Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Am I the only one who thought the Harry Potter stories were an epic load of shit?

Never read them.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Never read them.

For what they are - YA fantasy - they are much better than almost anything else in the genre in every way, from plot to worldbuilding, to character development. But if you are looking for different YA, I recommend this trilogy. https://www.amazon.com/Night-Angel-T...7MJVPWS4PT4RG7

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Never read them.

The adult fixation with these books and movies escapes me. But then, the adult fixation with any sort of teen or children's media escapes me.

I'm all for Peter Pan-ism, but I prefer mine to be focused on age 18-33, not the years I was playing little league and embarrassed by my voice beginning to crack.

Decadence is worth recalling fondly. Adolescence? YMMV, but personally, no.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My kids loved when we turned them on to Seinfeld. You gonna show her that when she’s 15, or does the Michael Richards’s melt down makes that a no go?

I let my kid watch Delirious. As to the gay jokes, many are mean and dumb, such as Murphy talking about how he dislikes gay men checking out his ass. (Curious also, given he was once found in the company of a transvestite prostitute.) But the Honeymooners as a gay couple ("Norton... Norton my friend... How would you like to fuck me up the ass?") routine is as side-splitting today as it was in 1983. Why? Because it's clever. Murphy's imitation of the Norton and Ralph Cramden are spot-on, and the idea of them having anal sex, and Murphy's acting out what it'd be like, are so absurd it's impossible not to laugh out loud.

BUT, we added the caveat for the child that, "There's some homophobic stuff in here that Murphy himself would disavow today." It was a different time. But Murphy was a genius comic, and only a fool rejects art because some part of it is offensive, or the artist is offensive. Art stands on its own.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, in the near term, she will love unconditionally what we share with her. I’m
gonna wait to share content that needs her to understand things that are more complex. Even if it takes awhile, she doesn’t need to deal with a favorite author not believing her family member’s existence. She can skate until she understands the complexity for those books.

JKR is alive and well and super rich. How do we educate her? We can’t educate kids who are too young go understand.

Oh Jesus, get a fucking grip. The lady wrote books about some magic school and a bunch of wizards and shit of that nature. It has nothing to do with her years-later arguments with some trans advocates about gender issues.

Art. Artist. Two different things.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

One side of the debate is: J.K. Rowling can say what she wants about trans people and sue people for libel, but the real problem is other people on the internet. And the other his, J.K. Rowling said something I didn't like, no one should read her books without adult supervision and instruction. We're one side short of a three-way tie for last.

Again you are misrepresenting me. I did not and do not support Rowling suing people to squelch their speech. I never said I did and never said I would. You're inserting that into my argument to create equivalence between my argument in favor of free expression (w/o calls for boycotts or demands that views which "trigger" hypersensitive loons be scrubbed) and Adder's ridiculous belief he has to shield his kid from Rowling's work because of some Twitter feud in which she engaged.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I mean, likely none? Stuff that sells gets made. In this particular instance, there's a market specifically for the pushback (see, Rogan).

But you also should think about what doesn't get made because creeps in comedy make women in comedy uncomfortable and unsafe. Dave Becky (super powerful comedy manager) threatened and blackballed the women that complained about Louis CK's behavior. (See also, Weinstein).

I think the consensus was that Joey Coco Diaz was mostly joking about demanding blow jobs for stage time, but regardless, listen to women in comedy for any amount of time and you will hear them say that there's a creep problem in comedy.

I don't know who you are arguing with here. No one is against removing sexual predators from the entertainment industry.

Joey Diaz may be innocent of sexual predation, but he remains guilty of being wildly unfunny.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Specifically as to Rowling, this is the best thing I recall reading about the contretemps, but it's been a while and I don't recall much of what it said. In any event, it refutes Sebby's characterization of her critics.

Not sure I get your approach to what culture Tiny gets to like. You are going to keep the books away because of things that Rowling said later?

You've selected one of the most well crafted and reasonable criticisms of Rowling I imagine exist. Do you doubt if I chose to wade into the cesspool that is Twitter, or we'd access to Rowling's email, we wouldn't find 10 overheated, lunatic, threatening responses for each civil and well considered response?

Here's Rowling's essay: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/

I read it and find almost nothing in it offensive. It's a thoughtful piece which is open to critique. It's not some flaming jeremiad or mission statement. Where one thinks it's right, it can be acknowledged, where one thinks it's wrong, it can be critiqued. There are many points made within it.

I think the problem we have when we discuss this stuff is the marginalized and their advocates feel a level of passion that others do not. Rowling discusses trans people clinically. If you're a trans person, there's no way to discuss yourself in an entirely clinical manner. It's deeply personal, and you've been historically disenfranchised. The critic you cite does an admirable job of attempting to assess Rowling's points in an exclusively rational and detached manner, but even she admits she cannot do it and winds up including personal experience.

But she's smart. She's the kind of critic who can and should engage with Rowling. I think if you told her, "We cannot discuss issues by including personal feelings as they degrade rational conversation," she'd grudgingly agree and have a discussion exclusively on the science and data.

But she's rare. The average person - and this is a HUGE problem in the US right now - is a fool who think his or her "personal truth" (meaning their feelings, or their passion) is the same thing as science, or fact.

It's not. You have no "personal truth." Your "personal story" is irredeemably subjective. It's a narrative, of limited if any value, and not at all a clinical truth.

The common middle minded people who throw flames on Twitter or in blog posts degrade debate and impede efforts to get to truth by emoting where they should be thinking. This overheats the conversations and turns them to rubbish. Instead of an assessment of where Rowling may be wrong, there's a howling demand that everyone acknowledge she is 100% wrong and deeply flawed to have even made the points she made.

This is idiocy.

But what's worse than this idiocy is the attempt to support these howlers by mangling science to argue a person like Rowling is entirely wrong and could not have offered her points in anything but bad faith. This is where the bullshitters who write the Twitter threads often cited here do their work - cherry picking studies that support them while ignoring those that do not, creating strawmen to knock down. (This is the sort of bullshit employed to argue something like cancel culture does not exist.)

In a perfect world, voices such as the one you cited would be - in fact should be - the only ones we listen to when we consider situations like Rowling's. Unfortunately, the internet has democratized things to a perverted end where the dumbest and most intolerant voices are those who own the floor.

I think we need to instill a new form of elitism of thought online, and as I said before, this begins with mocking and ignoring the rock throwers and paying attention exclusively to critiques of the quality you've cited.

The boycotters, the deplatformers, the shouters -- they should be left to rot in the intellectual sewage drain they occupy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've selected one of the most well crafted and reasonable criticisms of Rowling I imagine exist. Do you doubt if I chose to wade into the cesspool that is Twitter, or we'd access to Rowling's email, we wouldn't find 10 overheated, lunatic, threatening responses for each civil and well considered response?

Here's Rowling's essay: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/

I read it and find almost nothing in it offensive. It's a thoughtful piece which is open to critique. It's not some flaming jeremiad or mission statement. Where one thinks it's right, it can be acknowledged, where one thinks it's wrong, it can be critiqued. There are many points made within it.

I think the problem we have when we discuss this stuff is the marginalized and their advocates feel a level of passion that others do not. Rowling discusses trans people clinically. If you're a trans person, there's no way to discuss yourself in an entirely clinical manner. It's deeply personal, and you've been historically disenfranchised. The critic you cite does an admirable job of attempting to assess Rowling's points in an exclusively rational and detached manner, but even she admits she cannot do it and winds up including personal experience.

But she's smart. She's the kind of critic who can and should engage with Rowling. I think if you told her, "We cannot discuss issues by including personal feelings as they degrade rational conversation," she'd grudgingly agree and have a discussion exclusively on the science and data.

But she's rare. The average person - and this is a HUGE problem in the US right now - is a fool who think his or her "personal truth" (meaning their feelings, or their passion) is the same thing as science, or fact.

It's not. You have no "personal truth." Your "personal story" is irredeemably subjective. It's a narrative, of limited if any value, and not at all a clinical truth.

The common middle minded people who throw flames on Twitter or in blog posts degrade debate and impede efforts to get to truth by emoting where they should be thinking. This overheats the conversations and turns them to rubbish. Instead of an assessment of where Rowling may be wrong, there's a howling demand that everyone acknowledge she is 100% wrong and deeply flawed to have even made the points she made.

This is idiocy.

But what's worse than this idiocy is the attempt to support these howlers by mangling science to argue a person like Rowling is entirely wrong and could not have offered her points in anything but bad faith. This is where the bullshitters who write the Twitter threads often cited here do their work - cherry picking studies that support them while ignoring those that do not, creating strawmen to knock down. (This is the sort of bullshit employed to argue something like cancel culture does not exist.)

In a perfect world, voices such as the one you cited would be - in fact should be - the only ones we listen to when we consider situations like Rowling's. Unfortunately, the internet has democratized things to a perverted end where the dumbest and most intolerant voices are those who own the floor.

I think we need to instill a new form of elitism of thought online, and as I said before, this begins with mocking and ignoring the rock throwers and paying attention exclusively to critiques of the quality you've cited.

The boycotters, the deplatformers, the shouters -- they should be left to rot in the intellectual sewage drain they occupy.

Again, this breaks down Rowling's open letter pretty well. She is a very good writer and glosses over a lot and concern trolls over things that are absolutely not at risk, specifically any woman's organization's funding, status, or mission, and women being attacked by men who claim to be trans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are telling people not to speak in a way you dislike.

Also, how does anyone ever learn anything if we're not allowed to share our views? You've never had an "oh, I didn't realize" experience? I remember bits of Song of the South from when I was a kid. It was normal. How am I don't to learn that it was problematic if no one is allowed to point it out?

Incorrect. I am all for sharing of views from all sides. That's been my point from the start.

I am saying that if people wish to reply to a reasonable view they do not like by demanding the speaker be silenced or made a pariah, or by amassing a crowd of knuckle-draggers to pummel the speaker with threats, they should considered what they are - morons. They're like the rabble in Idiocracy. We should ignore them. A person who is so dumb his first reaction to being offended is not to offer a countering view and leave it at that but to instead flip out and demand some retributive action against the speaker is a hindrance to evolution. We abide these people, on the right and the left, at great cost to humanity's future.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Again, this breaks down Rowling's open letter pretty well. She is a very good writer and glosses over a lot and concern trolls over things that are absolutely not at risk, specifically any woman's organization's funding, status, or mission, and women being attacked by men who claim to be trans.

Okay. The thread goes over a bunch of things Rowling said. It flags where Rowling was or may be wrong. I imagine another thread somewhere would argue with this thread.

Is this a basis to make Rowling a pariah? Is this a basis to boycott her?

Or is the more adult thing to do what this author has done - coolly take issue with numerous of her points? (Assuming he's not playing loose with studies and cherry picking points to attack and ignoring others where Rowling may have a point - a tactic many of these Twitter takedowns seem to employ.)

The crux of this "free speech" debate is right here:

1. Is it acceptable to meet views, facts, data, with countering views, facts, or data? Yes. In fact, it's desired. It's how debate and exchange of ideas enriches our understanding. It's a basic part of education.

2. Is it acceptable to meet views, facts, or data with demands that the speaker be made a pariah? In the case of someone like David Duke, yes. In very rare cases where a speaker has gone way beyond the pale and is clearly acting in bad faith for odious ends, you may demand he be deplatformed. But it's still smarter to simply ignore the person. In the case of someone like Rowling, who has merely stated an impolitic, partially flawed position, no. In that instance, the correct reply is to counter it and explain where and why it is incorrect.

This is not to say that people who wish to flip out and scream at Rowling do not have the right to do so. They do. That is free speech. They can advocate boycotts, and claim such infantile behavior is okay because they've been marginalized and this somehow confers them a unique right to behave like an ass (it doesn't, btw), but they're still asses, and they should be ignored.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Again you are misrepresenting me. I did not and do not support Rowling suing people to squelch their speech. I never said I did and never said I would. You're inserting that into my argument to create equivalence between my argument in favor of free expression (w/o calls for boycotts or demands that views which "trigger" hypersensitive loons be scrubbed) and Adder's ridiculous belief he has to shield his kid from Rowling's work because of some Twitter feud in which she engaged.

I didn't say you support Rowling. But while she uses libel law to silence critics, you side with her and other Harper's letter types in insisting that the real threat to free speech is "hypersensitive loons." The equivalence between your position and Adder's is that both are dumb takes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've selected one of the most well crafted and reasonable criticisms of Rowling I imagine exist. Do you doubt if I chose to wade into the cesspool that is Twitter, or we'd access to Rowling's email, we wouldn't find 10 overheated, lunatic, threatening responses for each civil and well considered response?

Here's Rowling's essay: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/

I read it and find almost nothing in it offensive. It's a thoughtful piece which is open to critique. It's not some flaming jeremiad or mission statement. Where one thinks it's right, it can be acknowledged, where one thinks it's wrong, it can be critiqued. There are many points made within it.

I think the problem we have when we discuss this stuff is the marginalized and their advocates feel a level of passion that others do not. Rowling discusses trans people clinically. If you're a trans person, there's no way to discuss yourself in an entirely clinical manner. It's deeply personal, and you've been historically disenfranchised. The critic you cite does an admirable job of attempting to assess Rowling's points in an exclusively rational and detached manner, but even she admits she cannot do it and winds up including personal experience.

But she's smart. She's the kind of critic who can and should engage with Rowling. I think if you told her, "We cannot discuss issues by including personal feelings as they degrade rational conversation," she'd grudgingly agree and have a discussion exclusively on the science and data.

But she's rare. The average person - and this is a HUGE problem in the US right now - is a fool who think his or her "personal truth" (meaning their feelings, or their passion) is the same thing as science, or fact.

It's not. You have no "personal truth." Your "personal story" is irredeemably subjective. It's a narrative, of limited if any value, and not at all a clinical truth.

The common middle minded people who throw flames on Twitter or in blog posts degrade debate and impede efforts to get to truth by emoting where they should be thinking. This overheats the conversations and turns them to rubbish. Instead of an assessment of where Rowling may be wrong, there's a howling demand that everyone acknowledge she is 100% wrong and deeply flawed to have even made the points she made.

This is idiocy.

But what's worse than this idiocy is the attempt to support these howlers by mangling science to argue a person like Rowling is entirely wrong and could not have offered her points in anything but bad faith. This is where the bullshitters who write the Twitter threads often cited here do their work - cherry picking studies that support them while ignoring those that do not, creating strawmen to knock down. (This is the sort of bullshit employed to argue something like cancel culture does not exist.)

In a perfect world, voices such as the one you cited would be - in fact should be - the only ones we listen to when we consider situations like Rowling's. Unfortunately, the internet has democratized things to a perverted end where the dumbest and most intolerant voices are those who own the floor.

I think we need to instill a new form of elitism of thought online, and as I said before, this begins with mocking and ignoring the rock throwers and paying attention exclusively to critiques of the quality you've cited.

The boycotters, the deplatformers, the shouters -- they should be left to rot in the intellectual sewage drain they occupy.

Back in the olden days, when the means of publication were expensive (papyrus, parchment, printing press, radio tower, broadcast studio), published takes were edited and curated. Now technology makes it possible for everyone who has an opinion to share it on Twitter or Facebook or some other social media. Complaining about this makes you sound like an old man yelling at kids not to play on the park grass. Good luck with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is this a basis to make Rowling a pariah? Is this a basis to boycott her?

Why do you talk about this like it is something that could actually happen, which she is the bigger threat to free speech? J.K. Rowling is a very, very rich woman whose writing is very popular, with more ability than most people to say whatever she wants, and lawyers who can use the law to silence her critics. It's like your house is on fire but you'd rather talk about the chance that a meteorite will destroy it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do you talk about this like it is something that could actually happen, which she is the bigger threat to free speech? J.K. Rowling is a very, very rich woman whose writing is very popular, with more ability than most people to say whatever she wants, and lawyers who can use the law to silence her critics. It's like your house is on fire but you'd rather talk about the chance that a meteorite will destroy it.

I don’t care about Rowling. She’s just a high profile example.

The point is if it can be attempted to be done to her, it can certainly savage the smaller voices of dissent: http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html

And make no mistake, to argue anything against the political correctness of the day is to be a dissenter.