[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Hygro]

So are black people in general, per the statistics. There does not appear to be any evidence that being trans adds additional homicide risk beyond the baseline for any particular race, so it was strange to bring up race specifically in the post above.

A whole class of hate crimes is predicated on these markers because these markers are targets for some.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know if using multivariate regression to determine risk is the same as "stratifying to fit a narrative".

When you're doing regression analysis, you're making a best effort to find the contribution of various causal factors. So if you want to find out if transgenderism is a significant cause of risk, you need to identify other causes of risk and control for those.

Regression analysis is a pretty established tool. It's how we know that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature, for example.

 

[innonimatu]

Considering J.K Rowling's continued crusade (at this point) against trans people, I am ready to grab the proverbial bull by the horns, and say: Yes, actually, maybe J.K Rowling does need to be censored, if she continues to demonize a certain percentage of the population at such a level, with rather devastating consequences.

But this really reveals the nature of the so-called "free speech" within our current society. Where it is supposedly posited to be equal, it is in reality not so; the platforms that Crezth and J.K Rowling, and the reach that they have are - unfortunately - hardly comparable. Therefore, how can even one really censor J.K Rowling, as our friends seem to be assuring us is about to happen any moment now? Indeed! It seems as if any dissenting opinion is shut down, called out, etc, and that's in the good case, where it doesn't result in violence - not that speech in itself isn't violence.

Inno's right. Rowling was forced to be transphobic.

Public speech itself is not violence. If you think it his, mature and grow a thicker skin. Furthermore, she has a right to be "transphobic". Or anti-gay. Or anti-any religion. Or anti-atheist. Or xenophobic. Or even racist. Or a nazi. Or none of these things at all. That's the idea of freedom of speech. More than that, that's the idea of freedom of belief.
Just as you have a right to be any of these things, or none of them, or any other, when expression opinions. Even a right to call her any of these things: that too is a right of opinion, your opinion. Not a fact. If freedom of opinion is not maintained, who long until someone comes after you for your opinions? Will you always be part of the dominant tribe of the time and place?

Ultimately, she is what she is. You think her speech dangerous, but what do you want to do about it? Censor it, at least Tolina admits the unspoken login of this "denounce hate speech" thing. Then think through it...

Lets put Rowling aside. Suppose a clear-cut case of "hate" against trans people. Westboro baptist style. Suppose you are a militant new liberal who managed to successfully push for laws making "hate speech" punishable. How would you go about punishing it? You deliver a court order: be silent. They ignore it. You fine them. They resist paying the fine. So you order police with guns, tasers or big sticks to collect it by force. The get poorer, hate you even more and speak even more against you. Again, you order more police to drag them into prison. Now you're happy and feel all fuzzy inside?
Perhaps in between you manage to attend a few rallies about the abuse of force by the police, chant "defund the police" and protest against the high incarceration rate of the country?

You remember when I questioned here the "liberals" who cheered the war on Libya alleging that it was about "liberating the people of Libya"? The one that produced its never-ending civil war and the current outright slave trade there?
That was because I get pissed at people who engage in politics without thinking through the consequences. The consequences of "humanitarian war" were death and destruction. The consequences of carrying out a campaign for bans on "hate speech" will be institutionalized censorship and suppression of civil libertines, necessarily with a heavier police state to enforce those. And who gets to wield this power is not a given. You think you're doing a good thing by jumping on the "evil hate speech, should be banned" bandwagon? Think through its logical requirements and consequences.

 

[Crezth]

If freedom of opinion is not maintained, who long until someone comes after you for your opinions?

It always astonishes me how you can summon such hysterical examples when dealing with people for whom the threat of being carried off by armed thugs in the night does exist and it’s not coming from people who believe hate speech is real.

 

[innonimatu]

It always astonishes me how you can summon such hysterical examples when dealing with people for whom the threat of being carried off by armed thugs in the night does exist and it’s not coming from people who believe hate speech is real.

Because you better have the foresight to avoid "hysterical examples" becoming a reality. You don't want to create a society where someday the police coming in the night for the crime of having a wrong opinion.
I'm sure that those "humanitarian" warmongers would dismiss as hysterical the possibility of their humanitarian war resulting in a 21st century slave trade. It did. If you think doing censorship - just for the "good causes" - is a good idea, I invite you to think harder. But will say no more.

 

[Crezth]

Because you better have the foresight to avoid "hysterical examples" becoming a reality. You don't want to create a society where someday the police coming in the night for the crime of having a wrong opinion.
I'm sure that those "humanitarian" warmongers would dismiss as hysterical the possibility of their humanitarian war resulting in a 21st century slave trade. It did.

You know this already happens, right? In America you can be disappeared in the night for expressing anti-government opinions, and the government is not required to notify anyone nor, indeed, present charges. It's furthermore the case that you can be disappeared in the night by non-government actors, motivated by hatred. This hypothetical fear you're pitching of a society where you can be dragged off for expressing opinions is already the reality, and the threat virtually never comes from people who think hate speech should be a chargeable offense.

Your warning is meaningless to people who are already being persecuted - not necessarily for speaking, though louder minorities are always targeted first, but for existing. You're holding up a fictional society. It's the equivalent of going to Jews on the eve of the Nazi election and saying to them "Look you may want to force Hitler to be quiet, but then you'd be living in a society where the police can spirit you away in the middle of the night." Wouldn't that be something?

 

[innonimatu]

I really shouldn't spend more thime on this thread, what I had to say has been said and there's no point repeating it. Just one more thing the, it's important. You said:

You're holding up a fictional society.

That's wrong. I'm holding up what I think is a real goal for a good society: one where differences of opinion can be freely argued over and lived with. Some actions will be deemed crimes, but not opinions. If you call it impossible and instead you fight for a society where censorship and though-crime are real, fight just over which are considered criminal, on the excuse that "this already happens", you will never achieve a peaceful society. Not through your efforts at least. The present is not the Weimar Republic. Don't make it so.

You don't hold up as an ideal or improvement o fight for what you already have. You hold up what you aspire to.

 

[Crezth]

You're navel-gazing while people die.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A whole class of hate crimes is predicated on these markers because these markers are targets for some.

We were talking about homicides specifically.

When you're doing regression analysis, you're making a best effort to find the contribution of various causal factors. So if you want to find out if transgenderism is a significant cause of risk, you need to identify other causes of risk and control for those.

Sure, but you don't want to iron out consideration of risk for groups of people who should still be relevant. If we're trying to determine risk to transpeople as a whole, we don't want to remove transpeople who don't have college degrees from consideration when looking at data. It seemed like that's what you were suggesting, but I could be mistaken.

Is it because you see yourself reflected in that image?

What I see is overt racism and hate speech from an argumentative position that only seems to care about such discrimination when it has personal impact.

In other words, abject hypocrisy (and a clear violation of RD thread rules to boot).

You said "I'm game," and proceeded to invent a stance I held and tilt at it with unexamined statistics. You couldn't have attempted to argue in more bad faith if you tried.

While it's true that I don't like sinking myself to the lows of what is quoted, I disagree that I couldn't do it if I tried.

But before riot incitement was the criteria, the criteria was that any speech which advocated violence could be made illegal.

There are very good reasons not to use such a standard.

• incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group, a protected group, or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
• assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

Arbitrary and inherently unfair. Obvious implication being that hatred against things not in this list but which are still harmful are not penalized, or receive less penalty.

You also get into the morass of arguing policy being silenced as "hate speech". We already saw that happen with James Damore. But now you're pushing policy that could easily be used to send him to jail.

Though we do agree on the hypocrisy of conservative courts. It's accurate to point out that they're only pro free speech while it fits their narrative. Quoted above also demonstrates that same hypocrisy though.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What I see is overt racism and hate speech from an argumentative position that only seems to care about such discrimination when it has personal impact.

In other words, abject hypocrisy (and a clear violation of RD thread rules to boot).

Explain to me in what way it's racist or hate speech, I suspect you can't.

The picture perfectly encapsulates the mindset of a white, well off dude who is so far removed from the topics he's debating that he can't help but make the conversation about how he feels.

What about that is bigoted? It's an observable phenomenon, one you're showing right now.

 

[Gorbles]

An interesting study of Twitter amplifying reach (of journal / paper citations, in this case).

112 papers were randomly chosen to be shared on twitter by a group with ~58k followers or to not be shared. Papers that were tweeted accumulated 4x more citations compared to non-tweeted papers over 1yr.

 

[cardgame]

@inno

an opinion, voiced, is an action and has consequences

 

[Gorbles]

You hold up what you aspire to.

And you hold up the ideal of people being allowed to be Nazis.

I mean, you literally said this. Are you unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance?

Public speech itself is not violence. If you think it his, mature and grow a thicker skin. Furthermore, she has a right to be "transphobic". Or anti-gay. Or anti-any religion. Or anti-atheist. Or xenophobic. Or even racist. Or a nazi. Or none of these things at all. That's the idea of freedom of speech. More than that, that's the idea of freedom of belief.

I mean, this is a heck of a paragraph. But, as usual, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You say people have freedom of expression, essentially. But you're saying so to argue against criticism of transphobic beliefs. You are arguing that a transphobic person's beliefs are, for some reason, more important than the people who believe transphobic opinions are bad.

And then there's the classic line, that "speech is not violence". I thought you understood history? Preaching that violence against a minority is okay tracks with violence against that minority. It normalises it.

You've cited Weimar Germany and Hitler and you still come out with "speech isn't violence". And you've call yourself an "ally", which is even funnier given these recent posts of yours.

 

[aelf]

Because you better have the foresight to avoid "hysterical examples" becoming a reality. You don't want to create a society where someday the police coming in the night for the crime of having a wrong opinion

And do you have the foresight to avoid examples of hate crimes becoming a reality? You don't want to create a society where someday the police is coming in the night for the crime of being different.

That was so simple.

 

[JohannaK]

Free speech is as fictional concept aa free markets. Neither thing exists or could possibly exist. Societies have always limited and managed what it is possible to say or not, and have actively policed its edges, government or not.

Free speech is an illusion that is condemned to end whenever a narrative wins out and censors its opposite. I would much prefer the anti-Nazis to win.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Explain to me in what way it's racist or hate speech, I suspect you can't.

The picture perfectly encapsulates the mindset of a white, well off dude who is so far removed from the topics he's debating that he can't help but make the conversation about how he feels.

What about that is bigoted? It's an observable phenomenon, one you're showing right now.

1. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech --> obviously insulting to a specific class of people on a trait over which they have no control.
2. Implies a particular class of people should be ignored in a discussion because their opinions shouldn't be relevant via insufficient experience (something you hypocritically complain about when trans opinions on are minimized in discussion)
3. Makes a blatant ad hominem proposition, which is against RD discussion rules.

It's not genuine to claim someone is "far removed" when discussion advocates that it is appropriate for general policy to discriminate against people based on "protected classes of people", which has seriously been advocated here...limiting what can be said but only about certain types of people.

What about that is bigoted? It's an observable phenomenon, one you're showing right now.

Now it's your turn. You're making a disingenuous claim. Care to explain it, in non ad-hominem terms?

an opinion, voiced, is an action and has consequences

True, but what should those consequences be and why? What are the standards?

I mean, you literally said this. Are you unfamiliar with the paradox of tolerance?

Paradox of tolerance is a strawman in context of his argument, unless I missed a claim that tolerance should be limitless.

Also tolerance and acceptance are different things.

You say people have freedom of expression, essentially. But you're saying so to argue against criticism of transphobic beliefs. You are arguing that a transphobic person's beliefs are, for some reason, more important than the people who believe transphobic opinions are bad.

It doesn't appear to me that innonimatu has advocated preventing criticism of transphobic beliefs though. Arguing against it is not the same thing as that.

And then there's the classic line, that "speech is not violence". I thought you understood history? Preaching that violence against a minority is okay tracks with violence against that minority. It normalises it.

While true, you still have to draw the line somewhere as to what constitutes "preaching violence against a minority"

I don't see where JKR did that though, did I miss one of her tweets in this discussion?

That was because I get pissed at people who engage in politics without thinking through the consequences. The consequences of "humanitarian war" were death and destruction. The consequences of carrying out a campaign for bans on "hate speech" will be institutionalized censorship and suppression of civil libertines, necessarily with a heavier police state to enforce those. And who gets to wield this power is not a given. You think you're doing a good thing by jumping on the "evil hate speech, should be banned" bandwagon? Think through its logical requirements and consequences.

We've already seen this happening in western countries to small extents.

 

[Gorbles]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hate-speech --> obviously insulting to a specific class of people on a trait over which they have no control.

It's very easy to not reply, you know. Anything you, or I, or anybody attempts in this discuss we do in complete control of our actions. The "insult" is directed at actions taken, not something that we have no control over.

If you want to quibble over the race-related association to such behaviour, then that's a separate argument. Unfortunately you seem steadfast in taking anything that could be remotely applicable to you as an "ad hominem", and invoking it as such, in a thread where you're consistently downplaying damage done to (and arguing against) trans people. I honestly wish you were more consistent in how severe you take any personal offense, vs. how you defend offense done to others.

This has been a long-term thing, yeah? The last time we all "debated" trans rights, there was a lot of theoretical pontificating on the "alleged" harm done to trans people, but as soon as someone pointed out a stereotype that negatively affected you (or others), all hell broke loose.

I doubt we're going to agree here in the slightest, but I do sincerely wish you were more consistent in that regard. You don't hold insults, or harm, for others to the same level as you perceive insults to yourself, personally.

It doesn't appear to me that innonimatu has advocated preventing criticism of transphobic beliefs though. Arguing against it is not the same thing as that.

I think inno can argue for himself. You run the risk of not understand what he actually intended to say, and even in the event there's complete 100% overlap, all I'd have to do is post it again when he posts a similar reply.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If only there were some kind of a difference between US imperialism and cancelling JK Rowling. Ah, well.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

@TheMeInTeam

1. Transpeople find misgendering and deadnaming to be harmful and offensive but yet I have a feeling you'd disagree with the transcommunity labeling that hate speech.

2. White mens opinions on matters are over represented, both in terms of topic engagement and media. There is no derth of white mens opinions, nor are they traditionally discounted or dismissed. Transpeoples opinions however are a different matter.

3. Report it then. You don't seem to be too offended or to take much issue with people coming into this forum to spread hate and bile against transpeople or black people or gay people yet you're awfully fragile when it comes to an image that directs a message you disagree with at you, which leads me to believe you only care when you're impacted.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Rowling appears to have enough visibility to be quoted by a Republican senator.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ality-bill/ar-BB15KpVS?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

Perhaps its because shes generally known as a somewhat left of centre person and a feminist but I think the right find her useful cover. They can say, 'See, its not just us that think like this'.
I'm not sure how much actual influence she has but because of her celebrity status she has a platform and notice gets taken of what she says on a scale activists and many politicians can only dream of.
She than gets upset if anyone criticises what she says.