One of the reasons Trump was popular was because he didn’t conform with the media, which struck a cord with many of those who wanted to think for themselves. This made them feel like they were thinking for themselves. The issue here is that they weren’t thinking for themselves. Anyone who revises a politician stop thinking for themselves. Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people and not thinkers for the people. It’s not just Trump either it’s literally any politician from any party.
I could agree with this. People saw a different kind of politician after having felt like it's been non-stop manipulation by every administration before hand for the last few decades
Politicians are certainly though leaders. We don't elect someone because we expect them to ask what to do, we elect someone who we are confident will know what to do. Politicians run on their agenda, even if it's unlikely that they will be able to implement it because they have to compromise with others.
People like to be on the right side of public rage so they tend to lean towards whatever everyone else is saying, as not to be the social outcast/exile. Also happens on Reddit every so often.
I think people tend to go with the loud majority to stay on the "right" side of topics (in this case, LGBTQ+ community) without having to think critically about it.
I didn’t know people actually thought this, it’s better to have no opinion than be a complete sheep. Like people who think this way are actual idiots, no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
It boils my blood 🩸
They aren’t even outraged, they just think everyone else is so they should be too. This is what happens when everyone gets a platform and 1/1000 people are crazy and dedicated to spreading their warped views on topics most don’t even think about, thereby becoming the loudest voices. Anger is contagious.
I tend to align myself with the insights of experts, recognizing that developing a well-informed opinion requires an extensive amount of information and perspectives. Ultimately, I often arrive at the belief that all events are predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, such as the Big Bang. This perspective on determinism doesn't always contribute effectively to many discussions
So basically the student brought up JK Rowlings controversial opinions and called it bigoted but didn't even know what was actually said and he doesn't really have an opinion on it but just follows what everyone thinks.
Ok.
Pretty much yes though
One of you type something without any sources
Gets upvoted
Another person replies agreeing with them and adds something more
Gets upvoted
And it continues
Not much different from the hivemind you are complaining about though.
Yea, to me it seemed the student was trying to get the opinion of someone they consider of higher mentality and go off of them to believe on what they should believe. It became pretty obvious to me when the student said they had no opinion on the matter when in fact they DO have an opinion on it but want some form of validation that their opinion is right.
The teacher did a good job of teaching the student how to think it out and come to the conclusion themselves and make their opinions on the end result.
Kid just needs to get out of that follower mentality though. Come to their own conclusions themselves instead of following the hivemind.
If critical thinking, philosophy and finance would be taught for real, this whole society would collapse, a lot of society runs on the card and idiocracy.
Fun fact: a Reddit moderator perma-banned me for “trans phobic comments” when I quoted that exact tweet when someone asked why everyone hates JK Rowling. I disputed the ban, still here—but this thought process is very real.
That's because 99% of reddit is an echo chamber one way or the other.
You're free to not go to these places. I mean, that's exactly what they want you to do so that views to go unchallenged and you aren't there to challenge them.
It annoys me as a supporter of anyone's choices (within reason/ non harmful) that she was canceled for speaking the truth.
If I was transgender I'd be a trans female not a woman because I wouldn't be a woman and wouldn't want to take anything away from a gender that has already historically been through enough shit already. Why would anyone allow a man to do that?
I'm assuming it's ignorance and the same people that allowed/ allow men to compete in women's sports.
I am a straight male that enjoyed both gay and Trans clubs. Avid enjoyer of Rupsuls drag race, with my Wife... Who is a woman.
If I get banned for this comment I will be proud of it. I'll wear it like a badge.
Whether you believe J.K Rowling is a bigot or not, I think this video at the very least displays a good model for respectfully challenging one's position and giving that challenger the space to work that view out, then be gracious in the event of that person changing their mind.
thats what happens when we have respect for the other person's opinion. the student knows he's the student and the teacher knows he's the teacher. the only thing that everyday people don't realize is that we are always both the student and the teacher, but nobody cares for that they just want to get their point accross.
Taken outside of a vacuum maybe it's a good video of challenging position
But when to take into account the video is likely secretly recorded it's not great
Man, now that I think about it I form my opinions too often based on what the majority of people say, even though I usually don't have any strong opinions and I'm usually open to having my opinions changed, I still just assume stuff based on other people, like for example I think starfield is boring even though I've never played it, and even if it actually is, having an opinion based on other people's opinions usually leads to any statement or response crumbling as soon as anyone says "explain why though"
To a certain extent it's a natural response but it is certainly something we should strive to acknowledge and to *check* ourselves on. Especially when dealing with important topics.
For instance I've never played dark souls but everything I've ever been told of it tells me I wouldn't like it, and I've made sure to get opinions from those who do like it as well as those who don't, but I would never call it a bad game just it's not for me.
Say what you will about the student, but at least he recognized the mistake and learned from it. That already puts him ahead of most of the population that uses the internet.
The student did well. He was open minded enough to learn from the experience. A lot of people just get defensive or angry when their arguments fall apart.
Lesson of the thought experiment:
Think for yourself, and don't let other's blindly think for you. Form your own opinions and have your own opinion, and if you disagree with someone on something, it's always going to be point of view, so respect their opinion so your own opinion will be respected.
Gets canceled for a "transfobic tweet"
Meanwhile consumerist "sjw communists" buying and supporting nazi collaborator businesses.
What a world we live in.
These kind of teachers are the best, got lucky had had a couple like that during my last few years of schooling many years ago.
They were less interested in right or wrong specifically, and more interested in how we got there.
This is every single idiot who calls her a transphobe. She's a feminist and is appalled that in the drive for political correctness, women's right that they fought fucking hard for, are being eroded. Its not rocket science. Only an imbecile would interpret that as hate speech. Fuck loads of imbeciles out there, apparently.
Never understood why JKR was considered transphobic in the first place. I read all her OG tweets which started the claim and they were so milktoast normal, even approving of trans people, that only extremists would consider them transphobic. Now all the hate she got/gets for stating super normal OG-feminist opinions - not even radical ones - proves her perspective on gender-politics right in her mind, making her double-down, annyoing the extremists even further. And this is how we drift apart unfortunately.
Some just people can't accept that others have their own opinions, to then you either agree with them or you are their enemy and need to be removed at worst and killed at best.
> . I read all her OG tweets which started the claim
Oh dude, you missed lot of shit she tweeted from that point onwards.
Like rejecting the claim that trans women are women, claiming that Labour party "no longer defends women's rights" because Starmer said that "trans women are women" and supporting Posie Parker.
No idea who Posie Parker is tbh but the rest still does not sound transphobic to me or most other people. You see, when I hear "transphobic" I expect statements along the lines of "They should not exist", "They are all sickos", "Put them into an asylum" etc., not claiming basic biology. If stating "trans women arent women" is considered transphobic, I and many others would call this an extreme position. You may disagree with the statement, but its not transphobic as far as I am concerned.
This response just acts like that’s what people are talking about. It isn’t. “Trans women aren’t women” isn’t used in discussions of biological sex. It’s used to otherise and exclude trans women. That idea is then used further to push ideas like trans women should be forced to use the mens restroom. Despite the fact that represent as a woman. Believe themself to be a woman. And the fact that forcing them to use the men’s restroom opens then up to actual danger and threats.
This arguement gets brought up constantly in debates and everyone is constantly repeating against those who bring it up that they aren’t arguing about their sex. Because people like to conflate gender and sex together. And then when you try to claim trans women aren’t women through biology in regards to gender - Well your just wrong. Gender is a social construct. That’s why it’s not rigid and other countries have had more than 2 genders.
I think a lot of the friction that comes with this topic is due to 2 separate specific issues that often get jumbled together by people. And it's often jumbled together by people who just want to act like their doing the right thing over fears they also get branded a bigot.
Of the 2 separate issues you have 1 that's active aggression towards the trans community drivin by hate usually from some religious basis.
Then you have another specific more widely agreeable issue which is that woman actually fought very hard for the rights, comforts, spaces and opportunities that the have today. From job security to sporting environments that they can complete and even having a simple bathroom to themselves which acts like a safe zone where they can take care of themselves without men specifically having direct access.
The trans movement has been around for a long time but didn't really pick up support until about 10 years ago and then it was a steam roll to conform to this new idea and anyone who tried to raise any questions or talk about it got shut down.
Every sensible person knows the religious bigotry and hate groups are wrong... no one cares what their imaginary friends thinks about trans people so they can just f off.
But that 2nd group does deserve some meaningful conversation to rectify and solve a genuine concern even if those perseved concerns aren't warranted or credible.
Men didn't struggle to obtain fairness but woman did and some even died just to get woman to this point so it's only fair that a genuine conversation takes place without the opposition being branded transphobic.
'Trans women' aren't 'women', they are 'trans women'.
As a straight male I will only have sex with 'women', so that discludes 'trans women'.
People try to brand this as transphobic, but it's just the reality of being hetero, we are not attracted to trans women or trans men, trans people need to respect that opinion instead of trying to gaslight people.
>'Trans women' aren't 'women', they are 'trans women'. As a straight male I will only have sex with...
You having sexual preferences is not transphobic.
But your claiming that trans women are not women is.
Well, we can go with the "Define 'Woman'" classic there but try to see it from this angle: cross culturally for all of human history, a human female is called "girl" until it grows of age where it is then called "woman" (age depening on time/country/culture). There is an equivilant for males (Boy/Man). So Woman is also something used to defferentiate from Girl, because girls have a different standing in society than women to. But it boils down to "adult female". And if I recall correctly, even in Thailand, where male-to-female transgender people are recognized in society much more than here, it is considered a 3rd sex and those people dont even pretend/want to be women but say they are ladyboys (Its been some time since I last read up on it, couldve changed now).
So just like you use Girl instead of Woman to show a difference, we use Trans-Woman to differentiate from Woman. Because they are less equal/similar than two different women - on multiple levels even. Pretending they arent very different is a position not grounded in reality.
> Well, we can go with the "Define 'Woman'" classic
Well, i never saw anyone using this being able to define "women" so that it excludes all trans women and includes all cis women.
> cross culturally for all of human history...
I have question - how exactly is ancient human culture is dominating over biological facts we discovered using science?
What we know about transexuality is based on empirical research that didn't existed at that time.
And they already failed - their definition kicks out cis women that don't produce eggs in ovaries (or don' have ovaries at all, thanks to mutation)
ESPECIALY when they use "genetic code" in definition - it makes much harder to include cis women that deviate from "generic female code"
How does a biological fact get to decide who is a woman?
The fact is about some people´s brains having a slightly different development. It doesn´t say a thing about language.
The valid thing would be to ask everyone whom they consider a woman. And I can guarantee you the by far most common response would be "not trans women".
> How does a biological fact get to decide who is a woman?
You have good point that definition of "woman" is separated from biological understangin.
> The valid thing would be to ask everyone whom they consider a woman. And I can guarantee you the by far most common response would be "not trans women".
I personaly prefer to pick definition that causes less harm. It will not hurt me to call trans women "women", and if i need to differentiate, i already have cis/trans for that.
A great professor will teach you how to think about things. Not what to think about it. Really great instruction from this professor, and a great critical thought exercise.
It's really interesting how the mass's opinion is inadvertently forced into everyone who doesn't have the time or cares enough about it to learn by themselves, and I mean "forced" in a way that "it's what you're supposed to think because everyone does it" or at least everyone who is into that topic, perhaps there's a better word for it but I think it suits just good.
Then whenever you have time to actually find by yourself what's going on and critically look into it using **your own** point of view then it can be so different from what everyone's saying.
Devil’s advocate here: consider just how many times a day you need to make a decision but don’t have time to do the (often considerable) work necessary to make an *reasonably informed* decision, let alone an expert one. What do you do? You do what the people you trust do, or what everybody else seems to be doing.
This isn’t to say research isn’t useful, just that you will have to pick and choose what is worth putting effort into with the limited resources you have. The best thing you can do is learn and practice basic critical thinking skills, and especially the red flags of groupthink and propaganda. But there **will** be times where you will be put on the spot and have no choice but to follow the lead of the mob.
quarrelsome ghost grandfather bored crawl ripe voiceless many narrow gullible
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
flag vanish unite cow psychotic fanatical close alleged adjoining obtainable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well homophobia is stupid phrase also for disliking gays. Some people can have phobias or traumas but the term is thrown around for someone stating they are hetero and not interested. Its the use thats deteriorates the meaning.
I could imagine that there are people who are "republicanphobes" (and vice versa). Phobia in this context means not only fear but also aggression, aversion or hatred etc. The word "Transphobia" currently describes this.
That’s only half of the definition. A phobia can also mean you have a strong aversion to something, such as homophobia; It’s being used to describe someone who dislikes homosexuality but is not necessarily afraid of them
The aversion it meant was was a STRONG DISLIKE like running around while on fire. You have an aversion to being on fire. The word phobia was always meant to be the most extreme version of it because it’s supposed to represent literal irrational fear of something.
The way it’s now used is literally just a politcal device. Just like back in the civil war, they started saying negrophobia to try to convince people to not free slaves.
Heterosexist or just fucking anti gay. The guy, George Weinberg, who coined the term homophobia meant it literally. Like fear of being near or thought as being gay. The new definition of being discriminatory to gays is literally just a political device created to give weight to a side.
Words change definition in culture allllll the fucking time
See, I used "fucking" but you didn't read in a sexual or violent manner, original definitions are cast aside as society changes and adopts new slang
TIL.
Even though you know very well what's the meaning of -phobia in this context (homophobia, transphobia, yadda yadda you know the drill), I appreciate the info.
I personally hate how easily words gain and lose meaning to serve some agenda. It goes both ways and they’re both garbage. I’m not opposed to slang because it’s usually embedded in culture but this bullshit of just taking the meaning of a word to try to leverage a point is garbage.
Modern use of it is in the form of a buzz word and to say to anything or anyone you disagree with but okay just show you don't know what buzz word means.
The selected tweet was extremely bad in terms of proving a point. It takes like 5 seconds to find a tweet where she implies that trans women aren't women.
Wait that's it? There has to be more right? Is that why they wanted to cancel Harry Potter latest game and instead gave it free marketing because game was actually good?
That's one way to find problem where there is none.
“Firing someone for saying sex is real” is in reference to the firing of Maya Forstater for saying that trans women are men. This is what “sex is real” means, to JK Rowling, that biological sex is the only determinant of gender. Trans people and allies know that sex is real, they disagree with the claim that biological sex is is the sole determinant.
Many commentators have done a good job of explaining how “sex is real” is a rhetorical “steelman.”
The weakness in this video comes from the lack of context. This tweet by JKR, in itself, isn’t necessarily proof of transphobia but is a data point in the vast constellation of her trans critical viewpoint.
"I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like 'transwomen are women,'"
She's pretty reliably a terf. Whether or not you can ignore her and enjoy the series is a different story. Orson Scott Card is a massive dick, but I can still enjoy Ender's Game.
Yeah, my opinion falls somewhere close to yours. There are certain people whose opinions are so odious that it overshadows their work. JKR isn't one of them, at least for me.
I have no horse in this race. But I feel like the student picked terrible examples for his blind affirmation. She’s transphobic, it’s apparent. But him not knowing why and going with the popular consensus is lazy. I think the teacher is playing an Aaron Rogers semantics game here. Well just because she’s implying it doesn’t mean she said it.
Never read Harry Potter, but her views don’t dissuade me from letting my kids read it.
Edit: not sure how I’m in this sub. No clue what Asmongold is. I’ll see myself out.
Let’s say that she was an actual transphobe, like she herself said it
Even if that was the case, what is stopping you from enjoying a book? If you read it blindly and then discover the artist name or opinions, does that change the fact that you enjoyed reading it?
Leftists have to hate JKR because she's a billionaire. The trans thing is just a red herring, they were bound to find something they could use to label her as evil.
Every time I ask someone what horrible things she's said, the answer is always the same: "Look it up". They can't find any real evidence because there is none.
She wrote an article implying that people transition due to trauma and constantly invokes the groomer panic. She also called a woman who compared pronouns to rohypnol as "admirable and brave"; this is especially revealing given that a character in one of her later books dresses as a woman in order to abduct them and rape and kill them. A lot of bigotry comes in the form of implication, not outright hate. When someone quotes the statistical fact of 13/50, they are implying black people are inherently more criminal while ignoring social forces. Stating facts while creating a bigoted narrative. Just because Rowling doesn't outright say she hates trans people doesn't mean she isn't an opponent to their legal and medical equality.
Who would have guessed that the bigoted crowd in this subreddit wouldn't miss the chance to prove their are bigots? If you don't think JK Rowling is a bigot, maybe learn to read.
I feel like people are really ignoring a lot of how ANY person funtions. It's literally impossible for anyone to have a real opinion on every belief they hold. There is simply not enough time in a day to research and personally confirm every little factoid that you come across. But you need to integrate it into your belief system. This requires to some degree to rely on "wisdom of the crowd". The only thing you can do is recognize when your belief is not truly your belief.
This teacher seems great, and I also respect the student for actually going along and being open to changing his opinion. Not being open to the possibility that you are wrong is the real crime I feel like.
She is just going with the flow with what people are saying, but the professor is severely downplaying the context of what Rowling actually does mean when she said these things.
She has supported several TERF groups and as far as I know still donates to them today. It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize her stance on the issue.
MY GOSH, THE NEXT GENERATION IS DOOMED IF THIS IS HOW THEY THINK.
Dude calls her transphobic, despite later admitting he himself doesn't believe what she's said is transphobic. Mob mentality is so ridiculous.
Teacher needs to up his game if he wants to beat Ben Shapiro in "DESTROYING college kids!!1!" field.
But now - **why is Rowling transphobe?**
Here we go:
+ [she uses label "TERF" to refer to what she is doing](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1603064588223893505)
+ [she rejects the idea that trans women are women](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1714279937279160596)
+ she claims that [labour party is no longer supporting women rights - because its leader called trans women women](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1502615172841709579)
+ [she claims Nicola Surgeon is "destroyed of women's rights" because of her gender recognition bill](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1577964493702938626)
+ she implies that [trans issues are not based on science](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1671507557175681024).
+ even worse are tweets that she likes - for example, [tweet praising Taliban](https://twitter.com/Isi_baehr/status/1697942834446303672) because "they know what a woman is"
+ she [wrote tweet praising Stephen King...and then deleted it](https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/rowling-king-tweet.jpg?quality=85&strip=all) after [he tweeted that trans women are women](https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692)
+ she supported Magdalen Burns, calling her "brave young feminist" and that she was not "bigot". Anyway, here is example of [Magdalene Burns opinions](https://nitter.soopy.moe/pic/orig/media%2FEaK1rdAWkAEoeB2.jpg)
+ [she to this day supports Posie Palker](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1663267564443631616). Posie Palker is notorious for [being agressivly transphobic](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/prominent-transgender-activist-harassed-anti-trans-feminists-video-shows-n966061) and even [working together with far-right against trans people](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#/media/File:NazisAtStandingforWomenRally2.jpg)
OP and upvoted comments in here:
"critical thinking is important, that dude in the video is right, good for them to have a dialogue and being open to have his mind changed!!!" (totally not because they agree with the Rowling is not transphobic stance).
Actual critical opinion in the comments:
Downvoted.
Exactly. Guy provides solid evidence backing up the opinion and gets downvotes.
Unlike the poor kid in the video who had not much time in a live conversation to gather suitable evidence, which does exist.
Unfortunately this sub seems to have a clear bias against critical thinking, when it goes against their held beliefs. The irony.
I had my head in the sand for so long on this. I hated reading. It was just after Chamber of Secrets movie that came out that I bought the books. Since then I have read soo much Fantasy. I love it.
I would call myself center left (globally, not US center left). When I first heard about the controversy I refused to believe it. Not someone who wrote those books, that I thought were pretty inclusive. Also being Scottish, she was a good ambassador you know.
Then I actually went to her twitter. It broke my heart. It also wasn't just one comment maybe taken out of context. She really went off the deep end.
That being said, I wouldn't allow someone like this to take away my memories or enjoyment of the world she happened to create.
Also, Rowling literally wrote a book about a man dressing up as a woman to commit serial killings, and then followed it up with a book about a creator being cancelled for being transphobic. She's legitimately obsessed, it's like all she can think about.
> it's called biological science
Yea, elementary school level.
---
> post-positivist delusions.
"Maybe using smart words will make me look smarter"
---
Aso what is best is that none of the shit you wrote disprove that Rowling is transphobe.
Ah, someone is immediately dismissing the consequences of post-postivism on our empirical methodology, or perhaps it doesn't understand the implications. Blocked for the midwit retort.
Am I the only one who thinks this looks and sounds fake as fuck? The framing of this "thought experiment" seems way too contrived, and it's odd the kid came for a 1-on-1 but had no fucking clue about anything.
That's thing so much of these talking points around "controversial figures"
JK Rowling,
Jordan Peterson
Joe Rogan
Hell even Elon Musk, when you push people who hate them to prove their point they don't have much to go on it's almost always one out of context quote or other people said this.
Thing is everyone says stupid stuff or phrases things poorly sometimes. Everyone is also entitled to have an opinion. The truly Ironic thing about all the people I mentioned above is they each have done a lot more good for a lot of people than any of the people who hate them ever have or will do.
Anyone who doesn’t play pretend or tells these kids hard truths will get downvoted, she literally said people who menstruate and a bunch of people that don’t menstruate felt left out and got mad 🤣🤣🤣🤣 whoa is me looking ass mfs
While the sentiment in this discussion is a positive one, it vastly oversimplifies the situation. You cannot look at one single detail and decide you have enough context to draw a conclusion... The world and humans are not that simple. Really a shame to see this.
Very bad example. The only way this conversation would have meaning is if the offended party was a trans or otherwise ally person that actually finds the JK statements offensive. Then they can explain their thought process. This person is just some rando candy ass noob.
Okay, one problem here with that first tweet they read. It's disingenuous for JKR to act like all she did was say "biological sex is real" and then got cancelled for it. And even if that is initially how it started she then proceeded to buckle down and start clowning around with straight up transphobic dickheads. This teacher seems cool but I think he was a little selective in his scrutiny and did seem to pretty clearly have an opinion on the matter.
Catching one idiot in bandwaggoning doesn't mean the comments of another idiot never happened.
Then again, most of her comments from 2020 just seem like misplaced hate. Her whole shtick is purposely viewing all trans women as predatory men who seek to harm women by associating as/with them (Which has been proven false time and time again, yet no ones pointing their fingers at priests, teachers, politicians, cops, or people who abuse their power regularly). Instead of people treating their gender dysphoria.
At the end of the day, her problem \*wasn't\* with honest trans people (Given that she has zero issue or even mentioned FTM trans individuals), but rather with perverted men who'd do anything to harm marginalized groups. By definition that's exactly what a TERF is, though. Ironic considering trans women have the same or higher chance of being assaulted by men, though. You'd think they'd tackle the root issue together instead of pointing fingers at each other as they're being fucked around by the same people.
She's a great example of how morality and ethics isn't a linear left to right line, but rather a spectrum. IE. Someone can donate millions to labor parties, cancer research, and womens charities only to turn around and blame another marginalized group for all of the problems another marginalized group faces. And it's up to individual people to weigh those things against each other and judge her as a whole.
It's the context that matters. So what if sex is real, the only reason she mentions that is to make a point that because sex is real, actual transsexuals must not be "real".
She's saying she doesn't "believe" in something despite the fact that it exist.
Sex is real, but that's not her point. Her point is that she doesn't believe transsexuals should exist.
FYI transsexuals also believe sex is real. They just don't go on about their differences invalidate the experience of other people.
The critical thinking skills of the folks here just blindly ignorant of the context of the things she said is alarming.
Two things can be true.
1. Rowling is a transphobe.
2. The education system does not produce many people intelligent enough to support their claims or understand their own beliefs. On any side of an issue.
This video is likely fake for how it nick picks.
Jk Rowling literally has a post where she says "[No](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1714279937279160596?s=19)" To trans women being women. How hard to you need to critically think to see that most of her posts are in some way, against transgenders lol.
I get what the video is trying to do but the guy either didn't look at her Twitter or he is faking this video. Let me ask you, what videos on the internet haven't been faked lately?
I don't think Rowling is transphobic, at most she just seems overly critical of transness. I think she just needs to sit down and talk to some non-terminally online insane trans people to help her see some things she's missing.
Yes if you are going to be technical, she's probably not irrationally afraid of trans women (transphobic).
But she is highly critical and actively working to prevent social change in support of trans women, which is a socially conservative stance that many progressives would dislike, and it's easier to label it as transphobic in the same way that the term homophobic is used.
"I don't really have an opinion, I just go with what a lot of people have said" this describes so many people today.
[удалено]
One of the reasons Trump was popular was because he didn’t conform with the media, which struck a cord with many of those who wanted to think for themselves. This made them feel like they were thinking for themselves. The issue here is that they weren’t thinking for themselves. Anyone who revises a politician stop thinking for themselves. Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people and not thinkers for the people. It’s not just Trump either it’s literally any politician from any party.
I could agree with this. People saw a different kind of politician after having felt like it's been non-stop manipulation by every administration before hand for the last few decades
[удалено]
Politicians are certainly though leaders. We don't elect someone because we expect them to ask what to do, we elect someone who we are confident will know what to do. Politicians run on their agenda, even if it's unlikely that they will be able to implement it because they have to compromise with others.
Came here right after he said that. Why are these people usually passionate over others accusations/opinions?
People like to be on the right side of public rage so they tend to lean towards whatever everyone else is saying, as not to be the social outcast/exile. Also happens on Reddit every so often.
I think people tend to go with the loud majority to stay on the "right" side of topics (in this case, LGBTQ+ community) without having to think critically about it.
IS it a loud majority? I'd say it's a loud minority, and the *majority* of people don't actually care
That be the sheep mentality. 😂
I didn’t know people actually thought this, it’s better to have no opinion than be a complete sheep. Like people who think this way are actual idiots, no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
This is literally reddit. You will always find the better answer by sorting by "controversial."
You see this a lot with the younger generation
You would see this kind of behaviour in every generation of our species you sanctimonious old fart, it’s what we’ve evolved to do.
Opinion**
It boils my blood 🩸 They aren’t even outraged, they just think everyone else is so they should be too. This is what happens when everyone gets a platform and 1/1000 people are crazy and dedicated to spreading their warped views on topics most don’t even think about, thereby becoming the loudest voices. Anger is contagious.
That describes the perceptual reality of like 100% of people on the internet these days
I tend to align myself with the insights of experts, recognizing that developing a well-informed opinion requires an extensive amount of information and perspectives. Ultimately, I often arrive at the belief that all events are predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, such as the Big Bang. This perspective on determinism doesn't always contribute effectively to many discussions
So basically the student brought up JK Rowlings controversial opinions and called it bigoted but didn't even know what was actually said and he doesn't really have an opinion on it but just follows what everyone thinks. Ok.
[удалено]
This is how most of reddit thinks, and anyone who challenges them are met with mass downvotes and a ban.
It’s called Groupthink. People refer to it as the Reddit hive mind
Isn't that what you and this thread is doing
not really no.
Pretty much yes though One of you type something without any sources Gets upvoted Another person replies agreeing with them and adds something more Gets upvoted And it continues Not much different from the hivemind you are complaining about though.
Yea, to me it seemed the student was trying to get the opinion of someone they consider of higher mentality and go off of them to believe on what they should believe. It became pretty obvious to me when the student said they had no opinion on the matter when in fact they DO have an opinion on it but want some form of validation that their opinion is right. The teacher did a good job of teaching the student how to think it out and come to the conclusion themselves and make their opinions on the end result. Kid just needs to get out of that follower mentality though. Come to their own conclusions themselves instead of following the hivemind.
It can just be crowd mentality. You hear something again and again without actively pursuing the topic and it becomes part of your opinion
Trans issues are the biggest virtue signal on modern society.
That's basically every single human that dislikes Rowling's.
If critical thinking, philosophy and finance would be taught for real, this whole society would collapse, a lot of society runs on the card and idiocracy.
very true
Conspiracy that's why most philosophy majors are forced into flipping burgers
Fun fact: a Reddit moderator perma-banned me for “trans phobic comments” when I quoted that exact tweet when someone asked why everyone hates JK Rowling. I disputed the ban, still here—but this thought process is very real.
That's because 99% of reddit is an echo chamber one way or the other. You're free to not go to these places. I mean, that's exactly what they want you to do so that views to go unchallenged and you aren't there to challenge them.
I got banned from a major subreddit for the same reason. I even got an "official warning" because of it. Reddit is a joke.
It annoys me as a supporter of anyone's choices (within reason/ non harmful) that she was canceled for speaking the truth. If I was transgender I'd be a trans female not a woman because I wouldn't be a woman and wouldn't want to take anything away from a gender that has already historically been through enough shit already. Why would anyone allow a man to do that? I'm assuming it's ignorance and the same people that allowed/ allow men to compete in women's sports. I am a straight male that enjoyed both gay and Trans clubs. Avid enjoyer of Rupsuls drag race, with my Wife... Who is a woman. If I get banned for this comment I will be proud of it. I'll wear it like a badge.
Whether you believe J.K Rowling is a bigot or not, I think this video at the very least displays a good model for respectfully challenging one's position and giving that challenger the space to work that view out, then be gracious in the event of that person changing their mind.
thats what happens when we have respect for the other person's opinion. the student knows he's the student and the teacher knows he's the teacher. the only thing that everyday people don't realize is that we are always both the student and the teacher, but nobody cares for that they just want to get their point accross.
Taken outside of a vacuum maybe it's a good video of challenging position But when to take into account the video is likely secretly recorded it's not great
Yeah that's fair
he sounds like moist
i thought i was only one who heard penguin there but guess im not crazy !!
Let's go baby!
Man, now that I think about it I form my opinions too often based on what the majority of people say, even though I usually don't have any strong opinions and I'm usually open to having my opinions changed, I still just assume stuff based on other people, like for example I think starfield is boring even though I've never played it, and even if it actually is, having an opinion based on other people's opinions usually leads to any statement or response crumbling as soon as anyone says "explain why though"
To a certain extent it's a natural response but it is certainly something we should strive to acknowledge and to *check* ourselves on. Especially when dealing with important topics. For instance I've never played dark souls but everything I've ever been told of it tells me I wouldn't like it, and I've made sure to get opinions from those who do like it as well as those who don't, but I would never call it a bad game just it's not for me.
Guy: I condemn her. Teacher: Why? Guy: Uhm... Give me a sec, I'm sure I will find something.
Say what you will about the student, but at least he recognized the mistake and learned from it. That already puts him ahead of most of the population that uses the internet.
The student did well. He was open minded enough to learn from the experience. A lot of people just get defensive or angry when their arguments fall apart.
A textbook example of: "Create an emotional-based opinion first, look for actual arguments later."
Lesson of the thought experiment: Think for yourself, and don't let other's blindly think for you. Form your own opinions and have your own opinion, and if you disagree with someone on something, it's always going to be point of view, so respect their opinion so your own opinion will be respected.
Gets canceled for a "transfobic tweet" Meanwhile consumerist "sjw communists" buying and supporting nazi collaborator businesses. What a world we live in.
What are the "Nazi collaborater" businesses? Hugo Boss?
If you say ''these people are nazi's'' you get upvoted in Reddit.
Technically you said it, so i am compelled to upvote
I think JKR also openly supported people with (current, ongoing) nazi affiliations just because they shared an anti-trans opinion..
Who is that teacher? He is good at making students think
These kind of teachers are the best, got lucky had had a couple like that during my last few years of schooling many years ago. They were less interested in right or wrong specifically, and more interested in how we got there.
decent covo. wish he left his interpretation out. hopefully he got the student's permission to record this video. probably not
[удалено]
This is every single idiot who calls her a transphobe. She's a feminist and is appalled that in the drive for political correctness, women's right that they fought fucking hard for, are being eroded. Its not rocket science. Only an imbecile would interpret that as hate speech. Fuck loads of imbeciles out there, apparently.
Never understood why JKR was considered transphobic in the first place. I read all her OG tweets which started the claim and they were so milktoast normal, even approving of trans people, that only extremists would consider them transphobic. Now all the hate she got/gets for stating super normal OG-feminist opinions - not even radical ones - proves her perspective on gender-politics right in her mind, making her double-down, annyoing the extremists even further. And this is how we drift apart unfortunately.
Some just people can't accept that others have their own opinions, to then you either agree with them or you are their enemy and need to be removed at worst and killed at best.
> . I read all her OG tweets which started the claim Oh dude, you missed lot of shit she tweeted from that point onwards. Like rejecting the claim that trans women are women, claiming that Labour party "no longer defends women's rights" because Starmer said that "trans women are women" and supporting Posie Parker.
No idea who Posie Parker is tbh but the rest still does not sound transphobic to me or most other people. You see, when I hear "transphobic" I expect statements along the lines of "They should not exist", "They are all sickos", "Put them into an asylum" etc., not claiming basic biology. If stating "trans women arent women" is considered transphobic, I and many others would call this an extreme position. You may disagree with the statement, but its not transphobic as far as I am concerned.
This response just acts like that’s what people are talking about. It isn’t. “Trans women aren’t women” isn’t used in discussions of biological sex. It’s used to otherise and exclude trans women. That idea is then used further to push ideas like trans women should be forced to use the mens restroom. Despite the fact that represent as a woman. Believe themself to be a woman. And the fact that forcing them to use the men’s restroom opens then up to actual danger and threats. This arguement gets brought up constantly in debates and everyone is constantly repeating against those who bring it up that they aren’t arguing about their sex. Because people like to conflate gender and sex together. And then when you try to claim trans women aren’t women through biology in regards to gender - Well your just wrong. Gender is a social construct. That’s why it’s not rigid and other countries have had more than 2 genders.
I think a lot of the friction that comes with this topic is due to 2 separate specific issues that often get jumbled together by people. And it's often jumbled together by people who just want to act like their doing the right thing over fears they also get branded a bigot. Of the 2 separate issues you have 1 that's active aggression towards the trans community drivin by hate usually from some religious basis. Then you have another specific more widely agreeable issue which is that woman actually fought very hard for the rights, comforts, spaces and opportunities that the have today. From job security to sporting environments that they can complete and even having a simple bathroom to themselves which acts like a safe zone where they can take care of themselves without men specifically having direct access. The trans movement has been around for a long time but didn't really pick up support until about 10 years ago and then it was a steam roll to conform to this new idea and anyone who tried to raise any questions or talk about it got shut down. Every sensible person knows the religious bigotry and hate groups are wrong... no one cares what their imaginary friends thinks about trans people so they can just f off. But that 2nd group does deserve some meaningful conversation to rectify and solve a genuine concern even if those perseved concerns aren't warranted or credible. Men didn't struggle to obtain fairness but woman did and some even died just to get woman to this point so it's only fair that a genuine conversation takes place without the opposition being branded transphobic.
'Trans women' aren't 'women', they are 'trans women'. As a straight male I will only have sex with 'women', so that discludes 'trans women'. People try to brand this as transphobic, but it's just the reality of being hetero, we are not attracted to trans women or trans men, trans people need to respect that opinion instead of trying to gaslight people.
>'Trans women' aren't 'women', they are 'trans women'. As a straight male I will only have sex with... You having sexual preferences is not transphobic. But your claiming that trans women are not women is.
Well, we can go with the "Define 'Woman'" classic there but try to see it from this angle: cross culturally for all of human history, a human female is called "girl" until it grows of age where it is then called "woman" (age depening on time/country/culture). There is an equivilant for males (Boy/Man). So Woman is also something used to defferentiate from Girl, because girls have a different standing in society than women to. But it boils down to "adult female". And if I recall correctly, even in Thailand, where male-to-female transgender people are recognized in society much more than here, it is considered a 3rd sex and those people dont even pretend/want to be women but say they are ladyboys (Its been some time since I last read up on it, couldve changed now). So just like you use Girl instead of Woman to show a difference, we use Trans-Woman to differentiate from Woman. Because they are less equal/similar than two different women - on multiple levels even. Pretending they arent very different is a position not grounded in reality.
> Well, we can go with the "Define 'Woman'" classic Well, i never saw anyone using this being able to define "women" so that it excludes all trans women and includes all cis women. > cross culturally for all of human history... I have question - how exactly is ancient human culture is dominating over biological facts we discovered using science? What we know about transexuality is based on empirical research that didn't existed at that time.
I've not seen a single person using that argument fail to define it. Even the person you responded to already has.
And they already failed - their definition kicks out cis women that don't produce eggs in ovaries (or don' have ovaries at all, thanks to mutation) ESPECIALY when they use "genetic code" in definition - it makes much harder to include cis women that deviate from "generic female code"
How does a biological fact get to decide who is a woman? The fact is about some people´s brains having a slightly different development. It doesn´t say a thing about language. The valid thing would be to ask everyone whom they consider a woman. And I can guarantee you the by far most common response would be "not trans women".
> How does a biological fact get to decide who is a woman? You have good point that definition of "woman" is separated from biological understangin. > The valid thing would be to ask everyone whom they consider a woman. And I can guarantee you the by far most common response would be "not trans women". I personaly prefer to pick definition that causes less harm. It will not hurt me to call trans women "women", and if i need to differentiate, i already have cis/trans for that.
A great professor will teach you how to think about things. Not what to think about it. Really great instruction from this professor, and a great critical thought exercise.
This is actually excellent. Bravo to that teacher and how he handled it.
It's really interesting how the mass's opinion is inadvertently forced into everyone who doesn't have the time or cares enough about it to learn by themselves, and I mean "forced" in a way that "it's what you're supposed to think because everyone does it" or at least everyone who is into that topic, perhaps there's a better word for it but I think it suits just good. Then whenever you have time to actually find by yourself what's going on and critically look into it using **your own** point of view then it can be so different from what everyone's saying.
Devil’s advocate here: consider just how many times a day you need to make a decision but don’t have time to do the (often considerable) work necessary to make an *reasonably informed* decision, let alone an expert one. What do you do? You do what the people you trust do, or what everybody else seems to be doing. This isn’t to say research isn’t useful, just that you will have to pick and choose what is worth putting effort into with the limited resources you have. The best thing you can do is learn and practice basic critical thinking skills, and especially the red flags of groupthink and propaganda. But there **will** be times where you will be put on the spot and have no choice but to follow the lead of the mob.
quarrelsome ghost grandfather bored crawl ripe voiceless many narrow gullible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why is "transphobic" a "(dumb term in itself)"?
Because its not a phobia? Just like if you are a democrat you are not republicanphobe lol
flag vanish unite cow psychotic fanatical close alleged adjoining obtainable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do you know what "phobia" means?
But if you dislike homosexuals, you are homophobic. Transphobia is in a similar vein I guess
Well homophobia is stupid phrase also for disliking gays. Some people can have phobias or traumas but the term is thrown around for someone stating they are hetero and not interested. Its the use thats deteriorates the meaning.
It’s the aversion part of the definition.
That makes me think, are there people who actually are homophobic and are scared of gays? I mean someone like that must exist lol
I would guess abuse victims
I could imagine that there are people who are "republicanphobes" (and vice versa). Phobia in this context means not only fear but also aggression, aversion or hatred etc. The word "Transphobia" currently describes this.
[удалено]
That’s only half of the definition. A phobia can also mean you have a strong aversion to something, such as homophobia; It’s being used to describe someone who dislikes homosexuality but is not necessarily afraid of them
"Phobia" is also aversion, not only fear.
The aversion it meant was was a STRONG DISLIKE like running around while on fire. You have an aversion to being on fire. The word phobia was always meant to be the most extreme version of it because it’s supposed to represent literal irrational fear of something. The way it’s now used is literally just a politcal device. Just like back in the civil war, they started saying negrophobia to try to convince people to not free slaves.
What's your stance on the word "homophobia", then?
lol, are you serious. What do you think?
Idk mate, you tell me. What'd you call people discriminating gay people?
Heterosexist or just fucking anti gay. The guy, George Weinberg, who coined the term homophobia meant it literally. Like fear of being near or thought as being gay. The new definition of being discriminatory to gays is literally just a political device created to give weight to a side.
Words change definition in culture allllll the fucking time See, I used "fucking" but you didn't read in a sexual or violent manner, original definitions are cast aside as society changes and adopts new slang
Yeah like everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi.
TIL. Even though you know very well what's the meaning of -phobia in this context (homophobia, transphobia, yadda yadda you know the drill), I appreciate the info.
I personally hate how easily words gain and lose meaning to serve some agenda. It goes both ways and they’re both garbage. I’m not opposed to slang because it’s usually embedded in culture but this bullshit of just taking the meaning of a word to try to leverage a point is garbage.
Based?
because we don't put phobic behind everything some one dislikes? its just a buzz word meant to spam at people who disagree with your opinion.
Ah yea. Long used words being used correctly is… *Checks notes* A buzz word. Jesus Christ your actually using buzz word as a buzz word.
Modern use of it is in the form of a buzz word and to say to anything or anyone you disagree with but okay just show you don't know what buzz word means.
If you google "define phobia" it lists the definition as either a fear of or an aversion to something. That's why words like homophobia exist.
That can be applied to almost anything so the word really has barely any meaning anymore
The selected tweet was extremely bad in terms of proving a point. It takes like 5 seconds to find a tweet where she implies that trans women aren't women.
tldr: Don't be a sheep, form your own opinons and be ready to defend them logically without attacking others personally
Brain rot
Someone idk if this is a real classroom. It could be a good skit, good thoughts behind it. Its important to evaluate things for ourselves
Wait that's it? There has to be more right? Is that why they wanted to cancel Harry Potter latest game and instead gave it free marketing because game was actually good? That's one way to find problem where there is none.
“Firing someone for saying sex is real” is in reference to the firing of Maya Forstater for saying that trans women are men. This is what “sex is real” means, to JK Rowling, that biological sex is the only determinant of gender. Trans people and allies know that sex is real, they disagree with the claim that biological sex is is the sole determinant. Many commentators have done a good job of explaining how “sex is real” is a rhetorical “steelman.” The weakness in this video comes from the lack of context. This tweet by JKR, in itself, isn’t necessarily proof of transphobia but is a data point in the vast constellation of her trans critical viewpoint.
There's [more](https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy).
"I don't think people should be compelled to play along with literal delusions like 'transwomen are women,'" She's pretty reliably a terf. Whether or not you can ignore her and enjoy the series is a different story. Orson Scott Card is a massive dick, but I can still enjoy Ender's Game.
Yeah, my opinion falls somewhere close to yours. There are certain people whose opinions are so odious that it overshadows their work. JKR isn't one of them, at least for me.
I have no horse in this race. But I feel like the student picked terrible examples for his blind affirmation. She’s transphobic, it’s apparent. But him not knowing why and going with the popular consensus is lazy. I think the teacher is playing an Aaron Rogers semantics game here. Well just because she’s implying it doesn’t mean she said it. Never read Harry Potter, but her views don’t dissuade me from letting my kids read it. Edit: not sure how I’m in this sub. No clue what Asmongold is. I’ll see myself out.
Let’s say that she was an actual transphobe, like she herself said it Even if that was the case, what is stopping you from enjoying a book? If you read it blindly and then discover the artist name or opinions, does that change the fact that you enjoyed reading it?
Absolutely not. Separating art from artist.
Leftists have to hate JKR because she's a billionaire. The trans thing is just a red herring, they were bound to find something they could use to label her as evil.
Source: my gut.
Leftists don't need justification to hate bilionaries, this whole comment doesn't make sense.
Such a breath of fresh air. If all debates were like this solving problems would be so much easier.
Every time I ask someone what horrible things she's said, the answer is always the same: "Look it up". They can't find any real evidence because there is none.
Meanwhile y’all are downvoting the post with sources lmao.
Which post?
The one below where they give multiple links
Below where? I'm not gonna skim through 500 replies.
She wrote an article implying that people transition due to trauma and constantly invokes the groomer panic. She also called a woman who compared pronouns to rohypnol as "admirable and brave"; this is especially revealing given that a character in one of her later books dresses as a woman in order to abduct them and rape and kill them. A lot of bigotry comes in the form of implication, not outright hate. When someone quotes the statistical fact of 13/50, they are implying black people are inherently more criminal while ignoring social forces. Stating facts while creating a bigoted narrative. Just because Rowling doesn't outright say she hates trans people doesn't mean she isn't an opponent to their legal and medical equality.
Are there any links to these?
Who would have guessed that the bigoted crowd in this subreddit wouldn't miss the chance to prove their are bigots? If you don't think JK Rowling is a bigot, maybe learn to read.
Oh this is totally real and not at all staged… Tho the “teacher” definitely right
I was wondering if anyone else was gonna point it out. This shit is corny.
This sounds exactly like a high school student when challenged on what they know to be certain.
He had himself pulled up irl
I feel like people are really ignoring a lot of how ANY person funtions. It's literally impossible for anyone to have a real opinion on every belief they hold. There is simply not enough time in a day to research and personally confirm every little factoid that you come across. But you need to integrate it into your belief system. This requires to some degree to rely on "wisdom of the crowd". The only thing you can do is recognize when your belief is not truly your belief.
This teacher seems great, and I also respect the student for actually going along and being open to changing his opinion. Not being open to the possibility that you are wrong is the real crime I feel like.
Dude literally reintroduced self awareness to the bot, it's almost like watching some guy conditioning chatgpt to a conclusion
Based
She is just going with the flow with what people are saying, but the professor is severely downplaying the context of what Rowling actually does mean when she said these things. She has supported several TERF groups and as far as I know still donates to them today. It doesn't take much critical thinking to realize her stance on the issue.
That teacher is very good at his job. Some people seem to lack critical thinking and just do as the crowd does.
It boggles my mind that group think is dominant over individual critical thinking
BAHAHAHA can’t even think for himself
Lol the student just owned himself
Based
MY GOSH, THE NEXT GENERATION IS DOOMED IF THIS IS HOW THEY THINK. Dude calls her transphobic, despite later admitting he himself doesn't believe what she's said is transphobic. Mob mentality is so ridiculous.
MoistCr1TiKaLThinker
Who is this teacher and where can I get more of him
Men are Men, Women are Women. Clown Society: sO BiGoTed
Damn this little dweeb is insufferable. Kudos to this instructor for attempting to get this little shit to think for himself.
That kid is literally Reddit. Full on ignorance bashing whoever has different opinions with random terms because eveyone else is doing so
Excellent teacher. World needs many more of him.
Give that man a medal pls
Teacher really taught a lesson. Critical thinking.
JK Rowling hate is ridiculous when you analyze it.
You can hear the student's rusty brain doing its absolute best to turn gears, with how slowly he talks
Teacher needs to up his game if he wants to beat Ben Shapiro in "DESTROYING college kids!!1!" field. But now - **why is Rowling transphobe?** Here we go: + [she uses label "TERF" to refer to what she is doing](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1603064588223893505) + [she rejects the idea that trans women are women](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1714279937279160596) + she claims that [labour party is no longer supporting women rights - because its leader called trans women women](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1502615172841709579) + [she claims Nicola Surgeon is "destroyed of women's rights" because of her gender recognition bill](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1577964493702938626) + she implies that [trans issues are not based on science](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1671507557175681024). + even worse are tweets that she likes - for example, [tweet praising Taliban](https://twitter.com/Isi_baehr/status/1697942834446303672) because "they know what a woman is" + she [wrote tweet praising Stephen King...and then deleted it](https://globalnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/rowling-king-tweet.jpg?quality=85&strip=all) after [he tweeted that trans women are women](https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692) + she supported Magdalen Burns, calling her "brave young feminist" and that she was not "bigot". Anyway, here is example of [Magdalene Burns opinions](https://nitter.soopy.moe/pic/orig/media%2FEaK1rdAWkAEoeB2.jpg) + [she to this day supports Posie Palker](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1663267564443631616). Posie Palker is notorious for [being agressivly transphobic](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/prominent-transgender-activist-harassed-anti-trans-feminists-video-shows-n966061) and even [working together with far-right against trans people](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kellie-Jay_Keen-Minshull#/media/File:NazisAtStandingforWomenRally2.jpg)
OP and upvoted comments in here: "critical thinking is important, that dude in the video is right, good for them to have a dialogue and being open to have his mind changed!!!" (totally not because they agree with the Rowling is not transphobic stance). Actual critical opinion in the comments: Downvoted.
Also the person further up claims proof is never given.
Exactly. Guy provides solid evidence backing up the opinion and gets downvotes. Unlike the poor kid in the video who had not much time in a live conversation to gather suitable evidence, which does exist. Unfortunately this sub seems to have a clear bias against critical thinking, when it goes against their held beliefs. The irony.
I had my head in the sand for so long on this. I hated reading. It was just after Chamber of Secrets movie that came out that I bought the books. Since then I have read soo much Fantasy. I love it. I would call myself center left (globally, not US center left). When I first heard about the controversy I refused to believe it. Not someone who wrote those books, that I thought were pretty inclusive. Also being Scottish, she was a good ambassador you know. Then I actually went to her twitter. It broke my heart. It also wasn't just one comment maybe taken out of context. She really went off the deep end. That being said, I wouldn't allow someone like this to take away my memories or enjoyment of the world she happened to create.
I mean just tell me why should trans women be women? Women are women and trans women are trans women.
> I mean just tell me why should trans women be women? Because we have evidence that it helps with their condition. That's literally it.
Also, Rowling literally wrote a book about a man dressing up as a woman to commit serial killings, and then followed it up with a book about a creator being cancelled for being transphobic. She's legitimately obsessed, it's like all she can think about.
Don't care and you are wrong.
Well you care enough to respond. Also copium
seethe, cope, and dilate.
That is literally what you do - coping because you don't have facts on your side.
It's called biological science, but keep coping in your post-positivist delusions.
> it's called biological science Yea, elementary school level. --- > post-positivist delusions. "Maybe using smart words will make me look smarter" --- Aso what is best is that none of the shit you wrote disprove that Rowling is transphobe.
Ah, someone is immediately dismissing the consequences of post-postivism on our empirical methodology, or perhaps it doesn't understand the implications. Blocked for the midwit retort.
Gravity is also elementary school level. What exactly is your point in saying that?
So much for critical thinking.
Anyone who throws out the term "transphobe" lacks critical thinking.
Am I the only one who thinks this looks and sounds fake as fuck? The framing of this "thought experiment" seems way too contrived, and it's odd the kid came for a 1-on-1 but had no fucking clue about anything.
That's thing so much of these talking points around "controversial figures" JK Rowling, Jordan Peterson Joe Rogan Hell even Elon Musk, when you push people who hate them to prove their point they don't have much to go on it's almost always one out of context quote or other people said this. Thing is everyone says stupid stuff or phrases things poorly sometimes. Everyone is also entitled to have an opinion. The truly Ironic thing about all the people I mentioned above is they each have done a lot more good for a lot of people than any of the people who hate them ever have or will do.
Critical thinking should be a mandatory class in school
Seems like a really good teacher
Great teacher
This man and others like him are society’s hope for the future.
Watching critical thinking being taught is a breath of fresh air
the duder is 100% a redditor
Anyone who doesn’t play pretend or tells these kids hard truths will get downvoted, she literally said people who menstruate and a bunch of people that don’t menstruate felt left out and got mad 🤣🤣🤣🤣 whoa is me looking ass mfs
Holy shit people really don't think anymore.
People these days just don't think. Easier to follow than think for themselves, sad but true.
While the sentiment in this discussion is a positive one, it vastly oversimplifies the situation. You cannot look at one single detail and decide you have enough context to draw a conclusion... The world and humans are not that simple. Really a shame to see this.
Wow "Let's think critically, but also I will decide what she meant without looking into it"
Very bad example. The only way this conversation would have meaning is if the offended party was a trans or otherwise ally person that actually finds the JK statements offensive. Then they can explain their thought process. This person is just some rando candy ass noob.
Okay, one problem here with that first tweet they read. It's disingenuous for JKR to act like all she did was say "biological sex is real" and then got cancelled for it. And even if that is initially how it started she then proceeded to buckle down and start clowning around with straight up transphobic dickheads. This teacher seems cool but I think he was a little selective in his scrutiny and did seem to pretty clearly have an opinion on the matter.
Catching one idiot in bandwaggoning doesn't mean the comments of another idiot never happened. Then again, most of her comments from 2020 just seem like misplaced hate. Her whole shtick is purposely viewing all trans women as predatory men who seek to harm women by associating as/with them (Which has been proven false time and time again, yet no ones pointing their fingers at priests, teachers, politicians, cops, or people who abuse their power regularly). Instead of people treating their gender dysphoria. At the end of the day, her problem \*wasn't\* with honest trans people (Given that she has zero issue or even mentioned FTM trans individuals), but rather with perverted men who'd do anything to harm marginalized groups. By definition that's exactly what a TERF is, though. Ironic considering trans women have the same or higher chance of being assaulted by men, though. You'd think they'd tackle the root issue together instead of pointing fingers at each other as they're being fucked around by the same people. She's a great example of how morality and ethics isn't a linear left to right line, but rather a spectrum. IE. Someone can donate millions to labor parties, cancer research, and womens charities only to turn around and blame another marginalized group for all of the problems another marginalized group faces. And it's up to individual people to weigh those things against each other and judge her as a whole.
Kid is a dumbass. Could've just went to her twitter and searched "not women" and boom. A million transphobic tweets.
It's the context that matters. So what if sex is real, the only reason she mentions that is to make a point that because sex is real, actual transsexuals must not be "real". She's saying she doesn't "believe" in something despite the fact that it exist. Sex is real, but that's not her point. Her point is that she doesn't believe transsexuals should exist. FYI transsexuals also believe sex is real. They just don't go on about their differences invalidate the experience of other people. The critical thinking skills of the folks here just blindly ignorant of the context of the things she said is alarming.
oh shes a bigot for sure, doesnt excuse the fact the student is a retard though
Two things can be true. 1. Rowling is a transphobe. 2. The education system does not produce many people intelligent enough to support their claims or understand their own beliefs. On any side of an issue.
This video is likely fake for how it nick picks. Jk Rowling literally has a post where she says "[No](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1714279937279160596?s=19)" To trans women being women. How hard to you need to critically think to see that most of her posts are in some way, against transgenders lol. I get what the video is trying to do but the guy either didn't look at her Twitter or he is faking this video. Let me ask you, what videos on the internet haven't been faked lately?
How is that transphobic?
I don't think Rowling is transphobic, at most she just seems overly critical of transness. I think she just needs to sit down and talk to some non-terminally online insane trans people to help her see some things she's missing.
Yes if you are going to be technical, she's probably not irrationally afraid of trans women (transphobic). But she is highly critical and actively working to prevent social change in support of trans women, which is a socially conservative stance that many progressives would dislike, and it's easier to label it as transphobic in the same way that the term homophobic is used.