Twitter editorialising against J K Rowling again.

It's a blue flare-like thing outdoors well away from any person. A smoke-bomb is different.

Ah yes more like the ones TRAs set off next to Grenfell tower, which people thought were smoke bombs, to go with the giant inflatable dildoes they were carrying?

https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/press-release-womens-rights-rally-targeted/

A women’s rights rally, held at a venue adjacent to the Grenfell Tower Memorial Wall, has been disrupted by masked protestors who let off flares.
Attendees thought that smoke bombs had been thrown and said a strong smell of smoke distressed people – particularly given the location of the venue. Placards reading ‘Fuck Terfs’, a man with a flashing dummy penis, chanting, and photographing women attending the event were also among protestors’ other tactics.

Owen now claims that interviewing someone does not equal endorsement, which is quite right.

Ah but, according to ElaineFuchs supporting or sympathising with someone on Twitter absolutely means you are promoting them and their views.

As ever the one rule for one, another rule for the rest.

Owen now claims that interviewing someone does not equal endorsement, which is quite right.

Yes, he's correct. So is Owen claiming he disagrees with this chap, then? Or is it just certain parts of the arguments of a man who advocates for child abuse that he chooses to support?

Quite, Sophocles. She is under fuck all obligation to do anything anyone suggests/asks/demands with her money. She can do exactly as she pleases.

“Legalistically”?

It’s her money, made from the toil of her own hands (or rather mind]. If she wants to roll around in it laughing and smoking fat cigars, she can have at it as far as I’m concerned. She is the only person in the Uk to have charitably-donated themselves off the rich list. If we’re lining them up against the wall for having too much money, she’s not where I would start.

These are all quotes from this Vaush person:

“Recognise this empirically correct fact. It is possible for an adult and a child to have a sexual relationship and for it to have positive outcomes on the child.”

“I’m yet to hear a convincing moral or legal argument why the possession of child pornography should be illegal.”

“Owning child pornography is probably a hell of a lot more ethical than wearing the t-shirts on your backs.”

“If you’re not paying for child pornography then there is no argument in favour of morally condemning people who get it.”

“We’ve all jerked at the loli. And after we nut we look over our history and go ‘oh jeez, some of these girls looked pretty young’. I don’t give a fuck.”

So important when you’re laying into a witch for her wrongthink to crowbar in the tenuous links to the supporting cast of witches who also have terrible thoughts, too, isn’t it?

All these awful women. Talking. Supporting each other. Refusing to just STFU like good girls. Shameful!

It’s just pathetic the lengths that some people will go to to pretend that their women-hating has some deep philosophical basis, or that harassing and threatening public figures for disagreeing with them has some sort of moral imperative attached.

[quote DomesticatedZombie]I didn't know who 'Vaush' was. Absolutely astonished to see that he has been a guest on Owen Jones' youtube channel.

Except if you actually watch the video, he is nodding along to Vaush like a Churchill dog for a lot of it.

(I'm not denying that the money belongs to her legalistically, or that she did not earn it legalistically)

Some bloke called JKR 'babe' on Twitter (according to Owen Jones, gay men apparently have a free pass to use sexist language towards women) and she quote tweeted him to call him out on it with a comment about how she had sold a lot more books than him smile

I saw that tweet, he'd tweeted it after she'd patronising called someone she didn't agree with sweetheart - took it as in reference to that.
Like on here when you say something, and someone says no love, or no sweetheart.
I might reply calling them hun or something.
That always goes down like a bucket of cold sick though, funny that.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8112857/Transgender-activists-condemned-Grenfell-victims-set-smoke-bombs-close-block.html

The 1M match to charity is definitely good (although heaven knows she has enough money to just donate 2M straight away!)

Why on earth do people think she should be giving away more of her money, all the time, to different causes aside from the (many) she makes public? She's just one woman! There are are lot of people on Twitter saying the same thing as if she's bloody Smaug sitting on a pile of gold.

The woman gives millions away. Her charities do so much good work around the world. It's not just a face value thing. Why is it never enough?

I didn't know who 'Vaush' was. Absolutely astonished to see that he has been a guest on Owen Jones' youtube channel.

what relevance are book sales?

Some bloke called JKR 'babe' on Twitter (according to Owen Jones, gay men apparently have a free pass to use sexist language towards women) and she quote tweeted him to call him out on it with a comment about how she had sold a lot more books than him

The above poster was being sarcastic.

@Hasselhoffsheadband "JK Rowling tweet by trans activists 'not criminal' - BBC News" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-60023868.amp

JKR has 'protesters' doxx her residence, where she (a domestic abuse survivor) and her children live. Police Scotland = meh.

David Paisley has a sheet with 'respect our existence or expect our resistance' pinned outside his public place of work. Police Scotland = puts their full might behind an investigation which almost ends up in court.

Kathleen Stock does indeed have freedom to have her say, but so does everyone else.

In that case those placing the banner outside DP's workplace were just having their say, as it is a studio owned and run by BBC Scotland the banner could just as easily have been aimed at them.

I would imagine that she has blocked DP because he is relenetless in his quest to silence women and stop them talking about their own rights. He never actually comes up with his own arguments that are actually worth engaging with, he works (and I mean works) solely on discrediting and trying to shut down (eg. That petition to get the LGBA to get their charity status revoked). I find his tactics quite unsettling tbh, and I guess JKR feels the same, and would rather just not engage.

Kathleen Stock had to have a panic alarm installed in her home FFS. The abuse she received was that bad.

A reminder from the KS thread of the last bout of whataboutism that Margarita engaged in. The post by CuriousaboutSamphire at 15.06 being particularly pertinent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4368594-Campaign-of-bullying-and-intimidation-at-Sussex-University-vs-Professor-Kathleen-Stock?pg=13

"why are those did the same thing at Kathleen Stock's place of work not"

Because a lot of the protestors were students of the same college which they went to daily to study and protested during daytime?

In the case of Marion Millar and friends, they went out of their way to go a workplace they had no affiliation with and had no reason to be there.

Just my opinion.

JK Rowling has blocked DP on Twitter, according to DP.

Rowling seems to be implying that she's on the side of gay people and listens to them, but only if they share her viewpoint it seems.