Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Stevicus]

So you're okay with silencing speech, but only as long as it's speech that refers to a specific person?

Nope. Still full of buckshot, are we?

 

[Tambourine]

I'm not sure if this makes any difference, but perhaps you can elaborate and define specifically what you mean by "skin in the game." If we're talking about civil rights protesters going up against dogs, fire hoses, and jack-booted thugs, that's one thing. If we're talking about upper class special snowflakes who feel "triggered," that is yet another thing.

What "upper class special snowflakes who feel triggered" are you referring to, specifically?

Because they're going after people and not addressing issues. Their attitude is vindictive, not instructive. That's the difference.

Who is "they"? Are we talking about specific individuals, a specific group of people, or just mean spirited human beings in general?

Well, that's a rather bold assumption about someone you don't even know. Unless you can read minds, I'm not sure how you would conclude that someone does not want to be convinced that you have the right to live your life as you choose.

If you actually believed that, then you should stop talking to me, since I would never be able to figure out your mysterious thought process and never be able to understand what you're talking about.

Or we could simply infer people's positions from their behavior, their public actions, their publically confessed positions, the arguments they use to advance these positions, and the rhetoric they utilize to convey those arguments.

Either way is fine by me.

Again, if you're going to make judgments of people or draw conclusions about their character, then at least have something to back it up other than "because I say so." That's not good enough, in my opinion.

I'm not talking about you.

 

[Stevicus]

What "upper class special snowflakes who feel triggered" are you referring to, specifically?

You were talking about people having skin in the game, so I was asking for elaboration as to which people you mean. My point was this: This isn't the 1950s anymore, and J.K. Rowling (to the best of my knowledge) is neither a Nazi nor a KKK member. I suggested that those who think along such lines aren't thinking rationally, and you said "that's great talk if you have no skin in the game." I still don't know what you mean by that, although in my experience, a lot of people who embrace the "cancel culture" (particularly in academia) don't strike me as terribly oppressed or impoverished. Are they homeless, eating out of garbage cans? Are they working class, trying to feed a family on minimum wage?

If they're not truly suffering in a physical or material sense, and their only real complaint is that someone said something (not directed personally at them) that hurt their feelings, that's nothing at all like "having skin in the game."

Who is "they"? Are we talking about specific individuals, a specific group of people, or just mean spirited human beings in general?

Basically, anyone who labels someone else as a "deplorable" without an adequate explanation or justification as to why they believe that. Usually, when asked, they'll say something to the effect of "If you don't agree with me, you must be a deplorable, too." If you want others to think that someone is a "deplorable," then cite your reasons or withdraw. Don't just assume that everyone is going to know what you're talking about, nor is there any reason to project anything insidious about someone asking questions or making comments.

So, you have to ask yourself what the goal is. Are you only interested in ridiculing and humiliating an individual "deplorable" who upset you in some way? Or are you interested in educating society in general so as to encourage greater tolerance and acceptance? You can't do both, so which is it?

If you actually believed that, then you should stop talking to me, since I would never be able to figure out your mysterious thought process and never be able to understand what you're talking about.

Well, there's no mystery about me. If you want to know something about me, just ask.

My focus is more on class and economic oppression. All of these other issues that are addressed with "cancel culture" would probably all fall into place if we put the horse in front the cart instead of what we're doing now. If there was true economic equality across the board, then all these other issues wouldn't carry the same sting or bite as they do now.

Or we could simply infer people's positions from their behavior, their public actions, their publically confessed positions, the arguments they use to advance these positions, and the rhetoric they utilize to convey those arguments.

Either way is fine by me.

Okay, but if you're making inferences, you might still be expected to cite your reasons. I don't see how it's out of line to simply ask the question.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, I agree that the threshold is changing. I also agree that we should be debunking these ugly ideas, as you say. But that may also be a part of the problem, since the ideas themselves aren't really being "debunked," per se. They're just being reworked and repackaged.

I agree and would argue the same. Only add into the discourse the idea that these are happening for the ideas of horrible forms of bigotry such as racism (race realism) and other types of bigotry (the mocking of transsexual experiences by reducing them to mocking memes of “trans racialism” and attack helicopters or whatever is the “in” thing these days.)
This once agreed upon census of being “ugly” ideas are being repackaged to the youth as nothing more than “edgy humour” and opponents are nothing but oversensitive snowflakes. Never underestimate the power of language tools to make the populace dumber

Take, for example, a term like "white privilege," which seems to come up a lot these days, although a lot of people aren't really buying into it. That aside, however, the underlying context is that people are being classified and categorized into different "races" using the same defining characteristics as the KKK used.

I’ll admit to reacting to the idea of “white privilege” with emotion and ultimately a knee jerk reaction.
It was my fault for being a *******. I grew up on the internet, and if you can’t take 5 seconds to google a term, that’s your problem far as I’m concerned. I realise that’s my bias as I essentially grew up on the internet, and I apologise. But it’s been like how many decades now since the invention???? Come on boomers, get on board already, geez

The basic idea of otherizing and lumping people into groups is still fostered and even encouraged in the context of identity politics, so the "idea" is not being debunked at all. It's quite the opposite, actually. It's easy to say "get rid of the KKK, tear down the statues of racists, etc.," but to actually challenge and attack the underlying ideas - that's a lot more complicated and will require a lot more work. But that's a tall order in a superficial, myopic, short-attention-spanned society like ours.

I don’t see much different happening in its opposition, if I’m honest.
“I’m a black, Jew or whatever and I don’t find X offensive you damned snowflakes!!!”
I practically grew up in the “Alt right pipeline,” give me a break, mate
This is a common deflection against actual jerky-ness. People just want to be able to offend without copping flack. Times change, adapt Mate

Politics is often about persuasion, even more so than "who is right."

True. Which is why you have the Donald in charge of your nation, right?
Okay that’s not fair, ours is a complete knob too lol don’t worry.

One thing that sometimes gets missed in discussions about America's history of racism is that it's also a part of family histories as well. Very often, when the issue is addressed (particularly by white liberals), they often portray it as if they're on the outside looking in. There is apparently some disconnect between the past and present, as if they view America of the past is a completely different country.

Yeah a lot of racist idiots here too. If I’m honest. Sorry, hard transition for me it seems.

I've encountered a wide variety of opinions about Hitler myself. But as an American who grew up around ultra-patriots during the Cold War, many saw the Soviet Union as the "real" enemy. Pop culture would often mock or make fun of Hitler and the Nazis as a bunch of buffoons and imbeciles - nothing to be scared of or worried about. But the Soviets...they were the really scary ones.

Ahh this is the “Red Scare” I hear so much about right? Geez. You guys need to get out more lol

I was introduced to Hitler through the Holocaust. Both through education and a really screwed up Indie film that I was perhaps too young to be watching lol
Seriously it haunted me as a kid. Perhaps that was the point. Meh
I saw a Jewish Olympian family who’s father was frozen to death on screen naked without any of the American public censorship.
Girl please, it was shown without any “blurs” you cowards resort to in public access, just cos. Freedom of speech? Pah! Bunch of goddamned sooks you are. I saw way more on my free to air channels that were dedicated to foreign language films, than I saw on literally any one of America’s free to air channels, you goddamned pansies!!!
Kidding, see I like insulting humour too

Maybe it has something to do with America being physically untouched during the war (no German bombs fell on our soil), as well as being on the winning side. I've talked to Europeans who lived under German occupation (or their relatives did), and they have a completely different perspective than many Americans who never had to suffer through that.

Perhaps.

That may be part of what's happening now, since Americans are often insulated from things and tend to look at most events as a spectator, not really a participant. This is a common criticism against liberals who have been insulated and sheltered in academia or other such upper-class bastions. That doesn't make them bad people, but it may make them more detached and out of touch with things.

Not to be rude or anything, but whenever the US involves itself in international matters, eye rolls tend to abound.

Hitler's ideas weren't really that new or original. German nationalism had been a thing even before Hitler was born (as was the case in other countries as well). So the foundation and widespread belief in that philosophy was already there, and it was even intensified under the Kaiser during WW1. Then, after being defeated in that war and the national humiliation and resentment which followed, Hitler came along at the right time and place.

True enough. Hitler’s wasn’t the only Holocaust and his sentiments stretch back for centuries. Most prevalent the anti Semitic ideology, carried even by some Jews, it seems. You guys learn that sort of thing in history class, don’t you?

But the other side of it as also something that often gets missed. People tend to look at the charisma or individual personality of someone like Hitler, and it's sometimes treated as something mystical or something not of this world. A lot of people simply can't understand how anyone could have supported someone like Hitler (or Stalin or Mao, for that matter). Some people even ask the same questions about Trump, as they just quite fathom just how these things happen.

It is quite unfathomable. I know many history buffs and even they balk at Hitler lol.

All one really has to do is simply look at the situation which existed before these men came to power. What kind of government did they have before, and how badly did they have to screw up in order to lose so many hearts and minds to some kind of madman? When one looks at that side of the question, then there really is no mystery.

Agreed. But it seems like it is a long running joke and no one has come up with the answer yet. Maybe someday?!

Well, the world can still operate based on the principle uttered by Jefferson. It is a workable, viable system - but it comes with consequences - such as many of the ugly ideas we want to quash.

I find it despicable. Because it values money over humanity. Which, imo, sums up capitalism in a nutshell. I’m no “commie” but it’s hard not to sympathise with them whilst drowning under the woes of current capitalism.

I think there's a cause and effect at work. I've tended to believe that if there had been no Kaiser or Tsar, there would have been no Hitler or Stalin. The Kaiser and Tsar were cousins, members of the same family which included Queen Victoria and the British royal family as well. America's Founding Fathers were profoundly anti-monarchist, although a certain sentiment or legacy still remained.

Perhaps. I’m not British. But I cannot contend such a sentiment,

 

[Tambourine]

You were talking about people having skin in the game, so I was asking for elaboration as to which people you mean. My point was this: This isn't the 1950s anymore, and J.K. Rowling (to the best of my knowledge) is neither a Nazi nor a KKK member. I suggested that those who think along such lines aren't thinking rationally, and you said "that's great talk if you have no skin in the game." I still don't know what you mean by that, although in my experience, a lot of people who embrace the "cancel culture" (particularly in academia) don't strike me as terribly oppressed or impoverished. Are they homeless, eating out of garbage cans? Are they working class, trying to feed a family on minimum wage?

If they're not truly suffering in a physical or material sense, and their only real complaint is that someone said something (not directed personally at them) that hurt their feelings, that's nothing at all like "having skin in the game."

So you believe that the transgender people whom Rowling and her fans regularly harass are "upper class special snowflakes who get triggered". I guess they just aren't oppressed enough to deserve empathy or protection, therefore they only deserve cruelty and mockery.

After all, if they did not literally suffer through the Holocaust, can we really say they're oppressed at all, and not just whiny children looking for attention?

Unlike Rowling, who is very definitely the mature person here for signing a letter where authors call "oppression" when critics are being a little mean to them.

It's a good thing that honest working class poors like Rowling or Atwood are finally speaking up against this almost Nazi-like oppression of famous and financially successful authors on Twitter. Just imagine being a multimillionaire author, and people are being mean to you on the internet! If that's not the most brutal of oppressive situations, then I don't know what is!

 

[Tambourine]

@Stevicus
If there is no oppression unless people are suffering physical or material harm, then what exactly are these authors complaining about? Based on your own argument, their "oppression" is entirely fictional, and they are just upper class special snowflakes who complain about oppression that isn't real.

Why are you so overly concerned about the fictional pain of millionaires?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree and would argue the same. Only add into the discourse the idea that these are happening for the ideas of horrible forms of bigotry such as racism (race realism) and other types of bigotry (the mocking of transsexual experiences by reducing them to mocking memes of “trans racialism” and attack helicopters or whatever is the “in” thing these days.)
This once agreed upon census of being “ugly” ideas are being repackaged to the youth as nothing more than “edgy humour” and opponents are nothing but oversensitive snowflakes. Never underestimate the power of language tools to make the populace dumber

I would attack the ideas more than the individuals, though. People don't generally come up with ugly ideas all on their own; somehow they learned them along the way and it became a part of their perception of the world. There's some sort of process which takes place which somehow conditions people to believe a certain way.

I think it would be more beneficial to look at such processes more closely. I think that might be more productive than seeking to tar and feather each and every individual who falls prey to such processes.

I’ll admit to reacting to the idea of “white privilege” with emotion and ultimately a knee jerk reaction.
It was my fault for being a *******. I grew up on the internet, and if you can’t take 5 seconds to google a term, that’s your problem far as I’m concerned. I realise that’s my bias as I essentially grew up on the internet, and I apologise. But it’s been like how many decades now since the invention???? Come on boomers, get on board already, geez

I'm actually on the cusp between the Boomers and Generation X.

But again, the same basic concepts existed back in the Boomers' time, but the terminology might have been different. I don't think it matters much about what name you give to a concept; it's the concept itself which we're looking at. I think the trap that some people fall into is that they want to come up with some kind of catchy phrase or something provocative to get the public's attention, but then it backfires because everyone focuses on the terminology and argues about that instead of the actual concept they're trying to address.

It just goes along with the general trend of style over substance.

I don’t see much different happening in its opposition, if I’m honest.
“I’m a black, Jew or whatever and I don’t find X offensive you damned snowflakes!!!”
I practically grew up in the “Alt right pipeline,” give me a break, mate

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was referring the general practice of lumping people into specific groups based on the same standards and definitions which have existed for quite some time. The same perception is created in people's minds. It may not be a direct cause of bigotry and hatred, in and of itself, but it still establishes the lines within society and a certain hierarchy - even if people don't wish to be classified in that manner.

Not everyone necessarily likes to be lumped into a group, regardless of the circumstances or context. Not everyone recognizes the authority of one member of a group to speak for the entire group. Leave that to the folks on the "alt right pipeline," as you call it. That's what they do, but there's no reason for the left to adopt that way of thinking or embrace the same ideas, even if they're "reversed."

True. Which is why you have the Donald in charge of your nation, right?
Okay that’s not fair, ours is a complete knob too lol

No, it is fair, and you're absolutely right. That's another drawback of using the standard tactics of shunning and labeling people as "deplorables," because then one loses contact with them and doesn't really understand how they think or what they fear. They become more of a caricature for those who are looking from afar.

Yeah a lot of racist idiots here too. If I’m honest.

Thing is, both of our countries are by-products of a racist empire. Racism is something we inherited, and it went on and on for centuries and still has a legacy to this very day, which includes all those racist idiots you're talking about. It was ingrained in our national mindset for a long time, and this may relate to the processes I was referring to above regarding how people are conditioned to think along those lines.

Now, in a rather slow and incremental way, society has been trying to undo the damage and try to get people to see things in a different way and to unlearn all these toxic, ugly ideas. The question is: Is society using the most effective method of changing the way people think and feel? Is it even possible to do that?

Ahh this is the “Red Scare” I hear so much about right? Geez. You guys need to get out more lol

Guess you had to be there. For me, I guess it had kind of an opposite effect. I grew up with nightmares about nuclear war and hearing about "the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming," so I wanted to learn more about the Russians and why they wanted to wipe us all out.

I was introduced to Hitler through the Holocaust. Both through education and a really screwed up Indie film that I was perhaps too young to be watching lol
Seriously it haunted me as a kid. Perhaps that was the point. Meh
I saw a Jewish Olympian family who’s father was frozen to death on screen naked without any of the American public censorship.
Girl please, it was shown without any “blurs” you cowards resort to in )public access, just cos. Freedom of speech? Pah! Bunch of goddamned sooks you are. I saw way more on my free to air channels that were dedicated to foreign language films, than I saw on literally any one of America’s free to air channels, you goddamned pansies!!!

When I first started learning about WW2, it was from a very American-centered point of view. It did cover Hitler and his atrocities, but from the standpoint that "it was a good thing that we Americans moved in to save the world from such horrible creatures as Hitler."

A lot of it is also viewed in terms of how Americans tend to differentiate themselves from Europeans, where they traditionally (at least prior to the 20th century) have always been enamored with kings, kaisers, fuhrers, or any other kind of rigid, centralized authoritarian government. That's why America revolted, among other reasons. We don't bow down to any man. We don't give an oath to any man.

Some perceptions of Germany, Hitler, and WW2 seemed to be influenced by certain caricatures and stereotypes about German militarism, goose-stepping, rigid order and discipline, and "papers please" (in a mock German accent). I've also heard it suggested that countries which had been accustomed to authoritarian governments (such as Germany under the Kaiser or Russia under the Tsar) could not adjust well to suddenly becoming democratic societies, which is why they're democratic governments did not last. The idea of giving an oath to an individual did not seem strange or out of place from their point of view.

Perhaps.

Not to be rude or anything, but whenever the US involves itself in international matters, eye rolls tend to abound.

They do here, too. If not for it being so tragic, there would be some humorous irony in the fact that most Americans tend to be oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world unless it gets prominently mentioned in the media. I remember this myself back when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Iranian students occupied our embassy and held its staff hostage. One issue which was brought home was about how the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah, who led a despotic regime with many atrocities to its name. I was in high school at the time, and they never even mentioned this in any of my classes.

However, I later came to realize that the installation of the Shah was part of a larger global policy of intervening and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, happening multiple times across all continents. Some people refer to this practice as "imperialism," which is fitting, although not entirely accurate, since America is not technically an "empire." Nonetheless, we've done this to a lot of countries world-wide, and even those Americans who might be better informed on these things, there might still be a certain degree of detached indifference just the same. Sure, there are always those with a soft spot whenever they hear about starving children or things like that - then they might donate some money. But few people seem to grasp that the reason there are so many starving children and other suffering in the world is because of the global system we are maintaining (using force wherever necessary).

True enough. Hitler’s wasn’t the only Holocaust and his sentiments stretch back for centuries. Most prevalent the anti Semitic ideology, carried even by some Jews, it seems. You guys learn that sort of thing in history class, don’t you?

Yes, although it's been a while since I've been in school. I do recall that my history classes tended to be very American-centric. "We" were always the good guys, the heroes who saved civilization.

It is quite unfathomable. I know many history buffs and even they balk at Hitler lol.

Agreed. But it seems like it is a long running joke and no one has come up with the answer yet. Maybe someday?!

Actually, I'd like to think that, overall, human societies have gotten a bit better since the old days. Maybe not that much better, and there's still a lot more work to do. But we have made some progress, at least when compared with the last 100-200 years.

I find it despicable. Because it values money over humanity. Which, imo, sums up capitalism in a nutshell. I’m no “commie” but it’s hard not to sympathise with them whilst drowning under the woes of current capitalism.

Yes, I agree, and that's been the underlying issue all along. In my neck of the woods, anyone whose politics were to the left of Barry Goldwater was considered a "commie," so I never worried much about being labeled as such.

Perhaps. I’m not British. But I cannot contend such a sentiment,

I'm just glad to live in a republic and not a monarchy.

 

[Stevicus]

So you believe that the transgender people whom Rowling and her fans regularly harass are "upper class special snowflakes who get triggered". I guess they just aren't oppressed enough to deserve empathy or protection, therefore they only deserve cruelty and mockery.

After all, if they did not literally suffer through the Holocaust, can we really say they're oppressed at all, and not just whiny children looking for attention?

Unlike Rowling, who is very definitely the mature person here for signing a letter where authors call "oppression" when critics are being a little mean to them.

It's a good thing that honest working class poors like Rowling or Atwood are finally speaking up against this almost Nazi-like oppression of famous and financially successful authors on Twitter. Just imagine being a multimillionaire author, and people are being mean to you on the internet! If that's not the most brutal of oppressive situations, then I don't know what is!

It seems that you're taking a few statements out of context and working it into a tirade against me. I'm not your enemy here. There's no reason for this.

People talk crap all the time about this, that, or the other thing. But if all it is is talk, then it's just talk. If you want to boycott someone because you don't like them, then so be it. I'm not stopping anyone from doing that.

Apart from that, I think you're misunderstanding the point here. I was only trying to point out that it's better to try to look at these issues from a more rational and objective viewpoint, and you responded that it's easy to talk when "you don't have skin in the game," which you still never really clarified. "Skin in the game" from a Tweet? Is this what we're talking about here?

 

[SomeRandom]

I would attack the ideas more than the individuals, though. People don't generally come up with ugly ideas all on their own; somehow they learned them along the way and it became a part of their perception of the world. There's some sort of process which takes place which somehow conditions people to believe a certain way. .

I can respect that. I also want ideas to be challenged. But I think we can attack people who platform them, not the individual, if you get me. But their persona. Like if someone styles themselves as some kind of philosopher or prankster, I think one should bring down that facade. Expose them as well as their ideas. Does that make sense?

I think it would be more beneficial to look at such processes more closely. I think that might be more productive than seeking to tar and feather each and every individual who falls prey to such processes. .

I can agree. It’s more spectacle than anything. But spectacle can be very persuasive to some.

I'm actually on the cusp between the Boomers and Generation X. .

I was only kidding. Incidentally a lot of my own IT teachers were old enough to be my grandfather/grandmother.

But again, the same basic concepts existed back in the Boomers' time, but the terminology might have been different. I don't think it matters much about what name you give to a concept; it's the concept itself which we're looking at. I think the trap that some people fall into is that they want to come up with some kind of catchy phrase or something provocative to get the public's attention, but then it backfires because everyone focuses on the terminology and argues about that instead of the actual concept they're trying to address. .

Very true.

It just goes along with the general trend of style over substance. .

Not to be rude, but that’s kind of the impression I’ve gotten from US politics all my life.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was referring the general practice of lumping people into specific groups based on the same standards and definitions which have existed for quite some time. The same perception is created in people's minds. It may not be a direct cause of bigotry and hatred, in and of itself, but it still establishes the lines within society and a certain hierarchy - even if people don't wish to be classified in that manner.

Perhaps I was being too “niche.” I was saying that everyone seems to hide behind an “identity” in order to justify things. Whether that is to deflect criticism from an “edgy” joke or to try to speak on a group’s behalf. Perhaps this is just the latest iteration of the same repeating cycle.
But I do agree with you, people are individuals. We should treat them and critique them as such. I’m trying to stop myself from doing that.
Just something about being online makes me want to simplify things. A reflex of what I’ve been taught, perhaps?

Not everyone necessarily likes to be lumped into a group, regardless of the circumstances or context. Not everyone recognizes the authority of one member of a group to speak for the entire group. Leave that to the folks on the "alt right pipeline," as you call it. That's what they do, but there's no reason for the left to adopt that way of thinking or embrace the same ideas, even if they're "reversed." .

I feel like there is a greater instinctive need to be individualistic. And it seems to be an American thing. Just an observation, but you guys do tend to bristle at the mere thought of being in “lumped in with a group.” And yet that’s all I see from your politics. The left want X, the right wingers only care about Y. And so forth. Perhaps this is just me being too far removed but I find this to be confusingly contradictory.

No, it is fair, and you're absolutely right. That's another drawback of using the standard tactics of shunning and labeling people as "deplorables," because then one loses contact with them and doesn't really understand how they think or what they fear. They become more of a caricature for those who are looking from afar. .

Not for nothing, Trump has always looked like a caricature to me. But at first I kind of shrugged it off. Like oh that’s simply the spectacle that is US politics. For you, political leaders are like celebrities almost.
But I do agree that once you dismiss your enemies as “deplorable” you tend to forget that underneath the label, they are still a human being.

Thing is, both of our countries are by-products of a racist empire. Racism is something we inherited, and it went on and on for centuries and still has a legacy to this very day, which includes all those racist idiots you're talking about. It was ingrained in our national mindset for a long time, and this may relate to the processes I was referring to above regarding how people are conditioned to think along those lines. .

So....like institutionalised racism?

Now, in a rather slow and incremental way, society has been trying to undo the damage and try to get people to see things in a different way and to unlearn all these toxic, ugly ideas. The question is: Is society using the most effective method of changing the way people think and feel? Is it even possible to do that? .

I fear I’m not qualified enough to say for certain one way or the other. But I think we are experiencing a lot of growing pains. The times are changing and the “powerful” are not happy. I think a lot of this might be a catharsis of some kind. A loud cry of anguish bucking hard against the system, as it were.
Maybe it will continue for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will mature into something different. I’m cautiously optimistic. Because I mean you seem reasonable enough. I’m trying to be more reasonable. And probably failing, but I’m trying. Surely we can’t be the only people who are doing so, right?

 

[SomeRandom]

Guess you had to be there. For me, I guess it had kind of an opposite effect. I grew up with nightmares about nuclear war and hearing about "the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming," so I wanted to learn more about the Russians and why they wanted to wipe us all out. .

Yikes!.
I had nightmares about said Holocaust movie. Like there was this Olympian gold medalist who was in a camp. And it was snowing and I dunno he ticked off some guard or his son did. So they stripped him down, chained him to this tree. And then just hosed him with cold water until ice literally formed around him. No sombre music or even dialogue, just looks of despair and indifference from the guards. Again, perhaps a bit too young to be watching said movie but holy hell it stayed with me.

When I first started learning about WW2, it was from a very American-centered point of view. It did cover Hitler and his atrocities, but from the standpoint that "it was a good thing that we Americans moved in to save the world from such horrible creatures as Hitler."
.

Huh, interesting. I know you supplied us and we thank you, but I learnt that America considered it more of a European conflict so weirdly stayed out of the drama as much as possible. Still battle weary and worn out from WWI. Until like Pearl Harbour obviously. I recall a little bit of grumbling from one of my teachers. Something to the effect of, “oh the US are perfectly okay to use our troops for their conflicts. But when America had a chance to be the world heroes they are so desperate to see themselves as. Bloody typical they waited until it actually affected them.”
Though that’s interesting. I always hear about the US system being so “Americanfied” that the education always has an underlying patriotic and dishonest, if I may say so, message. That you guys are always the heroes. Do you think that might make people more instinctually defensive towards criticisms against America? I mean if that’s what you’re taught in school, how accurate are your teachings about your deified founding fathers?
Also, really random, but you guys have flags like everywhere. Like everywhere.

The only thing that comes close for me in my education system was the “ANZAC legend.” But even as we were taught to hail them as heroes. There was also a sense of despair, like yeah they survived and good on those brave diggers. But why? They fought in a senseless depraved war and for what?
Our history was very critical of our nation and especially England in hindsight. We were taught to mock ourselves and that history was ugly. Interesting but ugly.

A lot of it is also viewed in terms of how Americans tend to differentiate themselves from Europeans, where they traditionally (at least prior to the 20th century) have always been enamored with kings, kaisers, fuhrers, or any other kind of rigid, centralized authoritarian government. That's why America revolted, among other reasons. We don't bow down to any man. We don't give an oath to any man. .

But you give oath to a flag? And you guys hero worship your political leaders, those you agree with anyway. Is that a fair statement? I’m just saying, that’s what I’ve observed.

Some perceptions of Germany, Hitler, and WW2 seemed to be influenced by certain caricatures and stereotypes about German militarism, goose-stepping, rigid order and discipline, and "papers please" (in a mock German accent). I've also heard it suggested that countries which had been accustomed to authoritarian governments (such as Germany under the Kaiser or Russia under the Tsar) could not adjust well to suddenly becoming democratic societies, which is why they're democratic governments did not last. The idea of giving an oath to an individual did not seem strange or out of place from their point of view.
.

Hmm, I suppose. But isn’t there like this famous thought experiment? Go back to the 20s and tell a well educated and travelled individual that in less than 30 years a European country would be responsible for a massive scale wholesale slaughter of Jews. Then invite said contemporary to take a guess as to which country you were speaking of. They might say France due to a massive outbreak of anti Semitic violence recently. But Germany would not be readily considered because of its relatively acculturated Jewish population and democratic culture. I mean France had its monarchs too, they just eventually chopped off all their heads lol

They do here, too. If not for it being so tragic, there would be some humorous irony in the fact that most Americans tend to be oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world unless it gets prominently mentioned in the media. I remember this myself back when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Iranian students occupied our embassy and held its staff hostage. One issue which was brought home was about how the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah, who led a despotic regime with many atrocities to its name. I was in high school at the time, and they never even mentioned this in any of my classes.

However, I later came to realize that the installation of the Shah was part of a larger global policy of intervening and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, happening multiple times across all continents. Some people refer to this practice as "imperialism," which is fitting, although not entirely accurate, since America is not technically an "empire." Nonetheless, we've done this to a lot of countries world-wide, and even those Americans who might be better informed on these things, there might still be a certain degree of detached indifference just the same. Sure, there are always those with a soft spot whenever they hear about starving children or things like that - then they might donate some money. But few people seem to grasp that the reason there are so many starving children and other suffering in the world is because of the global system we are maintaining (using force wherever necessary). .

See, that’s interesting. Troubling but interesting nonetheless. The global consequences of America was often a topic in my modern history class. I certainly remember that being the lens through which we discussed the events following 9/11. At least after the initial shock wore off.
Again not to be rude, and not directing this at you specifically. You’re cool. But you guys are constantly screwing over other countries and then cry foul when others criticise America’s actions. As if the actions of Trump shouldn’t concern us as it’s “none of our business.” We are your allies and we will support your wars, I mean we still sent troops when Bush asked us. So I dunno, it’s like we always respond with “certainly seems like our business to us.”

Yes, although it's been a while since I've been in school. I do recall that my history classes tended to be very American-centric. "We" were always the good guys, the heroes who saved civilization.
.

More blind patriotism I see. You know for a country that prides itself on being free to criticise its government until the cows come home, I’m not seeing a lot of honest introspection being taught. Just being the hero of your own self insert fanfic. No offence.

Actually, I'd like to think that, overall, human societies have gotten a bit better since the old days. Maybe not that much better, and there's still a lot more work to do. But we have made some progress, at least when compared with the last 100-200 years.
.

I think so too.

Yes, I agree, and that's been the underlying issue all along. In my neck of the woods, anyone whose politics were to the left of Barry Goldwater was considered a "commie," so I never worried much about being labeled as such.
.

Sorry, who’s Barry Goldwater? I think I might be an Anarchist?? I dunno, politics was never my forte.
Though I’ve been called a neo marxist on here, even though I haven’t even read his theory. (I’ll get to it, honest.)

I'm just glad to live in a republic and not a monarchy.

I don’t think anyone in the West lives in a Monarchy anymore. Even the Queen of England is nothing more than a celebrity from a bygone era. But that’s just the impression I get from England living relatives, so I dunno.
Also isn’t it perspective?
I mean Cromwell’s puritan government were so stifling that England restored the monarchy so they could celebrate Christmas and play sport lol

 

[Tambourine]

It seems that you're taking a few statements out of context and working it into a tirade against me. I'm not your enemy here. There's no reason for this.

People talk crap all the time about this, that, or the other thing. But if all it is is talk, then it's just talk. If you want to boycott someone because you don't like them, then so be it. I'm not stopping anyone from doing that.

Apart from that, I think you're misunderstanding the point here. I was only trying to point out that it's better to try to look at these issues from a more rational and objective viewpoint, and you responded that it's easy to talk when "you don't have skin in the game," which you still never really clarified. "Skin in the game" from a Tweet? Is this what we're talking about here?

According to your own argument, any oppression that's not literally physically damaging a person is not real. So based on that, I think we can safely say that censorship on the internet, harassment, cancel culture etc. is not real oppression.

In light of that, do you still believe that the hurt fee-fees of millionaire celebrity authors qualify as "physical and material harm"? Or would you rather characterise the letter they signed as "upper class snow flakes being triggered"?

 

[Tambourine]

Apart from that, I think you're misunderstanding the point here. I was only trying to point out that it's better to try to look at these issues from a more rational and objective viewpoint, and you responded that it's easy to talk when "you don't have skin in the game," which you still never really clarified. "Skin in the game" from a Tweet? Is this what we're talking about here?

Some examples of triggered upper class tranny snowflakes who don't know that they aren't being oppressed for real
More triggered upper class snowflakes that are pretending to be oppressed
Triggered British snowflakes who are faking oppression for the media attention

Really, when will these upper class twists stop and realize that only class struggle is real, and that bigotry based on culturally constructed identities such as racism, homophobia and transphobia aren't real any more?

 

[Stevicus]

According to your own argument, any oppression that's not literally physically damaging a person is not real. So based on that, I think we can safely say that censorship on the internet, harassment, cancel culture etc. is not real oppression.

I never said it was "oppression." I said it was unwise and impractical as a political tactic.

In light of that, do you still believe that the hurt fee-fees of millionaire celebrity authors qualify as "physical and material harm"?

"Still believe"? I never did believe that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Or would you rather characterise the letter they signed as "upper class snow flakes being triggered"?

Did you even read the letter?

Some examples of triggered upper class tranny snowflakes who don't know that they aren't being oppressed for real
More triggered upper class snowflakes that are pretending to be oppressed
Triggered British snowflakes who are faking oppression for the media attention

Really, when will these upper class twists stop and realize that only class struggle is real, and that bigotry based on culturally constructed identities such as racism, homophobia and transphobia aren't real any more?

These links cite acts of violence against transgender people. Did J.K. Rowling commit any acts of violence? If you're saying that she is guilty of inciting violence, then she can be brought to trial, can't she? If she didn't commit or incite any acts of violence, why are you associating her with violence?

 

[Tambourine]

I never said it was "oppression." I said it was unwise and impractical as a political tactic.



"Still believe"? I never did believe that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.



Did you even read the letter?

Would you agree that the millionaire celebrity authors who co-signed the letter constitute "upper class snowflakes", or not?

 

[Stevicus]

I can respect that. I also want ideas to be challenged. But I think we can attack people who platform them, not the individual, if you get me. But their persona. Like if someone styles themselves as some kind of philosopher or prankster, I think one should bring down that facade. Expose them as well as their ideas. Does that make sense?

Yes, for the most part. It's not necessarily openly spoken ideas or radical viewpoints from extremists. Sometimes one can find imagery from mainstream media which fosters certain perceptions and ways of thinking. For example, I've often seen tropes in movies and TV where there might be a scene of a white person getting lost in the middle of a black neighborhood where they instantly become a target. It's similar with the TV news when they cover inner city crime or gang stories, and it's relatively common to hear people recount personal anecdotes.

Even liberals might quietly talk about their fears in this regard. My mother was very much a liberal, but even she had moments such as when she went into a shopping mall in the South Central (L.A.) area which was full of black people and she instantly got dirty looks as she entered. So, she turned around and left, mainly out of fear. It's not uncommon to hear white people talk about their cities and advise people as to "which areas to avoid" due to fears of crime and violence. It's these kinds of fears which we will ultimately have to address, as a society.

I happen to think that most hatred is rooted in fear, so any kind of tactic or method which increases the level of fear in society would be counterproductive.

The haters are already afraid, so threatening them or attempting to coerce them only feeds into that fear and causes an escalation. The "cancel culture" only works for those who are public and have a reputation to uphold, but the ones you need to worry about are those you don't know about, the ones who hide in the shadows or don't reveal themselves. Or (as with recent events) they might be one of the few "bad apples" in police departments whom we don't find out about until they do something horrendous.

I can agree. It’s more spectacle than anything. But spectacle can be very persuasive to some.

It's a spectacle that may work temporarily in situations where you have numerical superiority in a group of people which already agrees with you. I'm not sure how persuasive it would be to those who don't already agree with you. It might be intimidating to some. It might scare them into silence, at least temporarily until they can find some people who agree with them.

Not to be rude, but that’s kind of the impression I’ve gotten from US politics all my life.

Well, yes, exactly. That's the problem that's been ongoing in US politics for a very long time.

Perhaps I was being too “niche.” I was saying that everyone seems to hide behind an “identity” in order to justify things. Whether that is to deflect criticism from an “edgy” joke or to try to speak on a group’s behalf. Perhaps this is just the latest iteration of the same repeating cycle.
But I do agree with you, people are individuals. We should treat them and critique them as such. I’m trying to stop myself from doing that.
Just something about being online makes me want to simplify things. A reflex of what I’ve been taught, perhaps?

It could be, although it's a phenomenon which existed before the internet. Some people have justified this mentality as a kind of "payback." They might argue that whites have discriminated against blacks for so long that a certain level of "reverse racism" is justified as a way of ultimately leveling the playing field.

I can understand the justifications, but there is still an inherent flaw in the perception of categorizing and classifying people into these identity groups. The same social constructs which have fostered racism still exist, and this is the fatal error of identity politics. Even if they believe they're justified and think that it's ultimately for the greater good, they're still stuck in that same trap and embracing a core ideal which we both agree to be ugly and repugnant.

I feel like there is a greater instinctive need to be individualistic. And it seems to be an American thing. Just an observation, but you guys do tend to bristle at the mere thought of being in “lumped in with a group.” And yet that’s all I see from your politics. The left want X, the right wingers only care about Y. And so forth. Perhaps this is just me being too far removed but I find this to be confusingly contradictory.

Well, it is contradictory, and that's the point I'm making here. Neither side really has a set of principles they stand behind consistently. There are too many exceptions and loopholes, and when called on it, they might try to play the "false equivalency" card as a way of weaseling out of it.

Not for nothing, Trump has always looked like a caricature to me. But at first I kind of shrugged it off. Like oh that’s simply the spectacle that is US politics. For you, political leaders are like celebrities almost.
But I do agree that once you dismiss your enemies as “deplorable” you tend to forget that underneath the label, they are still a human being.

Again, over the course of my life, I've encountered a lot of people who have views and attitudes similar to that of Trump. That's why I've always been flabbergasted about how some people work themselves up into a tizzy, expressing such shock and outrage over Trump. It makes me think that they've never traveled throughout the USA. They've never sat and listened to people talk about politics outside of their own particular echo chambers.

Plus, it's not always that simple. For example, most of my grandparents' generation would, by today's standards, be considered "deplorable." But they weren't one-dimensional beings, and in time, even they changed and moderated their views on a great many things. But they would still occasionally say the kinds of things which, if heard today, would trigger a Twitter storm of calling them "deplorables."

So....like institutionalised racism?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. "Institutionalized" implies something official, but this may be something deeper within the culture. Officially, the "institution" (aka the "establishment") has denounced and mostly outlawed racism at all levels of society and in all walks of life. Whatever racism still exists is, by definition, "unofficial," or something more subtle and stealthy (as you mentioned with your point about "dog whistling"). Or it might be underground, hiding in the shadows, or maybe relegated to that alt right pipeline you mentioned. Maybe it's just some kind of sub-conscious thing that exists in the hearts and minds of people, which could rear its ugly head at times one might least expect it (such as when white cops are dealing with black suspects).

That's where it can be somewhat mystifying in such situations, as if the cops suddenly forget all their training, their education, and whatever else they might have learned about the country and society in which they lived. Somehow, some of them revert into some kind of primitive neanderthal, but is it the institution which makes them that way, or is there something else at work?

I fear I’m not qualified enough to say for certain one way or the other. But I think we are experiencing a lot of growing pains. The times are changing and the “powerful” are not happy. I think a lot of this might be a catharsis of some kind. A loud cry of anguish bucking hard against the system, as it were.
Maybe it will continue for the foreseeable future. Maybe it will mature into something different. I’m cautiously optimistic. Because I mean you seem reasonable enough. I’m trying to be more reasonable. And probably failing, but I’m trying. Surely we can’t be the only people who are doing so, right?

I think a lot of people are unhappy these days, both the "powerful" and the "powerless." I think that much is obvious. I think what's disappointing is that, our society and culture seemed to be heading in a positive direction once upon a time, enacting far-reaching reforms and great changes in the hope of building a more progressive and tolerant nation. But as a country, we didn't really stay the course. Something went awry, although I have my own theories as to where we went wrong.

 

[Tambourine]

These links cite acts of violence against transgender people. Did J.K. Rowling commit any acts of violence? If you're saying that she is guilty of inciting violence, then she can be brought to trial, can't she? If she didn't commit or incite any acts of violence, why are you associating her with violence?

I know right, why would I associate someone who has publically derided trans women as a threat to her gender with transphobia and violence against trans women. It is absolutely inconceivable that Rowling would ever condone violence against people whom she considers existential threats.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you agree that the millionaire celebrity authors who co-signed the letter constitute "upper class snowflakes", or not?

Why do you use the underlined description?
Does this describe them all?

 

[Stevicus]

Yikes!.
I had nightmares about said Holocaust movie. Like there was this Olympian gold medalist who was in a camp. And it was snowing and I dunno he ticked off some guard or his son did. So they stripped him down, chained him to this tree. And then just hosed him with cold water until ice literally formed around him. No sombre music or even dialogue, just looks of despair and indifference from the guards. Again, perhaps a bit too young to be watching said movie but holy hell it stayed with me.

I don't believe I've seen that movie, although I've seen footage or read about some rather horrific events throughout history.

Huh, interesting. I know you supplied us and we thank you, but I learnt that America considered it more of a European conflict so weirdly stayed out of the drama as much as possible. Still battle weary and worn out from WWI. Until like Pearl Harbour obviously. I recall a little bit of grumbling from one of my teachers. Something to the effect of, “oh the US are perfectly okay to use our troops for their conflicts. But when America had a chance to be the world heroes they are so desperate to see themselves as. Bloody typical they waited until it actually affected them.”

The thing is, America didn't want to see itself as world heroes back in those days. Up until the World Wars, America didn't really even see itself as a world power and had no real interest in getting involved in European geopolitics. It was WW1 and later, WW2, which turned America's policies around.

In fact, Americans are reminded over and over again how "we waited too long" and chose to remain uninvolved by refusing to join the League of Nations. In today's politics, that was regarded as a serious mistake, which is the main justification for us constantly rushing in to every little situation that's out there.

Though that’s interesting. I always hear about the US system being so “Americanfied” that the education always has an underlying patriotic and dishonest, if I may say so, message. That you guys are always the heroes. Do you think that might make people more instinctually defensive towards criticisms against America? I mean if that’s what you’re taught in school, how accurate are your teachings about your deified founding fathers?
Also, really random, but you guys have flags like everywhere. Like everywhere.

In order for America to function in its role as the world's "peacekeeper" or "policeman" or "guardian of freedom and democracy" (or however anyone might perceive us), it's necessary to bolster patriotism and public support for the military and our interventionist policies.

I was responding to your question about whether or not Americans are taught about Hitler and the hateful ideology he represented, and the answer is yes, but it's done from the standpoint that it's not our ideology and had nothing to do with us. The bottom line is that it's always other people from other countries doing these horrible atrocities, not us. The belief is that "we" would never do anything like that, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity, a beacon of hope, the shining city on the hill, and so on. (And if there are any dark pages from our history, then we still attribute it to "other people," such as the Confederacy. But since "we" defeated the Confederacy, "we" are still the good guys. See how it works?)

The only thing that comes close for me in my education system was the “ANZAC legend.” But even as we were taught to hail them as heroes. There was also a sense of despair, like yeah they survived and good on those brave diggers. But why? They fought in a senseless depraved war and for what?
Our history was very critical of our nation and especially England in hindsight. We were taught to mock ourselves and that history was ugly. Interesting but ugly.

I have a problem with that approach to history, because it doesn't really teach any worthwhile lessons. It seems more melodramatic and reminiscent of comic book superheroes and archvillains.

But you give oath to a flag? And you guys hero worship your political leaders, those you agree with anyway. Is that a fair statement? I’m just saying, that’s what I’ve observed.

Well, not so much to the "flag" itself but what it represents. Political leaders are worshiped in a way similar to rock stars or entertainers. As long as they keep making hits and pleasing their fan base, they'll be worshiped, but fans can also be very fickle, too. They can turn rather quickly. Look at how Trump is losing fans and slipping in the charts.

Hmm, I suppose. But isn’t there like this famous thought experiment? Go back to the 20s and tell a well educated and travelled individual that in less than 30 years a European country would be responsible for a massive scale wholesale slaughter of Jews. Then invite said contemporary to take a guess as to which country you were speaking of. They might say France due to a massive outbreak of anti Semitic violence recently. But Germany would not be readily considered because of its relatively acculturated Jewish population and democratic culture. I mean France had its monarchs too, they just eventually chopped off all their heads lol

Well, it's hard to make any kind of predictions like that, at least when it comes to individual political systems. Our own system has checks and balances designed to prevent any one individual from taking absolute power, which is largely how Trump has been kept in check. Originally, the Founding Fathers didn't want the President to have that much power at all, but at some point during the 20th century, the aptly named "Imperial Presidency" descended upon us, so now the President holds all this power which many wish Trump didn't have.

But that's whole trouble with a society run by fear and greed and the belief that we need a strong, interventionist government to deal with all these supposed enemies and threats all around us. A widespread belief in America is that it's okay to give the government that kind of power and the benefit of the doubt wherever possible. After all, "we" would never do anything wrong or immoral, would "we"? The police are our friends, and the military and intel community are all fighting for our freedom and to keep America safe.

See, that’s interesting. Troubling but interesting nonetheless. The global consequences of America was often a topic in my modern history class. I certainly remember that being the lens through which we discussed the events following 9/11. At least after the initial shock wore off.
Again not to be rude, and not directing this at you specifically. You’re cool. But you guys are constantly screwing over other countries and then cry foul when others criticise America’s actions. As if the actions of Trump shouldn’t concern us as it’s “none of our business.” We are your allies and we will support your wars, I mean we still sent troops when Bush asked us. So I dunno, it’s like we always respond with “certainly seems like our business to us.”

Americans have kind of a love-hate relationship with politics. There are many Americans who criticize or even hate the government, but many will say they still love America itself. Sometimes, it's difficult to separate the two, especially comes to the flag, the National Anthem, the military, our foreign policy, and the various military actions our country gets involved in.

To some extent, there's a certain peer pressure at work, in order to press others to be more patriotic and loyal to America. Even many liberals and Democrats have caved in to such pressure.

I remember back in 2002-03, when there was talk of attacking Iraq over that whole WMD debacle, and the people who were the loudest warmongers would come up with the most ridiculous rejoinders when faced with someone in opposition to the war. The common tactic was guilt by association. That is, if you were against the war, it meant that you were in favor of Saddam Hussein and approved of the atrocities his regime was committing.

This was a classic tactic used during the Cold War, and in many ways, it still gets used today.

I've even seen it used among Democrats who hate Trump. Not everyone hates Trump with the same degree of zeal and ferocity as others, and somehow, even that can become a point of contention.

More blind patriotism I see. You know for a country that prides itself on being free to criticise its government until the cows come home, I’m not seeing a lot of honest introspection being taught. Just being the hero of your own self insert fanfic. No offence.

Some Americans justify it from the point of view of national self-interest. When the "freedom" and "democracy" argument falls flat, then the fallback is "this is for our national interests."

I remember this scene from the movie Missing, about an American father trying to find his son during the coup in Chile in 1973. He ultimately realizes that he's been getting the runaround and that the embassy personnel have been lying to him, so he goes to confront them. It sums up quite a bit about how Americans perceive the world. I saw this when I was still a teenager.

I think so too.



Sorry, who’s Barry Goldwater? I think I might be an Anarchist?? I dunno, politics was never my forte.
Though I’ve been called a neo marxist on here, even though I haven’t even read his theory. (I’ll get to it, honest.)

Barry Goldwater was a US politician and Senator from the state of Arizona (where I live). He also ran for President in 1964 against Lyndon Johnson. He was an arch-conservative. He was highly respected, but some of the more moderate Republicans thought he was a bit too extreme. Goldwater was quoted as saying "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." He's still very much revered here in Arizona.

When he ran for president, a lot of people were afraid he might lead us into nuclear war, and Johnson won handily.

I don’t think anyone in the West lives in a Monarchy anymore. Even the Queen of England is nothing more than a celebrity from a bygone era. But that’s just the impression I get from England living relatives, so I dunno.
Also isn’t it perspective?
I mean Cromwell’s puritan government were so stifling that England restored the monarchy so they could celebrate Christmas and play sport lol

Well, I guess one could say that a "constitutional monarchy" isn't really the same thing as the old-fashioned dictatorial monarchies they had in the past. Still, it seems rather silly to take it seriously nowadays. There are even many Americans who become entranced by the whole "royal" thing, like out of some kind of storybook.

 

[Stevicus]

Would you agree that the millionaire celebrity authors who co-signed the letter constitute "upper class snowflakes", or not?

In this particular instance, the concerns raised in the letter seem to be a general observation of the tone and direction certain public debates seem to be headed. It's not necessarily something that has personally affected any of the signers of the letter, which relates to your earlier point about those who don't have "any skin in the game." That seems to make all the difference, doesn't it?

 

[Stevicus]

I know right, why would I associate someone who has publically derided trans women as a threat to her gender with transphobia and violence against trans women. It is absolutely inconceivable that Rowling would ever condone violence against people whom she considers existential threats.

I haven't read all of the Tweets associated with her, but the bottom line is, if she's actually inciting violence and making online threats, then there is legal recourse to deal with that. If she's just spouting off BS and stating her opinion, then it has no legal weight whatsoever and has no physical power to harm anyone - at least nothing that seems readily apparent to me.

If you don't like what she said and want to participate in a boycott, that's cool. I have no problem with that; it's everybody's right.

If someone is trying to suggest that Rowling is responsible for violence against trans women, then I might ask for some basis or support for such a claim.