Review of HP reunion in The Guardian…they just can’t help themselves

But you would want to know what you said, the exact words and the context. If they refused to tell you but just insisted "everyone says you are racist" you would be understandably pissed off. And if you were sacked for "being racist" you'd be even more pissed off.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Alrighty, thanks 😊 It does look like a poncey word but I'm glad to now know what it means haha! Genuinely thanks for the definitions, I know language is so important in all of this and it's so easy to misunderstand or be misunderstood if you're not using the words you think you are.

It is of course possible to have a discussion with a liar, but if they are lying to themselves as well as to you, you won't get very far. Many people actually believe "JKR is transphobic" - they believe they know it, they are arguing from a position of knowing they are right, therefore to convince them otherwise isn't possible.

Just like flat-earthers really. They know the world is flat, so no amount of "proof" has any affect at all.

TurquoiseBaubles - Very, yes. But I also understand that sometimes things can be interpreted as racist even if I didnt come right out and say something blatantly racist, so if someone accused me of that then I would want to know the reasons why so I could understand - I would be able to do that whilst still upholding the fact that I'm not racist.

Beowulfa - Between the 2 examples only, A. Ideally option C, in which option A is present. If I meant to say something racist then only A. If I didnt understand why what I said was deemed racist then I'd want a mix of A and B.

HermioneKipper - I believe you, I know it happens. I just don't believe that no one has ever answered those questions anywhere on the internet.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Thanks for the explanation again. I really hope that your "oops, sorry" was genuine and not making fun of me for not knowing exact definitions of words. I'm multilingual and haven't lived in the UK for over 20 years so sometimes I get words wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was genuine, in which case, thank you for the definitions as they're allowing me to learn something and are really useful.

Blackbird1234, imagine you were ordered to attend a meeting with HR at work because a colleague accused you of racism. Would you prefer this meeting to consist of:

a) a discussion of a colleague's signed statement noting the date/time/location in which the alleged incident took place and a clear description of the racist words/deeds.

b) four hours of waffle in which the HR rep said it wasn't about evidence, but that somebody had said that somebody else had heard that you were a racist, and if people are saying it it may as well be true, because their opinions are valid too, and if you're saying they're not then you may as well be a racist.

And now we have the age-old confusion about "refute", "dispute" and "deny".

To refute something is to demonstrate conclusively and indisputably that it is false, with sufficient cogency to stand up in a court of law.

To dispute something is to suggest that it is false, providing evidence to support this view.

To deny something is to say it is false, but give no particular reason for this assertion.

As in, the suggestion that Trump won the 2020 presidential election because of widespread voter fraud has been refuted by every court in the USA that has investigated such an allegation, bar none. Many of Trump's followers dispute the courts' conclusions, citing various spurious reasons they have for believing Trump won. Trump simply denies that he lost.

Every time a lie is not shown to be a lie, idiots think that means "there must be something in it".

And while you may believe that "It is just statistically impossible that every single person on the planet who doesn't agree with JKR has never ever ever given an answer to the questions above." it is absolutely possible that nobody has been able to give a cogent answer to those questions, because it is not possible to do so.

Ooops, sorry: Cogent. Convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling, to the point; relevant; pertinent. IE not woffle at length to the effect "I don't agree with what I assume she said so she is wrong, and look, here, she uses the word trans, she is obviously transphobic."

@Blackbird1234 I myself have asked this hundreds of times on Twitter - always politely - and everytime I have been ignored or blocked. Because they can’t answer the question

Notbadconsidering - But where have you had/seen those conversations? Because questions such as those are posed and answered on other forums, like reddit, or on twitter. If you're only talking about Mumsnet then I will take your word for it 100% as I'm not overly active on here. It is just statistically impossible that every single person on the planet who doesn't agree with JKR has never ever ever given an answer to the questions above.

so have a conversation about the wider issue instead of refuting every single sentence

Which is what has happened.

“Regardless of what she’s said, or what you think she’s said, do you believe it’s acceptable for her to have a view on women’s rights?”

No answer, “she’s just a transphobe”, “just a dog whistle” etc.

“Regardless of what she’s said, or what you think she’s said, do you think women need their own single sex spaces?”

“But she’s just attacking trans people”, “TWAW” etc.

“I have listened to what you have said and it isn’t true. Do you want to read what she actually said?”

Silence.

No, I don’t believe it’s justified to give people contributing to a climate where death threats towards her are acceptable the chance to explain their reasoning based on falsehoods.

I understand that the lie is the conversation, so then ways to work through that need to be found and stating "that's a lie" constantly clearly isn't working.

No, we have very clearly stated that 'it is a lie' that both sides issue death threats. So where does that leave you?

Notbadconsidering - If you want to stop someone from having an untruthful view, you first need to find out why they think their view is truthful and you can only do that with a conversation, probably one that includes feelings. You want them to stop believing the lie, so have a conversation about the wider issue instead of refuting every single sentence. It'd be much more productive to hear them out and refute at the end of the conversation, with both parties hopefully having learned something. I guess, to me, both sides understanding the other side and listening to them fully is an important step. I understand that the lie is the conversation, so then ways to work through that need to be found and stating "that's a lie" constantly clearly isn't working.

I believe you can have a full conversation with someone and get somewhere even if what they're saying isn't the truth.

Not when that lie leads directly to very real threats of violence towards a single woman you can’t, no. Debating whether the Earth is flat and allowing a Flat Earther their say is harmless. Allowing lies about JKR to go ahead perpetuates the belief that she deserves the abuse and to be called a bigot.

What positive can possibly come from allowing a person to continue to lie about her in the interests of advancing the conversation about JKR? The lie IS the conversation because without the lie, her actual words are completely reasonable. If you don’t get people past the lie, by saying "that is not a fact so you are wrong" how is the conversation about her actual words meant to proceed?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - I really like "informative" and "though provoking" about the belief, I'll make sure to use those words next time, thank you!

Notbadconsidering - If I really think about it, I don't think that they should've posted anything publicly, but rather they should've spoken to JKR about it privately if it was something they felt strongly about. The ideal situation now would indeed be that they post their thoughts and reasons for their opinions, but I don't think that they "owe" that to the public or to JKR, despite it probably being the best course of action. It's mean and kind of useless not to follow up with their reasons why, but not owed. However, that is my own opinion and fully understand that others have differing ones, I'm by no means saying that I'm right.

My comments about an argument not being "good enough" are because, as demonstrated on this thread, the conversation ends at "that is not a fact so you are wrong" and whilst that may be the truth, it doesn't allow the conversation to go any further. I believe you can have a full conversation with someone and get somewhere even if what they're saying isn't the truth.

Actually, perhaps what you mean by insightful is simply a reversed application of the word: you are the one gaining insight, being insightful, while the person who made the comment does not necessarily possess any. We learn from those we disagree with, not to agree with them but why/the reason we disagree, I suppose would be one way to put that.

So if that’s the case, looking at those arguments posted as screenshots is insightful because it gives us clear insight into the formulation of their arguments, something we can all learn. Correct? So the answer to this is that they unequivocally lie. If they could formulate their arguments without the lies you would have posted examples of that.

Going back to your original posts on this you wrote:

However even if an explanation was given by one of the cast members, or anyone who disagrees with JKR, it still wouldn't be good enough. I have seen it on mumsnet as well as twitter and other forums, someone does give a very insightful explanation of their opinion and it is still deemed "not good enough" by the majority of JKR supporters. That's kind of my point - we will all base our opinion of the explanation off our own standards and people will likely always "fail" at that if you disagree with their opinion in the first place (general you, not specifically you).

So essentially, the reason these actors shouldn’t bother posting an explanation as to why they disagree is because the only thing possible we can learn is that they also lie in their formulation of a counter argument, by your definition of insightful examples.

And that this would not be deemed “good enough” to satisfy those calling for an explanation, so why should they bother? Is that correct? An explanation that is formulated on lies is deemed “not good enough” by people here and, that’s a bad thing, because?

So these actors don’t owe anyone an explanation because to do so would only show everyone how weaselly they are, so best keep schtum is the only logical conclusion.

Spineless.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Thanks for your response and the definition, I see that it's not what I meant by insightful.

My "definition" of insightful is something that allows me to learn about something else. So if I was speaking to someone who believes that the earth is flat and they told me all of their reasons why, so that I understand their point of you and why they think what they think, I would say that I found the conversation insightful (even though I wouldn't believe the same as them). What would be the correct word to use for that situation?

Blackbird1234, in order to debate with you about points of view being insightful I would need to know what you define as insightful, given that you say "Insightful doesn't mean truthful."

I do not myself regard repetition of false argument as insight. If the premise is bollocks argument based on it be bollocks as well, and the conclusion will not work. (That's probably called something fancy like "scientific method"; I wouldn't know.)

Insight is defined in the nearest dictionary to hand as
1] an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, especially through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life.
2] penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth.

In other words, in order to be insightful, something has to be accurate as to the nature of what is being observed/reported/whatever.

Therefore, argument (no matter how entrancing) which is based in an inaccurate apprehension of the facts of a matter (as it might be misquotation of something written, or assumptions based on things not present in the text) cannot be insightful about that matter.

This may be where you and the people on this board are failing to connect: you are saying that comments they observe not to be accurate are insightful, and they opine that is not possible. So when they are asking for evidence of insightful comments, you think you have provided these and they perceive that you have not.

I also dont understand what you mean by "people who actually exist" as in my experience, the majority of people who post such awful things hide behind anonymous emails, fake accounts on Twitter etc, you'd need to be a real big idiot to post anything like that under your real name

It is about those accounts actually existing. So the two that you posted cannot be researched as they don't actually exist. Anonymous or not, if you cannot see whether their pattern of posting is 'for' or 'against' then you cant say that these are on either side of a debate.

Can you think a bit deeply about what your point actually is? I don't understand what point it is you are making as you seem to be making the point that is the exact opposite the the point that it is you say you are making.

My original interpretation is that you have seen 'both sides' in terms of death threats. It's why I came on, to see these. But you have posted two where a side cannot be researched as they don't actually exist to be looked at. So random people posting bad things doesn't mean they are on either side, they are just random people being nasty. What link is there to anything 'gender critical' with these people?

That email is awful. And everyone here would condemn that. But you wrote:

The threats I've seen from JKR "supporters" (I use the term lightly as I dont think a true jkr supporter would use death threats) have been to other people posting on that thread, to people on the "wrong side" rather than to one individual in the same position as jkr.

Who sent that awful email? We’re there “plenty” as you said? Is it a torrent of abuse towards one single individual? One male troll sends a horrible email, truly disgusting.

JKR receives threats of violence in a daily torrent of tweets, several per hour.

You implied it’s plenty in other posts and it’s equal to “both sides”. I think you have to admit it isn’t equal. Not remotely.

And the reason this is important is because one woman has expressed her opinion, and followed it up by taking the time to elucidate her opinion with a beautifully crafted, sensitive and empathetic piece of writing and not only does it get ignored and dismissed, but she gets doxxed, threats of death, rape and violence as a result.

These actors, Radcliffe et al, do NONE of that, just tweet platitudes and slogans and you think they aren’t beholden to explaining to everyone why their position is solid enough to counter everything JKR has said and suffers as a result. And for what? So as to not upset certain people on Twitter. The imbalance of the outcomes from actions is disgraceful. It’s utterly spineless of them, to sit there, knowing everything that has happened and pretend it hasn’t. To stay silent in their follow up, not only demonstrates they lack the ability to do so in an insightful manner, but that they don’t even have the guts to put their money where their mouth is. I find that indefensible.

Shedmistress- That was a point I began making earlier in the thread, no, I dont think that anyone who has a movements best interests at heart would send anything so awful to anyone. But the persons stance on trans people is clear, so it then becomes very easy for the other side to say "Look! Look what your movement stands for! Such vitriol and hate how dare you all!". But their voice is loud, it's an awful email that people will take notice of and "use" to further their own argument that the other side is awful and wrong.
I also dont understand what you mean by "people who actually exist" as in my experience, the majority of people who post such awful things hide behind anonymous emails, fake accounts on Twitter etc, you'd need to be a real big idiot to post anything like that under your real name (although I know those exist!)

("I had an aunt who believed she was made of glass. Somebody dropped her.")