To think the Guardian is a joke re: JK Rowling?

[Firesidefox]

So, the Guardian was running a 'person of the year' poll, and I voted for JK Rowling for her bravery in standing up to the extremist wing of the trans lobby.

I went to have a look to see when the results were out, and they've deactivated the poll! According to Twitter, it's because JK Rowling was the out and out winner.

If this is the case, this is PATHETIC.

Why do I care so much? Just go look at the vitriol spilling out here and all of the bullshit logic used to justify it (still going on)

If people would admit they were wrong and their anger misplaced that would be much better.r

@Rhannion

I’ll say it again, I can’t wait for JK to be made a dame. I’m amazed she isn’t already.

It's supposition, but I feel she'd turn any honour down ...

Much better for what?

I couldn't care less if submissions were pulled out the Sorting Hat, it matters that JKR has been acknowledged as something other than the 'evil transphobe' she is being (ridiculously and without foundation) being reported as, including in that particular publication.

But yes, if it makes you feel better John, the nasty women had misunderstood that it was submissions and not a poll. Shall we put on our hairshirts for the rest of the day?

Much better for what?

As you say….much better for john 😀

So is it ok to take waits post as an admission of error for everyone you disagree with on this thread?

Or do all the posters need to do their mea culpa?

Can't say I've noticed much vitriol. Robust discussion perhaps and difference of opinion, sure. It's an internet forum after all...

Of course if was a poll. A newspaper asked their readers for nominations, if that's not a poll than what is?

": a questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed
b : a record of the information so obtained"

From Merriam Webster's definition.

Is waits doing a poll?

Wear your hair shirts if you like.

"Nasty women"

Ffs not what was said at all (also you may be misunderstanding my username,).

I think Jackie is doing some polls - I wonder what the results of those are?

@Waitwhat23

I think Jackie is doing some polls - I wonder what the results of those are?

Well the voting hasnt changed and the thread hasn’t disappeared

Ive no idea how long we are supposed to wait though…

[quote JohnHuffam1812]@whachatalkinaboutwillis

This old tripe again? Got examples?[/quote]
What a nasty way to kick off your contribution to a 'discussion'. I do think these conversations would go better if you decided to treat people with more respect.

If people would admit they were wrong and their anger misplaced that would be much better.r

Is your evidence that they are wrong that they disagree with you? Again not a helpful contribution to a discussion. More of an aggressive way to attempt to shut conversation down.

The evidence about their anger being misplaced is the entire premise of the thread was false.

“To think the guardian is a joke RE JKR”. I no longer think the guardian is a joke RE JKR I have changed to YABU.

@JohnHuffam1812

The evidence about their anger being misplaced is the entire premise of the thread was false.

According to your interpretation of it. According to your reading of how the Guardian have handled the JK Rowling debate. Not the same as everyone else's reading.

The evidence about their anger being misplaced is the entire premise of the thread was false.

It wasn't really false though, they did deactivate the poll after a short time when people in their thousands voted for, or nominated, JK.

Jesus Christ.

It wasn't a poll.

It wasn't pulled because JK Rowling was winning.

This is what the initial post claimed.

The Guardian included her and the reason why that particular reader voted for her.

But we are apparently allowing people to have their own opinions on facts.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/guardian-readers-nominate-their-person-of-the-year

Michelle, 45, Wiltshire - are you on here? Because you worded it much better than I did!

They are a joke newspaper anyway on just about any subject. Very unbalanced reporting always taking the pc line.

They didn't deactivate the poll.

There was no poll.

They asked for readers person of the year and an explanation why. It's a regular thing in the guardian to get readers to contribute and they always close contributions after a while to collate them.

Cambridge dictionary define poll as "a study in which people are asked for their opinions about a subject or person:" Clearly this can cover the Guarding person of the year question.

We have no information from the guardin re: why the poll was pulled. Both 'sides' are hypothesising and your opinion cannot be said to be a fact.

You see things as facts because you are looking at things through your own biases and presumptions. Most people do that to be fair and that's why it's important to be open minded and polite as we discuss things as that is the context which enables people to challenge their own thinking.

The 'Jesus Christ' comment is rude. Can you please be respectful with your comments?

Sorry, JohnHuffam1812, was there a poll? Because I'm insure if you think there was one.

They deactivated the online form for nominating Person Of The Year, and actually John, I checked though the other ones, that deactivation notice was only on 1 other form, and they do not deactivate after less than 2 weeks.

The irony of playing semantics about the meaning of a poll when the word woman and female is apparently fine to change!

[quote MrsWooster]Mole is on the case: twitter.com/moleatthedoor/status/1475849571263729673?s=21[/quote]
It must be genuine Grauniad, it includes the traditional typos!

The irony of playing semantics about the meaning of a poll when the word woman and female is apparently fine to change!

OMG I didn't think of this! You have made my day!! I guess we could all agree to set all definitions in stone though? Problem solved. If the price of protecting female only spaces and the language women need to discuss issues which can only affect biological females, I am willing to agree that this was not a poll. Otherwise - nah.