I think it's very fair, and I think I'll be right when you end up listening.
Other The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling
- Thread starter Murder on Zidane's Floor
- Start date
Ok! I'll report back!
Although I do agree with this on certain topics. Generally just shutting down debate isn't the way to bring people who don't agree or who are undecided along with your way of thinking though.
no I agree with that
but I don't consider this shutting down debate, but rather, her just wanting to have an honest debate which she was denied
But surely there are valid concerns that deserve to be highlighted on 'the other side' such as how some women feel about shared spaces, etc. You shouldn't just ignore that as if it's unimportant even if you disagree with it. To have an honest debate then surely these sort of issues should be part of a discussion.
Again, I haven't listened to this yet so far all I know it was.
Antivax rhetoric is another good equivalence. But whether debate is useful or not, insulting everyone who disagrees with you is always a shitty tactic in making the world a better, kinder place. A shitty tactic ironically used by someone already referenced as the enemy in this very thread. Hilary Clinton and her stupid “deplorables” comments.
Yes I agree, I'm not saying there is no debate to be had here. Neither is Contrapoints, she went on the podcast after all
what I'm saying is that trans rights vs transphobes is not an equivalence that should be debated as two equal sides
one side is denying rights, and the other is fighting for rights
she was unhappy the debate was framed that way, and I agree that it shouldn't be
I don't think it's as simple as that personally. Though I get what you are saying. Is this a trans phobic podcast? Or is it now seen as trans phobic because it attempted to be balanced? Again, I've no idea but if we are saying that anyone who doesn't fully agree or has some concerns about what a trans person says is automatically a transphobe then I think we have a problem. Hopefully that's not what you are saying and I've picked it up wrong.
its not
I think she most likely used this format for the podcast because that is what sells nowadays
What format? Sorry I don't understand. Is it not just standard practice to look at differences of opinion on a topic when discussing it? What am I missing here?
a false equivalence between trans people and transphobia
creating a podcast using this pretence is probably going to sell better than having a reasoned, rational debate on the topic
those 2 are not the same thing!
But that’s not entirely true. Or at least it won’t be perceived as being so by the vast majority of people of the female sex, who believe sex trumps self-identified gender when it comes to their rights around safe spaces, competitive sports and prisons for example.
Tbh it might be, the last nearly decade had really killed my enthusiasm for the whole let’s debate and find some common understanding schtick.
The world is a lot more vulgar and materialist than most imagine. Which doesn’t make people bad or the work they’ve done worthless but imo there’s a lot of noise.
Well said.
what does the perception of this group have to do with what transphobes are doing to trans people?
I'm not sure you're really posting in good faith here as it's obvious what I'm saying. She faced backlash from really mild activities and statements on this subject before and now it's pretty obvious the same thing is happening.
People found out she was part of a podcast series on the same subject and she's felt the need to publicise her shame over being involved.
I'm sure she might have editorial critiques of the podcast but by her tweets it's like a huge team hoodwinked her and took advantage of her, which is unlikely.
I think this framing is a wildly simplified understanding of the subject.
you understand I'm referring to transphobes right? not the subject in general
Rowling is a massive piece of shit
In this context? Why not?
Fair point.
Natalie Wynn is pretty sound. If she claims to have been mislead and regrets going on the podcast then I trust her.
"The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling". The title alone is infuriating
"The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling". The title alone is infuriating
Yeah her content is good just seen before her defend J.K Rowling and critique people sending her abuse, only then had to really reverse course when the abuse turned on her.Natalie Wynn is pretty sound. If she claims to have been mislead and regrets going on the podcast then I trust her.
"The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling". The title alone is infuriating
The title is click baiting but most of everything is nowadays.
It's been an interesting lesson so far, only two episodes but the history of the internet cultures, Tumblr/4Chan has been really interesting.
Also looking back to the late 90s far right, Christian fundamentalists and Evangelicals who all called for the Harry Potter series to be banned, tried banning them in schools, sometimes succeeding, and burned the books, solely as they thought they would corrupt and damage children.
I think, also this happened perhaps in some more strict Muslim cultures as well.
I've scrolled the whole thread and still don't get what the feck this is.
A podcast in support of J.K Rowling or against? What do they talk about the whole time?
A podcast in support of J.K Rowling or against? What do they talk about the whole time?
It's starts by exploring the beginnings of Harry Potter, the online fandom communities, the history of these communities. Is now starting to move too some of the backlash Rowling has faced historically and recently.
Been a decent listen so far.
Did she say she was mislead? Has she posted any correspondence to that effect?Natalie Wynn is pretty sound. If she claims to have been mislead and regrets going on the podcast then I trust her.
"The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling". The title alone is infuriating
She mentioned receiving messages, so post them up. What questions did she ask before agreeing to take part? If she hasn't done any due diligence before agreeing to appear then that is just culpable carelessness and it would deserve an actual apology rather than a PR exercise. Saying 'at the end of my appearance I was asked for tips and said ''xxxxxx'' wouldn't cut it. I assume from the fact that she is a commentator that she has some awareness about how things work.
Last edited:
The criticism she received last time was visible on Twitter, because it was people tweeting. That's why I asked where it is now. If it's pretty obvious what's happening, just post some tweets from before 21/02.
Here's a wild theory: she reflected on how her interview went, read Phelps-Roper's article, and put two and two together.
Natalie:
"The podcast is titled "The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling," an obviously tendentious framing that presents JKR as the victim of an irrational hate mob(...)"
"I don't want my involvement to lend any legitimacy to this. I regret my participation and would not have participated had I fully understood the nature of the project. I feel that I have been used, and I share the sentiments of other trans people who are speaking out against it."
You want her to post chat logs and email correspondences on Twitter to prove her case? That seems a tad bit juvenile. Some of the agreements could have been verbal too. You may argue that it was foolish of her to not sign some kind of elaborate contract before going on the podcast, but that doesn't mean that Natalie is in the wrong morally speaking.
Ultimately you have 3 choices here:
A) Believe Natalie
B) Believe that Natalie is lying about being mislead and simply regrets her decision
C) Believe that Natalie is lying about being mislead and was simply too stupid to see the obvious "trap"
Based on what I know about her I find B and C unlikely. She seems like a genuinely good person and she's definitely not dumb.
None of us have proof, though. You can go for B or C and be no more wrong or right than me.
The podcast was released on the 21st - so how would people be able to listen to it before then?
They wouldn't, and I wrote the wrong date, the backlash would have to be from before the 16th.
Fair enough.
It's a dumb title, but calling it click baiting is a bit silly. Of course it's click baiting, it's a title. That's its purpose.
Eh?
And did it?
On the 16th Wynn explained that she regrets her choice to contribute, and why. That's two days after Phelps-Roper wrote her article describing the project, and five days before the release of the first episodes.
You said that it's pretty obvious that Wynn has been receiving backlash, and that's why she tweeted what she did. Meaning that 1. Wynn is lying, and 2. the backlash you say pretty obviously happened would need to have happened on the 16th or earlier.
I wouldn't call it that Wynn is lying, I would say that she is under pressure to maintain a standard for a community that has historically, metaphorically, gone for her when she previously defended Rowling.
Did anyone know pre-release that she was a contributor? Or did she confirm to people that she was? Perhaps she is getting out ahead of it. Or maybe I am wrong. But I would imagine that any association with anything Rowling that isn't condemning her entirely would cause backlash.
The title is clickbaity? It could be called - An Authors Tale or Cancel Culture or something more generic. I don't get your point?
She explained very clearly why she regrets participating. If your claims are true, then her explanation is untrue. Either she's lying about having regrets, or she's having regrets because of backlash instead of the things she said.
Prior to her tweets there was no backlash. Nothing. So, your next story (I'm sorry, what obviously happened) is that she was just geting out in front of the backlash (which still hasn't happened). Meaning that if she's not lying about having regrets, she is having regrets because she is anticipating a reaction that is going to happen. That would further have to mean that she didn't anticipate that reaction when first approached, not when saying yes, and not when actually doing the podcast. Only after all this would she have to suddenly realise that obviously people will criticise her for this, and then tweet out some false reasons like the interview being miserable and the project not being what she thought/hoped it was going to be.
Something more generic than An Authors Tale or Cancel Culture? Are you sure that's possible?