It’s Wiki. It’s not terribly useful for controversial topics. Why don’t you call the Holocaust Museum tomorrow and ask them.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735
I don’t have a Twitter account anymore, so I can’t look for the whole thread. The “not the first” tweet is an answer to someone replying to this tweet here.
Edit: found it:

I actually don’t. Is it something specific to Nazism or to authoritarian governments in general?

You should be careful lying about who is a Nazi.

The more you do it, the less power that word has.

Similar to antisemetic.

See Le Guin --> upvote,

Simple as

I have no doubt that Rowling’s story isn’t original. There are many authors better than her, yet less popular. The Harry Potter story is a love-hate thing for most of its fans and its success is a matter opportunity i’d guess.
But it is part of childhood for many and that alone makes it important enough to keep the better parts of it close to heart.

I’ll probably get to read Earthsea eventually, I just need to find the time to invest in it properly.

The thing about Lemmy is that it’s like jumping from closet to closet, with everyone thinking they’re the ones outside. And I don’t feel like the exception.
It’s an active process to take a moment and consider that maybe the walls we surround ourselves with aren’t really that healthy.

No, people who support bigots should go into a closet.

Weird. I feel kind of ambivalent, but not dysphoric or anything. Like I could just as easily have been born into a different body and felt no worse off.

deleted by creator

To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:

I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.

I disagree. I have felt like crap many times when I did what I consider the wrong thing. She knows what she is doing which pretty much only leaves sociopath or sadistic. Either way time to stop apologizing for her.

It’s weird to me because I don’t view her in the same way I do, say, Republicans or Trump or Bannon or Miller or Putin, etc. For all intents she is a bleeding-heart leftist who vehemently opposes the narrative of the right’s fearmongering in respect to most other issues. If she was just another greedy sociopathic republican-type then I wouldn’t be the least-bit surprised.

So I’m not convinced she’s a psychopath sociopath on par with the aforementioned; from what I can tell I do think she’s deeply confused and has some personal trauma that feeds a puritannical belief in feminism.

Ethics are interesting because you can ignore them. It’s like, ethics exist within you regardless of whether you agree to them; if you don’t listen to that little voice, it gets easier and easier to ignore it. To put that in practical terms: murdering someone is pretty ethically difficult. Murdering a second time is less ethically difficult. It’s like we build a climate around ourselves; the more you listen to your ethical beliefs, the more repugnant the idea of ignoring them becomes.

That said, I’m not sure I’m on board with you on RHCP – but that’s maybe just me. I used to listen to them a lot in jr high (I’m old) when blood sugar sex magic had just come out. And while your opinion is totally valid, for me, like, I never thought he was much of an ethical role model. His lyrics are pretty misogynistic. (And, not great regardless, from a “objective artistic/poetic” perspective.) So like yeah he’s not a great person, but he never pretended to be, so to find out he isn’t doesn’t change much.

(As opposed to, say, Jowling Kowling Rowling, who used to talk about hating bigotry, but then turned out to be a super terrible bigot.)

Flea, on the other hand – I’ve never looked into him. I’m also a bassist and his influence on my bass education is so deep that I’m afraid to find out if he’s toxic lol. But he’s been in a band with Anthony Keidis for like 40 years, so, he’s probably not perfect.

(I’m not a slap or funk bassist, but what I learned from Flea was how to feel it. You can’t play Flea’s bass lines mechanically, they literally don’t sound correct; you have to feel the vibe, the groove has to move your fingers, not the time signature. That dude, ffs I hope he’s not an asshole, because he’s fucking incredible.)

Though IDK – after long careers together, from what I understand, people tend to see each other less.

For example, after the whole Me Too thing started, I heard an interview with Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s brother, the two of them started Miramax together and were basically partners. But he knew his brother was a piece of shit, and, at that time a few years ago, hadn’t actually spoken to him in “many years.” He didn’t dwell on the topic, he just said that, basically, and his tone was like, obviously disgusted, but he didn’t want to spend the time talking about that, so he didn’t.

He wasn’t exactly going to snitch his own brother into prison, and that’s asking a bit too much imo, but it shows ethical strength to not slip into that same kind of toxicity, especially when it’s so close to you, and probably so easy.

Sure but used book stores are great, you can find some weird shit sometimes. Serisously I once found an old ass copy of dianetics in the sci-fi section, old lady running the place found it great that I got her little joke.

Is Joe Rogan transphobic? It would be entirely unsurprising, I already hated him because he was constantly putting air into the Alt Right.

The person above apparently posts here specifically because they don’t agree with us based on their responses in this thread. So I guess they don’t understand why people would want to be around those they are in agreement with.

One, this is regular news. Nowhere in the title of the community or the rules listed does it say only politics news, far as I’ve seen.
Two, you’d have to be a moron to consider people who don’t think the same way you do as morons.
Three, morons are allowed to participate in society. If you disagree with this, well, good thing we’re in the right place to discuss discrimination.

You’re partially right. I am confusing the two, but not the spirit of their meaning, which is “to conserve”. Conservation is a force for good, but this political party thing is only focused on the bad.
Why let it occupy the entire meaning and overshadow its better uses? To say “Conservative” with disgust is to ignore its potential for better uses.

Oh! I thought they were referring to hunters or something.

It’s usually used perjoratively by the left, tbf.

In the established party-political sense, Liberal is now clear enough. But liberal as a term of political discourse is complex. It has been under regular and heavy attack from conservative positions, where the senses of lack of restraint and lack of discipline have been brought to bear, and also the sense of a (weak and sentimental) generosity. The sense of a lack of rigour has also been drawn on in intellectual disputes. Against this kind of attack, liberal has often been a group term for PROGRESSIVE or RADICAL (qq.v.) opinions, and is still clear in this sense, notably in USA. But liberal as a pejorative term has also been widely used by socialists and especially Marxists. This use shares the conservative sense of lack of rigour and of weak and sentimental beliefs. Thus far it is interpreted by liberals as a familiar complaint, and there is a special edge in their reply to socialists, that they are concerned with political freedom and that socialists are not. But this masks the most serious sense of the socialist use, which is the historically accurate observation that liberalism is a doctrine based on INDIVIDUALIST (q.v.) theories of man and society and is thus in fundamental conflict not only with SOCIALIST (q.v.) but with most strictly SOCIAL (q.v.) theories. The further observation, that liberalism is the highest form of thought developed within BOURGEOIS (q.v.) society and in terms of CAPITALISM (q.v.), is also relevant, for when liberal is not being used as a loose swear-word, it is to this mixture of liberating and limiting ideas that it is intended to refer. Liberalism is then a doctrine of certain necessary kinds of freedom but also, and essentially, a doctrine of possessive individualism.

Keywords --Raymond Williams

No. We’re talking political categorisations, not the dictionary definition.

Conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal.

Liberals are socially liberal and economically liberal.

Liberals have never had a problem abandoning their high-minded ideals when there were savages to civilise. Because liberalism has no analysis of power, and an absolute belief in the fundamental impossibility that they could be wrong about anything.

There’s no doubt that she is shifting to the right, because they are fawning over her and she has no politics. See also Linehan and Chappelle. They were all bog-standard liberals before being criticised.

A really tragic trajectory. His work was genuinely great. And there isn’t going to be any more of it (unless his new fascist pals persuade him to do a Leni Riefenstahl for them).

HBomberGuy’s Donkey Kong 64 “Fuck You Graham” nightmare stream for trans rights was absolutely marvelous

Yes, that’s the divide within ‘radical feminism’. The trans-exclusionary TERFs and the trans-inclusionary TIRFs. They both start with “gender is a social construct” but the TERFs have somehow got from there to biological essentialism. They’re a minority of a minority. But they tend to be middle-class so they make a lot of noise.

They sound like pleasant people to be around

And her views are fucking hateful and stupid.

Are you advocating for violence? I don’t understand your machine gun comment.

Totally agree with all of that. But I think the disagreement is based on what you think a liberal is. She is a New Labourite through and through.

British transphobia is as prevalent amongst middle-class, white liberals (centrists) as it is on the right; I’d say that they started it here.

Writers for The Guardian (US) wrote a letter protesting that bastion of liberalism’s transphobic stance: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK.

The political dividing line here is very, very different to that in the US.

The reason traditional gender roles are called than and are that is because most people act in accordance with them.

And I disagree that all female characters have less depth intentionally.

These are still books about a boy, told from his point of view. Most of the depth is in his head.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft

I’m not responsible for you or JK Rowling being ignorant on history.

Good place to start. They absolutely considered trans people to be a thing and specifically targeted trans people as part of the holocaust and in their propaganda. They demonized Magnus Hirschfield as being a pedophile and corrupting the natural order of man and woman. They appealed to eugenicist mothers by saying that the influence of his clinic would cause their children to be trans and therefore subhuman.

Magnus was a gay jewish man. He was a pioneering figure in transgender rights. Lili Elbe, the Danish woman, received vaginoplasty and a womb transplant at his institute for sexology. She wasn’t the first person to receive it there. Trans women were prescribed hormones there in very early hormone therapy regimens.

They’d be around to tell you about it but they were sent to concentration camps and even if they survived that the allied occupation forces all also had laws that persecuted trans people. Many were forced into the closet to survive.

Stop denying genocide against us. You are literally doing the thing we’re all here to talk about. Stop denying my history.

How can an opinion be “factually wrong?”

Lol.

There you go doing it again. Pretending that anyone who goes against the tribe is immediately, factually wrong.

Thanks for proving my point.

Lmao this is the guy who’s like “hey Nazis suck but…”

Then 2 years later you see him sig hailing on some Facebook pic and like “yupppp”

What a tool.

Youb blatantly minimized that the Nazis targeted LBTQ people in the Holocaust. That’s 100% homophobia. But apparently we aren’t allowed to call that out here.

one is history illiterate asshole while the other is special-grade asshole

I contend that they are the same type of asshole with the same goal but they present their arguments in a way that makes a portion of the populace jump ever so slightly onto their side. If they can get people to agree that one portion of the Holocaust was more tragic than another then they have already begun to chip away at what made the Holocaust so horrendous. Holocaust denial isn’t about not thinking it happened, it’s about pretending they think it didn’t happen to devillainize their side. Just because they picked one group affected by the Holocaust over another doesn’t make it any less Holocaust denial, it just makes it Holocaust denial that doesn’t bother you, meaning they won.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Classic nazi tactic to come for groups you don’t care about so they can eventually come for you.

deleted by creator