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

[OhDear2200]

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jan/01/harry-potter-20th-anniversary-return-to-hogwarts-review-perilously-close-to-emetic

I guess they at least note her absence. But can’t help say ‘widely considered as transphobic’. Just why? Why say anything.

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.

@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

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, 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.

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.

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.

@Blackbird1234

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.

It would be useful though if they could quote one thing that you said that was racist, wouldn't it?

@Blackbird1234

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.

It was entirely genuine; I used the word because it meant exactly what I wanted to say there, with nuance, and then realised that if I was going to talk about the importance of there being a difference between three words I had then defined, I'd better not use poncy words and not explain them.

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.

@Blackbird1234

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.

Just as it would be useful if you or anyone else could quote the places on reddit or twitter where the question of "what did JKR say that was transphobic" is answered.

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.

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.

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.

TurquoiseBaubles - The next time I come across the answer (which I can't place a time on as I'm generally not overly actively searching for these conversations online) I will be sure to post it in this topic and I'm sure everyone (myself included) will find it interesting.

You may not get very far but I believe we can get further than we have done in recent times. It could take months, years, decades.. but if the current way of speaking about it isn't working then both sides (as long as they do want to find a solution) need to change the way the conversation is being had. Dont ask me how, because I have no clue! But in general if something isn't working then you try something else. Again, that's really just my own opinion on the matter that absolutely no one need share.

TurquoiseBaubles - Oh of course, hugely! Your comparison isn't lost on me at all. I don't agree at all with the way JKR is being treated and that's why I think the way it's all spoken about needs to be changed, as it is unfair and it isn't getting anywhere.

Private Eye have a little cartoon in this week's issue.

'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'

I did not know this was the definition of 'refute'! Thank you Asking!

But both sides can't change if one side is reading what JKR said and quoting verbatim and the other side is misquoting, interpreting and quite simply lying.

There is no possible "meet in the middle" in that case. Back to flat earth - how on earth are scientists meant to meet in the middle with flat-earthers?

@ArabellaScott

'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'

I did not know this was the definition of 'refute'! Thank you Asking!

It's the proper meaning; politicians and businessmen accused of criminality always claim to "refute the allegations", but what they actually mean is "deny" them. (It comes just before the newsreaders saying that so-and-so "has denied all wrong-doing", which tells you how much refuting they are actually doing.)

TurquoiseBaubles - I don't think I said meet in the middle (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't like the flat earth analogy because it doesn't really affect anyone (other than perhaps the holder of the view) else for them to believe it.
If I'm going to use an analogy I quite like my coronavirus vaccine one because there were laws and mandates etc put in place that affected everyone.

So let's say that there is an anti-vaxxer and a scientist. The scientist knows all of the facts and enters into a discussion with an anti-vaxxer. The scientist asks the anti-vaxxer (I'll refer to that as AV from now on) why they are against the covid-19 vaccine. The AV starts explaining their reasons why but is constantly met with "that's not fact, you're wrong". The AV is frustrated because their views aren't being listened to and the scientist is frustrated because their facts arent being listened to. No progress is made as it's a constant back and forth of "this is my reason" and "that's not fact/that's a lie". Then, a different scientist comes along who also knows all of the facts and whilst still frustrated with the lies, knows that they could listen to every reason that the AV gives, whilst still holding their own factual opinion. My assumption is that the fact that the AV was actually listened to, progress is made as it was probably an interesting conversation for both parties. The AV feels listened to about their feelings/beliefs rather than just shut down and the scientist has a better understanding of the AVs reasons - from this point onward both parties feel there is a higher level of respect from either side, which makes the next conversation easier to have and easier to move toward more progress.

All of the above could be utter bullshit (and I'm happy to be told so with the reasons why) but its just how I see it in my own mind. We cant get to a solution right away and the only way to work toward a solution is with progress and the above seems a way to get some progress.

Sorry, that ended up a lot longer than I expected!

You've spent alot of time telling us to be nice to people that are issuing us death threats, that's for sure.

Shedmistress - If that's what you've taken from my posts then there's really nothing I can do. That's not what I've said, nor what I've meant and the ones issuing death threats more than likely don't have the movements best interests at heart, so no point having any type of conversation with them.

If that's what you've taken from my posts then there's really nothing I can do.
It's the vibe I'm getting, too. Why are you so desperate to #BeKind?

Senua - I'm not, but you know that already so 🤷🏻‍♀️

Senua - I'm not, but you know that already so
I don't know that at all. You have spent the last day telling us we should be more understanding of the other side. That is a weird way to conduct an argument.
I think that you are intellectualising this far too much. Think about the people who have been harassed, doxxed, etc - it's not theory to them, it's an unpleasant reality.