Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Arrest me!': JK Rowling challenges Scotland's new hate crime laws


pellinore

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, pellinore said:

Tbh, I have no idea what JKR's motives might be, or what her background is. I know she gets a lot of support on Mumsnet UK: Conversations about JK Rowling | Mumsnet

Meh

Gossip isn't my thing. Just out if interest, is Mumsnet anti vax too? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pellinore said:

Ex UK PM Boris Johnson has praised JK Rowling, calling her a "modern saint":

JK Rowling just says what most people “secretly think” about gender, Boris Johnson has said.

Speaking at a conservative conference in Ottawa, Mr Johnson on Wednesday hailed JK Rowling as a “modern saint” for her stance on transgender women and claimed that her views on gender are “what 95 per cent of the population secretly think”.

Boris Johnson: JK Rowling says what most people secretly think about gender (msn.com)

Well if anyone needed confirmation that Rowling is off the deep end, there it is :w00t:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Gossip isn't my thing. Just out if interest, is Mumsnet anti vax too? 

Funny you should ask as I just reading comments in their AIBU section on just that. The comments are mixed, with some women complaining about their anti-vax husbands, and others worried their kids might grow a second head if vaccinated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Funny you should ask as I just reading comments in their AIBU section on just that. The comments are mixed, with some women complaining about their anti-vax husbands, and others worried their kids might grow a second head if vaccinated.

I kinda figured that might be the case. 

Might be good for a laugh, but I wouldn't consider it a source for information. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Might be good for a laugh, but I wouldn't consider it a source for information. 

The fact that @pellinore goes there for kicks is enough of a red flag for me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Of course she sees trans women as a threat. Why else would she perpetuate false narratives such as trans women being predators?" 

https://transcrimeuk.com/

Edited by itsnotoutthere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The fact that @pellinore goes there for kicks is enough of a red flag for me.

I think Pellinore is just a really curious person who likes many aspects to look at. Often playing devils avocado to expand the discussion. I like that Pellinore actually reads both sides of the story. Right wing detractors just  keep repeating proven lies. It's looks worse on them then that which they attack I find. 

Two pages, two links to transcrime = Agenda. Trying to paint all transgender people as criminals. Bigotry in action.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think Pellinore is just a really curious person who likes many aspects to look at. Often playing devils avocado to expand the discussion. I like that Pellinore actually reads both sides of the story. Right wing detractors just  keep repeating proven lies. It's looks worse on them then that which they attack I find. 

Two pages, two links to transcrime = Agenda. Trying to paint all transgender people as criminals. Bigotry in action.

None so blind as those that will not see.  Ignoring the facts = Agenda. But then the left are quite happy to sacrifice women and children's safety on the alter of transgerism. 

Here, try reading 'the other side of the story' , but these are the facts that muddy the fantasy. :-

https://transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/12/male-transgender-individuals-convicted-of-violence-against-women-children/

You might have to put some time aside.... It's a big list.  

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think Pellinore is just a really curious person who likes many aspects to look at. Often playing devils avocado to expand the discussion. I like that Pellinore actually reads both sides of the story. Right wing detractors just  keep repeating proven lies. It's looks worse on them then that which they attack I find.

Did Pellinore pay you to write that? lol. But yeah, I agree. He knows my 'red flag' comment was meant in jest.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No o don't think you were commenting on the same thing. I don't think you are Dawkins have anything in common particularly on this front. 

that's a very broad, assuming statement. let's dig into it. what do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

"Of course she sees trans women as a threat. Why else would she perpetuate false narratives such as trans women being predators?" 

https://transcrimeuk.com/

So using the 2023 stats, that's a violent offender rate of 0.014% of the trans population.

The rate for the rest of the population is about 3%. 

So trans people are far, far less likely (about 200x) to commit a violent offence than non-trans people.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I kinda figured that might be the case. 

Might be good for a laugh, but I wouldn't consider it a source for information. 

It's my go-to if I want to do some research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I think Pellinore is just a really curious person who likes many aspects to look at. Often playing devils avocado to expand the discussion. I like that Pellinore actually reads both sides of the story. Right wing detractors just  keep repeating proven lies. It's looks worse on them then that which they attack I find. 

Two pages, two links to transcrime = Agenda. Trying to paint all transgender people as criminals. Bigotry in action.

One of my concerns leading up to our General Election is that Keir Starmer (Labour leader) gets tripped up by the "culture war" traps being deliberately set by the Tories. They can't use their record in office (inequality up, poverty up, immigration up, schools literally crumbling, personal taxation the highest since WW2, the country in recession, local councils starved of funding, the NHS with record waiting lists, self-imposed trade barriers, international financial companies relocating, our Army smaller in real terms than it was in Napoleonic times - so they are going to fight on the culture wars. And they are making some progress. Mainly because the electorate are so ****ing stupid. At the moment, the news frenzy is about Angela Rayner (dep Labour leader) making £18k by possibly evading Capital Gains Tax on a house sale 10 years ago.

Boris Johnson using £500k of taxpayer's money to defend himself in the "Partygate" inquiry, Lady Michelle Mone making off with £3 million she defrauded the govt out of during Covid, Rees Mogg evading £400 million tax owed, a minister whose name I have forgotten using £43k of taxpayer's money to pay compensation for an offensive Tweet- all this is forgotten or not reported any more in the excitement of going after someone the working class can identify with- someone from a poor background.  

A distressingly large number of the electorate in the UK know that stats are showing the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but they can't make the connection between these two things. And if it ever looks like they are beginning to see the connection, the media throw out " it's the immigrants!", "it's the trans!", "it's the Lefties!" and like greyhounds who see an artificial hare, off they go baying for blood, forgetting who their masters are.

Lee Anderson says Tories should fight election on ‘culture wars and trans debate’ | The Independent

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Setton said:

So using the 2023 stats, that's a violent offender rate of 0.014% of the trans population.

The rate for the rest of the population is about 3%. 

So trans people are far, far less likely (about 200x) to commit a violent offence than non-trans people.

Other than suicide...

Sadly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Other than suicide...

Sadly.

Suicide is not an offence.

But your overall point is an important one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/12/2024 at 12:33 AM, psyche101 said:

I kinda figured that might be the case. 

Might be good for a laugh, but I wouldn't consider it a source for information. 

On 4/12/2024 at 12:53 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The fact that @pellinore goes there for kicks is enough of a red flag for me.

You should both look on the bright side. When we were youngsters (I'm guessing with some evidence that most UM posters are over 50, a few a lot older) we only had two genders and no choice. Now people can choose their gender- (Global Butterflies have told the BBC there are more than 150 genders BBC is STILL 'in thrall of trans lobby': Insider claims staff are told to declare pronouns | Daily Mail Online).

No one need fear being rejected or dumped again- all you have to do is re-gender, pick yourself up, and off you go again. Eventually you will find someone who accepts you as you are.

 

 

Edited by pellinore
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pellinore said:

You should both look on the bright side. When we were youngsters (I'm guessing with some evidence that most UM posters are over 50, a few a lot older) we only had two genders and no choice. Now people can choose their gender- (Global Butterflies have told the BBC there are more than 150 genders BBC is STILL 'in thrall of trans lobby': Insider claims staff are told to declare pronouns | Daily Mail Online).

No one need fear being rejected or dumped again- all you have to do is re-gender, pick yourself up, and off you go again. Eventually you will find someone who accepts you as you are.

Speak for yourself. I'm part of the under 30 crowd, so can't emphasize. But hey, look at the bright side. Now you can eat, drink, and be Mary.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Speak for yourself. I'm part of the under 30 crowd, so can't emphasize. But hey, look at the bright side. Now you can eat, drink, and be Mary.

I know, who really cares about all this? Personally, I have no interest in other people's private lives as long as they are happy. The war against 'woke' and the 'culture wars' are nonsensical, except that they are stoked by people with genuine xenophobic and racist attitudes. The UK National Trust (which looks after stately homes once owned by the aristocracy, and which have since been bequeathed to the nation) gets regular attacks because it wants to explain the extreme wealth of its previous owners was due to slavery. Apparently, to inform people of facts is 'woke'. Gets on my nerves.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 7:41 PM, itsnotoutthere said:

None so blind as those that will not see.  Ignoring the facts = Agenda. But then the left are quite happy to sacrifice women and children's safety on the alter of transgerism. 

Here, try reading 'the other side of the story' , but these are the facts that muddy the fantasy. :-

https://transcrimeuk.com/2017/11/12/male-transgender-individuals-convicted-of-violence-against-women-children/

You might have to put some time aside.... It's a big list.  

Whilst bigots like you are led by an agenda, people are out there addressing immediate threats 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/8bcaf360-d1e7-4ebb-b539-09a5f4c8268f

 

Statistically, you are more of a threat then a trans person is to women and children. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2024 at 9:36 PM, DayoOlabisi said:

that's a very broad, assuming statement. let's dig into it. what do you mean?

Either you're very slow or just don't comprehend things well. 

Dawkins is speaking academically. What you're proposing is more what he would scrape from his shoe. 

No more digging required. I suggest you don't use Dawkins for any examples regarding you're personal ideals. You're too far apart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2024 at 6:43 AM, pellinore said:

It's my go-to if I want to do some research.

LoL

Each to their own. Strikes me as a bit more gossipy than accurate. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Either you're very slow or just don't comprehend things well. 

Dawkins is speaking academically. What you're proposing is more what he would scrape from his shoe. 

No more digging required. I suggest you don't use Dawkins for any examples regarding you're personal ideals. You're too far apart. 

you're leaning back into insults, which is quite odd given how wrong you've been when attempting that before. my question was sincere. i really wasn't responding to Dawkins at all, but of course we are speaking on the same topic and i pointed out how medically and academically the terms were used. i didn't introduce Dawkins to the discussion, but merely responded to the topic. i can only guess what incorrect assumptions you are making. i've never looked to Dawkins as an example for anything. to be honest, i find him to be a mid-level intellect who sometimes makes good points and sometimes makes terrible ones.

i guess i'm done responding to you on any topic because when i willingly open up to discuss, with any detail or nuance, your allusions, you fall back into this strange insult game. can you discuss anything with any substance? you don't even know my full opinions on this topic. it is truly bizarre that you think you do. i suppose you may be accustomed to 2 or 3 types of perspectives and assume them broadly and collectively. maybe i've given you too much credit and i should stop that now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

LoL

Each to their own. Strikes me as a bit more gossipy than accurate. 

I'm joking. (Irony and dry jokes don't really work on the internet. Most posters on Mumsnet are more bat**** than us posters on UM.)

Edited by pellinore
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

you're leaning back into insults, which is quite odd given how wrong you've been when attempting that before.

Interesting interpretation. Not my recollection if you're referring to Covid. 

11 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

my question was sincere. i really wasn't responding to Dawkins at all, but of course we are speaking on the same topic and i pointed out how medically and academically the terms were used.

Dawkins already did that. What's your point?

11 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i didn't introduce Dawkins to the discussion, but merely responded to the topic. i can only guess what incorrect assumptions you are making.

I have no interest in your repetition of Dawkins thoughts. What is the point? 

11 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i've never looked to Dawkins as an example for anything. to be honest, i find him to be a mid-level intellect who sometimes makes good points and sometimes makes terrible ones.

Clearly I'm more familiar with the man and his work. I'm not really interested in hearing egos telling me how they are smarter than he is. 

11 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i guess i'm done responding to you on any topic because when i willingly open up to discuss, with any detail or nuance, your allusions, you fall back into this strange insult game. can you discuss anything with any substance? you don't even know my full opinions on this topic. it is truly bizarre that you think you do. i suppose you may be accustomed to 2 or 3 types of perspectives and assume them broadly and collectively. maybe i've given you too much credit and i should stop that now.

Honestly no skin of my nose. I just don't find your approach interesting. Yes, I'm used to limited perspectives. It's the nature of this place and quite frankly I've not seen you provide anything out of the ordinary. You just seem to want to take the underdog position and sneer at facts. That's what you did in the Covid discussion so is there a good reason I should expect more this time? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.