her pandering to the hyper left-wing, intersectional inhabitants of Twitter would lead to one of the largest and most insane public freak outs ever seen on the platform. Before this meltdown, she was a darling in left-wing circles, and quoted constanly, much like her books themselves.

In response to a woman saying that biological sex is real, and being subsequently fired for it, J.K. Rowling tweeted the following

Tweet | Article about it

This one Tweet was enough to ignite a firestorm. Transsexuals' and their 'allies' all across social media dog-piled Rowling spectacularly, and unlike every other celebrity that's been faced with this witch trial style burning at the stake for 'Transphobia' she refused to bend the knee, and argued further. This, predictably, only fanned the flames.

Excerpt from the article showing various Twitter reactions

One said: “I believe this case is a vitally important landmark. We must treat this in the same way we have treated sexism, racism, homophobia.

“Nobody is suggesting she isn’t allowed her opinion but it’s dangerous language that harms people. She should be held accountable for it.”

Freddy McConnell, who became a voice for the trans community after making his film “Seahorse”, about being a dad who gave birth, said: “It’s a dog whistle, Joanne.”
A parent said: “My daughter, who is trans, is a big fan of yours. It breaks my heart to see you post something indicating that discrimination against her is perfectly fine behaviour for an employee.

“The world’s most credible medical orgs affirm trans people. Please catch up.”

Another person said: I grew up as a trans child reading your books as an escape. I would often pick out names from characters to give to myself, before I ever felt comfortable in who I was.

After the various Twitter exchanges J.K. Rowling went quiet for a while, taking a break from the mental illness inducing website Twitter (Something she says she does occasionally, as social media in general is bad for your mental health). All the while various Harry Potter fan sites figuratively exploded, many users arguing over her statements. During her break she wrote a 3,600 word essay on her website (Children's Portal | Adults Portal) that further explains her position. Again, she refused to apologize, or change her view, which would further incense the lunatics she angered online, even cast members of the Harry Potter Films denounced her, and because of this she didn't attend or involve herself in the filming of the HBOMax documentary about the film series(This article is very salty).

Here's the full essay, spoilered for length.

Spoiler: Full Essay

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

The following Tweet sums up J.K. Rowling's opinions of trans people.


Tweet

Anyone who isn't insane can see that her views are milquetoast at worst. Her criticism on transsexuality legislation and gender in general are very tame compared to even some of the most accepting people who browse the Farms, 4Chan, 8Chan, etc. Her blog garnered a mass of more criticism, including hundreds of articles from online publications that claim she's a hateful bigoted TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist), attacking her further for 'doubling down' on her bigotry, and a variety of similar screeching diatribes. These articles are written constantly, with some published within days of this thread being written.

Even with all this negative publicity however, J.K. Rowling has received a plethora of support from women across the Western world. One even got fired from her job due to her saying that 'J.K. Rowling is my woman of the year'. Not just women support her either. The actor of fan favorite character from the Harry Potter series Hagrid, Robbie Coltrane, wrote in defense of Rowling. The following quote is from an article by Insider.

"I don't think what she said was offensive really," Coltrane said during an interview with the Radio Times that was seen by Pink News. "I don't know why, but there's a whole Twitter generation of people who hang around waiting to be offended. They wouldn't have won the war, would they?"

He added: "That's me talking like a grumpy old man, but you just think: 'Oh, get over yourself. Wise up, stand up straight, and carry on.'"

Coltrane then continued to say he did not want to speak on the issue any further "because of all the hate mail and all that s--- which I don't need at my time of life."

Rowling's blog post even won the Russel Prize for Best Writing from the BBC. This, shockingly, caused immense online backlash and further articles were written about it. Rowling's next book, about a serial killer pretending to be a woman to get close to victims, incited more backlash. Over the last two years J.K. Rowling has had trans activists show up to her house and dox her (Much like Dear Feeder, actually), received a plethora of death threats, and even had people telling her they hoped her house would be bombed.



Tweet

As shown above, Rowling's refusal to bow to the mob has made her a much hated figure in transsexual and adjacent circles, even though she is widely supported by women across the world who find trans activists and their aggressive, misogynistic actions terrifying. With her stance on the issue unchanging, it brought her into contact with one of the best known pedophile, and horse fucker, with a Kiwi Farms thread.


Vaush Thread (Plz don't shit it up with anymore Rowling talk, that's what this thread is for)

Being the enlightened son of Silicon Valley tech employees, Vaush has been championing the rise of Socialism for years, in addition to lowering the age of consent and wanting to fuck horses. Various screenshots, and audio and video clips show Vaush holding these views, and the thread has archives of them for those curious. The Tweet that got him involved with Rowling is below.



This Tweet did not go well for Vaush, as soon after Rowling responded, and clips of his support for child pornography and fucking horses have been widely circulating across Twitter and other social media sites.


Tweet

The sudden mass attention has been bad for Vaush, whose disturbing takes on children have led to notable publications exposing it to a much wider, normal audience rather than the sycophant's who constantly defend him. One article from the Post Millennial even states in it's title that he's a 'Suspected Pedophile'. Predictably, grifters from the right wing sphere of Twitter hopped in and sent more clips to these publications. Ian Miles Cheong sent clips of Vaush to the publication and it was featured in the article itself.

Despite him being a freak, Vaush is correct about Rowling in his first Tweet. All she had to do to avoid this was bend the knee to the trans mob. She could have just gone on as is with no issues for her personally. She's immensely wealthy, is re-married and her children are doing very well in their respective fields. She could have just said nothing and avoided this shitshow from the start, but she didn't, and the meltdowns and tantrums have been a near constant for going on three years now. Rowling is, however, heavily invested both financially and personally with children's charities in the UK, and it seem that she genuinely sees the problems arising from the cascade of gender affirming nonsense that has absolutely plagued public life in the last half decade. She stated her views, and unlike so many other people she refused to back down. Perhaps it's only because she's in a position of immense financial privilege, and unlike many others whose lives have been utterly destroyed by this same mob she is immune from their attempts at de-platforming and public stigmatization. Regardless of what her wealth affords her to do, many are glad she's taken the stance she has.

If you have any material that concerns J.K. Rowling herself post it for discussion. This includes news articles, YouTube videos and vids from YT alternative sites like Odysee, livestreams, social media posts, etc. If the last couple years are anything to go by there won't be a drought in content anytime soon.

J.K. Rowling Socials and General Information
Her Official Website
Twitter
Facebook
Wikipedia

Thank you so very much @Pyre for the new OP

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

I wonder if some troon actually tries to kill Rowling in the near future. At least her bodyguards will have an easy time seeing him beforehand, hard to miss the obvious man in dress.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

I wonder if some troon actually tries to kill Rowling in the near future. At least her bodyguards will have an easy time seeing him beforehand, hard to miss the obvious man in dress.

Imagine an obvious man-ogre in a dress arguing with JK's bodyguards.

"But I am just a harmless woman!!" I swear I'm a biological female! I'm to weak and dainty to even harm a fly!"

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Imagine an obvious man-ogre in a dress arguing with JK's bodyguards.

"But I am just a harmless woman!!" I swear I'm a biological female! I'm to weak and dainty to even harm a fly!"

Much like this

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

Now that we have a thread for Rowling Derangement Syndrome (long overdue at this point), should the articles go here or in that one?

From the Independent: (Archive)

iirc full article text goes in a/n since it's behind a login, which keeps the reposted text from shitting up the SEO

 

[MichałDrzymała]

Not even the Slavs are safe from JK Rowling: https://twitter.com/marta_zboralska/status/1618166788205993988

 

[Princess Rescuer]

The UK is about to introduce a new law that puts consequences on harassing women online. The people cheering this on are about to change their tune once they think about it for a bit and realize they can't wark on Liz Truss, Katie Hopkins, or JK Rowling anymore.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

The UK is about to introduce a new law that puts consequences on harassing women online. The people cheering this on are about to change their tune once they think about it for a bit and realize they can't wark on Liz Truss, Katie Hopkins, or JK Rowling anymore.

That's if they don't make exceptions specifically for them. This is Bongistan, remember.

 

[Vesperus]

That's if they don't make exceptions specifically for them. This is Bongistan, remember.

They'll probably only apply it to harassing troons...

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

Hogwarts Legacy review-in-progress | PC Gamer

archived 6 Feb 2023 14:59:50 UTC

archive.ph

Usually it’s an uncomplicated thing when games are good. We like them, they surprise us, I write about it, it's fun. But the fun of Hogwarts Legacy forms a unique set of conflicted feelings: I’m enjoying a game that’s an extension of JK Rowling, an anti-trans bigot(opens in new tab) who has spent the last few years applying her wealth and fame to promote an ideology that rejects and further marginalizes one of society's most vulnerable communities.

RENT. FUCKING. FREE.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

The UK is about to introduce a new law that puts consequences on harassing women online. The people cheering this on are about to change their tune once they think about it for a bit and realize they can't wark on Liz Truss, Katie Hopkins, or JK Rowling anymore.

Not exact that, buuuuut….


Man, it’s almost like you shouldn’t actively try and fuck with someone who literally has “fuck you” money or something.

 

[thegooddoctor]

Saw this and it basically sums up every Hogwarts legacy player rn.

 

[teriyakiburns]

JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy'

The author says she isn't worried about how the backlash over her views will affect her legacy.

www.bbc.co.uk

JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care abou…

archived 22 Feb 2023 10:25:42 UTC

archive.is

JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy'


Rowling said she had received "direct threats of violence" as a result of her stance

JK Rowling has said she isn't concerned about how the backlash to her position on transgender issues will affect her legacy, and that anyone who thinks she is has "profoundly" misunderstood her.

The Harry Potter author has been called transphobic for her views on gender identity and the question of allowing trans women into women-only spaces.

Speaking in a new podcast, Rowling said she "never meant to upset anyone".

"However, I was not uncomfortable with getting off my pedestal."

Referring to fans who claim she has "ruined" her legacy, Rowling said they "could not have misunderstood me more profoundly".

"I do not walk around my house thinking about my legacy," she continued.

"What a pompous way to live your life, walking around thinking, what will my legacy be? Whatever, I'll be dead. I care about now. I care about the living."

Threats of violence

Rowling has attracted extensive criticism for a series of comments voicing concerns about how trans issues affect women's rights, and her opposition to Scotland's gender recognition bill.

In an essay on her website in 2020, she wrote: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman… you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside."

Her position has been interpreted by some as transphobic, leading to calls for a boycott of the Harry Potter franchise, ranging from its books and movies to the blockbuster video game Hogwarts Legacy.

Harry Potter movie actors including Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have criticised Rowling's comments.

Ralph Fiennes, who played Lord Voldemort, came to the author's defence, calling the abuse she has received "disgusting" and "appalling".

She has denied being transphobic, saying she supports trans rights and wants trans people to be free from discrimination and abuse.


Daniel Radcliffe is among the stars who has distanced himself from JK Rowling

In the podcast, titled The Witch Trials of JK Rowling, the author said she had also received "direct threats of violence" as a result of her stance.

"I have had people coming to my house where my kids live, and I've had my address posted online. I've had what the police, anyway, would regard as credible threats."

Rowling later said many questions do not necessarily have clear-cut answers.

"There is a huge appeal, and I try to show this in the Potter books, to black and white thinking.

"It's the easiest place to be and in many ways it's the safest place to be. If you take an all-or-nothing position on anything, you will definitely find comrades, you will easily find a community. 'I've sworn allegiance to this one simple idea.'

"What I've tried to show in the Potter books, and what I feel strongly myself, is that we should mistrust ourselves most when we are certain."

The Witch Trials of JK Rowling is a seven-part series presented by Megan Phelps-Roper, who was raised for 26 years in the extremist Westboro Baptist Church, before escaping in 2012.

The first two episodes, released on Tuesday, attempt to draw parallels between the Christian fundamentalists who sought to ban the Harry Potter books in the early 2000s, and the activists who are criticising Rowling today.

Asked about the protesters who burned her books in the early 2000s, claiming they promoted witchcraft, Rowling said: "Book burners, by definition, have placed themselves across a line of rational debate.

"There is no book on this planet that I would burn, including books that I do think are damaging. Burning, to me, is the last resort of people who cannot argue."

 

[Kiwisee]

JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care about my legacy'

The author says she isn't worried about how the backlash over her views will affect her legacy.

www.bbc.co.uk

JK Rowling dismisses backlash over trans comments: 'I don't care abou…

archived 22 Feb 2023 10:25:42 UTC

archive.is

Truly a historical moment amid World War Troon.

 

[DoubleD]

This is a very well timed story, picked up by the Guardian and the Independent, among others. Almost feels like a PR move to come out with it now, so Rowling definitely still has friends in the mainstream press.

Either way, I just find it incredibly heartening to think of how she triumphed over the man trying to take away her life's greatest achievement - quite possibly to destroy and deprive all of us from reading it. The scenario where he might have actually gone ahead and destroyed it doesn't bear thinking about.

Can't say I blame her for being a feminist nut if this is what she's had to deal with.

Link, Archive

JK Rowling's ex-husband 'held first Harry Potter manuscript hostage' to try stop her leaving him​

The author said Portuguese TV reporter Jorge Arantes hid the original pages of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone forcing her to photocopy them in secret.

JK Rowling has revealed her abusive ex-husband hid the manuscript for the first Harry Potter novel in a bid to stop her from leaving him. The author said Portuguese TV reporter Jorge Arantes kept the pages of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone like a "hostage" and she feared he would burn them.

After discovering where the manuscript was, she secretly started photocopying a few pages each day to ensure her work would not be lost. Rowling, 57, married Arantes in 1992 after meeting him in a bar in Portugal where she had moved to work as a teacher following her mother's death.

The couple had a daughter Jessica, now 29, but she left in 1993 after Arantes dragged her out of their home and attacked her. She said: "The marriage had turned very violent and very controlling. He was searching my handbag every time I came home and I didn't have a key to my own front door.

"It was a horrible state of tension to live in because I had to act as though I wasn't going and I don't think I'm a very good actor. That's a terrible way to live and yet the manuscript kept growing, I had continued to write.

"He knew what that manuscript meant to me because at a point he took the manuscript and hid it. That was his hostage. When I realised I was definitely going to go, I would take a few pages of the manuscript into work every day, just a few pages so he wouldn't realise anything was missing, and I would photocopy it.

"Gradually in a cupboard in the staff room, bit by bit, a photocopied manuscript grew and grew because I suspected that if I wasn't able to get out with everything he would burn it or take it and hold it hostage. That manuscript meant so much to me and it was the thing that I prioritised saving.

"The only thing I prioritised beyond that was my daughter but at that point she was still inside me so she is as safe as she can be in that situation." Rowling spoke about her first marriage to Megan Phelps-Roper, host of The Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast, which examines the backlash to the Edinburgh-based author's views on gender identity.

Describing the night she walked out on Arantes, Rowling said: "There came a night where he became very angry with me and I cracked and I said 'I want to leave'. He became very violent and he said 'You can leave but you're not getting Jessica, I'm keeping her, I will hide her'.

"So I put up a fight and I paid the price. There was a violent scene which terminated with me lying in the street. I went to the police and filed a complaint and the next day went back to the house with the police and got Jessica."

The author said she had fiercely protected her privacy after becoming famous because of her fears of being tracked down by Arantes. She revealed he had followed her to Edinburgh and broken into the first home she bought with money from her publishing deal for her debut Potter novel, which was published in 1997.

She said: "I was so ill-equipped for what happened to me. It was changing faster than I could deal with and all the time I had this lurking fear because I know there is someone out there who does not wish me well.

"The reason we left the first place was my ex-husband arrived and broke in. Moving became quite a pressing issue at that point. I was trying to reconcile suddenly having a lot of press interest with really, really wanting to live under the radar for very concrete reasons.

"I was living in a state of real tension I couldn't express to many people." Arantes has previously admitted he had been violent towards her on the night she left.

He said: "She refused to go without Jessica and, despite my saying she could come back for her in the morning, there was a violent struggle. I had to drag her out of the house at five in the morning, and I admit I slapped her very hard in the street."

Rowling, who has been married to Dr Neil Murray since 2001, finished the Potter novel while living as a single mother on benefits in Edinburgh.

And no, the significance of it being in a cupboard is not lost on me.

 

[DoubleD]

Rowling has declared she doesn't care about her legacy. Journalists cannot stop seething about this.

LA Times: Link, Archive

Commentary: Here's an idea: Maybe if we all stop talking about J.K. Rowling, she'll just go away​

J.K. Rowling in 2018 at the premiere of "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" in London. (Joel C Ryan / Invision / Associated Press)

Novelist J.K. Rowling is back in the news where, apparently, she longs to be. Never has a person who once claimed to have been “canceled” been allowed so much time, attention and diversity of platforms to continue her side-gig as a quasi-political commentator.

Her goal: to protect women from having their gender hijacked by those not born with a uterus while preventing predatory men from claiming to be transgender in order to invade female “safe spaces” and girls from being brainwashed into believing they are trans.

There have been tweets, there have been essays and now, there is a podcast, called “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling.” The title is certainly a suggestive, if not definitive, indication of whose side host and creator Megan Phelps-Roper is on.

Phelps-Roper, who has written extensively about her experience in, and eventual escape from, the wildly homophobic and generally hateful Westboro Baptist Church, claims that when interviewing people on all sides of the Rowling conflict, she was struck by how everyone involved felt they were being attacked — and how many of them used the term “witch hunt.”

The real difficulty, she says, is “knowing who is the witch and who is the mob.”

As the podcast revolves around an interview with Rowling, the real difficulty is imagining she sees Rowling as part of the mob. Indeed, a teaser for the series includes Rowling saying that she “never set out to upset anyone,” but that fans who feel she has risked her legacy “could not have misunderstood me more profoundly.”

Having listened to the first and second episode, I can tell you that the “misunderstanding” refers not to the things Rowling has written about transgender women, but to her fans’ belief that she is in the least worried about her legacy. “Who cares,” she says in the first episode. “I’ll be dead.”

Some, however, took the bait and others carried the baton. New York Times columnist Pamela Paul loosely used the podcast’s debut to write a full-throated defense of the author in which she claims that “nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic.”

I don’t know how Paul defines transphobia, but Rowling’s stated belief that “when you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman … you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside” seems to have all the necessary ingredients.

Rowling was specifically referencing Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s proposed Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which would have allowed people 16 or older to change their gender designation on identity documents without the previously required medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, as well shortened the time required for them to be legally recognized as their expressed gender. (The bill was blocked by the British government, an unprecedented move Sturgeon has vowed to take to court.)

In protesting the then-proposed legislation, Rowling wrote: “The argument is that trans people aren’t mentally ill: being trans is as natural as being gay. As Rachel Cohen, campaigns director of Stonewall wrote in 2017, ‘Being trans is not about “sex changes” or clothes, it’s about an innate sense of self’. You may ask how anyone can assess the authenticity of somebody else’s ‘innate sense of self’. I haven’t a clue.”

Well, I suppose you could try asking them.

She goes on to tackle three arguments supporting the legislation: that trans woman are especially vulnerable, that they are not predatory and that it’s transphobic to believe a man would use the law to pretend to be a woman. Rowling counters that no trans women have been murdered in Scotland, “whereas 112 women were murdered by men in Scotland between 2009 and 2019”; that there is “no evidence to show that trans women don’t retain male patterns of criminality”; and that “sex offenders have historically been found amongst social workers, teachers, priests, doctors” etc.

In any case, to argue, as Paul and others have done, that Rowling has never made a transphobic statement in her life is absurd. The fact that Paul did it even as the New York Times was under fire from people in and outside its newsroom for perceived bias against the transgender community would be laughable if it weren’t so outrageous.

It’s tough to claim fair-mindedness while twisting the definition of transphobia to suit your personal needs.

Yes, Rowling has said she does not support violence against trans women and men. She also claims to abhor discrimination of any kind. But for many, her opposition to the proposed policy in Scotland is discrimination, as is her belief that many trans children are the victims of social coercion. She is, by her own admission, very much afraid of what will happen if people are allowed to simply live legally protected lives as the gender they know themselves to be.

Particularly, she believes the definition of being female will somehow be diminished if it’s inclusive of those not born with female sex organs.

Which is, of course, just another version of “biology is destiny,” an argument that has kept women at a socioeconomic and political disadvantage for centuries. An interesting choice for someone who identifies as a feminist.

None of which would be in the public eye if she were just some random Brit, but as Rowling well knows, she has a platform and a persona that demands attention.

With a completely straight face, she has said she is speaking for those whose voices have been silenced by trans activists. But as Phelps-Roper points out in the beginning of the podcast, the transgender community has been at the center of heated debates for years, and it’s tough to argue that opponents of equal social and legal protection for transgender people have not been heard; they have been the prevailing voices for centuries.

Those hoping “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” will somehow clear up the contradictions in the author’s insistence that she is not transphobic while repeatedly expressing fear of unregulated trans women will be, at least immediately, disappointed.

The first episode of “Witch Trials” is devoted to a detailed and rather breathy retelling of Rowling’s “origin story” — how she came to be, in Phelps-Roper’s words, the most successful writer in the history of publishing, and one whose work has been boycotted and banned, at different times and for different reasons, by people on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

It is worth noting that while Phelps-Roper finds it significant that Rowling’s opinions about the trans community have sparked attacks by liberals who once lauded her, she doesn’t seem as intrigued by the fact that the writer now aligns, on this topic at least, with many of the folks who banned her books out of fear they were teaching children witchcraft. (But maybe she gets to that later in the podcast.)

The single-mom-writes-book-that-changes-publishing backstory remains a terrific narrative, made even more immediate here by Rowling’s deeper revelations about her abusive first marriage. Her previous allegation of this abuse as an explanation for why she objects to the presence of trans women in women’s restrooms, hospitals, shelters, prisons and other “safe spaces” casts a shadow over the terrible details (including, at one point, her ex-husband holding the manuscript of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” hostage).

Rowling’s own trauma is terrible and undeniable. It does not, however, grant her special insight into the transgender community.

In the second episode, Phelps-Roper explores the zeitgeist of the ‘90s, pointing to factors as diverse as Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the Columbine school shooting as fuel for the rise of the religious right, many of whom saw “Harry Potter” as yet another example of society’s wanton endangerment of “family values.” Rowling herself still seems bewildered that the story of an oppressed young boy discovering that he was in fact someone very different than he had been led to believe — and finding power, love and friendship in that difference — could be seen as remotely dangerous children or families.

That Harry Potter’s journey toward self-understanding echoes the experience of so many trans individuals may explain the widespread sentiment that Rowling has now betrayed her readers.

Still, some of the response to Rowling’s unsolicited commentary, which has included vicious trolling and death, is unacceptable. No one should be threatened with death, or rape, or the abuse of their children, for something they have written. Period.

Recent threats to “cancel” and/or troll companies that carry — or critics that review — the new video game “Hogwarts Legacy” are just one example of how easily righteous outrage can become misplaced fury. Social media has made it too easy to react to reactions until, as in a game of telephone, the original issue is lost in a cacophony of condemnation and defense.

If nothing else, J.K. Rowling proves that. As controversy about her remarks swirled, she continued to write bestselling novels under the name Robert Galbraith even as her Harry Potter empire grew. At the Universal Orlando Resort, for instance, the Wizarding World has done nothing but expand.

Among some Harry Potter fans, Rowling may have become She Who Must Not Be Named, but of the millions of people in the world who require protection and defense, Rowling is not one. Far from being curtailed, her ability to say what she believes, no matter how unpopular or factually challenged those beliefs may be, has been amplified. She has a new podcast, for crying out loud. And it’s dedicated to telling her side of the story, which we already know!

Since it’s pretty clear that nothing is going to change her mind about the rights and realities of the trans community, perhaps we should just treat her like one of those dinner guests who randomly injects themselves into conversations with inappropriate and disturbing opinions no one requested.

Just tell her she sounds like one of those fanatics who used to burn “Harry Potter” books and never invite her into your home again.

The i: Link, Archive

JK Rowling doesn’t care about her legacy. Good – Harry Potter has aged terribly​

To revisit Harry Potter today is to encounter a series of books that feel tone-deaf towards cultural sensitivities and are needlessly cruel towards their characters​

‘The obvious criticisms have to do with the problematic handling of race’ (Photo: Gary Mitchell/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

JK Rowling couldn’t give a flying Quidditch stick about her legacy. That’s one of the headlines coming out of her interview with Megan Phelps-Roper, from the new podcast The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling.
“I do not walk around my house thinking about my legacy,” she says. “What a pompous way to live your life.”
It’s just as well that the Harry Potter author isn’t hung up on how she and her work are remembered. Because, a little over 25 years on from the publication of the first Potter novels, it is fair to say that the books that entranced a generation and made Rowling one of the world’s wealthiest living authors have aged with stonking inelegance.

That isn’t to say they are in danger of being forgotten. The Hogwarts Legacy video game is currently top of the charts and sales of Potter novels actually went up during the pandemic. But they certainly no longer occupy the central place in the culture that they once did.

To revisit Harry Potter today is to encounter a series of books that feel tone-deaf towards cultural sensitivities and are needlessly cruel towards their characters. Which isn’t to suggest they should be re-written or that the “offensive” parts be removed in a repeat of the bowdlerisation of the works of Roald Dahl.

The books are what they are and should be read as originally written. And yet it is undeniable that novels once regarded as impeachable children’s classics have lately started to lose their lustre. And not simply because Rowling’s widely criticised views of trans people have taken the gloss off Harry and his escapades. The flaws are baked into the texts themselves. It’s only that it has taken until now for them to become fully apparent.

The obvious criticisms have to do with the problematic handling of race. The solitary Asian character is called Cho Chang, which sounds like the name of a Chinese character in a racist 70s sitcom. Meanwhile, the less said about the black character, Kingsley Shacklebolt, who pops up in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the better.

Then there are the goblins – bankers who, in the books, hoard gold, and, in the movies, resemble Nazi caricatures of Jewish people. This was pointed out by, of all people, comedian and former Daily Show host Jon Stewart.

“It was one of those things where I saw it on the screen and I was expecting the crowd to be like, ‘Holy shit, she did not in a wizarding world just throw Jews in there to run the f**king underground bank,’” he said.

Nor should we forget Seamus Finnegan who, despite being Irish, attends the “British” magic school at Hogwarts. In the films, he is shown repeatedly blowing things up – a stereotype about Irish people that goes back not to the 90s but to the 70s.

Rowling also draws on the old caricature of physical attributes being linked to one’s moral worthiness. The ghastliness of Dudley Dursley, who bullies Harry as a child, is, for instance, reflected in his overweight appearance. Rowling describes his “large pink face, not much neck, small, watery blue eyes, and thick blond hair that lay smoothly on his thick, fat head”.

Worst of all are elves, who live a life of indentured servitude to the wizards and seem, on the whole, happy with their lot. To quote the Harry Potter fansite Mugglenet, “House Elves in the Harry Potter books are often treated as a metaphor for transatlantic slavery, and it’s easy to see why. House elves are the invisible backbone of the wizarding community, forced to do work against their bidding and passed along in wealthy families as property.” Yikes hardly begins to cover it.

Then there are the movies, which, 20 years on, verge on unwatchable. The child actors are all pretty creaky. And with Rowling having a big say in the scripts, the pacing is terrible. Books and film are different mediums. The Potter movies remind us that, when adapting a novel for the screen, what is left out is as important as what stays.

Potter-heads will point out that the movies date from the early 2000s. Well, so does Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and, the odd clunky CGI moment aside, they are as watchable today as when they were released. It is equally important to remember that the early Potter novels were published in the 1990s – not the 1890s. Things were different – but not that different. In 1998, Louis Sachar published Holes – a children’s novel that explores themes such as racism, homelessness and illiteracy. Rowling was still naming characters Cho Chang and writing about the wicked, overweight Dudley Dursley.

The good news for weary fans of the Wizarding World is that there is life beyond Potter. For anyone interested in the stirring tale of a naive young sorcerer battling an ancient foe, there is Ursula Le Guin’s A Wizard of Earthsea.

The hero, named Ged, has brown skin. His adventures draw on Le Guin’s interest in Daoism. In particular, the idea of opposing forces binding the universe together. That’s a far more sophisticated conceit than Harry’s reheated, Luke Skywalker-style hero’s journey. A Wizard of Earthsea was published in 1968 and, unlike Harry Potter, it hasn’t aged a day.

 

[East_Clintwood]

and, in the movies, resemble Nazi caricatures of Jewish people.

I'd ask if they're aware she didn't actually direct the movies, but clearly they're not.

Nor should we forget Seamus Finnegan who, despite being Irish, attends the “British” magic school at Hogwarts.

Because literally zero Irish people ever come here, ever, obviously

In the films, he is shown repeatedly blowing things up – a stereotype about Irish people that goes back not to the 90s but to the 70s.

That stereotype was still incredibly relevant in the 90s, due to the fact the IRA were still regularly fucking blowing things up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#1990s

 

[Varsha Nagini]

I wish these people trying to "WELL AKSHULLY" Harry Potter for not being high literature or otherwise prescient about the future when it was a kids series written in the fucking 90s would stop dicksucking Earthsea and other YA! and just admit they, like the masses, enjoyed HP in some form and are just mad that they like(d) it. Oh, and read some goddamn adult literature once in a while will you? All the sobbing does is show their severely arrested development. Adults who revisit and enjoy the series but actually "read another book" aren't coping&sneeding about it, and most seasoned Potterheads I knew who aren't themselves now trannies but grew up with me fr let criticism of the series wash off their back or engage in it and go "Well yeah it's a kids series/written in the 90s/it's YA! fiction" mull the merits of whatever point then move on with their day. The people seething super hard about how HP doesn't stand up to modern-day criticism are the retards who invested in it super hard, denied all critique and are now crying their buttery, troony tears because they have to pretend the series is problematic/never enjoyable/bad lmaooooooo.

Also lol

Rowling was still naming characters Cho Chang and writing about the wicked, overweight Dudley Dursley.

Fantasy series with silly naming conventions like "wolf wolf/Remus Lupin" and "Quirinus Quirrell," gets an ethnic name a bit wrong, news at 11.
Mostly want to laugh at the crying about fat people being seen as evil. Can tell some chubby fingers typed that shit, enjoy your lymphedema. You can't win with fatties either though, you write a nice fatty and it's all "OH so they're FAT AND JOLLY then?! Nice stereotype," you write a mean fatty it's "OH SO FAT PEOPLE ARE GLUTTONOUS EVIL DOERS?" in Dudley's case yeah. He was fat because his dad was fat and they actively starved Harry to the point of neglect, if anything this is an indictment of poor parenting and he eventually gets fitter in the series I think - I'm still rereading it to the nephews/nieces so can't 100% that but still. Continue to cry buttery tears fatties.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

I CAN'T PIRATE

NFOmation Viewer (EMPRESS.nfo)

NFOmation.net - Your Ultimate NFO Upload Resource! EMPRESS.nfo EMPRESS

nfomation.net

NFOmation Viewer (EMPRESS.nfo)

archived 23 Feb 2023 14:40:04 UTC

archive.ph

~Release Notes~

SPECIAL MESSAGE:

I fully stand with J.K.Rowling as countless women who did, because most men are just dying out of jealousy of us and want to take a piece of the cake too. Even if it comes out corrupted, broken and completely ruined. And this is something only "REAL WOMEN" would understand, because we women are the ones that is getting damaged & stolen from, so we are hurt the most by it.

Aa a result of the rise of this new WOKE movement, society now made every man today is always either a sissy bitch or misogynistic motherfucker, nothing in-between.

"THE WOKE SYSTEM" of today runs with and "claims" that it mainly wants "fairness, justice, equality and total freedom". But then ... when someone with views against trans and tries to express themselves today, they are treated as GARBAGE and fired/banned from wherever they are, is a clear sign of huge "Contradiction".

This is neither equality nor freedom. This is SLAVERY because you are "FORCING" ideas and thoughts on people or else they are ATTACKED & SILENCED.

This "Freedom" is just 1 sided and those BITCHES have taken the "Actual" freedom out of all normal people away, and is forcing everyone to either forcefully accept this NONSENSE, or just swallow their thoughts and keep shut regardless.

I CALL THIS BULLSHIT ! ! !

--------------------------------------------------

J.K.Rowling spoke about this publicly and thus got hated for it. The funniest thing is that the fact most of the bitches whom are hating is just following the "HATE TRAIN". They absolutely have no fucking idea "What" they are actually defending, what it means, and if it's right or wrong whatsoever. You are all just following the hordes like PIGS. You REALLY thought by adding "phobic" at the end of your fuckery is going to turn it into some of "Weapon"?

NO BITCH, it just turns YOU into a FAG! (laughing)

You are all mostly "sissy men" who just couldn't accept being inferior to women, so you went into a trip to realize that **in the end** there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do about it. And NOW you are neither a man nor a woman, you have completely lost your identity, and now you are just a "unidentifiable freak" that is fucking disgusting. Good job, FAGGOTS.

... Fag, Faggotry, Faggots! ... oh god, I love english <3

RANT END

Why do I think like this?

SIMPLE EXPLANATION:

This life is made of a "Duality" nature. Like the famous yin & yang. It is always made of exactly "2" opposite forces. You can clearly see that in life as:

-day/night
-light/dark
-heat/cold
-life/death
etc

Genders work the same. They are also 2 strong different forces that oppose each other, hence making their impact "Greatest" as they complete each other to perfection.

But what if we start mixing them without any rules and 100% "Freedom" as the woke generation want? Both sides lose their meaning and you end up with something gray with no SPARK, doesn't hit any MARK, just keeps you in the DARK.

--------------------------------------------------

To reddit admins: hey, keep collecting TRASH and don't be ashamed whenever you drop yours pants in a BACKLASH.

To reddit slaves: suck it harder bitches, you are not doing good ENOUGH. Keep on it and do try to forget the CUFF.

Spoiler: Screenshot

I hope to see some whining about this.

 

[Desu Mountain]

9 hour download. Ugh. Hopefully I get to connect to some faster seeders.

EDIT: Removed the limit for number of connections. Getting 10MiB speeds now and will have it downloaded in 2-3 hours.
EDIT2: 25MiB/s. Nice. Gonna be done in little over half an hour.

 

[LaxerBRO]

So now the people that want to play Hogwarts but didn't want to pay Rowling have to wait for another cracker?