[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BADASSES

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 65592)
Message
File  []
close
adc567779411beadc50eaab68b8fccbd78-7-jkrowling.rsq.jpg
655926559265592
>> No. 65592 YubYub
8th June 2020
Monday 9:15 am
65592 spacer
Nobody:

J.K. Rowling: I haven't pissed off my fan base in a while. He's my views on trannies...
144 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 65998 Billbob
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:29 pm
65998 spacer
>>65994
Where do you work, because that's illegal.
>> No. 65999 Anonymous
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:43 pm
65999 spacer
>>65996
Not at all. The only times I've looked up someone online and decided not to proceed to interview is when they're too much of a lad.

>>65998
That's be telling.
>> No. 66011 Billbob
12th July 2020
Sunday 3:10 pm
66011 spacer
This thread is a collection of beefy poz loads.
>> No. 66648 Paedofag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:12 am
66648 spacer
>The meat of the book is the investigation into a cold case: the disappearance of GP Margot Bamborough in 1974, thought to have been a victim of Dennis Creed, a transvestite serial killer.

>One wonders what critics of Rowling’s stance on trans issues will make of a book whose moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/troubled-blood-robert-galbraith-review-jk-rowling-fails-strike/

Imagine getting so annoyed by trannies on twitter that you write a novel about a cross dressing man who uses his disguise to kill women.
>> No. 66649 Crabkiller
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:33 am
66649 spacer
>>66648
Some more cynical people are suggesting that it's the other way around: she deliberately whipped people up into a frenzy in order to get media coverage for her book.
>> No. 66650 YubYub
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:56 am
66650 spacer
>>66649
Desperate for cash is she?
>> No. 66651 Moralfag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 9:04 am
66651 spacer
>>66648

Well, when something doesn't happen often enough in reality to justify your bizarre reactionary worldview, you can always write a book about it. how often does this happen in real life?

i'm really sad that TERF sub on Rudgewick got banned. It was literally post after post of mentalist harpies shrieking to each other about how they never feel safe in the bathroom any more because a bloke in a dress might come in and rape them while they're doing a wee. a very specific kind of psycho-sexual phobia, that I'd almost categorise as bordering on fetish; like my fear-arousal to the threat of castration. very freudian.
>> No. 66652 Billbob
15th September 2020
Tuesday 9:12 am
66652 spacer
>>66651
>HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE?

Probably more often than what happens in the typical episode of midsummer murders.
>> No. 66654 Moralfag
15th September 2020
Tuesday 11:47 am
66654 spacer
>>66652
Come one now, probably? Show us a graph at least.
>> No. 66655 Anonymous
15th September 2020
Tuesday 11:55 am
66655 spacer
>>66654
I'll knock one up in paint. Isn't midsummer all about sex cults and getting stabbed to death by someone dressed as a dryad?
>> No. 66656 R4GE
15th September 2020
Tuesday 4:49 pm
66656 spacer
>>66651
>how often does this happen in real life?
Apparently often enough for her like to complain about trans prisoners.

>how they never feel safe in the bathroom any more because a bloke in a dress might come in and rape them while they're doing a wee
Yeah, they were going crazy over people being able to legally self-ID as a woman and go in the changing rooms. Because blokes just itching to burst into the bogs and rape women if only they could legally justify being there by claiming to be one is totally a thing.
>> No. 66657 Anonymous
15th September 2020
Tuesday 7:56 pm
66657 spacer
>>66648
Oh I wondered what they were all getting upset about again with her.

She's just trolling now;
>> No. 66658 Crabkiller
15th September 2020
Tuesday 8:24 pm
66658 spacer
>The 'evidence' that provoked the malice was so flimsy, even Twitter should have been embarrassed to publish it. Pink News, which dominates the LGBTQ+ outrage market, gave the case for the prosecution. According to the first review, 'JK Rowling’s latest book is about a murderous cis man who dresses as a woman to kill his victims', it announced.

>It is about nothing of the sort, I thought. And I could say that with authority because I had just finished a review copy of Troubled Blood, the fifth novel in Rowling’s Cormoran Strike series, as research for a long piece on her politics and art I'm working on for the Critic. No honest person who takes the trouble to read it can see the novel as transphobic. But then honest people are hard to find in a culture war.

>The men and women pouring out their loathing of Rowling online could not have read the unreleased book: not that their ignorance bothered them in slightest, as no mob on the rampage in history has ever stopped to read a novel.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/j-k-rowling-s-latest-novel-isn-t-transphobic-/

In other words, a couple of misleading clickbait headlines have wound up people who haven't done any further research because they wanted them to be true.
>> No. 66659 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:16 am
66659 spacer
>>66658
She could've written a long piece about how you should go outside right now and beat up anyone who looks vaguely transgender and some twat in The Spectator would still be there to explain why it's not transphobic.
>> No. 66660 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:40 am
66660 spacer
>>66659

The Spectator has morphed into "contrarian twat weekly" since the Barclay Brothers bought it.
>> No. 66661 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 7:07 am
66661 spacer
>>66659
The guardian have also said that the telegraph and pink news have misrepresented the book and people who haven't read it shouldn't take their reviews at face value and should question them instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2020/sep/15/rowling-troubled-blood-thriller-robert-galbraith-review
>> No. 66662 Are Moaty
16th September 2020
Wednesday 9:43 am
66662 spacer
Had a conversation about this with my mum. Referred to her as a cis woman and she went mental. Said she was not cis, she was normal.
>> No. 66663 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:12 am
66663 spacer
>>66662
Fucksake. She's one of them.
>> No. 66664 Crabkiller
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:29 am
66664 spacer
>>66661
I read that whole piece and was still waiting for the bit where she points out the misrepresentation when I reached 'Since you're here...'

As far as I can tell all the critics actually do understand (because they are trans and are quite familiar with media representation of them) that it is utterly irrelevant that the character is technically not trans. The character is 'trans adjacent' or 'trans enough' to stoke the same fear of trans people that Rowling has been pushing for months.

It's actually the critics that are being misrepresented, I think.
>> No. 66665 YubYub
16th September 2020
Wednesday 10:44 am
66665 spacer
>>66664
It's "they're wrong to make out this minor character is the main antagonist of the book, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted as saying Rowling is right so I'll also call her tone deaf."
>> No. 66666 R4GE
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:01 am
66666 spacer
>>66665
>they're wrong to make out this minor character is the main antagonist of the book
Who gives a shit? Is that really the issue here? The Guardian is such a load of wank.
>> No. 66667 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:03 am
66667 spacer
>>66666
Mate, we should be against all forms of clickbait. Clickbait doesn't become acceptable just because the headline agrees with your worldview.
>> No. 66668 Auntiefucker
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:35 am
66668 spacer
I want to go out and buy 100 copies of this book right now, just to piss off all you screeching lefty thought police tossers who want to ban all opinions you don't agree with.
>> No. 66669 Anonymous
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:41 am
66669 spacer
>>66668
Go for it. It's your money.
>> No. 66670 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:41 am
66670 spacer
>>66668
Come on lad, that was an entry-level trolling attempt. You can do better than that - we believe in you.
>> No. 66671 Are Moaty
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:43 am
66671 spacer
>>66670

shouldn't you be on twitter hurling death threats at rowling and screeching about how "trans wimmin are wimmin?"
>> No. 66672 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:44 am
66672 spacer
>>66671
"Shouldn't you be screeching somewhere?" he screeched.
>> No. 66673 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:49 am
66673 spacer
>>66672

ha, you lot are the ones crying about how a work if fiction is akin to mein kampf and will end up killing trannies.i suppose you were the people who got fawlty towers banned for being problematic as well.
>> No. 66674 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 11:52 am
66674 spacer
>>66673

Yes, I personally am those people and did that. I went right up into the BBC's grill and forced them to.
>> No. 66675 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:13 pm
66675 spacer
>>66671
Slightly better, you managed to get a couple of bites. Still, a bit poorly executed as you replied to me. Also, you need to go on an unrelated tangent with the aim of drawing uninterested people in.

Come on lad, even if you're a fresh import from the Other Place, you should be better at trolling than this.

Still, why here of all places? Surely you can get more bites on, well, Twitter?
>> No. 66676 Paedofag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:16 pm
66676 spacer
>>66675

because twitter instantly bans anyone with an opinion to the right of che guevara and i'd have the rozzers kicking my door in by now. hope you're having a nice afternoon whacking off to "fat bints" and trannies, ladm9
>> No. 66677 Billbob
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:36 pm
66677 spacer
>>66676

So you've come here, were we're notoriously lax on bans?

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 66678 Auntiefucker
16th September 2020
Wednesday 12:57 pm
66678 spacer
>>66677
Are the mods cheekier than the cheekiest of nando's?
>> No. 66679 Searchfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:16 pm
66679 spacer
>>66676

>because twitter instantly bans anyone with an opinion to the right of che guevara

Indeed, many communist figures from Lenin to Mao were famously outspoken advocates for trans rights weren't they.

It's bollocks lad. The majority of Twitter is characterised by deep strain of liberalism focused entirely on individual identity, hence the obsession with personal pronouns and categorising racial profiles etc.

There's nothing remotely socialist about it, it has far more in common with the ideology of Reagan and Thatcher than it does with anyone on the left. You've been drawn in by a deliberately misleading false dichotomy.
>> No. 66680 Samefag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:32 pm
66680 spacer
>>66679
Left wing stopped meaning anything to do with class or wealth or basic human needs a while back, now it isn't for the majority but the already privileged to slip into positions of power by protesting the only reason they aren't a CEO is because they are a girl.
>> No. 66681 Billbob
16th September 2020
Wednesday 1:36 pm
66681 spacer
>>66680

Or in other words, centrist liberals have appropriated the label. I think anyone who considers themselves properly left wing has a duty to combat this misapprehension.
>> No. 66686 Moralfag
16th September 2020
Wednesday 3:51 pm
66686 spacer
>>66680
>Left wing stopped meaning anything to do with class or wealth or basic human needs a while back
This has always felt like an attempt to keep up the disingenuous idea that it's communists calling for more female CEOs so that most of the shit parts of modern life (which are largely economic problems) can be laid at the door of "the left", and not our 1980s leadership who were selling the country off on the one hand and decrying "gay sports days" on the other. if you stick with thatcher's economic policy but love gay sports days, you're still at least 50% thatcherite. even if your other 50% is some loony left social liberalism, you're going to sum to zero and come out a centrist by any reasonable use of maths.
>> No. 66694 Moralfag
17th September 2020
Thursday 2:52 pm
66694 spacer
>Meanwhile the suspects in Dr Bamborough’s disappearance include a womanising patient who seems to have developed feelings for her, a passive-aggressive husband who wanted her to quit her job to become a full-time mother, and a sadistic serial killer active in the 60s and 70s, who was loosely based on real life killers Jerry Brudos and Russell Williams – both master manipulators who took trophies from their victims.

https://robert-galbraith.com/about/

There we have it. Based on real life killer trannies.
>> No. 66719 YubYub
20th September 2020
Sunday 9:22 am
66719 spacer
>Making a demon of JK Rowling is a wretched sport, born of trout farming and resentment

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/making-a-demon-of-jk-rowling-is-a-wretched-sport-born-of-trout farming-and-resentment

You can always rely on the Groan.
>> No. 66720 Crabkiller
20th September 2020
Sunday 11:07 am
66720 spacer
>>66719

At this point the Guardian is purely to distract, deter, and deflect any genuine efforts of the left from addressing material problems.
>> No. 66721 Searchfag
20th September 2020
Sunday 5:25 pm
66721 spacer
>>66719
>>66720
Another article today tries to "both sides" American fascism. They're beyond parody at this point.
>> No. 66722 Moralfag
20th September 2020
Sunday 5:55 pm
66722 spacer
>>66720
Whilst I'm much more favourable now than I have been in the past to the idea that the moment you start any political movement in this country half its' members will be coppers before you've even invited anyone else to join, I don't think the moany types who show up in the Observer are anything quite that insidious. I think they're just a group of increasingly out-of-touch weirdos who idolise the Blair years, if not Blair himself, and don't understand how or why things changed. "Why's everyone so angry? What's with all these new ideas? Didn't I used to have hair there?"; they don't get it. Also, yeah, the Guardian isn't especially radical. I think the best example of this I've come across recently was when it turned out many of Leicester's garment factories are owned by what amount to local Mafias and the reporter who did a piece on it ended an episode of Today in Focus by saying words to the effect of "we all need to shop smarter".
>> No. 66723 Paedofag
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:33 pm
66723 spacer
>>66722
>words to the effect of "we all need to shop smarter".
A reminder that anyone who says "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" is fair game to punch in the mouth.
>> No. 66724 Samefag
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:42 pm
66724 spacer
>>66722

The guardian is just a very specific, middle class type of out of touch. it's one of the biggest culprits for burying its head in the sand about immigration tensions as they simmered over the past decade, because from that strata of society it seems inconceivable that so many people don't see the benefits of being able to hire a dirt cheap polish nanny or cleaner.
>> No. 66725 Anonymous
20th September 2020
Sunday 6:50 pm
66725 spacer
>>66723
What's your problem with that sentiment? All I can think of is that it serves as a crutch for people to avoid making difficult choices, but that doesn't affect the validity of the statement.
>> No. 66727 Anonymous
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:11 pm
66727 spacer
>>66725

Not them but it is an absurd expectation and it shifts the burden of responsibility for investigating mafia ties on to the man in the street for all aspects of their life from the various bodies that should be investigating such organisations.
>> No. 66728 Paedofag
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:23 pm
66728 spacer
>>66727
We seem to be interpreting it quite differently. My understanding was the opposite - if ethical consumption in capitalist markets is impossible (due to the opaqueness inherent in global supply chains), then it follows that individuals should worry less about their individual purchases and instead demand more regulation and enforcement at higher levels.

When you say "it is an absurd expectation", what exactly are you referring to?
>> No. 66729 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 7:57 pm
66729 spacer
>>66728

You can look at it in both ways if you want to.

Either it's a cop out and gives you an excuse to buy everything from Nestle and Monsanto because what's the point worrying if you can't avoid it, or it means every company you buy from is up to no good at some point down the line even if you try do your homework so the system itself needs uprooting.

still not sure which side the original lad meant it from mind.
>> No. 66730 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 8:32 pm
66730 spacer
>>66728
It is an absurd statement. What it should have called for is investigations and more regulations. Would you be okay with a report on hospitals killing people ending with, "patients should chose better doctors"?

It's a cancerous brand of capitalism that expects the consumer to fix all the world's problems by being informed and moral consumers. Buy electric cars if you don't want global warming. Don't eat at Nandos if you care about the welfare of chickens. Don't buy from Nike if you don't agree with Uyghur slave labour. The government doesn't need to step in.
>> No. 66731 Billbob
20th September 2020
Sunday 8:55 pm
66731 spacer
>>66730
>Buy electric cars if you don't want global warming.
Even in the example you gave, the consumer is uninformed. Electric cars are still really terrible for the environment. I'm not criticising you, this just underlines the point you're making.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password