The false equivalency drives me mad...

[Toastess]

I was chatting with a group of colleagues today. Somehow the conversation moved onto Rolf Harris, and one woman said how she'd loved Harris's music as a child and how horrified everyone was to discover his paedophilia. A few other names were mentioned (Stewart Hall, Jimmy Savile etc.).

Then a man said "Oh that's like with JK Rowling, I loved Harry Potter and now she's a monster." I don't know the group well at all, we're at work, I'm not proud but I just said "she's not a paedophile, it's a bit different!". His response - "she's still an absolute monster".

How on earth can JK be in the same category as convicted sex offenders?! How has the blind hatred reached this level?!

What shady things would thse be?

Sorry, is this not a discussion board? Should I not 'discuss' because I haven't met your GC purity test?

Read the thread.

Oh you're discussing. And so are we, even if it's like trying to plait fog.

Its like there's an echo in here...

Equating "has not behaved impeccably" (debatable) with "is basically a paedo" is a new low in arguing standards. Is 'paeo'' the new 'nazi'?

Why do women have to behave impeccably, anyway? 🤔

As I've said many times, men are excused their actual vile actions (who has ever been criticised for watching a Weinsteim film? ), while women are vilified for things they've not even said.

Tell me again how is is feminism?

JKR funds a women's rape crisis centre, not a refuge. If you're going to level criticism, please try to do it accurately. Assuming it's Beira's place you're referring to, she doesn't run it, and she's not on the hook for every single thing it does.

I don't know the first incident you're referring to. But if that's the worst you can come up with, you might want to reflect whether that justifies your comment that she's "done some very shady things."

So - what are these shady things?

It does us no good to pretend JK has behaved impeccably.

I'm not sure there's as much "us" here as you think there is.

What shady things has she done?

I suspect the allegation of "shady things" is just blowing smoke. The shady things are perhaps things other people imagine she's done and wish she actually had done in order to justify their low opinion of her.

Plus, she smoked a cigar in a mocking fashion once.

Still nope. However much you introduce “ah but Savile wasn’t never convicted” ( are you his lawyer? Are you trying to make a ‘point’?) the thread is still about drawing a false equivalence between men who commit a series of sexual offences and a woman with opinions some people don’t like. Feel free to explain why you think such equivalence isn’t false, but don’t pretend the thread is about something else. Namely ‘no one must ever criticise JKR’, because it isn’t.

Ooohh…. Can you name these shady things? Is it… defending women’s rights and completely funding a RCC? Or was it evacuating women from Afghanistan? Or is it her work with Lumos you object to? Do tell…..

What is she getting away with doing without critiscism?

Not caring if she offends some people on Twitter?

But that isn’t ’shady’ because that implies concealment, and she has received plenty of criticism.

What could it be?

Not caring if she offends some people on Twitter?

But that isn’t ’shady’ because that implies concealment, and she has received plenty of criticism.

What could it be?

Sorry for double post!

if you dance with clowns you'll end up with sore toes

What are these ‘shady things’ @alcovecupboards?

This is the worst kind of hair splitting. There is not one iota of doubt that Savile was a horrifically prolific sex offender. The fact that he was very unfortunately never brought to justice in his lifetime is irrelevant in this context.

Jimmy Savile may never have been convicted by a court, but there were reviews, investigations and reports on his offending.

E.g. by the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/dame_janet_smith.html
and the NHS
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-and-department-of-health-investigations-into-jimmy-savile

"Wasn't actually a convicted paedophile" - cracking argument there.

I thought that too

What an utterly gross point to make. 🙄

Meanwhile. Absolute tumbleweed on what JKR is supposed to have done.

It is incredibly disingenuous, I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that if your friend was given the choice of having Rolf Harris or JK Rowling babysit his child he would instantly say Rowling so he would absolutely know that there is no equivalence between the 2. It’s deliberate exaggeration to try to make a point like when TRAs claim that people who think it’s heinous to even consider locking convicted male sex offenders up with women are Nazi’s. They have no valid point to make so move straight into shock and reaction.

“Only a misogynist would say they think JKR is a monster.”

There was an interview with some of the staff at Beira’s place in which they said that they received a lot of threatening and abusive calls and so recorded all incoming calls. I assume that it is this that Alcove has distorted to JKR records vulnerable women without their consent. So clearly professional women taking steps to defend themselves and their vulnerable clients is EXACTLY THE SAME as men raping children.

FFS.

Trying to see things from the other point of view, I think Owen Jones says some very stupid things on twitter and I disagree with him on many things, but I don't think he is a monster. On the other hand I suppose he is very easy to ignore.

There are very few people I would consider "monsters". Only those who deliberately set out to cause harm, especially to the innocent, or don't care what harm they cause, and don't show any remorse for it.

Savile would be one.