JK Rowling Manx Flag Controversy

[jackwhite]

39 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Err because she’s probably one of the worlds most successful authors and she has an opinion. Are you saying that only some people are allowed to get involved in the issue on social media? That is another problem with the woke culture. They can’t accept that other people have opinions which differ to there’s. There is no debate. Just a lot of shouting and screaming. It’s sad in a way. 

So because she has an opinion she should voice it?

I was going to ask if you do this but I know the answer to that. Maybe you and AOR should move in together on the prom.

I have lots of opinions on things. I don't feel the need to go commenting on them on Twitter or getting involved in the whole mess. 

Truthfully life's too short. Try live and let live. 

[jackwhite]

2 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Well yes. Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing in this thread? Voicing your opinion? Nobody HAS to agree with you. 

I’m passing time and comment on a message board. I’m not using my real name so I’m hardly on Twitter throwing about my opinion using my fame to influence people (however stupid they might be to be influenced by her in the first place). 
 

I’m going to guess even you don’t go out there in public throwing your opinions around to everyone (as I’m sure given some of them you’d find yourself in trouble) and neither do I. I might have many on certain things but I keep them to myself. If I were famous and I thought someone or a group may be prejudiced against because of my opinion then I’d keep it to myself. I do exactly the same now and I’m obviously not famous. 
 

To be honest if I had the money she has I think I’d find better uses of my time than arguing with people on Twitter anyway. 
 

Live and let live. Have an opinion all you want but if it’s offensive then keep it to yourself. 

[Hoops]

3 hours ago, jackwhite said:

So because she has an opinion she should voice it?

I was going to ask if you do this but I know the answer to that. Maybe you and AOR should move in together on the prom.

I have lots of opinions on things. I don't feel the need to go commenting on them on Twitter or getting involved in the whole mess. 

Truthfully life's too short. Try live and let live. 

Why shouldn't she voice her opinion? Because she's a woman? Because she's a successful woman? Because women's opinions should now be voiced by men who identify as women, but will never actually know what it is to be a woman - how could they? How could she take offense at being called a menstruating person, body with vagina or some lovely other euphamism so that men can call themselves women, instead of trans women, which is what they are and would have avoided all this. The patriarchy works in many ways.

[HeliX]

15 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Why shouldn't she voice her opinion? Because she's a woman? Because she's a successful woman? Because women's opinions should now be voiced by men who identify as women, but will never actually know what it is to be a woman - how could they? How could she take offense at being called a menstruating person, body with vagina or some lovely other euphamism so that men can call themselves women, instead of trans women, which is what they are and would have avoided all this. The patriarchy works in many ways.

I think the point is more that if you have an audience of millions you should be careful in how and what you say to avoid causing harm.

Is "Women (but not those who are post-menopause, pre-puberty or suffering from medical conditions that stop them from menstruating) and trans-men who have menstruating uteruses" less offensive than "people who menstruate"?

Edited July 4, 2022 by HeliX

[jackwhite]

46 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve read in a while - you don’t believe in the general right to free speech then? You suggest that anyone should keep their opinions to themselves on social media otherwise they will be bullied by the wokes? How ultra woke indeed. As for Twitter you do yourself a discredit. It’s really easy to work out who people are on here from their equally silly woke posts on Twitter and Facebook. You and a few others stick out by a mile. 

I post very little on Twitter and certainly nothing 'woke'. Again if you refer to the dictionary version of this you'll realise you're using it wrong. That said you're simply using it to try and get a reaction as you're a troll.

I didn't say I don't believe in free speech. I don't believe in being offensive to people though. Yes there are certain opinions which will always be wrong which are beyond the pale. As I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. Lets take the case of the business I mentioned. Do you think they were right just to verbally attack someone because they're transgender? Should they just have enforced their opinion on that person? Or should they just have kept their mouth shut?

As I said it's a pretty sad existence when you're as wealthy as she is to find yourself arguing with people on Twitter over something that really, doesn't affect her life in any way whatsoever. She can do all the grandstanding about the charities she supports etc but it's all her own personal opinion that she spends hours arguing about on there. If this were actually directly relevant to her work, her charities or something she had a personal interest in, then fine. But people who wish to identify as women or men when born that way, what does it really matter to her? So she's online under her own famous name which will only encourage the zealous bigots out there to not only join in but to take it further.

19 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Why shouldn't she voice her opinion? Because she's a woman? Because she's a successful woman? Because women's opinions should now be voiced by men who identify as women, but will never actually know what it is to be a woman - how could they? How could she take offense at being called a menstruating person, body with vagina or some lovely other euphamism so that men can call themselves women, instead of trans women, which is what they are and would have avoided all this. The patriarchy works in many ways.

It's nothing to do with her being a woman or successful so don't try and put words in my mouth.

Again your own personal opinion and there is already a thread if you wish to get into it in that much detail.

Why doesn't she just live and let live?

If you want to discuss the relevance of the Manx flag in all of this then crack on. Until then I'm not taking part in this conversation any further and don't wish to in the other thread either.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

Believe me you clearly do object to free speech if that is your opinion. 

Freedom of speech refers exclusively to not being persecuted by the Government for what you say. Even then though, few people believe in unilateral free speech. Do you reckon Hate Preachers should be allowed to set up in Hyde Park and convince people to bomb the West?

If you think free speech applies outside freedom from Government persecution, feel free to tell your boss that you bet you could shag his wife and kill his dog and see what happens.

[jackwhite]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

Believe me you clearly do object to free speech if that is your opinion. 

So because I say there are certain opinions that are always going to be wrong, I don't believe in free speech? Or is it the fact I don't think you should go out of your way to be offensive to people.

Nice to see you sidestep the direct questions I asked you too.

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Questioning things is never offensive. 

That shows a lack of imagination! I can be plenty offensive while questioning things.

[jackwhite]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

I thought according to the above post that you were going to stop posting on this subject until people agreed with you? You clearly do believe in censoring what people are ‘allowed’ to say according to you from what you have said above. This just sounds like some of the awful woke nonsense you post on Twitter. Questioning things is never offensive. 

OK do two things.

1. Message me directly and tell me who you think I am on Twitter (and what a sad life you must lead if you're trawling that trying to work out who might be who from MF)

2. When I say beyond the pale I mean the likes of peadophiles. So answer me. Should they should be allowed free speech to talk about abusing children should they? Criminals about how it's ok to harm people? These opinions sit comfortably with you? Hate speech etc should be allowed under free speech?

 

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

But we aren’t talking about paedophiles are we? Not once had the word paedophile been mentioned above? Are you now trying in a desperate downward spiral to compare JK Rowling’s views to views on paedophilia?

You're definitely trolling.

[jackwhite]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

But we aren’t talking about paedophiles are we? Not once had the word paedophile been mentioned above? Are you now trying in a desperate downward spiral to compare JK Rowling’s views to views on paedophilia?

You're the one ranting on about free speech. I'm asking should it be extended to everyone.

Mate it's you that is never succinct in the point you're making so I'm having to guess which points you're actually having to refer to. I'm taking it that it's the 'beyond the pale' part. That's what I'm saying. That and hate speech. Are you ok with it? Still waiting on that message.

[jackwhite]

5 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Offshoremanxman? Are you a troll? Are you just here to wind people up? I’m asking because it feels as if every thread you post like you’re ‘baiting’ someone. It doesn’t feel like a discussion. 

Between that and trawling Twitter it's all a bit creepy.

[HeliX]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

No I’m not. I don’t see anyone coming back with anything of substance other than more ridiculous accusations they can’t back up. JK Rowling or anyone else is 100% free to express their opinion on anything they like on social media. If people feign offense that their problem not here’s. 

Nobody has said she's not free to. People have said she shouldn't. That's not the same thing.

[Hoops]

23 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I think the point is more that if you have an audience of millions you should be careful in how and what you say to avoid causing harm.

Is "Women (but not those who are post-menopause, pre-puberty or suffering from medical conditions that stop them from menstruating) and trans-men who have menstruating uteruses" less offensive than "people who menstruate"?

Well, as a man, I don't want to be described as a person who ejaculates, why should women be defined by their bodily functions to accommodate a group of people who, however much they may desire it, are not women. Men, women, transmen, transwomen, not so hard is it? 

I can fully see why jk rowling was offended by this new way of defining women. But she shouldn't tell the truth, because it may 'cause harm', or upset people, as we used to say. Some women are clearly upset as being referred to as menstruating persons, why shouldn't she speak out for them? Why are their rights seemingly secondary to those of the trans community?

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I think the point is more that if you have an audience of millions you should be careful in how and what you say to avoid causing harm.

I must disagree. If you have an “audience” of millions why should you be any more careful than if you have an “audience” of one or ten or whatever.

Why should you be handicapped or prohibited from expressing your opinion on a particular matter ( say transgender) when your “audience” has grown from a completely unrelated matter ( writing children’s fiction).

Certainly JK Rowling is, and should be free to express her opinion on any topic ( unless inciting violence or stuff like that) just as I am.

For what it’s worth I am a man and as such have never menstruated and am unlikely to do so in the near future.