Why did JK Rowling get in that shit in the first place, except maybe for self-sabotage? Is she a complete idiot? Who does she think her audience is? 90%+ of people who still read Harry Potter past the age of 20 are leftists SJW trans activists. So what the fuck do you think is going to happen when you type that shit?
Rowling is a British feminist, they have such a shitty legacy that they shamed men into dying in war in exchange for the right to vote. Her being a self destructive retard is par the course for feminists.
At the end of the day the only reason the trans debate even exists is because feminists are doing a victory lap, they took over male spaces and kept their own spaces segregated. Western society was cuckolded and troons are the result of it. Remember these are the same people who fought for “equality” until it actually meant having to compete against men. Troons are a jarring reminder that women rely on government force to be “equal” so they demand government force to remove troons as well.
Then, I grew up. Now I read Stephen King (at least he got the memo, see later)
I found your problem.
Put down the blackpill. Yes she is not an ally on anything else. But people saying something you agree with when it was previously verbotten is a good thing, not a bad thing. You need this stuff to permeate the culture and the discourse to shift some normies eventually. This helps, calm down, stop ranting, and look into the things you're claiming.
Do you know what those people have to say about trans people? Me neither, because THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT IT because NO ONE CARES! (ok some of them are dead, but still, they didn't talk about it while alive)
I know exactly where Stephen king stands, so does most of this board. As though his pedo orgy shit at the end of it wasn't enough of a clue.
You know how I would feel if I dated a woman and she ended up having a dick (or worse, you know what I mean)? I'd be fucking disgusted because I am not into men.
Yes, but who the fuck brings that up unprompted, out of nowhere, in the first person. This is such a weird rant.
Put down the blackpill. Yes she is not an ally on anything else. But people saying something you agree with when it was previously verbotten is a good thing, not a bad thing. You need this stuff to permeate the culture and the discourse to shift some normies eventually. This helps, calm down, stop ranting, and look into the things you're claiming.
She’s not an ally on the troon issue either, the only way you could believe that is if you adhere to the gynocentrism that even modern “republicans” submit to. The fact of the matter is the troon issue would never exist without feminism and continually segregating female spaces after eroding men’s is the only reason the issue exists in the first place.
Exactly Rowling doesn't disagree with the trans ideology at all. She only cares about having biological women spaces. If transmen want to rock out in male spaces, she supports that. You want to be a transwomen she is fine with that. She just doesn't want them in female spaces. Rowling believes woman are super special and deserve extra special privileges.
But people saying something you agree with when it was previously verbotten is a good thing, not a bad thing.
You're right but I still want to hate the part where society somehow gives special standing to the opinion of a fucking children's book author over the billions of people who say the same thing.
The JK Rowling conversation is a very efficient way of immediately flushing out the cucks on the right though. Those supposedly independent-minded men who, as soon as Rowling and TERFs are mentioned, will immediately demonstrate their pathological determination to blindly simp for any nominally feminist woman who expresses even a single opinion that vaguely coheres with their own viewpoint, with utter disregard for both her hypocrisy and the mendacity of her motivations.
As Ahaus has already pointed out in this thread, Rowling and the other TERFs not only refuse to acknowledge the role that they and their feminist crusade played in spawining trans ideology in the first place, but she also jealously defends her own right to express unpopular views at the same time as she demands people she disagrees with be denied their own right to do the same.
And yet legions of self-professed anti-woke men will immediately and gleefully demonstrate their unwillingness to move beyond the liberal Boomer mindset with waffling equivocations such as "You can take her side on one issue while still disagreeing with her on others," as if they genuinely expect this maniacal cunt to behave like a fucking adult and reciprocate that sentiment in their direction.
The JK Rowling conversation is a very efficient way of immediately flushing out the cucks on the right though. Those supposedly independent-minded men who, as soon as Rowling and TERFs are mentioned, will immediately demonstrate their pathological determination to blindly simp for any nominally feminist woman...
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second part. I think her sex is irrelevant. They're not simping/cucking because she's a woman, but because she's a celebrity.
It's retarded both ways, don't misunderstand me, but I don't think they're simping - at least primarily - because she's a woman. She's famous, and there are plenty of people who are still celebrity cucks. They haven't escaped the appeal to authority. "A celebrity agrees with me!"
But, again, you're completely correct on the first part; it's a very useful metric, whether a "conservative" supports JK Rowling (or similar celebrities...Riley Gaines springs to mind) or not. Anyone who does, is really missing the forest through the cucktrees.
It's a bit of an IQ test, similar to breakfast question, or the ceiling bird. Can you perceive why someone is saying or believing something? Rowling clearly believes what she does on the troon issue because she's a man-hating feminist. Not on our side. She hates us. Anyone who misses that is a retard.
JK Rowling is, at best, a somewhat useful tool, but even that's pushing it. She's a rabid progressive feminist, just not a fully intersectional one. Her only good feature is that she makes the most insane Harry Potter fans seethe, and that's pretty funny.
I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon. The endless, flailing, frankly desperate efforts of some conservative men to put women who espouse rightist views on an ivory pedestal; the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth, who were all raving leftists until they discovered how much money could be made from lonely internet Stans if they just bat their eyelashes in your direction and tell you they agree with you, is a source of endless frustration for me.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are, and are frequently able to garner large followings among supposedly discerning, largely male audiences who would and do absolutely demand higher standards of proof and more comprehensive demonstrations of good faith from any formerly leftist man who professed a similar change of heart before they give him an ear.
As far as Rowling being useful, I will once again link to this tweet, which was posted after the peak of her own cancellation. She will use her influence to defend her freedom to express her views at the same time as she uses it to demand you be silenced. The more power and influence we give her, the more she has to use against us. Enough already.
There’s a lot of “conservative” men who have the cognitive dissonance that women must be protected and equal at the same time, they then let women walk all over them spewing insane feminist rhetoric because they were told it’s their “duty” as a good man to coddle women. It’s this insanity that has browbeaten conservative men with hyper liberal wives and daughters.
the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth
I think one major difference here is that these are arguably attractive thots. The kind that would have simps regardless of their politics or opinions. This is one problem.
Rowling is not attractive, she is old and looks incredibly British. She has defenders because of instinctual pro-women reflexes people have. This is a second problem.
These two problems usually are combined and the end result looks similar, but the root cause is different enough that it takes a different argument to get guys out of the mindset and out of supporting them blankly.
I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon.
Except you're the one drawing that connection. I didn't say there aren't any simps on the right (of course there are), I said I don't think that's what this is about. Because conservatives also simp for males they shouldn't. For example the non-conservatives like Peterson, Lindsay, Murray, Kissin, and all those pushing that brand of nonsense. Or, heck, people like Shapiro, or Dave Rubin.
People want to feel validated, by larger voices than their own. That's what they're often simpling for; that a famous person also shares some of their views. So they're more willing to look past their other faults, so they can continue to claim that person are Their Guy.
Again, there are those who simp for females because they're females, but that doesn't mean every instance of simping for a female is because they're female. I still don't think most people simp for Rowling because she's a woman.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are...
Are they, though? Again, there are plenty of men and women both who escape the scrutiny they likely deserve, just because they espouse some conservative leaning opinions.
Conservatives were so beaten down by the Mainstream, and always portrayed as the Other, that there are plenty who will support any prominent voice who props them up.
As far as Rowling being useful...
Which I already said she basically isn't.
My point isn't to defend Rowling - something I have not done at any point here - but to say I don't agree with your characterization that there's a large group of people on the right simping for her because she's a woman.
We're in agreement that she's shit, and the right shouldn't support her.
It's probably part celebrity and part she's female. Most guys who aren't total simps were probably raised with a little chivalry in them. So there's a tendency to try and find common ground and respect for the fairer sex.
It isn't about JK Rowling, and it isn't really about what she says. Progressives are triggered because JK Rowling doesn't parrot the party line. This threatens the malignant moral narcissism that is the core of progressive beliefs, so progressives must attack the moral agency of JK Rowling to discredit her, if for no other reason to than sooth the outrage of progressive moral terrorists.
She represents the brand she created. I work in design, and it's very obvious that Harry Potter is the reason why people go to Universal. I also know that Cressida Cowel showed up at the new Epic Park to see How to Train Your Dragon, but only actors showed up for Harry Potter.
Is this true? She wrote it, but had a whole team helping her along with extra financial help here and there from the Scottish Government. They want to own her, so they can own the product.
Rowling has F U money, and can say or do what she wants because people will still love her product. The books are the reason the movies did well. They can't push her to the side like they tried with George Lucas. Any game, park, movie, show, tea towel, or brothel with her product needs to send her a cheque for the use. She has a mountain of lawyers who can and will stop anything from being off brand. She holds the power and they hate it.
far worse, she's still making money, so all these temper tantrums mean nothing. It hasn't stopped Harry Potter at all. These power mongering thieves can't wear the IP like a skin suit, and they can't destroy the creator.
I get really tired of the creator is greatest thing. TV was created by several people back and forth. One of them grew up as a potato farmer in Idaho. Thomas Ford didn't invent the car, the assembly line, or how they worked together. He was still incredibly important, and should be praised. Edison and Tesla had labs full of people. Miyamoto can't program. John Carmack is honest about his level design skills. Disney had people working for him all the time, and his brother was the major finance guy. We make it sound like one guy did all the work of a building full of people, and it makes it difficult to recognize the work you do in real life.
Rowling is living off of her product in the way our cultures have created. The powers that be are angry, because they want control over it, and she isn't following it perfectly.
You wrote a 760 word rant agreeing with a broken sentence, without capitalization or proper punctuation? I would consider it self harm to empathize with your point of view. In fact, we would all be made dumber for trying to do so.
Rowling had a crucial role in breaking the new societal consensus that was forming around the trender topic. While all of British Society was coalescing around a delusional human rights viewpoint, Rowling decided to be a stick in the mud and launched a high-profile campaign against the trender clowns and their left-progressive enablers.
By tweeting relentlessly she helped turn the tide. The fuming elites were thwarted in their efforts to reshape society according to their sickly ideals and trashy whims.
Your rant misses the mark completely and Rowling's work isn't done yet. The war hasn't been won. The trender movement continues.
Although I never personally read her books or watched her movies, I'm happy to admit that she was staggeringly successful as an author. She's a billionaire by the sweat of her own brow, so if she wants to spend her retirement shitposting on Twitter, she's earned it.
Man, sure i agree with Brad. But that is actually a hilarious comeback.
Are we sure Rowling isn't just a trolling tranny. I don't wanna admit a woman, let alone a feminist, made me laugh.
Rowling is a British feminist, they have such a shitty legacy that they shamed men into dying in war in exchange for the right to vote. Her being a self destructive retard is par the course for feminists.
At the end of the day the only reason the trans debate even exists is because feminists are doing a victory lap, they took over male spaces and kept their own spaces segregated. Western society was cuckolded and troons are the result of it. Remember these are the same people who fought for “equality” until it actually meant having to compete against men. Troons are a jarring reminder that women rely on government force to be “equal” so they demand government force to remove troons as well.
I found your problem.
Put down the blackpill. Yes she is not an ally on anything else. But people saying something you agree with when it was previously verbotten is a good thing, not a bad thing. You need this stuff to permeate the culture and the discourse to shift some normies eventually. This helps, calm down, stop ranting, and look into the things you're claiming.
I know exactly where Stephen king stands, so does most of this board. As though his pedo orgy shit at the end of it wasn't enough of a clue.
Yes, but who the fuck brings that up unprompted, out of nowhere, in the first person. This is such a weird rant.
She’s not an ally on the troon issue either, the only way you could believe that is if you adhere to the gynocentrism that even modern “republicans” submit to. The fact of the matter is the troon issue would never exist without feminism and continually segregating female spaces after eroding men’s is the only reason the issue exists in the first place.
Exactly Rowling doesn't disagree with the trans ideology at all. She only cares about having biological women spaces. If transmen want to rock out in male spaces, she supports that. You want to be a transwomen she is fine with that. She just doesn't want them in female spaces. Rowling believes woman are super special and deserve extra special privileges.
What male spaces, she doesn't support their existence though, does she?
Nope. But if she finds one, she'll fill it with he/shes pronto like
You're right but I still want to hate the part where society somehow gives special standing to the opinion of a fucking children's book author over the billions of people who say the same thing.
The JK Rowling conversation is a very efficient way of immediately flushing out the cucks on the right though. Those supposedly independent-minded men who, as soon as Rowling and TERFs are mentioned, will immediately demonstrate their pathological determination to blindly simp for any nominally feminist woman who expresses even a single opinion that vaguely coheres with their own viewpoint, with utter disregard for both her hypocrisy and the mendacity of her motivations.
As Ahaus has already pointed out in this thread, Rowling and the other TERFs not only refuse to acknowledge the role that they and their feminist crusade played in spawining trans ideology in the first place, but she also jealously defends her own right to express unpopular views at the same time as she demands people she disagrees with be denied their own right to do the same.
And yet legions of self-professed anti-woke men will immediately and gleefully demonstrate their unwillingness to move beyond the liberal Boomer mindset with waffling equivocations such as "You can take her side on one issue while still disagreeing with her on others," as if they genuinely expect this maniacal cunt to behave like a fucking adult and reciprocate that sentiment in their direction.
No. Context matters. Motivations matter.
I agree on the first part, disagree on the second part. I think her sex is irrelevant. They're not simping/cucking because she's a woman, but because she's a celebrity.
It's retarded both ways, don't misunderstand me, but I don't think they're simping - at least primarily - because she's a woman. She's famous, and there are plenty of people who are still celebrity cucks. They haven't escaped the appeal to authority. "A celebrity agrees with me!"
But, again, you're completely correct on the first part; it's a very useful metric, whether a "conservative" supports JK Rowling (or similar celebrities...Riley Gaines springs to mind) or not. Anyone who does, is really missing the forest through the cucktrees.
It's a bit of an IQ test, similar to breakfast question, or the ceiling bird. Can you perceive why someone is saying or believing something? Rowling clearly believes what she does on the troon issue because she's a man-hating feminist. Not on our side. She hates us. Anyone who misses that is a retard.
JK Rowling is, at best, a somewhat useful tool, but even that's pushing it. She's a rabid progressive feminist, just not a fully intersectional one. Her only good feature is that she makes the most insane Harry Potter fans seethe, and that's pretty funny.
I think your point about her sex being irrelevant is disproved by the ongoing conservathot phenomenon. The endless, flailing, frankly desperate efforts of some conservative men to put women who espouse rightist views on an ivory pedestal; the blind worship of obvious frauds and grifters like Candace Owens, Melonie Mac, Brittany Venti and so-forth, who were all raving leftists until they discovered how much money could be made from lonely internet Stans if they just bat their eyelashes in your direction and tell you they agree with you, is a source of endless frustration for me.
The fact is that women are given much more leeway in right-wing spaces than men are, and are frequently able to garner large followings among supposedly discerning, largely male audiences who would and do absolutely demand higher standards of proof and more comprehensive demonstrations of good faith from any formerly leftist man who professed a similar change of heart before they give him an ear.
As far as Rowling being useful, I will once again link to this tweet, which was posted after the peak of her own cancellation. She will use her influence to defend her freedom to express her views at the same time as she uses it to demand you be silenced. The more power and influence we give her, the more she has to use against us. Enough already.
There’s a lot of “conservative” men who have the cognitive dissonance that women must be protected and equal at the same time, they then let women walk all over them spewing insane feminist rhetoric because they were told it’s their “duty” as a good man to coddle women. It’s this insanity that has browbeaten conservative men with hyper liberal wives and daughters.
I think one major difference here is that these are arguably attractive thots. The kind that would have simps regardless of their politics or opinions. This is one problem.
Rowling is not attractive, she is old and looks incredibly British. She has defenders because of instinctual pro-women reflexes people have. This is a second problem.
These two problems usually are combined and the end result looks similar, but the root cause is different enough that it takes a different argument to get guys out of the mindset and out of supporting them blankly.
Except you're the one drawing that connection. I didn't say there aren't any simps on the right (of course there are), I said I don't think that's what this is about. Because conservatives also simp for males they shouldn't. For example the non-conservatives like Peterson, Lindsay, Murray, Kissin, and all those pushing that brand of nonsense. Or, heck, people like Shapiro, or Dave Rubin.
People want to feel validated, by larger voices than their own. That's what they're often simpling for; that a famous person also shares some of their views. So they're more willing to look past their other faults, so they can continue to claim that person are Their Guy.
Again, there are those who simp for females because they're females, but that doesn't mean every instance of simping for a female is because they're female. I still don't think most people simp for Rowling because she's a woman.
Are they, though? Again, there are plenty of men and women both who escape the scrutiny they likely deserve, just because they espouse some conservative leaning opinions.
Conservatives were so beaten down by the Mainstream, and always portrayed as the Other, that there are plenty who will support any prominent voice who props them up.
Which I already said she basically isn't.
My point isn't to defend Rowling - something I have not done at any point here - but to say I don't agree with your characterization that there's a large group of people on the right simping for her because she's a woman.
We're in agreement that she's shit, and the right shouldn't support her.
It's probably part celebrity and part she's female. Most guys who aren't total simps were probably raised with a little chivalry in them. So there's a tendency to try and find common ground and respect for the fairer sex.
And she doesn't disgree with trans ideology at all. She just wants women to get extra special treatment
she’s the only one pouring millions into attacking trans.
I fear it is just because of her hatred of men though
It isn't about JK Rowling, and it isn't really about what she says. Progressives are triggered because JK Rowling doesn't parrot the party line. This threatens the malignant moral narcissism that is the core of progressive beliefs, so progressives must attack the moral agency of JK Rowling to discredit her, if for no other reason to than sooth the outrage of progressive moral terrorists.
Stephen King is a terrible writer.
She represents the brand she created. I work in design, and it's very obvious that Harry Potter is the reason why people go to Universal. I also know that Cressida Cowel showed up at the new Epic Park to see How to Train Your Dragon, but only actors showed up for Harry Potter.
Is this true? She wrote it, but had a whole team helping her along with extra financial help here and there from the Scottish Government. They want to own her, so they can own the product.
Rowling has F U money, and can say or do what she wants because people will still love her product. The books are the reason the movies did well. They can't push her to the side like they tried with George Lucas. Any game, park, movie, show, tea towel, or brothel with her product needs to send her a cheque for the use. She has a mountain of lawyers who can and will stop anything from being off brand. She holds the power and they hate it.
far worse, she's still making money, so all these temper tantrums mean nothing. It hasn't stopped Harry Potter at all. These power mongering thieves can't wear the IP like a skin suit, and they can't destroy the creator.
I get really tired of the creator is greatest thing. TV was created by several people back and forth. One of them grew up as a potato farmer in Idaho. Thomas Ford didn't invent the car, the assembly line, or how they worked together. He was still incredibly important, and should be praised. Edison and Tesla had labs full of people. Miyamoto can't program. John Carmack is honest about his level design skills. Disney had people working for him all the time, and his brother was the major finance guy. We make it sound like one guy did all the work of a building full of people, and it makes it difficult to recognize the work you do in real life.
Rowling is living off of her product in the way our cultures have created. The powers that be are angry, because they want control over it, and she isn't following it perfectly.
You wrote a 760 word rant agreeing with a broken sentence, without capitalization or proper punctuation? I would consider it self harm to empathize with your point of view. In fact, we would all be made dumber for trying to do so.
J.K. Rowling is doing God's work. 😜
Rowling had a crucial role in breaking the new societal consensus that was forming around the trender topic. While all of British Society was coalescing around a delusional human rights viewpoint, Rowling decided to be a stick in the mud and launched a high-profile campaign against the trender clowns and their left-progressive enablers.
By tweeting relentlessly she helped turn the tide. The fuming elites were thwarted in their efforts to reshape society according to their sickly ideals and trashy whims.
Your rant misses the mark completely and Rowling's work isn't done yet. The war hasn't been won. The trender movement continues.
Two dicks?
Try no dick and a rotting surgical wound.
Although I never personally read her books or watched her movies, I'm happy to admit that she was staggeringly successful as an author. She's a billionaire by the sweat of her own brow, so if she wants to spend her retirement shitposting on Twitter, she's earned it.
Man, sure i agree with Brad. But that is actually a hilarious comeback. Are we sure Rowling isn't just a trolling tranny. I don't wanna admit a woman, let alone a feminist, made me laugh.