JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Razgovory]

Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.

Never did like third-person shooters.  It's first person or nothing.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't get lesbians bitching about the Sharon Stone beaver shot movie and I don't get this about JK Rowling.  Should cis and straight people be bitching about the other 99.99% of villains?

[crazy canuck]

Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.

What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else.  Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.

[grumbler]

What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else.  Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.

I know the term "null and void" is a big one for you to grasp, but you don't need to, as I wasn't responding to you.  So stop feeling all butthurt.

But, for your info, here's a definition:

Definition of null and void
: having no force, binding power, or validity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20and%20void



BTW, that's an example of talking down to someone, as opposed to the post where I first used the term.

[Eddie Teach]

Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.

What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else.  Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.

"I'm rubber, you're glue."

[DGuller]

Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.

What looks even worse is someone using a term like null and void to attempt to talk down to someone else.  Getting called for it, and then some idiot not liking the first idiot getting called out.

I'm not sure that convoluted hypothetical scenario does look worse.

[viper37]

Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.

Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

[Razgovory]

Huh?

[Valmy]

Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.

Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.

[viper37]

Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.

Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.

Sure.  Until these people decide they're tired of waiting for a government to act.

[Josquius]

Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.

Remember when we thought Iran was evil for declaring a Fatwah against Salman Rushdie?

I mean I do think a government calling for murder goes a bit beyond cancel culture.

Sure.  Until these people decide they're tired of waiting for a government to act.

Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？

Just compare Farage getting a milk shake thrown at him vs Jo Cox being shot in her office.
People being mean to Rowling on twitter and saying they won't buy her books anymore vs.Owen Jones being beaten on the street.

Making a point without violence is literally what boycotting those with beliefs you disagree with is about.

[Eddie Teach]

Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？

Those figures sound pretty sus.

[grumbler]

Do we need to point to that statistic about 2% of politically linked killings coming from the left vs 74% from the right？

Those figures sound pretty sus.

In the US, according to the ADL, since 1970, 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing non-Islamic extremists, while 23.4 percent can be attributed to right-wing Islamic extremists.  The other 3.2% were not members of any right-wing extremist group. 
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds

So, yeah, that 2% looks sus, as it represents over half of the total non-right-wing extremists, when there must have been a number of moderate extremists, right?  The 74% ignores the right-wing Islamists, which it should not do.  It should read 96.7%.

[Eddie Teach]

If you're limiting yourself to an American context, calling jihadists right-wingers is very misleading. The issue they care about is foreign policy, on which they are diametrically opposed to US right-wingers.

That aside, the process of deciding which murders are due to "extremism" vs some other cause (frex mental illness) sounds highly political.

[grumbler]

If you're limiting yourself to an American context, calling jihadists right-wingers is very misleading. The issue they care about is foreign policy, on which they are diametrically opposed to US right-wingers.

That aside, the process of deciding which murders are due to "extremism" vs some other cause (frex mental illness) sounds highly political.

Extremists are mentally ill.  That's no secret. 

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw between Islamist right-wing extremists and secular or Christian right-wing extremists.  They are motivated by the same belief: that those who reject their brand of received wisdom do so because of pride and ignorance, and they must pay for that.  The difference between Timothy McVay and Osama bib Laden was money, that's all.  If McVay had had bin Laden's money, he'd have tried to kill thousands, and not just little kids.