The false equivalency drives me mad...

Not caring if she offends some people on Twitter?

But that isn’t ’shady’ because that implies concealment, and she has received plenty of criticism.

What could it be?

Not caring if she offends some people on Twitter?

But that isn’t ’shady’ because that implies concealment, and she has received plenty of criticism.

What could it be?

What is she getting away with doing without critiscism?

Ooohh…. Can you name these shady things? Is it… defending women’s rights and completely funding a RCC? Or was it evacuating women from Afghanistan? Or is it her work with Lumos you object to? Do tell…..

Still nope. However much you introduce “ah but Savile wasn’t never convicted” ( are you his lawyer? Are you trying to make a ‘point’?) the thread is still about drawing a false equivalence between men who commit a series of sexual offences and a woman with opinions some people don’t like. Feel free to explain why you think such equivalence isn’t false, but don’t pretend the thread is about something else. Namely ‘no one must ever criticise JKR’, because it isn’t.

I suspect the allegation of "shady things" is just blowing smoke. The shady things are perhaps things other people imagine she's done and wish she actually had done in order to justify their low opinion of her.

Plus, she smoked a cigar in a mocking fashion once.

What shady things has she done?

JKR funds a women's rape crisis centre, not a refuge. If you're going to level criticism, please try to do it accurately. Assuming it's Beira's place you're referring to, she doesn't run it, and she's not on the hook for every single thing it does.

I don't know the first incident you're referring to. But if that's the worst you can come up with, you might want to reflect whether that justifies your comment that she's "done some very shady things."

So - what are these shady things?

It does us no good to pretend JK has behaved impeccably.

I'm not sure there's as much "us" here as you think there is.

Its like there's an echo in here...

Equating "has not behaved impeccably" (debatable) with "is basically a paedo" is a new low in arguing standards. Is 'paeo'' the new 'nazi'?

Why do women have to behave impeccably, anyway? 🤔

As I've said many times, men are excused their actual vile actions (who has ever been criticised for watching a Weinsteim film? ), while women are vilified for things they've not even said.

Tell me again how is is feminism?

Oh you're discussing. And so are we, even if it's like trying to plait fog.

Read the thread.

Sorry, is this not a discussion board? Should I not 'discuss' because I haven't met your GC purity test?

What shady things would thse be?

"A few other names were mentioned (Stewart Hall, Jimmy Savile etc.)." is also in the OP. I wonder who the etc is? And also Jimmy Savile was never convicted of anything, so it can't just be about convicted sex offenders.

Do you think she 'behaved impeccably' when she publicly pictured and called out a male abuser at a protest? Only to delete it and remove her own criticism when it was pointed out that he was on the gender critical side and not a TRA as she had assumed? Or what about when she revealed that her women's refuge records vulnerable women without making them aware against all established protocols? Those are two pretty big things I think deserve criticism.

Speak for yourself. I think she has behaved impeccably.

I’m pretty certain that if you’d asked him which of her public statements made her a “monster,” he’d have been left stuttering and without a leg to stand on.

He’s just read some online bollocks, or his kids have parroted the Reddit line about her to him, and regurgitated it. So very ‘progressive’ of him 🙄

How? Please do explain how me saying that she shouldn't be criticised all the time (e.g some of the time may be fair) proves any point you think you have made?

Nope. They asked “How on earth can JK be in the same category as convicted sex offenders?” It’s right there in the OP. You can keep ignoring it and pretend the thread is about something else, but everyone else can read.

Point proven.

What a bellend.

What's the bet that he 'identifies' as a feminist?

Haha what an embarrassing knob. Do these people even hear themselves.

She hardly gets away without criticism, she's criticised all the time.

Not that I think she should be.

You asked what my point was. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here. You accuse others of being blind when the reality is they just have a different opinion to you.