JK Rowling Feared Ex-Husband Would Steal And Burn Her Harry Potter Manuscript

@esqueejy: No argument there, but it seems the gaming media only wants to hammer one part of her.

You explain that people who have one good idea are a dime a dozen. How many people in the history of this planet, and the billions who have lived on it, have had such a good idea it’s made them billions of dollars?

@mogan: The problem isn't that there IS significant number of people saying it, but that those people will actually stalk and harass anyone who disagrees with them. Providing coverage of these events isn't just a matter of fair reporting, but also a PSA for anyone willing to publicly stream or acknowledge "the game". There IS a meaningful and significant risk factor in publicly connecting yourself to "that game".

@esqueejy: Jesus, I'm going to need to respond to this like a school teacher marking a particularly poorly written high school essay.

Bari Weiss is a known quantity grifter and bigot in her own right. She's as biased as it gets and a total clown...all while play-acting that her only concern is objectivity and such.

This is opinion parading as fact. No evidence to support. Casual insult of subject suggests writer's bias and immediately makes the reader wary of the writer's objectives.

The article linked actually makes cogent, coherent, fact-based criticism of both her and Phelps-Roper, particularly with respect to their posturing and preening about being capable of seeing through to the truth about something everyone is already staring at. It's nothing but "red pill" self-aggrandizement.

Such as? If one is going to make disparaging remarks about the subject, there's a duty on the writer to substantiate the claims - what 'red pill self-aggrandizement'? What 'fact-based' criticism? What posturing and preening? The length of your response is already problematic - there shouldn't be superfluous, empty sentences! Do better!

As to criticisms of the thin-ness of the substance of the podcast, the misplaced attempt to "bothsides" Rowling's supposed persecution, taking people with legitimate gripes about her demonstrable tendency to rely on misinformation, stereotypes/tropes, unfounded fearmongering, stilted ideological orthodoxy and outright deflection with respect to her positions on trans people and falsely equating them with the loonies from the First Baptist Church is just a giant analogy failure, but a deliberate one.

Again, a lot of words to say not very much at all. Brevity is key! What misplaced attempt to 'both sides'? What supposed persecution - the death threats, the physical abuse she received for years at the hands of her husband? What is it that you're defending - clarity required! What misinformation? Who mentioned stereotypes/tropes? What unfounded fearmongering and stilted ideological orthodoxy? This is starting to read like a list of insults aimed at the subject of the documentary rather than the documentary itself. This all reads very hollow given no link is made to any statements actually made in the work itself. Reads like a list of gripes you have with Rowling, once again leading the reader to question whether this is really an analysis of the work or a further brandishing of your own biases.

These people have their own agenda, it's not hidden or fooling anyone and it's on display in the podcast. You may not agree, but the article isn't making baseless, unsubstantiated and unsupported claims or engaged in contra-factual argument. Not even remotely. The bulk of people criticizing her aren't engaged in any of the crap or even similar crap as the First Baptist people were engaged in, but the podcast works hard to paint them all with that brush, because the goal is Rowling's exoneration through her victimhood narrative.

Who are "these people"? What is the "agenda" - where is the evidence to support that accusation? How does the podcast paint the gender radicals of today as the same as the First Baptist people of the 90s? It hasn't even reached the gender argument yet, covering only the 90s. I mean, for any objective reader it's pretty obvious where the similarities lie: dogmatic ideologues who hate the author, have called for her censorship, have publicly burned her books, and have send her endless death threats and harassment - some of whom she's had to sue or have police action taken against. But where does the podcast make these connections. This is a big problem with your very long essay - it may make the reader doubt whether you've watched the documentary.

Moreover, much of the criticism in the article...

The entirety of this paragraph is some sort of detour down a tangential path I'm not particularly interested in, mixed in with attempts to create a false binary in which everyone on your side of the argument is morally upstanding and anyone on the side of it, or anyone who suggests they're on neither side are morally evil. A childish view of the world, again betraying the parochial and rigid mindset you're trapped in.

The reality is, when it comes to the Zombie Fourth Estate...

This paragraph is more of the same, just unnecessary elaboration on your philosophy toward truth. Only slightly notable because you seem to be actually denying the tenets of subjectivism or post-modernism, which is in fact the biggest cudgel your side of the argument has - the denial of objective reality, the questioning of biological truths, etc. So I don't really know where you're actually going with that, I only know that it's a mountain path once again removed from the point of this discussion. Try to stay on topic!

There is one quick note, however. Remember to not use words you don't understand! This will undermine your argument and have the reader question your intelligence! You say '...allowing them to fully manipulate the perceived location of Occam's Razor by engaging in neverending escalation and radicalization...' Whilst tempting to use fancy sounding theories, when used incorrectly, it can be very embarrassing, making the writer appear precocious or lacking in self-awareness. In simple terms, Occam's Razor is the theory that when multiple answers to a question exist, the answer which provides the simplest explanation (e.g., has the least number of of explainable variables) is the right one. Clearly this makes absolutely no sense in your sentence, and you likely were reaching for the theory of the 'Overton Window'.

That's why we have book bans and neofascist speech bans in FL...

Oh gosh. A third, very long paragraph that is not addressing the substance of the topic and once again providing further exposition of your wider political views and concerns. Nazis on the streets or Orlando and people shouting antisemitic insults from their car windows are not related to this subject. As a writer, please remember you write for the consumption of others. This self-indulgence in your prose is a bad habit you need to lose.

Baseless, substanceless turds come out of the mouths of the worst actors imaginable...

A FOURTH unrelated paragraph, further expounding on your personal political views. It's starting to read like a ***-packet manifesto, it's barely relatable to the topic at hand and where it is related was conveyed well within the first two paragraphs. You're at serious risk of the reader disengaging entirely at this point.

So yeah, another boring episode of you and your chiding which is easily seen through once the article you're flinging turds at gets read. I don't even agree with everything in it myself, but it wasn't poorly supported or written. It's just opinion you don't like because there was bothsiderism in the poorly done agenda-driven podcast that affirmed your confirmation biases.

As a conclusion, you unfortunately plunge to very prosaic, generic insults. You assert your own self-aggrandising opinions as factual conclusions in an attempt to dismiss the original comment without engaging it. You assert motives to the original comment that are not supported by fact and are again simply conjured up to reinforce or reassure yourself of your own moral surety.

In my own conclusion, I find your reply (and I've unfortunately engaged with you enough to be able to apply this to your replies in general) to be ridiculously verbose, lacking in any real substance, packed with bias, insults, a parochial point of view which fails almost entirely to be able to engage with any views outside of your own, reasoning which is so rigid it is in a state of rigor mortis, and generally self-indulgent. I find that your lengthy rambles have a bad habit of moving from good faith dialectic to monotonous, rote repetition of your general beliefs which is quite boring from a reader's perspective.

I don't think I'll be able to respond to you anymore. I just don't have the luxury of endless free time that you seem to have at your disposal. And responding to you would require a lot of time to correct all of the fallacious and illogical things you're prone to constantly espouse.

@Barighm: I wouldn't be shocked if anything Potter related gets comments locked from here on in. Nothing says silencing people like shutting down any sort of public forum and all smh.