What book are you currently reading?

[Bada-Bing!]

The history of the World Cup by Brian Glanville. Last read this 22 years ago before the 2002 WC. Since been updated to cover up to Brazil 2014.

England's record at the WC - 1 x winner, twice semi finalists, 7 times QFs, 2 x last 16, 1 x 2nd Group stage exit and 3 x 1st Group stage exit over 16 WCs. The rest either did not participate or qualify for. A pretty damning record for the country that invented the game.

2026 it'll be 60 years since 1966.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Following on from history of the World Cup reading "Euro Summits - the story of the UEFA European Championships" - written by an Irishman Jonathan O'Brien.

Covering all the euros from 1960 to 2021 in anticipation to this summer's euros. How
Much it has changed from the four reaching the final competition to the bloated 24 team competition we'll see this summer.

Also the "Greatest of their time" by Benedict Bermange (foreword by Damon Hill) covering 64 sports men and women who were the GOTT from 1700-2022. Clearly not a Rugby fan though as he did not include one GOTT from the sport - Edwards, Lomu, McCaw, Carter. And scandalously missed off Zidane, who was the GOHT even though he included Ronaldo Nazario, who I was a massive fan of was included. Lol and no Djokovic.

Still, this author's opinion.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Harry Potter: Is Miriam Margolyes right that adult fans should 'grow up'?

Fans of the wizarding world have denounced Miriam Margolyes, who said the franchise was for children.

www.bbc.co.uk

Loved the books and the films, but once consumed I was well and truly over them.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Meh, let people enjoy things - doesn't harm anyone

 

[Which Tyler]

Meh, let people enjoy things - doesn't harm anyone

Exactly this.
They're good stories, poor literature.
And people are allowed to enjoy whatever they enjoy (within the limits of "not hurting (or encouraging the hurt of) anyone else", and the law - though usually when the law disagrees with the first limit, then it's a bad law).

Some people like the Harry Potter books, some people like Coldplay, some people like surfing... these are valid things to like and enjoy.

Now, "should" we give JKR more of our money? That's a different issue, with nuance and complexity, and a decision for each individual - and a place for a political thread, not a book reading one.

Spoiler: Spoilers for personal political opinion

As I brought it up, I feel I ought to expand, but anyone reading it has done so fully pre-warned.
IMO, I'd rather not give her any more of my money, due to the problematic views she espouses and encourages.
However, I mitigate against that depending on how many other people the money I hand over goes to. A handful of individuals where books are concerned, a huge and diverse team of thousands where films, TV shows or theme parks are concerned.
There are, however, lots of different, valid opinions on the matter - including separating the artist from the art (which is my default position because I'm usually ignorant of the artist).

 

[ncurd]

I know political thread but I'm kinda done with people defending her after yesterday. The list of transphobic things she's done is a mile long now and now deliberately using her platform to misgender people. I only see four current viewpoints.

1) She's a transphobic bigot and I want to do nothing to add her to her wealth.
2) She's a transpobic bigot but I'm happy to add to her wealth (mileage may vary)
3) She's a trabsphoic bigot and so am I.
4) I'm too ignorant to actually look up anything she's done so will say inane crap like "what has she actually done".

Like most of the massive Harry Potter fans I know are LGBTQIA+ people they are so hurt by what she's used her massive platform to do.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I know political thread

Or even the Antisocial/society thread?

but I'm kinda done with people defending her after yesterday. The list of transphobic things she's done is a mile long now and now deliberately using her platform to misgender people. I only see four current viewpoints.

1) She's a transphobic bigot and I want to do nothing to add her to her wealth.
2) She's a transpobic bigot but I'm happy to add to her wealth (mileage may vary)
3) She's a trabsphoic bigot and so am I.
4) I'm too ignorant to actually look up anything she's done so will say inane crap like "what has she actually done".

Like most of the massive Harry Potter fans I know are LGBTQIA+ people they are so hurt by what she's used her massive platform to do.

JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say

Social media comments by JK Rowling challenging Scotland's new hate crime law are not being treated as criminal.

www.bbc.co.uk

Am I aware of her views - yes; do I vehemently object to them? No, because I am not LGBTQIA+ and not going to hate on someone for their views, and pretend to be outraged on behalf of them. Although having been at the end of a couple of hate crime instances based on my race I can say it is no fun.

She's saying well that's a bloke not a woman and visa versa - is that really criminal? is it stirring up hatred in others? very difficult to prosecute unless it can be proven to meet the criminal threshold. Is it wrong as you say to use her status/platorm to express such views? Probably but then she has that right. It is fine line.

I personally still loved her HP books and the films. Will probably still watch the new planned tv series.

 

[ncurd]

She's saying well that's a bloke not a woman and visa versa - is that really criminal? is it stirring up hatred in others?

She's saying people who are legally women aren't. And using a huge platform to say so if thats not stirring up hatred I don't what is.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Bada-Bing!]

She's saying people who are legally women aren't. And using a huge platform to say so if thats not stirring up hatred I don't what is.

But isn't that opinion? Biologically she is right even if legally she isn't. And as black belt barrister says the law is vague . How do you prove the threshold has been met that hatred has been stirred - just by virtue of her huge platform? Are all those complaints reasonable people? I think it's a minefield.

 

[ncurd]

But isn't that opinion? Biologically she is right even if legally she isn't. And as black belt barrister says the law is vague . How do you prove the threshold has been met that hatred has been stirred - just by virtue of her huge platform? Are all those complaints reasonable people? I think it's a minefield.

Is she right biologically? Anyone who knows ows about this there is more to x and y chromosomes.

Regardless you can tell a dog whistle when you hear it.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Is she right biologically? Anyone who knows ows about this there is more to x and y chromosomes.

Well yes, at some point they would be one sex or the other but don't feel right it in mentally hence the want the change.

Regardless you can tell a dog whistle when you hear it.

Whether she is right or wrong this law is about whether she is criminally liable. She isn't. Is she stirring up hatred in a reasonable person? Well that is debatable - hence why there is a debate about it. The police didn't think so in her recent posts and probably don't want to get involved in such cases unless it leads to public disorder, violence against or worst still murder as we saw in the recent case of the murder of Brianna.

She still has to an extent the right to offend with her views and express them still even if you disagree with it. It's where that line is crossed. You say she has but again it is not clear cut IMO.

 

[ncurd]

Sorry misunderstanding I don't give a damn if she's broken the law or not.

Just any reasonable person can't see what she's doing and say she's not a trnasphobic bigot.

 

[ncurd]

Well yes, at some point they would be one sex or the other but don't feel right it in mentally hence the want the change.

Intersex people also exist. Sex isn't a binary.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Intersex people also exist. Sex isn't a binary.

It's such a small sub group of people though.

 

[ncurd]

It's such a small sub group of people though.

But they exist and so do trans people it's about gender not sex.

Either way JKR attacks trans people consistently and did Monday. There's no point in suggesting otherwise.

 

[Which Tyler]

It's such a small sub group of people though.

So what?
Why would that mean they don't deserve protection? Or donty deserve to have their reality acknowledged?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

But they exist and so do trans people it's about gender not sex.

Either way JKR attacks trans people consistently and did Monday. There's no point in suggesting otherwise.

. But as I said what she has done is not criminal.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

So what?
Why would that mean they don't deserve protection? Or donty deserve to have their reality acknowledged?

View attachment 19494

Yes, they are already protected from under the law from hate speech. What JKR is not hate speech.

Do we have to protect every single group of people from being offended? Because that's what it's going to come down to.

 

[ncurd]

. But as I said what she has done is not criminal.

And I don't care if it is or not she's a transphobic bigot and people need to stop finding excuses like you are to defend her.