Lit ► Something to consider about J. K. Rowling

[Riku21Terr]

You only have 33 posts and a chunk of em are in here you quadruple posting looney

First of all I’m not quadruple posting, second of all Am I truly “looney” For posting because I’ve got something to say, which is what this very platform here is all about? Not to mention responding to people who again have a choice and don’t have to Respond let alone view the thread here?

 

[WaltK]

So sorry to keep going off topic and emphasizing something that I didn’t mean to overlap the size, but the further prove my point, please check this link on a local psychiatrist, and then please reconsider why I feel the way that I do:

Dr. Robert Jay

Check out Dr. Robert Jay, I found them on www.ratemds.com

www.ratemds.com

Also not mentioned there, but I lost another good friend of mine who actually committed suicide as a result of this psychiatrist “helping“ her........

I'm truly sorry about your friend, but that is a clear and remarkable exception. Every profession has its share of charlatans. To dismiss the profession as a whole over it is just plain irrational, and to compare them to Nazis is an extreme overreaction.

 

[Phoenix]

I am legitimately curious as to what led you to pick a random KH forum on the internet to argue about... JK Rowling views on sex and gender???

 

[WaltK]

Finally looking past the Nazi shrink stuff… your text wall sounds as if it was written by an A.I. generator under a "clueless boomer" prompt; the conflation of sex and gender, the good old "trans men are just tomboys" argument, etc.

There is a lot to unpack there, but I'm gonna leave that to someone who has the time and the superior knowledge on the matter.

 

[Soldier]

Link is fixed, and what’s your problem? Can you not handle these kinds of things? Do you just want kindergarten level books on the shelf because it’s too much for you and others? Are we supposed to just read Caillou, The littlest elf,Franklin, the Bernstein bears, Clifford For the rest of our lives because babies like you can’t take serious and mature things like that? Maybe you shouldn’t even be on the Internet, because it’s full of racism, Negative stereotypes and discrimination, EH?

How so? Just because you don’t agree with it does not mean that it is wrong, EH?

Wow, punch down much why don't you?

There's a lot of debate in regards to books with dated material in them and whether or not they should be in circulation. The problem is not that I can't handle these things, but that I don't want to deal with them. I'm split on the idea of these things being publicly accessible, but i know that to completely erase such things from the public consciousness isn't the way to do that, as that would be acting as if it never existed at all.

Rowling's books, are products of their time, in much the way of John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and William Shakespeare's works. Both examples are still taught in schools as they are perceived classics, but have innumerable problems with them when looked at under a modern lens. Why, when choosing to how to depict goblins (a creature commonly depicted with large noses) did she make them be in charge of money and untrustworthy with the case of Griphook? Why is the ONLY Asian character called Cho Chang? All of this reeks of a late 90's book that would've been just that if not for aggressive marketing. And J.K Rowling rewriting the narrative that Dumbledore is gay doesn't modernize the books save for looking like an attempt at social brownie points.

 

[Chie]

I am legitimately curious as to what led you to pick a random KH forum on the internet to argue about... JK Rowling views on sex and gender???

Because he first joined this forum to push the "KH needs to be rebooted because Disney would make lots of money" guy (if he isn't that guy himself), and during this conversation I made fun of him for invoking Harry Potter, in response to which he had a meltdown.

This is very targeted and calculated propaganda/bait tactics in reaction to what the forum established itself as in his mind.

E: Looking at his post history he covertly weaved references to Rowling into every other thread he's posted in since then as well.

 

[Elysium]

I believe Cho's original name was going to be Sue Li. In retrospect, I sort of wish it was, but I admit I like Cho as a first name... I personally don't agree with the aspersions around goblins or Cho's name even though I can understand the argument being made. I feel like those are molehills being made into mountains after-the-fact now she's sort of persona non grata these days with a large swath of liberals. The Dumbledore thing... Well, I do see the point on that and I really wish it had been unambiguous/undebateable as far as being in the books, I don't know how many times I've had arguments with conservatives in the past over it because they choose to put their fingers in their ears over it, but I feel like anyone who read Deathly Hallows honestly can see that it was there before she talked about it, that it just went over a lot of people's heads the way so much LGBT stuff does. I do agree with the criticism of her views of trans people for the most part though; I hope that might shift with time after a lot of the fire around it dies down and she really thinks about it over the years. After all, it took a long time to change views on gay people and marriage for same-sex couples, I believe it's possible. I don't blame some for hating her, but I treat it more as a wart or Achilles' heel on an otherwise decent person. After all, she is still a liberal herself, I don't see her as a conservative outside that one view.

As for Riku21Terr, I don't want to armchair diagnose and I'm definitely not trying to hurt their feelings, but I think the person posting could possibly have something that makes communicating harder? Or maybe English isn't their first language? I don't know. I don't think they're trying to be mean, but I know it's one of those topics where there's not going to be a lot of patience.

 

[Ðari]

Well, through critical thinking, this is what I have to say about them:

First of all that first tweet is more than technically correct. And may I say with all due respect to this entire conundrum that no matter how much you want to change your gender and therefore act like and essentially become the other, You never ever will be, because it will never ever truly feel natural, regardless of how you may feel about it no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem. So in all technicality, You are being a fake person and not truly what you are aspiring to be. But that’s not to say that you still can’t be one that is more like the other (Have you ever heard of tomboys? I had a best friend who was a tomboy and actually turned out decently successful, and didn’t have to trans or anything like that and she happens to be lesbian If I may say so myself, a lot of things that I like are very female centered, and I’ve had a lot of my friends been girls for decent parts of my life. And if you want to wear or act like the other gender, then go for it, just always truly be aware of what you naturally are, because that’s when and where you’ll always truly be successful, and not only for others But always truly for your true self again no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem.

Maybe you need to reevaluate those tweets in the same way that this article is as well? And maybe just maybe there was a point to be made that you don’t need to use pronouns, because you are who you truly are, and will always truly be that literally again no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem. Forgive me for asking, but what is a WRA? And again, you can more than essentially call trans people that, regardless of whether you want to hear that or not. Psychiatrists whether you like it or not are always truly modern-day Nazis, with the forcefulness and way let alone what they actually do the people,Not to mention how absurd it is to have them and psychologists, with the key difference between them being something that should not exist. Have you not noticed that it is other people who do not directly deal with them who always praise them, let alone those who have become medicated and treated by them who are more than usually against them and or if not have become literally conditioned to agree with them because of that exact kind of thing; Even my sister who is a doctor overall agrees with this, but these kinds of people have gone way too far and are way too extreme, Regardless of how many people actually like them.

And what she literally said is that she’d rather go to jail and take back her claims, because that’s what she truly believes in if she would be contradicting and going against herself, which is worse than death, because then she wouldn’t truly be her, and the only way you ever truly fail is if you’re not truly you. You are YOU, Regardless of what you’re naturally born as or even as you’re viewed, but that does not mean that you are completely naïve and ignorant to what is factual, if you get what I mean? And like I’ve said, it doesn’t mean you still can’t be truly The way that you feel, as long as you know the facts and reality. It’s like seen that as much as he would like and that you technically live as an embrace fiction and make believe, you overall know that it’s not real if you get what I mean right? That’s again overall essentially what this is, and I can’t think of any other ways of being more critical thinking than that

Any healthy discussion that is going to hold its weight on the basis of critical thinking isn't one that is dismissive of other viewpoints, opinions, cited facts, and the like. I was alerted to this topic yesterday and to be fair, it's almost impossible to actively discuss Rowling in a public sentiment because THIS is typically how these conversations devolve into.

All you've essentially attempted to do is blur the line between the public sentiment of Rowling's statements and accuse those that were offended, both from within and outside of the communities she's upset with a straw man argument and shift the heat away from her and try to make it seem like the people she effectively upset weren't "thinking critically".

A lot what @WaltK was saying in this thread was citing more examples using direct context of offensive things said. Choosing to say "they're not ignoring what she said" friend, trivializing or minimizing the weight of the words she chose, is where your opinion and take ultimately contrasts from what he's saying, and I'm an outsider with no stake in this conversation and even I understood that off rip. You don't find her comments offensive, no amount of anecdote on your personal experiences is going to move the needle in a topic that isn't possible to keep objective considering the sharp emotional response it provokes in people that were upset by Rowling and her statements, that's just how it is and I sincerely mean that with all due respect.

Asking a question about something you said isn't the same as "not comprehending" or "not listening". You don't really seem to understand that you refuse to understand what the counter-arguement is attesting to because you've grounded yourself in a single realm of and train of thought that you went on a rant about "being true to yourself" and talking about that bares no relevance to statements the author has made.

Welcome to 2024 mate, KHI will see you in 30 days.

/Closed

 

[Antifa Lockhart]

I'm amending that. "Always be aware of what you are" is vile transphobia and it's not tolerated here. Get out and stay out.