JK Rowling and her trans views

[KingKragen]

Not sure you're actually paying attention. The right doesn't make excuses or defend their loons. Even if they were so inclined, they're generally more interested in defending the misused tool. Remember, the left always accuses the right of blaming the individual instead of the gun. So which flimsy narrative will you espouse? Perhaps you hoped nobody would notice you're playing both sides of the fence, or was it just your haste to blindly demonize the opposition and logic be damned?

Of course the right excuses and defends the loons. In fact, white supremacy philosophy is now integral to the Republican Party political policies, along with extreme adherence to the loosest gun laws possible. GOP politicians routinely quote QAnon conspiracies. They no longer consider it anathema to be seen with white supremacist organizations such as the Oath Keepers. The GOP voraciously push back on any sort of domestic terrorism policies that they perceive as targeting white supremacist groups, who represent the biggest danger in terms of domestic terrorism. State level GOP governments are busily attacking school curricular to remove any vestige of what they consider anti-racist tenets, god forbid Little White Joe Bob learn anything negative about white people or the history of white violence against blacks.

And what happens when another white supremacist performs a target serial killing?
"Thoughts and Prayers". Frankly, the right does not give a shit.

So the gun is just a misused tool? That is quite a flimsy smokescreen. It's not a tool. It's an instrument designed solely to kill, period. And if you look at the gun violence by capita, 9 out of the top 10 are red states with the loosest gun laws. The exception, as usual, being New Mexico. And this data came from that bastion of liberal news, The Wall Street Journal.

 

[dteowner]

Of course the right excuses and defends the loons. In fact, white supremacy philosophy is now integral to the Republican Party political policies, along with extreme adherence to the loosest gun laws possible.

I'd love to see your evidence of this. Since the Republicans don't have an official platform at this point (embarrassing, but convenient for this particular argument), I think perhaps, once again, you're too busy spouting liberal talking points to note all the contradictions within.

GOP politicians routinely quote QAnon conspiracies. They no longer consider it anathema to be seen with white supremacist organizations such as the Oath Keepers.

No denying that we've got a couple morons running around. Of course, you seem to be glossing over some inconvenient truths like (to intentionally parrot your structure) liberal politicians routinely quote anti-semitic tropes. Neither side really has a monopoly on morons so I don't know that you're getting much bang for the buck with this argument.

State level GOP governments are busily attacking school curricular to remove any vestige of what they consider anti-racist tenets, god forbid Little White Joe Bob learn anything negative about white people or the history of white violence against blacks.

So you favor tailoring educational curriculums to present a specific racially motivated message? Interesting, that. I thought that was kind of the definition of racism. But this one's liberally sanctioned, so it's OK? Gotcha.

And what happens when another white supremacist performs a target serial killing?
"Thoughts and Prayers". Frankly, the right does not give a shit.

Oh, you mean EXACTLY what Biden had to say about the latest loon, so as to not upset his identity politics backers? But that's completely different, right? How silly of me not to understand.

So the gun is just a misused tool? That is quite a flimsy smokescreen. It's not a tool. It's an instrument designed solely to kill, period. And if you look at the gun violence by capita, 9 out of the top 10 are red states with the loosest gun laws. The exception, as usual, being New Mexico. And this data came from that bastion of liberal news, The Wall Street Journal.

And yet, somehow the places with the most gun violence overall are liberal bastions with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country... Paid any attention to the warzone known as Chicago recently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Strangely, I've never seen a gun walking down the street by itself. I've never seen a gun decide to kill anyone. But let's go with this terminology problem you've got with "tool". So you're upset by "an instrument designed solely to kill, period". Fair enough, we'll use your definition. Were you planning on banning mousetraps? Asking for a friend.

 

[Pladio]

Mr Herring, I presume ?
I am talking about conflating mousetraps with guns, in case anyone was confused.

 

[Stingray]

Of course the right excuses and defends the loons. In fact, white supremacy philosophy is now integral to the Republican Party political policies, along with extreme adherence to the loosest gun laws possible. GOP politicians routinely quote QAnon conspiracies. They no longer consider it anathema to be seen with white supremacist organizations such as the Oath Keepers. The GOP voraciously push back on any sort of domestic terrorism policies that they perceive as targeting white supremacist groups, who represent the biggest danger in terms of domestic terrorism. State level GOP governments are busily attacking school curricular to remove any vestige of what they consider anti-racist tenets, god forbid Little White Joe Bob learn anything negative about white people or the history of white violence against blacks.

Wow, speaking of loons... Someone's been watching way too much MSNBC.

 

[dteowner]

Mr Herring, I presume ?
I am talking about conflating mousetraps with guns, in case anyone was confused.

I wasn't the one that wanted to play word games with the issue. But if definitions matter, I can oblige. The fact that the result is fairly ridiculous should tell you something very clear about the argument that's being copied.

 

[SveNitoR]

@Ripper

Did you finish the Podcast?

I liked the last two parts, though nothing very interesting came out of them. They portrayed Rowling and her views in a fair and human light I think, and the same for the trans people she interviewed in the previous part.

I wish she could've gotten Rowling and a reasonable trans activist to talk. That would've been a good listen I think, to hear them talk calmly about their respective worries.

 

[KingKragen]

Wow, speaking of loons... Someone's been watching way too much MSNBC.

I don't read MSNBC or CNN. I tend to read financial or science/technical sources, and a few other sources that do investigative work.

For starters, here's a few sources for you,

Not a single GOP senator voted to advance a bill to combat domestic terrorism, neo-Nazism, and white supremacy in the wake of 2 mass shootings

Oath Keepers in the State House: How a Militia Movement Took Root in the Republican Mainstream

More Republicans View Right-Wing Group Oath Keepers Favorably Than Not: Poll

Trump Just Endorsed an Oath Keeper’s Plan to Seize Control of the Republican Party

But let me guess, you and dteowner will just dismiss any articles contrary to your bias and label it as "liberal" media, right?

 

[OverIt]

I don't read MSNBC or CNN. I tend to read financial or science/technical sources, and a few other sources that do investigative work.

For starters, here's a few sources for you,

Not a single GOP senator voted to advance a bill to combat domestic terrorism, neo-Nazism, and white supremacy in the wake of 2 mass shootings

Oath Keepers in the State House: How a Militia Movement Took Root in the Republican Mainstream

More Republicans View Right-Wing Group Oath Keepers Favorably Than Not: Poll

Trump Just Endorsed an Oath Keeper’s Plan to Seize Control of the Republican Party

But let me guess, you and dteowner will just dismiss any articles contrary to your bias and label it as "liberal" media, right?

For someone who claims to not read MSNBC or CNN you sure do use sources worse than them.

Propublica is not a good source:

ProPublica is the left’s biggest muckraker you never heard of - Washington Examiner

An obscure nonprofit investigative newsroom's editor in chief is paid $585,117 a year and the group gives away its online stories for publication by big-time "partners," including the New York Times, ABC World News, Salon.com and Associated Press. The 32 highly paid reporters seem to investigate...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

OK, it's biased. Is it accurate? Dave Kopel, research director at Colorado's Independence Institute, doesn't think so. He checked out ProPublica's assertions about natural gas hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, "suspected of causing hundreds of cases of water contamination."

Colorado and New Mexico officials supposedly "documented more than 1,000 cases where water was contaminated by drilling activities." Kopel called the officials. New Mexico had no fracking cases. Colorado didn't compile fracking numbers.

Kopel concluded that ProPublica cited data about contamination from every drilling-related activity in a story only about fracking.

Even MSNBC or CNN wouldnt make claims like these.

And do you have a reference to the actual bill you are referring to? I dont even know what bill that is from that article. You know, so people can look at the actual bill for reference?

The third article seems good though. I wasnt aware that that many Americans knew who they were though.

 

[SveNitoR]

I don't think propublica is a bad source:

Propublica

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[KingKragen]

For someone who claims to not read MSNBC or CNN you sure do use sources worse than them.

Propublica is not a good source:



Even MSNBC or CNN wouldnt make claims like these.

And do you have a reference to the actual bill you are referring to? I dont even know what bill that is from that article. You know, so people can look at the actual bill for reference?

The third article seems good though. I wasnt aware that that many Americans knew who they were though.

You are quoting the washingtonexaminer as a source?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, owned by Philip Anschutz, an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and has donated millions of dollars to right-leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups, such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group.

 

[Stingray]

You are quoting the washingtonexaminer as a source?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

The Washington Examiner is owned by Clarity Media Group, owned by Philip Anschutz, an American billionaire entrepreneur who describes himself as a “conservative Christian.” Anschutz is also the owner of the right-leaning Weekly Standard and has donated millions of dollars to right-leaning causes, including anti-LGBT groups, such as the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group.

You were doing OK here until you called the Family Research Council a hate group. That's hilarious. Only hardcore left wing nutjobs, like the SPLC, would call the FRC a hate group. You're using sources that are just as bad as the guy you're quoting.

Using the very same website you're quoting, you can see how much attention you should be paying to what the SPLC is saying about the FRC:

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[SveNitoR]

You were doing OK here until you called the Family Research Council a hate group. That's hilarious. Only hardcore left wing nutjobs, like the SPLC, would call the FRC a hate group. You're using sources that are just as bad as the guy you're quoting.

Using the very same website you're quoting, you can see how much attention you should be paying to what the SPLC is saying about the FRC:

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

To be fair, mediabiasfactcheck claims his source is left leaning and factually correct most of the time, while Washington examiner is right leaning and mixed when it comes to facts.

According to the same site FRC is extreme right and has very low scores in fact checking.

 

[Stingray]

Factually correct is irrelevant in that case, we're not talking about news or reporting. The situation is that SPLC claims that FRC is a "hate group". Nobody else agrees, this is a dumb and controversial claim that SPLC made many years ago.

Generally speaking, I don't actually care what mediabiasfactcheck thinks about any organization, nor do I think they're particularly correct about anything. Just thought it was amusing that the guy was citing the hardcore left-wing SPLC's claim that the FRC is a "hate group" as if it was fact, while at the same time, knocking someone else for citing articles from the Washington Examiner. Hypocrisy at its most hilarious.

 

[SveNitoR]

Factually correct is irrelevant in that case, we're not talking about news or reporting. The situation is that SPLC claims that FRC is a "hate group". Nobody else agrees, this is a dumb and controversial claim that SPLC made many years ago.

Generally speaking, I don't actually care what mediabiasfactcheck thinks about any organization, nor do I think they're particularly correct about anything. Just thought it was amusing that the guy was citing the hardcore left-wing SPLC's claim that the FRC is a "hate group" as if it was fact, while at the same time, knocking someone else for citing articles from the Washington Examiner. Hypocrisy at its most hilarious.

Personally I think it would've been a better idea for Kragen to question the Examiner editorial and its facts, rather than question the newspaper itself.

 

[JDR13]

Factually correct is irrelevant in that case, we're not talking about news or reporting. The situation is that SPLC claims that FRC is a "hate group". Nobody else agrees, this is a dumb and controversial claim that SPLC made many years ago.

Generally speaking, I don't actually care what mediabiasfactcheck thinks about any organization, nor do I think they're particularly correct about anything. Just thought it was amusing that the guy was citing the hardcore left-wing SPLC's claim that the FRC is a "hate group" as if it was fact, while at the same time, knocking someone else for citing articles from the Washington Examiner. Hypocrisy at its most hilarious.

Almost as dumb as Conservatives claiming BLM is a terrorist organization.

 

[OverIt]

Personally I think it would've been a better idea for Kragen to question the Examiner editorial and its facts, rather than question the newspaper itself.

That is what i think too. The fact the media bias site doesnt check the veracity of the claim and veto the issue back to the one in question is very suspicious. Who checks the fact checker?

 

[KingKragen]

Factually correct is irrelevant in that case, we're not talking about news or reporting. The situation is that SPLC claims that FRC is a "hate group". Nobody else agrees, this is a dumb and controversial claim that SPLC made many years ago.

Generally speaking, I don't actually care what mediabiasfactcheck thinks about any organization, nor do I think they're particularly correct about anything. Just thought it was amusing that the guy was citing the hardcore left-wing SPLC's claim that the FRC is a "hate group" as if it was fact, while at the same time, knocking someone else for citing articles from the Washington Examiner. Hypocrisy at its most hilarious.

Nobody in your biased ultra-right world agrees, yes. You seem like Overit - if you are approached with conflicting facts/opinions to your biases, then you just dismiss it as "left-wing".

FRC is a hate group when it comes to subjects such as LGBT or tolerance of other religions such as Islam or Hinduism. The current head, Perkins is a nutcase espousing moronic drivel such as that natural disasters are the result of homosexuality. There is nothing remotely rational about the FRC - they are focused on imposing their brand of ultra-right conservative Christianity on this country.

 

[Stingray]

Nobody in your biased ultra-right world agrees, yes. You seem like Overit - if you are approached with conflicting facts/opinions to your biases, then you just dismiss it as "left-wing".

Don't know what you're even arguing about. I'm fairly certain that the SPLC is the only notable group that's ever called the FRC a "hate group", and it's an actual fact that the SPLC is quite left-wing. I even linked the page showing that, from the website that you were using and linking yourself - so I assume you trust that website.

 

[SveNitoR]

I've recently listened to some podcasts/youtube clips by Richard Dawkins, and Youtube's algorithms led me down a rabbithole. I stumbled upon this clip where Peter Boghossian asks a professor of biology, who specializes in evolutionary biology, questions about sex (and to some degree gender) from a biological point of view:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfIRTqs45sU