JK Rowling Backlash

[AlucardNoir]

Say I got onto a forum and said "AlucardNoir is a liar. He deliberately advocates a philosophy that is both wrong and harmful, and he does so with full knowledge that he is hurting people, but he doesn't care, because it makes him money. The exact details of how he does this are....complicated, and you don't really have the necessary background to understand, so I don't want to get into that, but trust me, he's a bad faith actor who profits by inflicting misery on others."

Would you really say I was just describing you?

1. Funny, that's the same dictionary I used to come to the exact opposite conclusion. I don't think it's insulting to call a murderer a murderer or discriminatory for that matter.

2. It's the stuff I balded that makes your statement a slur. As I said, if you ask for proof and none is given then it most likelly is a slur, but if proof is given then it does become just descriptive.

[LittleRaven]

2. It's the stuff I balded that makes your statement a slur.

Is that not what we're seeing here?

[AlucardNoir]

2. It's the stuff I balded that makes your statement a slur.

Is that not what we're seeing here?

It is and it isn't. My first reply to you was about the expression "bad faith actor" and whether or not it was a slur.

From my first reply:

You can't call someone a hypocrite because of assumptions you made about them, but you can call them a bad faith actor if they only pretended to share your values whist holding contradictory ones in private.

I never claimed any knowledge of the situation. I was literally only arguing the semantics of your position. I disagreed with your assessment that the war bad faith actor was a slur unto itself and that's what I've been arguing against since this lithe chat started. That and a few general questions in regards towards the left - at least the online left.

As I said, I don't know CounterPoint's work. I don't know if the accusation of CP acting in bad faith is justified or not. What I disagree with is your assessment that the expression "bad faith actor" is a slur and only a slur. Hell, for most of this conversation I've fallen on your side of the debate when it comes to proof, if CmdrKing has any evidence to prove CP is a bad faith actor it's up to them to bring it to the table. But as I've stated somewhere else, you classifying the expression used as a slur moves the goal post from requiring CmdrKing produce proof to accusing CmdrKing of slurring CounterPoint. And that's not something I can get behind.

This wasn't help by the fact that the first post of yours I replied to also tried to justify your position by saying other YT's on the left came out in suport of her. That's why the second part of my first reply asked if it wasn't somewhat hypocritical of you to say that considering the reply the left usually has when Hollywood for example protects their own when they're accused of certain "misdeeds" - which is what brought up Ellen and so on.

I'm sorry but my position has been quite clear on this. Your'e the one that keeps on moving the goal posts every time we reach any meaningful point. Is that not what's happening here? no, that's what you've been talking with CmdrKing, not me.

[LittleRaven]

It is and it isn't. My first reply to you was about the expression "bad faith actor" and whether or not it was a slur.

Yes, I realize you've been playing the pedantic card from the start. But that was back when you were confusing slander and slur. I'm perfectly happy to KEEP playing semantic games if you really want to, but since CmdrKing has been kind enough to clarify what she meant, I'm not sure why that's necessary. We no longer have to speculate about what Cmdr meant by "bad faith actor" and whether or not it was a slur. She laid her position out quite clearly in a later post.

'm saying is ContraPoints is full of shit, I believe knowingly full of shit, and continues on anyway because it is profitable, consequences and harm to others be damned. While it's possible that ContraPoints advocates its creator's genuine position, Natalie Wynn's personal beliefs are fairly irrelevant; we can only judge the videos and public statements, and they advance some pretty harmful stuff, predominantly about trans issues. When ContraPoints videos were about things beside gender and other directly trans-adjacent issues it was less noticeable, but basically all of 2019 kept circling about around to a presentation/"passing" focused definition of gender and being trans and public statements trying to defend this work tended to keep doubling down. After a year of that, I've given up on it as little more than a grift.

However a lot of this is some high level "thinking about being trans and how to shape a trans rights movement" stuff, things a cis person is highly unlikely to notice without a lengthy lecture on it, so a personal friend of Natalie's is just going to see the pushback and the inevitable shit-stirrers and nazis taking advantage of that and dismiss the entire thing. I suspect ContraPoints is going to dip more obviously into grift as time goes on, so we'll see other creators back away soon enough in all likelihood.

So...is that a slur, according to your definition? I'm inclined to say yes, but maybe you feel differently.

What I disagree with is your assessment that the expression "bad faith actor" is a slur and only a slur.

Yes, you've made that SUPER clear. And for the sake of flogging this poor dead equine ONE MORE TIME, I will concede that it is possible that there are cases where calling someone a bad faith actor is not a slur, since, as always, context is king. I'm just not familiar with those particular contexts. But as much as you want it to be true, something being accurate does not prevent it from being a slur. If I call you a cracker in anything other than a SUPER specific context, then I have slurred you, even if you are white. If I call you liar, then I have "cast aspersions" upon your character (to quote our mutual Webster definition) - even if you have in fact lied. A slur can be true, or it can be a lie. It can be descriptive, wholly imagined, innocent or malicious. All that matters is that paints the subject in a negative light.

To be fair, this is one of those words where the popular use and the technical definition have drifted a bit. We tend to use slur more like slander, so it's very natural to confuse the two. But they're actually two different things, which is why on that Webster page you like, you don't see anything about how the statement is deceptive, or spiteful, or inaccurate. A slur is simply "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo." And 99.99% of the time, calling someone a "bad faith actor" is insulting or disparaging - it's almost never a compliment. But of course, most of the time, when we call someone a bad faith actor, it's because they are actually acting in bad faith, and people who do that deserve to be disparaged.

I'm sorry but my position has been quite clear on this.

On this we agree. You've never been unclear, and I've never been confused by your position.

[AlucardNoir]

I'm perfectly happy to KEEP playing semantic games if you really want to, but since CmdrKing has been kind enough to clarify what she meant, I'm not sure why that's necessary. We no longer have to speculate about what Cmdr meant by "bad faith actor" and whether or not it was a slur. She laid her position out quite clearly in a later post.

On this we agree. You've never been unclear, and I've never been confused by your position.

No, no we apparently don't agree. You seem to think I was arguing if CmdrKing meant the words as an insult or not. I was not. I was arguing with your position that the expression is always a slur. I never cared what CmdrKing position was, you did. I cared about what you wrote.

If I call you liar, then I have "cast aspersions" upon your character (to quote our mutual Webster definition) - even if you have in fact lied.

No, no you actually have not, not if I lied. Actually look up the definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspersion
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defamation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defame
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparage
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparaging
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insulting

The reason why people "confuse" slur and slander is because they both can mean to defame someone. That's what casting aspersions means after all. And the thing about aspersions, defamation and slander is that the falseness of the statement is indeed part of the definition. And just in case you're lazy and don't want to go to Webster again.

aspersion: false and misleading charge
defamation: the act of communicating false statements about a person
to defame: law : to harm the reputation of by communicating false statements about
slander: to utter slander against : DEFAME | the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations

and finally slur: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : ASPERSION

If a statement is true and uttered in the context that it's describing a physical reality then it's not slander, it's not defamation and it's and an aspersion. IT can still be a slur if it is uttered in an irreverent manner(the insulting bit) or if it is uttered with the express purpose of belittling someone(the disparaging part of the definition.)

A slur can be true, or it can be a lie. It can be descriptive, wholly imagined, innocent or malicious. All that matters is that paints the subject in a negative light.

You believe that any remark containing any sort of negative implications in regards to the subject is a slur. You are wrong. Intention is what actually matters. If you intend for you remark to be insulting and or disparaging towards the person it is made then it is a slur. If you on the other hand are describing their action and do not intend to insult or demean them then you are not sluring them.

And thus we arrive at the crux of the matter, the second part of the definition of "slur": a shaming or degrading effect : STAIN, STIGMA.

No, I haven't been ignoring this second part of the definition. That's why I brought up "fascist" in the first place. Currently fascist is a stigma, a mark of shame. And yet, it is my opinion that calling Mussolini a fascist is not in fact sluring him. It cam be but is not.

Ex1:
Me: Mussolini made the trains run on time.
You: Mussolini was a fascist.


EX:
History professor, the Fascist leader if Italy, Benito Mussolini meat Hitler on...

I think I make myself clear.

As for the expression "bad faith actor". Though it never bears any good connotation, similar to how a doctor might have used the words "moron" and "retard" 150 years ago without meaning any insult, so to do I believe that discussing in good faith(that's the terminology, sue me) the underlying motivation of someone and using the phrase should not equate to either a slur or a slander thrown their way. And yes, Cmdr's post was not in good faith and it was a slur.

[LittleRaven]

No, no we apparently don't agree.

We agree that you've never been unclear. We don't agree on the semantics, but that doesn't seem likely to change, so why don't we stop derailing the thread and get back to talking about the actual issue being raised in it.

Because I assure you, discussing the relative merits of various gender identity theories is infinitely more interesting that arguing about the definition of slur.

[AlucardNoir]

No, no we apparently don't agree.

We agree that you've never been unclear. We don't agree on the semantics, but that doesn't seem likely to change, so why don't we stop derailing the thread and get back to talking about the actual issue being raised in it.

Because I assure you, discussing the relative merits of various gender identity theories is infinitely more interesting that arguing about the definition of slur.

The are no theories that have merit, there is only genetics and biology.

[LittleRaven]

The are no theories that have merit, there is only genetics and biology.

That's a position in and of itself, but not one that I suspect most transpeople would agree with. Even TruScum like Contra.

edit - Ugghh...I apologize, I shouldn't be so flippant. I DID ask for you position, after all. But if you don't mind my asking, how do we reconcile the notion that gender is only biology with the explosion of trans-identity that we're currently seeing? Sure, back in the day, transpeople were extremely rare and maybe we could simply chalk it up as mental instability, but these days, it's practically square to be CIS. They can't ALL be crazy.

[AlucardNoir]

The are no theories that have merit, there is only genetics and biology.

That's a position in and of itself, but not one that I suspect most transpeople would agree with. Even TruScum like Contra.

edit - Ugghh...I apologize, I shouldn't be so flippant. I DID ask for you position, after all. But if you don't mind my asking, how do we reconcile the notion that gender is only biology with the explosion of trans-identity that we're currently seeing? Sure, back in the day, transpeople were extremely rare and maybe we could simply chalk it up as mental instability, but these days, it's practically square to be CIS. They can't ALL be crazy.

No, they can't all be crazy. But some most likely are, and some are probably chasing trends - I don't want to say the majority but some probably are.

As for the actual matter at hand it's a matter of biology. There is at least one study that shows that infant boys and girls(biologically speaking) that are too young to form permanent memories and as such cannot be said to be influenced by societies conception of what is male and female will still select and play with stereotypical toys for their gender. Similarly there are other studies that showcase that while the general intelligence of men and women might be equal, the actual way men and women think are indeed different, with biological males and females excelling in different fields - despite general intelligence being roughly the same. That difference manifest at the neurological level and can be observed via different scanning methods. Why do these thing matter? because there is another study that found that trans people do in fact have more in common neurological with the gender they "identify" with then with their biological and genetic gender.

There is a clear biological component to human thought and intelect that is gendered and not socially dictated via nurture. Despite what blank slate feminist might like to say biological observations of humans say something completely different. The presence of such observation in transsexuals does indicate that at least a portion of that community does not suffer from a mere psychological disorder.

As for their numbers, they still aren't all that large, less then 0.1% by even the most pro trans studies, and that's the biologically male ones that identify as female, biological females that identify as males are a lot rarer. The number isn't large enough for all the hubbub that's around them, but large enough to warant recognition. What's important thought is how that recognition is given. Modern medicine has allowed for some rather atrocious potential crimes against humanity via chemical sterilization of prepubescents and surgical sterilization of adults that claim to be trans - claim because most counseling is usually just psychological as opposed to neurologically based, we know there are neurological differences, why are we still using pshycology?

Historically, even when trans people were recognized, they weren't actually recognized as the gender they identified as but as something else. Despite the higher rates of suicide in transexuals, transitioning has proven to be more then a double edged sword for some, with suicide caused by their psychological identity being higher after a decade and a half in individuals that have transitioned and with detransitioning being a thing.

We know for a fact that there is a biological component to human intelligence. We know for a fact that there is a component based not just on biology but also gender. There are noticeable neurological differences between the biological genders. What we need is more studies into the neurology of transsexuals. And of course to put a stop to sterilizations, especially of children. Too young to drink wine because it can alter the way the brain naturally develops but old enough to decide to take hormonal blockers that literally retard* the biological and neurological development the should have undergone under puberty? Are we serious?

*-and given our previous discussion, the verb retard uses with it's proper meaning of delay or impede and not as some sort of backhanded slur.

[CmdrKing]

*skims two days of nitpicking again*

I mean, I could say "The Aesthetic's core argument hinges on assigning primacy to presentation in determining the validity of a trans person's gender, which is also a core argument of transmedicalism. Most subsequent videos from ContraPoints have at one level or another been about this same topic, without ever challenging the underlying premise but instead attempting to claim this view somehow does not inherently invalidate non-binary identities in an attempt to deflect criticism... while also inserting an increasing pattern of jabs at those same critics.
Oh also this happened: https://lesbianchemicalplant.tumblr.com/post/190123452996/text-of-tweet-thread-by-anthony-dellarosa "

But there's a good deal of jargon in that, I have no interest in doing a multi-hour documentary finding the clips and explaining the background required for how the clips are interpreted that way, and if the audience is starting at this point:

edit - Ugghh...I apologize, I shouldn't be so flippant. I DID ask for you position, after all. But if you don't mind my asking, how do we reconcile the notion that gender is only biology with the explosion of trans-identity that we're currently seeing? Sure, back in the day, transpeople were extremely rare and maybe we could simply chalk it up as mental instability, but these days, it's practically square to be CIS. They can't ALL be crazy.

Wherein I'd have to explain "viewing sex as biologically binary is a simplification for 8 year olds that does not actually explain the real world", well I just don't have that kind of time usually. You'd have to at least get to high school genetics and biology to even get to intersex people, let alone the sociology and psychology to start seeing how gender interacts with sex. AND THEN you run into the fact that oh yeah, Literal Nazis burned all the literature on trans people in the 30s so we're only in the past 5-10 years advancing our understanding of how and why people experience gender outside their assigned sex.

Or, you could just believe people when they tell you how they experience gender. That seems a lot more likely to make the world better.