oneteaminglasgow Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, JTS98 said: Well, you've got your analogy a bit crossed there. I decided that the poster in question was not worth engaging with after reading his posts. People on this thread are decrying Pandarilla's link to an article they haven't read. It's not a piece that claims to present fact. It is an open opinion piece. As I said, not reading it is perfectly fair and I'm not a Spiked man myself. But criticising Pandarilla for posting it without reading it is very poor. Read it, or wheesht. A lot of the criticism is for posting a Spiked article at all, not for the content of the article. You don’t need to read the thing to criticise the publisher. You can argue that’s “very poor” if you like, but no one has to read this article to criticise spiked, or pandarilla for posting it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: This is murky waters though. You're essentially saying that an interpretation of what was said is questioning trans people's existence and therefore her intentions don't matter. That's very, very subjective. I agree that trans people must go through hell and back just trying to be accepted, and they deserve protecting but the above still makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. Rowling cancels criticism all the time by threatening people with very expensive law suits. It's handy when you can persuade hundreds of millions of adults to read children's books. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said: A lot of the criticism is for posting a Spiked article at all, not for the content of the article. You don’t need to read the thing to criticise the publisher. You can argue that’s “very poor” if you like, but no one has to read this article to criticise spiked, or pandarilla for posting it. Ok, can you tell me anything about the writer of this article that is apparently beyond the pale? You're saying people can criticise it without reading it, but I doubt any poster on this thread can - without googling - tell me the first thing about the woman who wrote it. The endorsement of criticising something without 1) engaging with it or 2) knowing anything about it at all is very poor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, JTS98 said: Ok, can you tell me anything about the writer of this article that is apparently beyond the pale? You're saying people can criticise it without reading it, but I doubt any poster on this thread can - without googling - tell me the first thing about the woman who wrote it. The endorsement of criticising something without 1) engaging with it or 2) knowing anything about it at all is very poor. I was talking about Spiked, the publisher, not the author. As was everyone else. Shifting the goalposts is poor form. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, JTS98 said: Ok, can you tell me anything about the writer of this article that is apparently beyond the pale? You're saying people can criticise it without reading it, but I doubt any poster on this thread can - without googling - tell me the first thing about the woman who wrote it. The endorsement of criticising something without 1) engaging with it or 2) knowing anything about it at all is very poor. She's a dreadful writer for a start if that article's anything to go by. Sure Spiked weren't too strict about the quality when they could use her to claim diversity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said: I was talking about Spiked, the publisher, not the author. As was everyone else. Shifting the goalposts is poor form. I'm not shifting the goalposts. My position has been consistent from the start. If you're going to criticise it, you have to read it. The position that 'It's in Spiked so I can just slag it off' is intellectually lazy and does nothing but stifle discussion. Wendy Kaminer has about half a century of writing on freedom of speech behind her. Yet a bunch of punters on a Scottish football forum think her ideas should not be engaged with because the article was published by Spiked. Pandarilla got a lot of heat on this thread for posting a link to an article by a signatory to the letter the thread is based on who has been published extensively writing about this topic. That is ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: Rowling cancels criticism all the time by threatening people with very expensive law suits. It's handy when you can persuade hundreds of millions of adults to read children's books. That's fair enough and not something I agree with. FWIW no one is saying she can't be critiqued or challenged on her views. If you're posting stuff on Twitter then you are open to it. But we're not talking about a few Twitter posts saying 'actually Miss Rowling, I don't agree with that...' we're talking about extreme abuse, and attempts to completely discredit her, to the point that the likes of Daniel Radcliffe are dissociating with her. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 hour ago, pandarilla said: I think that the harm is being magnified massively, as much of the harm seems to come from Internet posts (no doubt some nutjobs have attacked trans people offline but i think a lot of it is online). Do you think the targets and opponents of the trans activists genuinely want to harm trans people? I think that debate needs to be handled with much less heat and much more light but instead everyone seems to be tooled up with a flame-thrower. In 2019, hate crimes against transgender people rose by 81%. Why do you think that is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: the likes of Daniel Radcliffe are dissociating with her He probably knows her a lot better than we do. He could easily have kept quiet about it or said no comment if asked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 14 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: This is murky waters though. You're essentially saying that an interpretation of what was said is questioning trans people's existence and therefore her intentions don't matter. That's very, very subjective. I agree that trans people must go through hell and back just trying to be accepted, and they deserve protecting but the above still makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. I haven't said that they're not allowed to say things, just that their intentions don't absolve them from criticism. You can have all the good intentions in the world, but if your words and actions damage another group of people, particularly an already marginalised group, then you can't run away from the consequences of those actions. It's the intellectual equivalent of taking a cheap shot in a fight - landing your blow and then running away before they can fight back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 4 minutes ago, welshbairn said: He probably knows her a lot better than we do. He could easily have kept quiet about it or said no comment if asked. I don't think he really could have said nothing. It's an easy headline. 'Daniel Radcliffe refuses to criticise JK Rowling's views on the trans community'. Suddenly he's fair game too. His entire PR team will have been of one view on this. Get away from her as quickly as possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, ali_91 said: Daniel Radcliffe dissociating with her because: a) People were abusing her on Twitter or b) Because he strongly disagreed with her continued bullying of a marginalised community. I’d be inclined to go for b tbh. c) His agent told him how much money it might cost him to have even a whiff of the accusation of being transphobic hanging over him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, MixuFruit said: Where do you think we got out opinions of spiked from my dude. I'm willing to bet most people on this thread have either never read Spiked in their life, or have done so so infrequently that they wouldn't be able to distinguish it from another such platform off the top of their head. It's quite obvious a few posters were just joining in. Anyone can post 'Spiked!!! FFS!!!' and look tuned in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, JTS98 said: I don't think he really could have said nothing. It's an easy headline. 'Daniel Radcliffe refuses to criticise JK Rowling's views on the trans community'. Suddenly he's fair game too. His entire PR team will have been of one view on this. Get away from her as quickly as possible. Nonsense, he could easily have expressed support for the trans community without getting brought into the Rowling thing. He's not some idiot reality show celebrity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: Nonsense, he could easily have expressed support for the trans community without getting brought into the Rowling thing. He's not some idiot reality show celebrity. We all know how toxic the subject is. There isn't really a right answer from a PR point of view other than to get as far away from her as possible very quickly. It's not hard to see how it could be damaging to him. 'While Radcliffe expressed support for the trans community, he stopped short of criticising the views held by JK Rowling, leaving some observers unconvinced.' And off we go... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: Why would you assume that? It's a hunch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 JTS keeps insisting nobody actually read the article but I, and I’m certain others, did read the article and were shocked to find out the website that exclusively publishes lazy culture war grievance shit published lazy culture war grievance shit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, JTS98 said: We all know how toxic the subject is. There isn't really a right answer from a PR point of view other than to get as far away from her as possible very quickly. It's not hard to see how it could be damaging to him. 'While Radcliffe expressed support for the trans community, he stopped short of criticising the views held by JK Rowling, leaving some observers unconvinced.' And off we go... You don't half talk some shite when you've got the bit between the teeth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 I read it and it was the usual horse shit about The Woke Left being the real fascists cause they didn't fave a tweet about hating the gays which had some big words in it. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 27, 2020 Share Posted July 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, MixuFruit said: My path to enlightenment was I imagine much like anyone else's: Get hate-shared Spiked article by someone going 'look at this dogshit article'. Read article. Agree it is dogshit. Look up who the f**k this Brendan O'Neill dickhead is. Look up what Spiked is. I dunno why you think most people haven't done that, it took about 15 minutes. Like I said, it's a hunch. I think a few posters are hiding behind Spiked to take the easy way out of reading the article and discussing it. I don't believe everyone on this thread who is slagging Spiked off knows anything about it at all. Some do, of course. But I think a few are at it. No way of proving it, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.