J.K. Rowling Calls Out Twitter After Receiving ‘You Are Next’ Threat From Supporter of Salman Rushdie Attack

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/j-k-rowling-calls-out-twitter-after-receiving-you-are-next-threat-from-supporter-of-salman-rushdie-attack/

 

(Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling called for Twitter’s guidelines to be better enforced after she received a death threat on the social media platform in response to her sympathy for writer Salman Rushdie, after the violent attack in New York.

Rushdie, who has been under a death threat from Iran since the 1980s, was attacked and stabbed just before he was scheduled to deliver a lecture on Friday. Video footage from the incident shows the writer being taken to a medical helicopter in order to be transported to a hospital.

The Harry Potter creator — who has faced controversy in the past for her perpetuation of anti-trans rhetoric — took to Twitter when she heard the “horrifying” news, hoping for Rushdie’s recovery:

 

A Twitter user with the name Meer Asif Aziz replied to Rowling’s sympathy by threatening the author “don’t worry you are next.”

Rowling publicly called for Twitter to take action against the threatening individual asking for their “support,” in this incident by posting screenshots of Aziz’s response and profile.

 

The author noted that police were now involved after thanking her supporters for their messages.

Rowling additionally quoted Twitter’s social media guidelines on violence, terrorism, and extremism to argue that Aziz violated these supposed restrictions when he threatened her.

 

Since Friday’s attack on Rushdie, which has reportedly left the author on a ventilator currently, President Joe Biden’s White House has condemned the violence. Rushdie was born in India but has lived in the United States since 2000.

According to the AP, Iran is offering over $3 million to anyone who kills Rushdie, after his 1988 book The Satanic Verses, led to a fatwa.)

[AUDub 11,147]

There are a lot of people that dislike Rushdie online, more than I thought. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

This is what I’ve referenced before by most media outlets:  

The Harry Potter creator — who has faced controversy in the past for her perpetuation of anti-trans rhetoric — took to Twitter when she heard the “horrifying” news, hoping for Rushdie’s recovery:

Simply characterizing her rhetoric as transphobic while linking to an article that doesn’t really support that claim— just because folks on Twitter reacted negatively and called her transphobic. The media feeds these attacks on her the way Trump and gutless Republicans feed attacks on the FBI & this magistrate.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

This is what I’ve referenced before by most media outlets:  

The Harry Potter creator — who has faced controversy in the past for her perpetuation of anti-trans rhetoric — took to Twitter when she heard the “horrifying” news, hoping for Rushdie’s recovery:

Simply characterizing her rhetoric as transphobic while linking to an article that doesn’t really support that claim— just because folks on Twitter reacted negatively and called her transphobic. The media feeds these attacks on her the way Trump and gutless Republicans feed attacks on the FBI & this magistrate.

Yep.  It's been fascinating to watch.  And it burns the radical trans activists up that they can't ruin her.  She doesn't need the Harry Potter series to remain popular - she's made more money than she could reasonably spend in 5 lifetimes.  So she doesn't have to bow the knee to their ever changing standards and whims on acceptable discussion.

I've seen Twitter react with lightning speed to far less offensive or dangerous rhetoric.  I took her retweet getting tens of thousands of views, likes, and retweets - and subsequent reports to Twitter - before this lunatic was dealt with.  And even then he wasn't banned.  They basically just forced him to delete the threatening posts he made to her and others and let him keep his account.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence. 

Choices are not as binary as we often consider them to be.  Violence has many forms.

Imposing your will upon others should be deeply considered, considered from not only your own thoughts and experiences but also from the perspective of those you wish to impose your will upon.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence. 

Choices are not as binary as we often consider them to be.  Violence has many forms.

Imposing your will upon others should be deeply considered, considered from not only your own thoughts and experiences but also from the perspective of those you wish to impose your will upon.

Please provide her exact quotes you believe she does this.

[AUDub 11,147]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yep.  It's been fascinating to watch.  And it burns the radical trans activists up that they can't ruin her.  She doesn't need the Harry Potter series to remain popular - she's made more money than she could reasonably spend in 5 lifetimes.  So she doesn't have to bow the knee to their ever changing standards and whims on acceptable discussion.

I've seen Twitter react with lightning speed to far less offensive or dangerous rhetoric.  I took her retweet getting tens of thousands of views, likes, and retweets - and subsequent reports to Twitter - before this lunatic was dealt with.  And even then he wasn't banned.  They basically just forced him to delete the threatening posts he made to her and others and let him keep his account.

Twitter's reporting is dumb.

I reported Lenny Dykstra the other day when he posted that judge that signed off on the MAL warrants' place of worship. 

Of course they said no rules were broken. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

7 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence. 

Choices are not as binary as we often consider them to be.  Violence has many forms.

Imposing your will upon others should be deeply considered, considered from not only your own thoughts and experiences but also from the perspective of those you wish to impose your will upon.

Wow. High level misogyny here. Offering zero evidence justifying your condemnation, you sound like a MAGA guy saying the B deserved it.

[jj3jordan 2,050]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Wow. High level misogyny here. Offering zero evidence justifying your condemnation, you sound like a MAGA guy saying the B deserved it.

Please.  ICHY not a MAGA guy. Don’t embarrass us.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Wow. High level misogyny here. Offering zero evidence justifying your condemnation, you sound like a MAGA guy saying the B deserved it.

So @homersapien, you think she has brought threats of violence on herself like ICHY? Can you be specific about what exactly she did to deserve that?

[homersapien 11,362]

17 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So @homersapien, you think she has brought threats of violence on herself like ICHY? Can you be specific about what exactly she did to deserve that?

I didn't see any elements in ICHY's post that justified your response, which I felt was a little over the top. 

"Misogyny?  Saying the B deserved it"? 

If you want to challenge ICHY's implied characterization of Rowling's statements, fine. (You did so later by asking him to quote her.)

But you're reaction was a little much.  That's all.

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,828]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I didn't see any elements in ICHY's post that justified your response, which I felt was a little over the top. 

"Misogyny?  Saying the B deserved it"? 

If you want to challenge ICHY's implied characterization of Rowling's statements, fine. (You did so later by asking him to quote her.)

But you're reaction was a little much.  That's all.

 

The woman gets numerous death threats— many involving violent sexual rhetoric. ICHY’s response?

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”

Isn’t that blaming the victim? If a MAGA person said that to the recipient of such threats would you see it differently?

And what exactly has she done that it any way rises to such a level that would rationally even support it, much less justify it?

[homersapien 11,362]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The woman gets numerous death threats— many involving violent sexual rhetoric. ICHY’s response?

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”

Isn’t that blaming the victim? If a MAGA person said that to the recipient of such threats would you see it differently?

And what exactly has she done that it any way rises to such a level that would rationally even support it, much less justify it?

I don't do twitter.  And I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a famous person and - for whatever reason - chose to weigh in on gender dysphoria.  The resentment or negative reaction it generated toward Rowlings is unfair and irrational but understandable - that's what social media is all about.  (Heck, just look at this thread.)

As far as ICHY's post, the choice of "target" was a poor one and does not accurately apply to Rowlings IMO.   Maybe he meant to imply that Rowlings went out of her way to insert herself into a controversy - on TWITTER - by singling out transgenders to opine on, with predictable results.

Anyway, bad ICHY!

But it certainly doesn't mean ICHY is a "misogynist" or he thinks the "B had it coming".  That to me represented an unnecessary escalation in the discussion.

FWIW, here's a pretty good account of what Rowlings said:

https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy

 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I don't do twitter.  And I certainly wouldn't do it if I were a famous person and - for whatever reason - chose to weigh in on gender dysphoria.  The resentment or negative reaction it generated toward Rowlings is unfair and irrational but understandable - that's what social media is all about.  (Heck, just look at this thread.)

As far as ICHY's post, the choice of "target" was a poor one and does not accurately apply to Rowlings IMO.   Maybe he meant to imply that Rowlings went out of her way to insert herself into a controversy - on TWITTER - by singling out transgenders to opine on, with predictable results.

Anyway, bad ICHY!

But it certainly doesn't mean ICHY is a "misogynist" or he thinks the "B had it coming".  That to me represented an unnecessary escalation in the discussion.

FWIW, here's a pretty good account of what Rowlings said:

https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy

 

He accused her of serious transgressions while citing no evidence:

 

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”
 

And her unnamed “specific” actions  brought about and even encouraged violence— when one encourages violence that indicates culpability for that violence, ie, she’s to blame for the threats of violence against her. (You believe Trump encouraged violence, don’t you?) That’s not unlike the person who blames the woman wearing the short skirt for encouraging her own sexual assault. The misogyny is dripping from his comments.

You say she went out of her way to insert herself into a controversy and characterize her as “singling out” transgenders to opine on. Unfair characterization. The most “controversial” tweet that kicked this whole thing off preceded where that Glamour article picks up and it was defending a woman who lost her job for claiming biological sex was an immutable characteristic— something all reasonable people agreed on just a few years ago and only recently has become out of step with a growing dogma.

The concern that drove her was not trans people living their lives, but the insistence on adherence to a belief just to hold on to your job. After she came under attack, she then tried to explain her position that she was not anti-Transgender, but that biological sex is real and defined many of her and other women’s  struggles and challenges.

Her basic view was regardless of how one chooses to define gender, biological sex is real. In the UK this has been a much bigger issue with the power of government weighing in. The person who’s defense she came to, Maya Forstater, ultimately won her case in their version of our Supreme Court.

India Willoughby is arguably the most prominent trans person in the UK. Huge platform. Media personality. I include her tweet below, along with a key summary of JKR’s comments specifically on trans people.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Wow. High level misogyny here. Offering zero evidence justifying your condemnation, you sound like a MAGA guy saying the B deserved it.

I suppose so.  My point is that there is rarely absolute right on a side and absolute wrong on the other.  Those who choose to poke at a group should expect that group to poke back. I do not accept the common thinking on Muslims, Iran, homosexuals, transsexuals.

In that light, I guess you are correct.  I accept you criticism.  I suppose in your way of thinking,  I am a MAGA misogynist.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I suppose so.  My point is that there is rarely absolute right on a side and absolute wrong on the other.  Those who choose to poke at a group should expect that group to poke back. I do not accept the common thinking on Muslims, Iran, homosexuals, transsexuals.

In that light, I guess you are correct.  I accept you criticism.  I suppose in your way of thinking,  I am a MAGA misogynist.

That’s hardly the point you made. You said this:

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”

Harsh condemnation based not on evidence you’ve presented, but based on the “common thinking” of the mob that perpetuate it without taking time to understand the actual facts.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s hardly the point you made. You said this:

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”

Harsh condemnation based not on evidence you’ve presented, but based on the “common thinking” of the mob that perpetuate it without taking time to understand the actual facts.

Oh, I see.  I am sorry.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

29 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Oh, I see.  I am sorry.

I can tell. 🙄

[homersapien 11,362]

On 8/16/2022 at 11:29 AM, TexasTiger said:

He accused her of serious transgressions while citing no evidence:

 

“When you target a group of people and, attempt to dehumanize them by creating and/or perpetuating prejudices and stereotypes,,, you are going to attract and encourage violence.”
 

And her unnamed “specific” actions  brought about and even encouraged violence— when one encourages violence that indicates culpability for that violence, ie, she’s to blame for the threats of violence against her. (You believe Trump encouraged violence, don’t you?) That’s not unlike the person who blames the woman wearing the short skirt for encouraging her own sexual assault. The misogyny is dripping from his comments.

You say she went out of her way to insert herself into a controversy and characterize her as “singling out” transgenders to opine on. Unfair characterization. The most “controversial” tweet that kicked this whole thing off preceded where that Glamour article picks up and it was defending a woman who lost her job for claiming biological sex was an immutable characteristic— something all reasonable people agreed on just a few years ago and only recently has become out of step with a growing dogma.

The concern that drove her was not trans people living their lives, but the insistence on adherence to a belief just to hold on to your job. After she came under attack, she then tried to explain her position that she was not anti-Transgender, but that biological sex is real and defined many of her and other women’s  struggles and challenges.

Her basic view was regardless of how one chooses to define gender, biological sex is real. In the UK this has been a much bigger issue with the power of government weighing in. The person who’s defense she came to, Maya Forstater, ultimately won her case in their version of our Supreme Court.

India Willoughby is arguably the most prominent trans person in the UK. Huge platform. Media personality. I include her tweet below, along with a key summary of JKR’s comments specifically on trans people.

DOUBLE bad ICHY?