[GameRant]If Hogwarts Legacy 2 wants to avoid the same boycotts its predecessor faced, the sequel can't take the same approach that the original did.
- Thread starter LectureMaster
- Start date
- Opinion Cringe
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
They need to remove the tranny from the game, it was fucking stupid, even my kids called out how stupid it was, never cater to the mongoloids over at Reeeetard, they're insignificant cockweasles who think bullying people on Twitter means anything and the sooner companies ignore them the better... Boycott lolz 35mil on sales and they called it a boycott, fuck off
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
Every critical thinking adult can separate the sexes into two distinct entities, only cunts mix em up and just because they want to call a man in a dress a women doesn't mean the rest of the world is gonna play along with there stupidity
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
I blocked that site from showing up on my Google News feed a long time ago. Lots of low effort, search engine optimized clickbait. Wouldn't be surprised if most of it is AI generated.
WellSheet
Member
I'd also wager every critical thinking adult can separate that a very vocal and toxic minority group who thinks they can force other people into agreeing that biology isn't valid or that their "truth" is superseded because said toxic minority group says it is doesn't mean the writer/creator deserves any less praise, ownership or respect
GermanZepp
Member
iHaunter
Member
She can both deserve praise and be a cunt.
WellSheet
Member
Right…because she doesn't subscribe to your worldview, she's unequivocally a cunt.
That sounds awfully like how those damned bigots you mentioned operate….
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
This isn't really about "differing worldviews". It's really about repeatedly using a global platform to use rhetoric that undermines the safety and legitimacy of a marginalized group. J.K. Rowling isn't being criticized because she has an unpopular view — she's being criticized because she publicly stated and acted in ways that further a particular harmful stereotype about transgender people and for using her visible platform to create a culture of marginalization and discrimination.
But sure, keep gaslighting.
But sure, keep gaslighting.
Madserb2023
Member
No need. She is completely sane.
WellSheet
Member
No, it's totally about that.
You're labeling her in whatever way you want because you've attributed her right to speak out on a topic that.m - Until 15 minutes ago - Was NOT controversial, and because a group of people who claim identity as the opposite sex or believe sex is invalid and gender is a concept, and the rest of the world has to affirm their beliefs, we should cowtow to them; even when what Rowling talks about is blatantly about FEMALE spaces being inhabited by men who wish to cosplay as women, who have been in women's prisons and "taken advantage" of that to cause sexual harm; when Rowling herself comes from a place of having been sexually assaulted…
But sure, I'm the one gaslighting
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
I'm addressing something she has control over vs the latter.
And yes, all you're doing is straw manning and gaslighting. If you want a real discussion DM me. This isn't the place for a debate.
WellSheet
Member
I appreciate your willingness to debate; I don't think there's any point in that.
And if you were intellectually honest in your presentation of Rowling's views and stances on Trans and why and what she advocated for, you'd know you're the one whose doing what you're accusing me of. Projection is a funny thing.
The proof is in your in the first line of your statement saying that these people don't have "control" over thinking they're the opposite sex.
We won't even come from a foundational shared starting place to have a one.
The most we can likely agree too is that we don't share the same worldview. That's it.
Again, kudos to you for offering, but we will just likely talk at each other.
I know what's true; you think you do as well. So what's the point in us trying to "educate" each other differently - you're not here to change your mind, neither am I.
Last edited:
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
Yeah, she has not done what this user accused her of. She's defending women's rights and defending women's rights to having their own intimate spaces. She's done nothing to harm anybody, that's just a flat out lie. I admire her a great deal for speaking out amidst nothing but death threats and rape threats. Which kind of proves her point to begin with. She's an important voice and I commend her for speaking out.
diffusionx
Gold Member
She can say whatever she wants. The idea that her, and everyone else, needs to say whatever a "marginalized group" allows her to say lest they are "harmed" or "delegitimized" - this is totally crazy and insane. They don't get veto power over speech.
And it goes far beyond "criticism".
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
Having "free speech" allows you to share any thoughts you want, but it does not allow you to be immune from outrage and consequences if your thoughts harm others. Nobody is asking to "veto" Rowling's speech, rather, they respond and engage with her. When a public figure utilizes their public platform and carries on questioning the legitimacy of an already marginalized community that public figure is not expressing an "opinion," they are using their speech to deepen the stigma and discrimination that leads to that community being marginalized themselves.
To say this is not censorship; this is holding public figures accountable. Members of "marginalized groups" do not want to control what others can say, they simply want their humanity validated by the rest of us and the right to simply exist without becoming a thought experiment for the rest of society. Speech does have consequences and claiming that criticism is censorship is an evasion of accountability, not a defense of liberty.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
Her thoughts didn't harm anyone. She did not invalidate anyone's humanity. She did not advocate for violence. If anything she was saying the same thing a lot of peopel were feeling but could not say because of the cancel culture of the time.
The idea that it was "engagement and response" is hilarious.
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic.
WellSheet
Member
The issue with this specific marginalized community is they very much do require you to agree with their viewpoints, you cannot dissent or disagree. You cannot speak up and say it's false or untrue what they are claiming. You must be in lockstep with their worldview, and if you use your platform, no matter how Big it is, you are not allowed to dissent.
So the very thing you're telling us we have to allow for group is something that you've said J. K. Rowling is not allowed to do.
Why?
just because she is a massively well-known person she now has forfeited the ability to speak her values and fight for her beliefs?
According to you, it seems like she's not allowed to speak out on a topic because this so-called marginalized community is going to receive harm and damage from her speech is a real slippery slope; it sounds like authoritarianism.
Free speech for those who I agree with and for those who say the things I agree with; but free speech is not permitted for those who will say things that I don't like, therefore anything someone takes to their platform to speak on that I don't agree with is now a bigot and is causing harm so they must be silenced.
You do see the hypocrisy in your viewpoint do you not? Of course you don't
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
Nobody is suggesting that Rowling should be silenced — she is free to speak. But free speech is not a shield from criticism, particularly when that speech reinforces harm toward already marginalized people's identities. It is not authoritarian to ask for empathy. I'm a straight white dude.
You may disagree without dehumanizing someone or even calling for their punishment. The issue here, it is not about speaking out, it is how she spoke out — tying trans people's identities to threats, portraying trans people as dangerous to women, and implying transgender people are 'fake'. This is not brave dissent, this is punching down. We may defend her right to speak, but still expect basic compassion and responsibility from someone with such influence.
ok groomer or more likely predator
Zacfoldor
Member
You started it but now we don't get to say our opinion is how that works.
Stand by the courage of your convictions. If you wanna debate, let's debate but if you don't then why get edgy if we don't get to get edgy right back?
I understand you wanted to get it out but you don't want and maybe can't talk about it because of the no politics rule, I get it.
....but just know that you are being unfair when you get to bring it up in public, decorate the page in shit then tell us to take it to DMs. Woke or unwoke, that's not fair to anyone. We all want to bust loose on this topic but everyone else kept it inside...sorry to add to the inevitable pile-on but we were wronged, lol.
Last edited:
Plague Doctor
Member
To add on, in many spaces you can't even 'agree to disagree' or even have a complicated view/questions on the topic or remain quiet.
If you aren't 150 fucking percent on their bandwagon, you are causing harm.... somehow. If you aren't capitulating talking points and actively showing support, you are against them. You are the worst things imaginable.
It's an unhinged cult in many places.
Last edited:
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
LordCBH
Member
And most of us are fucking sick of it and refusing to play that game anymore.
nush
Member
It's a forum, you absolute tool.
definition of a forum: a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
WellSheet
Member
Her free speech isn't shield, no one here has said that.
I fully agree if she brings her viewpoints into the public square, she should defend them; and that she has.
But you seem willingly immune to WHAT she largely advocates for. Is SAFETY from MEN invading women's spaces under the guise of trans identity. She has cited numerous accounts and scenarios where these very individuals have caused great harm to actual women; but you're saying the marginalized community of the self-identifying trumps the community of women?
That's crazy shit.
Also, you say that she is allowed to speak her viewpoint, but just above you're saying that, and I don't know how else I'm supposed to really read your viewpoint, she has a platform and she's punching down so, she shouldn't be advocating or saying anything about this community in the way she has. Even if she changed her tone about the Tran community, but held all the same viewpoints you would likely still say she's causing harm. She could never win unless she had a different viewpoint or stopped speaking.
if tomorrow some magical law was enacted that would silence J. K. Rowling because she is a person of a certain status from being able to share her viewpoint, whether you like it or not, I don't think you would be sitting here saying she should be allowed to speak.
You act as if you are as a proponent for free speech but you seem like you support it if it only when it fits your agenda.
Last edited:
iHaunter
Member
Proves my point. No one is invading her space. They're trans. Bigots in a pot. Please elaborate what this "Safety" is.
WellSheet
Member
She was sexual assaulted when she was young;
She also has discussed many instances where, the main one that sticks out was men who identified as women being put into women's prisons and subsequently sexually assaulting them.
The sports discussion of men in women sports is a tired one, but there's myriads of scenarios globally of this being an issue.
There's also the issue of free will. You can't sit here and tell people that they have to agree that this is real when, like I said in one of my first posts to you, this was not a real social talking point until about 10 years ago.
If you think you can so easily write off safety, comfort, respect for biological women because you want to prioritize a marginalized group; a marginalized group who have self agency to identify however they choose on any given day I could wake up tomorrow and say I'm gender fluid and be whatever construct I create on any given day and you have to affirm and agree with my reality - and if you don't choose to operate off my basis but on the basis that sex is immutable and that biology is final, then I get to name call you and I get to call fire storm down upon you, I get to cancel you and I get to have the liberal mob come after you and try to ruin you, you are choosing to enforce your version of reality and your only Trump card is to say because she has a platform she shouldn't be allowed to target this group.
You get to use words like that because you make them seem weaker than they are.
You use all the buzz words to try to make them seem like they have no power, institutionally they have a ton of power, but people in the world are sick of being told that they have to agree with that viewpoint. Sure they're crazies out there who will do horrible things, but by enlarge almost every conservative or person who I know who doesn't agree with this viewpoint they just don't agree and they'll stand up for it, roll their eyes and move on with their lives. Most of the people I hear complaining that they're marginalized and in trouble and this group needs protecting and they're going to get hurt or killed it's being propagated and spoken about by the group themselves. It's almost like they're lighting the match to start the fire and then cry out that someone else created the issue
Last edited:
viveks86
Member
Don't we all? Very few of us that support absolute free speech under all circumstances, even if it works against our ideals. Most will spin it into "not free of consequences" based on who is speaking and how that makes them feel.
That's not necessarily a bad thing per se. It's natural to want to protect one's own principles and ideology against potentially destructive thoughts. But the lack of self awareness while doing so is always worth examination.
iHaunter
Member
I do agree with those two points but those are very very specific and rare instances of this happening.
WellSheet
Member
I agree, but rarely in the circles that I travel at least, do I ever hear people saying that someone should be silenced for their liberal viewpoint.
Del debate and they'll agree to disagree, even if it's heated. But I don't talk to people who say your platform should be neutered or you shouldn't have a voice, or you should face consequences just because you think differently.
Poppinfresh
Member
Sorry, but severely mentally ill people playing dress up don't deserve any legitimacy.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Poppinfresh
Member
Nah, we're just adults with common sense who are tired of thin-skinned woketards like you trying to tell us to accept and "legitimize" abominations that go against both nature and God.
viveks86
Member
Agreed, but give it a few years. Given how polarized the world currently is, it's only a matter of time before people lose patience and interest in debating the other side. Things are going to get a lot worse before common sense prevails again.
WellSheet
Member
Cycles happen for sure. I'll say the same things then as I do now - I don't advocate for anyone to not be allowed to speak or that shouldn't be allowed to due to their status.
But, this specific bubbling up has been going on for 10 years, so the tides had to shift at a certain point. People are sick of it. They were a while ago, they just are tired of keeping quiet.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
That whole series of tweets is worth reading, very interesting.
iHaunter
Member
Your fat fucking virgin ass goes against god and nature. God isn't real.
Poppinfresh
Member
I seem to have hit a troon nerve.
It's telling that the only insults you can come up with are "fat," "virgin," and "MAGA."
Childish.
MAGA, in particular is not an insult. I wear that like a badge of honor.
God bless you. I pray you see the error of your ways, turn away from abomination, and are able to find redemption through Christ before the final judgement day.
Last edited:
xenosys
Member
Always amuses me when a two-bit publication like GameRant starts publishing garbage articles like these.
Do they even read what they write? This game was boycotted by a very loud minority, including some reviewers who thought pushing ideology was more important than honestly reviewing a video game and ultimately they were laughed at.
Despite all of the 'outrage' the game still sold 35m copies.
Do they even read what they write? This game was boycotted by a very loud minority, including some reviewers who thought pushing ideology was more important than honestly reviewing a video game and ultimately they were laughed at.
Despite all of the 'outrage' the game still sold 35m copies.
xenosys
Member
The irony is that her ideology and worldview lines up with 99% of the blue-haired crowd and always has done, but they're just too stupid to see past the one thing they don't agree on.
This is the purity test that takes place on that side of the political spectrum. If you don't agree with them on 100% of absolutely everything, you get ostracized.
These people aren't intelligent human beings. They buy her books and then burn them in a show of pathetic virtue, despite still lining her pockets via those book sales.
Last edited:
