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.

it stops the conversation in its tracks and doesn't allow it to progress beyond that
Your point being ...?
If someone said, "the earth is flat" but science proved otherwise, why would we need "progress" beyond that. I wouldn't ban flat-earthers but I wouldn't base government policy on them!

Because a solution is clearly needed, whatever that may be, and I believe you can only reach that by actually getting through the conversation rather than stopping it in its tracks. Feelings are clearly involved, so it seems counterproductive to ignore them and constantly state "this is fact this is where it ends" as then a solution wont be found. I think you can hold the facts as facts whilst still continuing the conversation and listening to both sides feelings on the matter. To me, that's the only way to actually make progress.

I guess a situation I could compare it to that includes changes in laws, mandates, rights etc would be Corona virus antivaxxers. For so long an anti vaxxer was immediately shut down and deemed an idiot, crazy, not someone worth speaking to, by society. Then all of a sudden we need as many people on board with vaccination as possible in order to hopefully get over the pandemic somewhat and I saw so many conversations with antivaxxers that were focused on their feelings, why they believe what they do whilst gently providing facts. It became a pleasant conversation (mostly) where their fears were addressed and not just immediately refuted because they werent factual, they were able to work through their feelings, understand why they thought certain things and thus in the end, accept that a vaccination was the best course of action. I cant speak for everyone but I saw it happen with people in my own life and the only thing that seemed to change about these conversations was understanding from both sides, not just "this is the fact so you're wrong and insane". So I guess that's more what I mean, in order to solve something you need to understand the other side and you have to have feelings in the conversation in order to do that. I think thats a good analogy but if it's not, I'm happy to be told why.

Okay, Blackbird. So it seems your point is mainly about tone? You think we should all be nicer in order to discuss things and arrive at compromise? Is that about right?

Maybe. Or maybe this is part of the problem. Genderism is one small part of this issue. This isn't about warring movements or picking a tribe or identifying with a feeling or a thought. It's about rigorous critical thinking and getting through the noise to the truth of the matter.

Otherwise we end up in a squishy place where people say things like 'sex is complicated' because they're afraid to hurt people's feelings and experts are mean if they 'fact shame' and it all goes rapidly downhill from there.

I'm not quite sure but I do know how much time has been expended already on pandering to people's emotes and how far it's got us. Teenage girls having their breasts removed. Women raped in prison. People rioting in the streets to protect a flasher who exposed himself in a spa to children.

Well, I do have some sympathy for that point of view, Blackbird.

You may find this thread interesting. I don't agree with all of it, fwiw, at all, but it's concerning vaccine acceptance etc:

twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1418281619312586755?s=20

I do also believe that there are some very loud voices on both sides who dont have the movements best interests at heart

This is another assertion without evidence. This is a similar implication that there are people on JKR’s side who are just as abusive as those who abuse here. Who are the people who are loud voices on the side of protecting women’s sex based rights who don’t actually have that at heart?

Arabella - No I dont think that people need to be nicer and step on eggshells. I do think that the conversation can be respectful (not the same as nice) as mostly when people feel disrespected they go on the defensive, and that impedes progress. Getting through the noise to get to the truth of the matter is very important, but it would lose value if once you're through the noise, the people you want to listen to you have stopped listening. If the conversation remains respectful and addresses what everyone finds important, then there will probably be a lot more listeners from the other side at the end of it.

And addressing what everyone finds important doesnt mean curtailing to things that impede the progress - I guess it simply means actually listening to what the other side have to say, despite disagreeing with it. Not creating change that shouldn't be there, just listening.

And thanks for the twitter link, will have a read 😊

Notbadconsidering - That particular quote of mine didnt say anything specifically about JKR but here is a voice of someone who does not stand with trans rights activists and their words lead me to believe that they're a loud voice who dont have the movements best interests at heart. This email was sent to someone on twitter who is a trans rights activist TW rape is mentioned and described

Btw that email posted above is horrific so I fully expect it to be deleted by MN!

Blackbird, is there any way you can post some evidence by people that actually exist?

WomanistScot is not a twitter handle, and the original post has Mhairi Black imprinted on the top of the picture. What was that about?

Do you genuinely think a gender critical person wrote violent rape fantasies like that? Also, sent to a woman, not to a trans person.

@MiladyBerserko

Apologies, yes I meant Blackbird. Wish there was an edit button.

Blackbird I know you think you are clear in your point, but I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that all points of view are equal, if the holders earnestly believe them? Or whether they are the 'truth', or fact or fiction?

That would be daft; if you take it from a theoretically reasonable "we are all entitled to hold a point of view and to believe it" sort of stance to an example of (say) someone who genuinely believes he is a teapot, it can easily be observed that he really does not have as valid a point of view in this matter as someone who can see by looking at him that he is not teapot (unless we stretch the definition of "teapot" beyond what are reasonable grounds) and that he can believe it all he wants, that does not make it true or a fact.

("I had an aunt who believed she was made of glass. Somebody dropped her.")

Shedmistress- That was a point I began making earlier in the thread, no, I dont think that anyone who has a movements best interests at heart would send anything so awful to anyone. But the persons stance on trans people is clear, so it then becomes very easy for the other side to say "Look! Look what your movement stands for! Such vitriol and hate how dare you all!". But their voice is loud, it's an awful email that people will take notice of and "use" to further their own argument that the other side is awful and wrong.
I also dont understand what you mean by "people who actually exist" as in my experience, the majority of people who post such awful things hide behind anonymous emails, fake accounts on Twitter etc, you'd need to be a real big idiot to post anything like that under your real name (although I know those exist!)

That email is awful. And everyone here would condemn that. But you wrote:

The threats I've seen from JKR "supporters" (I use the term lightly as I dont think a true jkr supporter would use death threats) have been to other people posting on that thread, to people on the "wrong side" rather than to one individual in the same position as jkr.

Who sent that awful email? We’re there “plenty” as you said? Is it a torrent of abuse towards one single individual? One male troll sends a horrible email, truly disgusting.

JKR receives threats of violence in a daily torrent of tweets, several per hour.

You implied it’s plenty in other posts and it’s equal to “both sides”. I think you have to admit it isn’t equal. Not remotely.

And the reason this is important is because one woman has expressed her opinion, and followed it up by taking the time to elucidate her opinion with a beautifully crafted, sensitive and empathetic piece of writing and not only does it get ignored and dismissed, but she gets doxxed, threats of death, rape and violence as a result.

These actors, Radcliffe et al, do NONE of that, just tweet platitudes and slogans and you think they aren’t beholden to explaining to everyone why their position is solid enough to counter everything JKR has said and suffers as a result. And for what? So as to not upset certain people on Twitter. The imbalance of the outcomes from actions is disgraceful. It’s utterly spineless of them, to sit there, knowing everything that has happened and pretend it hasn’t. To stay silent in their follow up, not only demonstrates they lack the ability to do so in an insightful manner, but that they don’t even have the guts to put their money where their mouth is. I find that indefensible.

I also dont understand what you mean by "people who actually exist" as in my experience, the majority of people who post such awful things hide behind anonymous emails, fake accounts on Twitter etc, you'd need to be a real big idiot to post anything like that under your real name

It is about those accounts actually existing. So the two that you posted cannot be researched as they don't actually exist. Anonymous or not, if you cannot see whether their pattern of posting is 'for' or 'against' then you cant say that these are on either side of a debate.

Can you think a bit deeply about what your point actually is? I don't understand what point it is you are making as you seem to be making the point that is the exact opposite the the point that it is you say you are making.

My original interpretation is that you have seen 'both sides' in terms of death threats. It's why I came on, to see these. But you have posted two where a side cannot be researched as they don't actually exist to be looked at. So random people posting bad things doesn't mean they are on either side, they are just random people being nasty. What link is there to anything 'gender critical' with these people?

Blackbird1234, in order to debate with you about points of view being insightful I would need to know what you define as insightful, given that you say "Insightful doesn't mean truthful."

I do not myself regard repetition of false argument as insight. If the premise is bollocks argument based on it be bollocks as well, and the conclusion will not work. (That's probably called something fancy like "scientific method"; I wouldn't know.)

Insight is defined in the nearest dictionary to hand as
1] an instance of apprehending the true nature of a thing, especially through intuitive understanding: an insight into 18th-century life.
2] penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth.

In other words, in order to be insightful, something has to be accurate as to the nature of what is being observed/reported/whatever.

Therefore, argument (no matter how entrancing) which is based in an inaccurate apprehension of the facts of a matter (as it might be misquotation of something written, or assumptions based on things not present in the text) cannot be insightful about that matter.

This may be where you and the people on this board are failing to connect: you are saying that comments they observe not to be accurate are insightful, and they opine that is not possible. So when they are asking for evidence of insightful comments, you think you have provided these and they perceive that you have not.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Thanks for your response and the definition, I see that it's not what I meant by insightful.

My "definition" of insightful is something that allows me to learn about something else. So if I was speaking to someone who believes that the earth is flat and they told me all of their reasons why, so that I understand their point of you and why they think what they think, I would say that I found the conversation insightful (even though I wouldn't believe the same as them). What would be the correct word to use for that situation?

So if that’s the case, looking at those arguments posted as screenshots is insightful because it gives us clear insight into the formulation of their arguments, something we can all learn. Correct? So the answer to this is that they unequivocally lie. If they could formulate their arguments without the lies you would have posted examples of that.

Going back to your original posts on this you wrote:

However even if an explanation was given by one of the cast members, or anyone who disagrees with JKR, it still wouldn't be good enough. I have seen it on mumsnet as well as twitter and other forums, someone does give a very insightful explanation of their opinion and it is still deemed "not good enough" by the majority of JKR supporters. That's kind of my point - we will all base our opinion of the explanation off our own standards and people will likely always "fail" at that if you disagree with their opinion in the first place (general you, not specifically you).

So essentially, the reason these actors shouldn’t bother posting an explanation as to why they disagree is because the only thing possible we can learn is that they also lie in their formulation of a counter argument, by your definition of insightful examples.

And that this would not be deemed “good enough” to satisfy those calling for an explanation, so why should they bother? Is that correct? An explanation that is formulated on lies is deemed “not good enough” by people here and, that’s a bad thing, because?

So these actors don’t owe anyone an explanation because to do so would only show everyone how weaselly they are, so best keep schtum is the only logical conclusion.

Spineless.

@Blackbird1234

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - Thanks for your response and the definition, I see that it's not what I meant by insightful.

My "definition" of insightful is something that allows me to learn about something else. So if I was speaking to someone who believes that the earth is flat and they told me all of their reasons why, so that I understand their point of you and why they think what they think, I would say that I found the conversation insightful (even though I wouldn't believe the same as them). What would be the correct word to use for that situation?

There could be several possibilities. Interesting, for sure and giving you insight, not into the flatness of the earth but into the mind that believes it is flat. Informative again, about the belief rather than the fact. Thought-provoking -- making you think about how this person came to that conclusion from the data he/she is using, how you should respond to this in order to indicate that while you do not agree with their conclusion you can acknowledge that their selected premises indicate its possibility, how such processes work.

Actually, perhaps what you mean by insightful is simply a reversed application of the word: you are the one gaining insight, being insightful, while the person who made the comment does not necessarily possess any. We learn from those we disagree with, not to agree with them but why/the reason we disagree, I suppose would be one way to put that.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime - I really like "informative" and "though provoking" about the belief, I'll make sure to use those words next time, thank you!

Notbadconsidering - If I really think about it, I don't think that they should've posted anything publicly, but rather they should've spoken to JKR about it privately if it was something they felt strongly about. The ideal situation now would indeed be that they post their thoughts and reasons for their opinions, but I don't think that they "owe" that to the public or to JKR, despite it probably being the best course of action. It's mean and kind of useless not to follow up with their reasons why, but not owed. However, that is my own opinion and fully understand that others have differing ones, I'm by no means saying that I'm right.

My comments about an argument not being "good enough" are because, as demonstrated on this thread, the conversation ends at "that is not a fact so you are wrong" and whilst that may be the truth, it doesn't allow the conversation to go any further. I believe you can have a full conversation with someone and get somewhere even if what they're saying isn't the truth.

I believe you can have a full conversation with someone and get somewhere even if what they're saying isn't the truth.

Not when that lie leads directly to very real threats of violence towards a single woman you can’t, no. Debating whether the Earth is flat and allowing a Flat Earther their say is harmless. Allowing lies about JKR to go ahead perpetuates the belief that she deserves the abuse and to be called a bigot.

What positive can possibly come from allowing a person to continue to lie about her in the interests of advancing the conversation about JKR? The lie IS the conversation because without the lie, her actual words are completely reasonable. If you don’t get people past the lie, by saying "that is not a fact so you are wrong" how is the conversation about her actual words meant to proceed?

Notbadconsidering - If you want to stop someone from having an untruthful view, you first need to find out why they think their view is truthful and you can only do that with a conversation, probably one that includes feelings. You want them to stop believing the lie, so have a conversation about the wider issue instead of refuting every single sentence. It'd be much more productive to hear them out and refute at the end of the conversation, with both parties hopefully having learned something. I guess, to me, both sides understanding the other side and listening to them fully is an important step. I understand that the lie is the conversation, so then ways to work through that need to be found and stating "that's a lie" constantly clearly isn't working.

I understand that the lie is the conversation, so then ways to work through that need to be found and stating "that's a lie" constantly clearly isn't working.

No, we have very clearly stated that 'it is a lie' that both sides issue death threats. So where does that leave you?

so have a conversation about the wider issue instead of refuting every single sentence

Which is what has happened.

“Regardless of what she’s said, or what you think she’s said, do you believe it’s acceptable for her to have a view on women’s rights?”

No answer, “she’s just a transphobe”, “just a dog whistle” etc.

“Regardless of what she’s said, or what you think she’s said, do you think women need their own single sex spaces?”

“But she’s just attacking trans people”, “TWAW” etc.

“I have listened to what you have said and it isn’t true. Do you want to read what she actually said?”

Silence.

No, I don’t believe it’s justified to give people contributing to a climate where death threats towards her are acceptable the chance to explain their reasoning based on falsehoods.