"JK Rowling is a gold-plated hero': Author Anthony Horowitz blasts cancel culture"

[ScreamingMeMe]

Good to see another successful author speaking out

'JK Rowling is a gold-plated hero': Author Anthony Horowitz blasts cancel culture and says writers are 'under siege' and should 'lead the agenda, not be cowed by it'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10483263/amp/Anthony-Horowitz-blasts-cancel-culture-says-writers-siege.html

While you are still here ploppsy

Can we please have evidence for this claim?

The basic immutable point of all this being that those who defend Rowling’s free speech against trans ideology can also be observed trying to shut down free speech for others by either calling it “hate” or “prejudice” (examples of this phrase being used are present in these posts).

Since it is 'immutable', link us up to those defending Rowling's right to free speech shutting down other's free speech.

And please also link us up to the evidence that it was transphobic.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Datun

I wasn’t criticising Horowitz. Your comprehension here is really off.[/quote]
As I said, you're not the most effective communicator.

So just to be clear, when you said "First Horowitz defends Rollings right to say whatever she likes against trans-ideology" that's not the criticism it appears to be, it's just a neutral fact, and you don't disagree with it?

I mean, instead of being opaque, and hinting, you could just write normally.

For instance, do you agree that J. K. Rowling can practice free speech, along with maya Forstater. And Anthony Horowitz's defence of it is perfect acceptable?

I don't have much expectation of a sensible answer, to be honest.

@Beowulfa

You enjoy NCIS?

Indeed Beowulfa.

I read this sentence, ' They even include a lot of old stuff people from echo chambers haven’t got banned yet. ' as a dig at any group that demands warnings on programs.

Imagine if feminists demanded historical programs be labelled for warnings of misogyny, sexism, oppressive behaviour towards women and girls and such. There would be very little content produced that did not carry a warning.

It is again though a classic projection from the group of posters that used to come along at midnight.

@Datun

I’m going to ignore the insult and assume it’s based on your own frustrations at attempting to comprehend a new viewpoint your not familiar with.

Yes it’s just a neutral fact, Why on earth would you think it appeared otherwise? (Unless you see bogeymen activists everywhere)

Yes Rowling can say what she likes and Horowitz can defend her right to do that and also say what he likes about what he wants, the Scout Mistress, while far ruder about it than Rowling can also say what she likes, although so can those she’s disagreeing with - whether those two viewpoints can co-exist without trying to silence the other is another thing (unlikely).

@Ploppingperp06

I wonder if those commenting here realise that Horowitz’s problem with cancel culture as applied to himself wasn’t that he wanted to talk about trans-activists and couldn’t, but rather that he was pissed off he couldn’t write women the way he wanted without people becoming offended so had started to leave out all physical description of them from his work?

Are people here really against cancel culture or just against people being cancelled for saying what they agree with? Do you support Horowitz right to write women and others however he wants without being cancelled?

Speaking for myself I'm against cancel culture. Heaven knows there are many male writers out there who write terrible stereotypical tropes of women if I read one of them I put it down and read another book. I don't think that author should be cancelled for his writing, I might voice an opinion or not recommend him to friends but he can carry on writing. If we start cancelling over issue 'x' and not issue 'y' then you can be damn sure that at some point 'y' will be cancelled too because offence can be endless and shifting, this is why we shouldn't legislate on the basis of offence.

@Helleofabore

Evidence what was transphobic? I never claimed anything was transphobic and never said Rowling was transphobic if that’s what your attempting to get at. I don’t know what your talking about with that.

But anyway, it’s late here and I’m going to go play some violin for a while before I fall asleep in front of the Apple TV.
I’m calling it curtains for this thread for the second and final time.

If you have any further questions make them quick.

When will I ever learn to read the rest of the thread before posting.

Yes ploppsy You actually missed the most pertinent question about your assertions.

Since it is 'immutable', link us up to those defending Rowling's right to free speech shutting down other's free speech.

I mean, that is where you started isn't it? So, please link us up to the evidence of this.

PankhurstConnection

I don't think I have met many regular posters, or many feminists, who don't share your opinion.

We are waiting for so called evidence of this 'immutable' fact that feminists are shutting down 'others free speech'?

It is almost bizarre, until you immediately read all the posts that come after the first one. That it really becomes clear.

@Helleofabore

The evidence is easily found in many places online. I’m sure if you observe the social media’s or traditional media writing of enough feminists who are into this you can observe many of them both calling for free speech on trans issues and wanting other things banned for “hate” speech or “misogyny”. You’ll have to research this yourself for clarity in your own mind. I don’t make up dossiers of this shit just in case I’m asked to provide “evidence” on Mumsnet. But it’s a hunge there.

@PankhurstConnection

If only more people thought like you do.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Helleofabore

The evidence is easily found in many places online. I’m sure if you observe the social media’s or traditional media writing of enough feminists who are into this you can observe many of them both calling for free speech on trans issues and wanting other things banned for “hate” speech or “misogyny”. You’ll have to research this yourself for clarity in your own mind. I don’t make up dossiers of this shit just in case I’m asked to provide “evidence” on Mumsnet. But it’s a hunge there.[/quote]
So. No evidence to support your assertions.

No names, no nothing.

You are just plopping down your opinion then.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion. No one is going to 'cancel' you in anyway for it. (Did you even get 'deleted'?) Just don't assert your opinion as 'immutable' fact. It just makes you look foolish.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@PankhurstConnection

If only more people thought like you do.[/quote]
Obviously many do and a lot of those are here on this thread judging by the replies.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Datun

I’m going to ignore the insult and assume it’s based on your own frustrations at attempting to comprehend a new viewpoint your not familiar with.

Yes it’s just a neutral fact, Why on earth would you think it appeared otherwise? (Unless you see bogeymen activists everywhere)

Yes Rowling can say what she likes and Horowitz can defend her right to do that and also say what he likes about what he wants, the Scout Mistress, while far ruder about it than Rowling can also say what she likes, although so can those she’s disagreeing with - whether those two viewpoints can co-exist without trying to silence the other is another thing (unlikely).[/quote]
So what is your gripe then?

That you think women here who advocate for free speech are selective? But you have no evidence of that?

You started by saying feminists muscled their way into the scouts, which was wrong.

You talked about Anthony Horowitz and seemed to get him mixed up with Sebastian Faulks.

You got the moderation here completely arse about tit.

You failed to grasp the sexism involved in the difference between male areas like golf clubs and women only groups.

And that's just your first few posts!

Not to mention minimising the complete erasure of women as a sex class, legally and politically. It's not niche. It's not something that no one cares about. Putting rapists in women's prisons, and cutting off the breasts of teenagers deeply concerns almost anyone who has any knowledge of it.

You don't appear to have any background info of what's being discussed here, why it's being discussed, or how any of it impacts women and girls.

And yet that doesn't stop you having a million different, quite erroneous, opinions about it.

So far, so bloody normal for a day ending in Y.

[quote Ploppingperp06]@Beowulfa

You enjoy NCIS?[/quote]
Yes, I like crime fiction/drama in all its many forms.

I went to see a screening of The Exorcist when it was still banned on video in the UK. Some of the audience were laughing at the horror scenes because they found it cartoonish and not disturbing at all.

When Lady Chatterley's Lover was finally released, I think the general consensus was that it was one of Lawrence's weaker works and not worth the fuss.

When Nick Griffin was allowed on Question Time he was exposed as a total political lightweight and the BNP pretty much collapsed overnight.

There's no need to ban things you don't like. Just put age restrictions/warnings if necessary and have a calm adult debate. about them.

Oh this thread it invokes such happy memories of midnight feasts of Bewilderness 's fruit curd

Good for Anthony Horowitz, I must admit that our house doesn't particularly get along with Alex Rider but it may be due to all being binge readers & we'd appreciate them more if we read them over longer periods of time.

@Beowulfa

Yeah but NCIS? It’s just so bad.

As for my posts confirming my “prejudice” again this is the exact same tactic that feminists would claim trans-activists use against them - that is say something that they disagree with and you are “prejudiced” and any other post only confirms this and as a “prejudiced” person you should not be listened to

No ploppsy.

Your prejudice and sexism is coming through very clearly.

All good then. Just so long as the people supporting him in defense of Rowling wouldn’t try to get his books banned or him cancelled if they didn’t like what he wrote.

The implication being that you have a prejudiced belief that people posting on this thread would be trying to get books banned or cancelled. Or any feminists. In fact you go on to say:

As for my first point that the same kind of feminists who are now shouting free speech for Rowling and once wanted others speech banned

This is repeated over numerous posts saying that women supporting Joanne Rowling and subsequently Horowitz's support of her, are 'cancelling' others. You claim ' that’s what I see happening. '

And when asked to produce evidence to support this claim... nothing. We are blithely told to go and find it ourselves. You must really think poster's here are ridiculously stupid. We interact with many people supporting Joanne Rowling on a daily basis and we are telling you that this is not happening. But hey... the onus is on us somehow to prop up your clearly false claim.

You go on about women invading 'men's spaces' and scouts with little understanding of what you are even discussing. Yet use language like 'I assume they’re even more so now what with the bearded ladies and feminists bossing the poor lads around', echo chambers. Most of your posts come from the point of view that feminists are petulant and childish. That feminists are all for 'cancelling' anyone who disgrees, that your posts will get deleted because people don't agree with them.

Yes, your posts reveal you hold some pretty prejudicial views. You can deny it all you want. It doesn't change what is there before readers of the thread.

Yet you unironically post It’s actually somewhat interesting and entertaining to watch the blind ego centric thinking in action and It shows a hilarious lack of self awareness or a feeling of superiority on their part.