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.
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