Did I get this right?

Oh my dear, are you still stuck on the… “some people can do what they want, others shouldn’t be allowed to”?

also is his JKRs wealth not from people liking what she produces?

With great irony, you have decided “it wasn’t the place to share them” based purely on your inference of the intention of the thread and the fact other opinions have gone unchallenged.

It is entirely your opinion that that was the intention of the thread.

Given that title, it was probably started by a bot.

You’ve taken a bot thread and decided the OP was wrong to challenge an opinion you support with an opinion you don’t like. Like I said, it’s not about the post, it’s about the opinion. With JKR, it always is. It brings out the haters like moths to a flame.

The point is when one organisation has that much political influence and is using it to shape the law of a democratic country it's a serious problem

Stonewall... Cough cough

Using her wealth to support women's rights? Yeah, despicab le. It's also terrible that she set up a women-only rape crisis centre in Edinburgh, when our public bodies refused to do so. Awful woman.

No I think that's just how posts are framed in there. Either way, everyone seems to have the same impression as I did.

Your comment doesn't make it less of an opinion.

Yea all threads are posted that way and the OP of that thread has a 6 year posting history minimum

OP I think your response was great and there was nothing wrong with you stating it. I agree that Dobby was annoying and had an awful voice

Do you even know what the definition of controversial is? You agreeing with a point doesn't mean it isn't controversial.

Oh well if “everyone” on a busy AskReddit thread acted the same way then of course there was an unwritten rule that you don’t challenge opinions.

And of course THAT’S why you think the OP is wrong, the only reason, no other reason whatsoever.

It isnt that there is an unwritten rule you never challenge opinions, it's that this thread in particular didn't call for it. The only person who did wanted to was a GC poster who wanted to debate trans issues.

Presumably, all Donors to political parties intend their donations to go towards shaping the law?

“Didn’t call for it.” In secret Reddit coded language. Sure, sure.

If it’s clear there are unwritten rules about when people aren’t meant to post challenging views on the wrong threads, why do TRA posters regularly come here and disrupt threads about things like grieving mothers?

I can only speak of what's happening in this thread and the one referenced. If you like, you can tag me when you see what you've described happening, and I'll come and give my assessment and critique the posters.

Crowdfunding legal cases was how all of the earlier court cases were funded in their entirety - so what if JK Rowling has since stepped up and put her money where her commitment is. Trans ideology has/had been bankrolled and funded by U.S dollars for years.

There’s nothing on the Reddit thread referenced that says people can’t challenge opinions other than your opinion that people shouldn’t and think the OP is wrong for

once again checking notes

replying to someone on Reddit.

I hope Steve Huffman doesn’t listen to you for advice 😂😂

John Stryker - Heir to the Stryker Corporation and a medical supplies fortune and founder of the Arcus foundation has channeled millions of dollars into LGBTQ+ and transgender-focused advocacy, legal recognition, and institutional training worldwide.

George Soros has long provided major philanthropic backing to global and U.S.-based human rights and civil rights groups that support transgender advocacy and legal protections.

Martine Rothblatt has been a prominent public supporter and financial contributor to transgender rights and genomic/transhumanist advocacy.

Aren't there are few tw in the US whose wealth make JKR look like a relative pauper?

You do a lot of scolding on (many) other threads, so people are able to form a pretty coherent view of the scope of your responses 🤔

As they should. I do the same when I notice a certain pattern from posters. I tend to try and keep the opinions I share within the guidelines.

Absolutley those narcissitic American billionnnaires are the ones that are funding most of our recent cultural and technical movements and developments.

I just had a look at the thread in question. Someone challenged Dave Grohl being posted. Has 54 downvotes. Tom Hanks has been challenged. Someone has posted Meghan Markle for “sitting on knowledge” presumably about her father that has been heavily downvoted and the challenge to that post has been heavily upvoted.

Others have challenged the JKR post and all have been upvoted.

So all of Lexible’s claims that the OP was somehow unique for being the only one to challenge a post and “it wasn’t that sort of thread” were, in a word, bullshit.

The poster certainly likes her self appointed position, even writing threads about how, in their opinion, feminism and gender discussions are unfairly balanced, ignoring the fact we write what we bloody want here.

When that falls safely within MN standards they start trying to derail and shut down.

It's probably time to stop feeding them tbh. It's pretty tedious.

Dave Grohl: someone agreed the BM drama did that a toll but legacy is intact. That was down voted. Someone replied to that person and brought up another incident. The "legacy" person then said they agree.

Tom hanks - Someone corrected a fact about his involvement with Epstein.

Markle - same. Someone corrected a fact about the legal issues with her father.

Yes, more than one sub thread in the entire thread contains people agreeing and disagreeing about people. So not remotely a thread where things can go unchallenged like you claimed it to be. And those challenges, Grohl and Markle, garnered significantly more attention that the JKR one. Opinions about whether Grohl has tarnished his legacy. An opinion that Markle has sat on knowledge of her father. Discussion, opinion, facts.

You know, Reddit.

Your claim that it wasn’t the sort of thread for that sort of thing was, I repeat, bullshit.

You just wanted to tell off the OP for what she wrote, not the fact she challenged an opinion. It’s clear as day.