• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

From what I can gather (I haven't looked into it, as I was disinterested at the time) - wasn't it using "bloke in a dress" in one of their Galbraith books (as in, actually under the name Galbraith, not just me being an arse to her them).
I really don't know what the touchpaper was but I do remember friends on FB mentioning "we already know she's a TERF". I gave JKR a lot of benefit of the doubt until she started hanging out with anti trans groups, people would try to engage or give nuanced opinions on how deal with her transphobia and she'd initiate pileons from her fanbase much like her attack on Watson this week.

This looks like a good list timeline but doesn't really chronicle her association with those groups and I can't find evidence of those.


Its definitely the 2019/2020 where she transitioned to outright hostility. Just before the publication of her new book which had a transvestite serial killer (which I think the publication was breaking point). I think June 2020 after her essay people were unhappy she used sexual/domestic assault as a defense for her views but she could still be engaged with. Mermaids definitely though she could be,

However as book was clearly written during that time period chronicled it looks she got radicalised whilst doing research hence the likes and retweets.
 
Sod that. Nothing wrong with Tolkien
Tolkien definitely has some issues but more because he was product of his time than any outright issues. (Lack of women characters despite Eowyn and characterisations of good and bad races especially in relation to skin colour).

Still anyone could of been Terry Pratchett who occasionally wrote bad stuff but he listened learned and improved. Which is why Monstrous Regiment is absolutely beloved by feminists and LGBTQIA+.
 
No one wants to buy Hitlers old paintings do they. Give it time.

Actually, I bet there's some weirdo super rich collector that has an extensive Hitler art collection. It wouldn't surprise me.

The 6th Marquess of Bath to be precise. He was rumoured to own more than anyone else (seen the collection cited anywhere from 30-60+).

I saw some on display at Longleat many years ago. Certainly made me stop and think and I can still visualise the signature.
 
The 6th Marquess of Bath to be precise. He was rumoured to own more than anyone else (seen the collection cited anywhere from 30-60+).

I saw some on display at Longleat many years ago. Certainly made me stop and think and I can still visualise the signature.
Never heard of him. Sounds like some bloke in the Epstein files.
 
No one wants to buy Hitlers old paintings do they. Give it time.

Actually, I bet there's some weirdo super rich collector that has an extensive Hitler art collection. It wouldn't surprise me.

It's an interesting one, would you accept a Hitler piece if it was free and, more importantly, you really, really liked it.
Always someone making money.



 
Always someone making money.



Of course, I should’ve guessed Eva Browns knickers. Who wouldn't want those
 
Not seen much on this here. Points 1 and 2 seem a sticking point to even start but other nations including the UK seem to think it's a good idea. Not sure about Blair and Trump being sort of in charge either.

 
A cheeky sniff before he resumed litter collection duties.
I actually believe the litter picking. I think he may have been a bit artistic with the truth on other things but the litter picking I believe.

And Harry, I’m clearly joking. I don’t think you’re a Nazi fanatic.

I just think you like to buy dead women’s knickers.
 
Not seen much on this here. Points 1 and 2 seem a sticking point to even start but other nations including the UK seem to think it's a good idea. Not sure about Blair and Trump being sort of in charge either.

The fact that some are based on the previous agreement in January that Israel broke is also not great. I'm skeptical that the Trump economic plan will create affordable places for Palestinians to live. I get the feeling that while no one will be forced to leave, many may well be priced out.
 
I think thisn is key, they are single issue, but that issue seems to be a major factor in all the perceived major issues:

The economy is bad - stop spending millions on 5 star hotels

Foreign policy regarding Gaza - well stop importing all those people who protesting on behalf of their homeland, its not our problem.

NHS - overwhelmed by 1 million people extra per year, and health tourism

Housing - market is over saturated with demand for housing because of an extra 1 million people per year.

Crime - those pesky immigrants are sexually assaulting our women and stealing and eating the swans.

Corruption - the labour and Tories have all let a million people per year in to get rich.

Any aspect of politics has been cooped to put the blame on a collusion against the British population...

And it will work if Starmers best defence is to label them far right racists going forward.
Has the population ever gone up by a million a year let alone per year?
 
The fact that some are based on the previous agreement in January that Israel broke is also not great. I'm skeptical that the Trump economic plan will create affordable places for Palestinians to live. I get the feeling that while no one will be forced to leave, many may well be priced out.
Yes, a lot of it sounds good but how it will play out, or worse, what are the real motivations, is another matter.

I've heard talk of a multi Arab country force going in so again it'll be interesting to see how that plays out as well as whether Gazans are truly encouraged to stay. I would be more optimistic if Netenyahu loses the election next year and Trump wasn't behind any of this but I guess one good thing about Trump is that he's not an ideologue. He doesn't give a **** about any of this, which sounds bad, but the good thing is that he just cares about looking good and if he feels doing the "right thing" in this instance will make him look good then he'll do it. Problem is that kind of thinking can change like the wind which is just really another negative with Trump much like we're seeing with Ukraine. Forget I said anything, there is no positive to Trump being involved in this. We just got to hope it all pans out alright.
 
The fact that some are based on the previous agreement in January that Israel broke is also not great. I'm skeptical that the Trump economic plan will create affordable places for Palestinians to live. I get the feeling that while no one will be forced to leave, many may well be priced out.
I never really thought that this might be used as a property investment opportunity. I am being very skeptical of motives here I know. The people involved might really just want peace.
 
I never really thought that this might be used as a property investment opportunity. I am being very skeptical of motives here I know. The people involved might really just want peace.
Netenyahu just wants to stay out of jail and win the next election. I don't think there's any real desire to annex Gaza and move in Israeli settlers. I wouldn’t rule it out but I feel his primary goal is to win the next election and he probably feels this is a good way to do that.

Trump just wants to look good.
 
Not seen much on this here. Points 1 and 2 seem a sticking point to even start but other nations including the UK seem to think it's a good idea. Not sure about Blair and Trump being sort of in charge either.

One thing that concerns me, is that there is no mention of curtailing the Israeli expansion into the West Bank.

Israeli have already closed borders so and Palestinians are trapped.
 
Not wanting to speak for Vaquer (which means, I'm going to try to anyway) but*...
There's a difference between something being problematic, and of its time, and something that is problematic in its time AND the originator the problems is alive and profiting AND is using those profits to actively increase the problem.

Lewis Caroll isn't profiting from wonderland films; nor is he then using those profits to suppress a minority.

FTR: I'm in the "separate the art from the artist" camp - despite Ncurd's objections to me using that phrase, the intent of Ronald Barthes in "Death of the Author" doesn't really matter to me ;)
I'm generally in the "how much is the problematic person involved in the art as a proportion of that art?" - which isn't much. She wrote the story, and is a producer, but it's based on works written 25-15 years ago. I regard her as a very small part of this new interpretation. This is very different from buying a book of hers where she's pretty much the sole participant.
But*
She's also explicitly said that she's going to use the profits from this to fund anti-trans groups, sentiments and policies; and that crossed a red line for me.




* See, "anything a man says before the word 'but' can be ignored"

Has Rowling said she would use her profits for 'anti trans groups' or are you just deeming the women's groups she is funding as anti trans?
 
Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top