Of course she vapes
post
Isn't this woman a billionaire? Why is she acting like she's going to pop down to the local vape store to put any advice into action and not tell some servant to go buy her the best vape?
it’s Kobain Quality, too.
There are 8.3 Billion people on Earth alive today, quite possibly JK Rowling is a lamer piece of shit than 99.999999% of them.
waow
based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based based
I'd have simply given her a link to a nice big vape that she can use all the time. Do not interrupt your enemy when she is making a mistake.
I've noticed that amongst the right, there's a trend of "The only moral transition is MY transition" going on, Right Wing Transwomen who say they're the only ones "Doing it to alleviate gender dysphoria" and that by asking for rights the others are "Making it some weird ideology"
Though they seem to fail to realize that the Right is actively working to prevent gender affirming care from being a thing for even adults.
JK Rowling seems to be in this camp, as she believes her one trans friend is the only "Legitimate" transperson
She was that way for some time, telling everyone that she respected trans people, just didn't want them in the bathrooms she was in. She has long dropped the act though, and now fully supports the idea that trans women are all rapists.

It's the same shtick all conservative influencers do. They act like their position is one of common sense while strawmanning the opinions of the left to hell (JKR does this with constant tweets about how biological sex is a real thing, which no one fucking denies, she's the one denying the scientific consensus around sex, gender, and gender dysphoria), and then when they have garnered enough followers and people gain more of an emotional attachment to them instead of a rational one they show their true colors. This tweet from when Trump won the election comes to mind:

And no, trans people are not serial rapists.

Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms and Other Gendered Facilities
Same thing goes for race for regressive politics. That gives off "They are one of the good ones" vibes.
Fun fact: double barrel shotguns are not considered firearms in the UK and a shotgun certificate is significantly easier to get than a firearms certificate. Also there is no minimum age for issuing one, either. It can and has been issued to 10 year olds.
unfortunately that is misinformation. You can read the docs here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/firearms
while sports shooting has been licensed to some younger people, their parents still maintain responsibility and both the licensee and their parents need to pass the interviews, inspections, paperwork, fees and renewal procedures to obtain and maintain their licensed status.
Is that any break barrel or strictly doubles? Seems a weird distinction regardless, but then they're slower to operate than a semi or pump. I remember my grandfather teaching me to shoot with an old single barrel .410 (probably the same one my uncles learned with). I couldn't have been eight, and only ever shot pump and springer BB guns prior, but then I'm also in the States.
Here is the full description (note these are interpreted legal guidelines in layman's language, not official legal documents which are longer and more strictly and technically worded)
Chapter 2: Definition and Classification of Firearms and Ammunition
2.1 This chapter provides definitions of firearms, component parts, shotguns, deactivated firearms and defectively deactivated firearms, imitation and realistic imitation firearms, including readily convertible imitations, some information on antiques (which are covered more fully in Chapter 8), and firearms conversion. It goes on to define various types of firearms and ammunition for which no certificate is required, including certain types of air weapons.
2.2 The definitions of ‘firearm’, ‘lethal barrelled weapon’, ‘shotgun’ and ‘ammunition’ for the purposes of the Firearms Acts are set out in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (“the principal Act”) and are set out below. The definition of ‘firearm’ extends to certain imitation firearms (see paragraphs 2.32 to 2.36).
Definition of ‘firearm’ and ‘lethal barrelled weapon’
2.3 Section 57 of the principal Act (as amended) defines a ‘firearm’ as (i) a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon (ii) a prohibited weapon and (iii) any relevant component part (see below and Chapter 12) of such a lethal barrelled or prohibited weapon.
Definition of ‘airsoft’ gun
2.4 An ‘airsoft’ gun as defined in section 57A of the 1968 Act is not regarded as a firearm for the purposes of that Act. Section 57A defines an airsoft gun as a barrelled weapon of any description which is designed to discharge only a small plastic missile (whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile) and is not capable of discharging a missile of any kind above the permitted kinetic energy thresholds at the muzzle of the weapon (see below). A ‘small plastic missile’ is defined in section 57A(3) as a missile that:
a) is made wholly or partly from plastics;
b) is spherical, and
c) does not exceed 8 millimetres in diameter.
Section 57A(4) sets the maximum permitted kinetic energy levels for airsoft guns at:
a) 1.3 joules if the weapon is capable of discharging two or more missiles successively without repeated pressure on the trigger, and
b) 2.5 joules in any other case.
Definition of ‘relevant component part’
2.5 A ‘relevant component part’ of a lethal barrelled or prohibited weapon is a firearm in its own right and is defined in section 57(1D) of the 1968 Act as:
a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder,
b) a frame, body or receiver,
c) a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber, but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.
Definition of ‘shotgun’
2.6 A “shotgun” is defined in section 1(3)(a) of the 1968 Act and means a smooth-bore gun (not being an air gun) which:
a) has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter. The length of the barrel is measured from the muzzle to the point of ignition (breech face). For a muzzle-loading gun, the point of ignition may be taken as the touch-hole or nipple that is nearest to the breech;
b) either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges (see paragraphs 2.12 to 2.14 for further information). It should be noted that under section 1(3A) of the 1968 Act a gun that has been adapted to have such a magazine only meets this criterion if the magazine bears an approved mark and the adaptation has been certified in writing either by one of the two Proof Houses or by such other person as the Secretary of State has designated, as having been carried out in a manner approved by the Secretary of State; and
c) is not a revolver gun (that is, a gun containing a series of chambers, which revolve as part of the firing cycle).
2.7 When considering the classification of smooth-bore guns, special attention must be paid to the length of the barrel and the overall length. With the exception of those chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges, section 5(1)(ac) of the 1968 Act raised to the prohibited category (see Chapter 3) all self-loading and pump-action models which are either short-barrelled (under 24 inches) or short in overall length (under 40 inches). For the purpose of calculating overall length any detachable, retractable or other movable butt-stock should be disregarded. References to ‘shotguns’ in the 1968 Act may be taken generally to mean shotguns which fall within section 2 of that Act, rather than those subject to sections 1 and 5 of the 1968 Act, unless otherwise stated.
2.8 While overall length is not a relevant factor in regard to the classification of traditional single and double-barrelled smooth-bore guns and repeating shotguns with a bolt or lever-action, any such guns with barrels under 24 inches in length are subject to control under section 1(3)(a)(i) of the 1968 Act. Also controlled under section 1(3)(a)(ii) is any repeating shotgun, not otherwise prohibited by virtue of its barrel length or overall length, with a magazine capacity in excess of two cartridges.
2.9 Section 5(1)(ad) of the 1968 Act raised to the prohibited category any smooth-bore revolver gun other than one that is chambered for 9mm rim-fire cartridges or is a muzzle-loading revolver gun. The first exemption is understood to cover ‘ratting’ or ‘garden’ guns. Since section 1(3)(a) of the 1968 Act does not permit any revolver gun to be regarded as a ‘shotgun’, smooth-bore revolver guns which are chambered for 9mm rim-fire or muzzle-loading guns are classed as firearms and subject to control under section 1 of the 1968 Act.
2.10 For the purposes only of sections 3(1) and 45(2) of the 1968 Act, and in the definition of ‘firearms dealer’ in section 57(4), the term ‘shotgun’ also includes any component part of a shotgun and any accessory to a shotgun designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the gun. For the purposes of all other sections/Acts, the component parts of shotguns are not subject to control under the Firearms Acts. See section 57(4) of the 1968 Act
Didn’t read the username at first and thought it was just a needlessly mean response. Turns out, very needfully mean.
At first I thought: "Wow, that’s mean! Vaping is annoying but not deserving of such an overblown reaction."
Then, I saw who asked.
Isn't it brink?
Could we maybe get content warning/nsfw for literal fucking gun barrels being pointed at us.
Maybe I'm just a bit triggered for having had real guns pointed my way, but I'd say this falls under "when appropriate"
No. We can't have trigger warnings for everything as there is always someone who might be triggered by something. Real or fake.
Some triggers can be universally agreed upon.
It is of course horrible that you have had experiences that can cause discomfort from seeing a picture, reading a book, watching a film. I do not know your backstory.
I do however have my own experience feeling discomfort from a seemingly "normal" thing. My father died and in order to get my mind off this event I went to watch (I believe) Bad Guys 2 where there is a scene where dead bodies were used to smuggle cocaine. It was I a humorous setting as most Will Smith movies are. I didn't care for it then and felt discomfort - even though Weekend at Bernie was hilarious when I watched it 15 years prior.
My point is right as I felt discomfort and was triggered, I simultaneously understood that everybody else in the cinema at the same time I was there did not feel this way. It was a unique experience for me at that point in time. I can't expect everyone else to walk over eggshells around me, especially if they do not know me.
A former colleague of mine was after 10 years as a widow still triggered if someone mentioned something in the vicinity of drowning as this was his horrible death. It was obviously difficult for her, but to expect colleagues (new and old) to never mention something that could trigger her for 10 years is over the top. As horrible as it is. People die, and you have to work on it. You can't expect the rest of the world to do the work for you.
Which circles back to you. We can't have trigger warnings on everything because you have had a horrible experience. You have to work on it. We do not. Especially as we do not know you.
For you its guns. For someone else it could be an axe. Or powder or a large syringe. Or a bottle of whisky. Everyday objects can't have trigger warnings.
A shotgun is an everyday object, even if the barrel in the picture is pointing towards you. I think most objects or topics should not have trigger warnings, but that's a different topic.
But I do hope you get better and help to deal with your triggers. Best of luck!
A shotgun is an everyday object
I am sorry you live in an environment where you can reasonably believe this. Or maybe you're just myopic about your own hobbies.
In any case, while a shotgun may be an everyday object for 3% of humanity, a penis is a more everyday object than a shotgun for >70% of humanity. Do you support abolishing content warnings for those? If not, can you explain why without also justifying a content warning for weapons pointed at the viewer?
I believe a golf club is an everyday object, yet i am not sure more people have golf clubs than they have shotguns. They could. I do not know.
Regarding penis and warnings about them, I think it's mostly about "this is a picture you should not open in a work setting", and not "you could feel triggered by seeing this". And it gives an excellent thought experiment - if a rape victim is triggered by a picture of a penis, flaccid or erect, should a picture of a flaccid penis have a trigger warning?
I believe it should not. But it could have NSFW marked, as many offices frown upon displaying large images of genitalia in your cubicle.
Meaning I do not believe content warnings as a whole should be abolished, but some trigger warnings should not exist.
Mate, no disrespect and you're entitled to your opinion, however you may note that you're all the way from .world and this is a comm on blahaj zone and we might have different rules of etiquette and postings than you. Online communities and real life situations are also very different.
As I was processing my feelings over the imagery, I realized of the people in my community may feel the same but have trouble speaking up, so I felt inclined to do so.
We all have to deal with quite a lot in real life every single day, I'm disappointed that your opinion is that a minority group in a minority group comm that you don't belong to shouldn't ask about safe space in a meme shit posting comm.
yeah, i think this is a case of your personal experience causing you to be triggered here, i get triggered by a bunch of random shit because of being abused as a kid, you just gotta take responsibility for your own triggers
So you don't watch movies or previews or television, huh? Internet must be a scary place for you 🙄
Third .world user that doesn't understand separate spaces like "we wash our hands in this basin and pee in a different basin" or concepts like "a comm on blahaj is not the whole Internet or the world"
Did I trigger the ammosexuals or something?
Funny how none of y'all engaged until i pointed out blahaj doesn't track down votes in a different reply. 😂
Maybe the Internet isn't the right place for you.
Another .world user with a suck it up buttercup attitude. Good for you sweaty.
Do you think oneninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone the entire internet? Did i go to guns@world and ask for a trigger warning?
Edit:
The entire world cannot be a safe space for you.
Apparently onehundredninetysix is the entire world. I am shooketh
Or - possibly - maybe you don’t understand instances, and why federation exists? Blahaj, for good reasons, in my opinion, have strict rules as to what can show up there.
Just like World has, different, strict rules concerning, uh, an ongoing conflict.
Just as .ml does about, uh, specific political orientated stuff.
I'm sorry you're getting downvotes, that's entirely reasonable. What are content warnings for if not this?
Blahaj doesn't track down votes so I never see them, just a bunch of snowflakes screaming into the void.
So many people don't pay attention to what comms they're on, or what any of the rules are when posting commenting voting. And some people will break rules just to be inflammatory.
And then some people think they're voting for my comment like it's a poll on if gun barrels pointed at the user are a valid trigger warning. Or think what I said "isn't engaging with the post"
Some people will upvote because I said fuck, some will down for the same. Some people will down vote just because I've said I'm trans in previous posts.
OP can either flare it or not at their discretion, or a mod could have the same opinion on this falling under the CW rules (I did not report any rule breaking ✌️ I hid the post after commenting)
Btw, big fan of the solarpunk comms 🤙
The entire world cannot be a safe space for you.
There will be things that make you uncomfortable. Be an adult and deal with it.
The woman is horrible and I mostly just want her to stop hurting people, but I do think that replies like this do more harm than good for trans people. Transphobes want to depict us as extremely violent and unsympathetic, and this image sure doesn't come off sympathetically unless you have all the context and already think that she's a horrible person. It gives her rhetorical ammo to further fight our acceptance in society.
You can't simply "comply" your way into being accepted by bigots, nothing you do will ever be good enough for them.
Yeah, but there are a lot of people they're trying to convince to be bigots and you sure can aid in their arguments or hinder them. I'm not going to pretend that people who are undecided on if I deserve rights or who only kinda lean one way are good people. But I want us to make the bigots have to work for it to make us come off badly, or at the very least when we come off badly for it to actually have a chance at advancing anything.
So I guess really my attitude is: what good do posts like this and replies like depicted in it actually serve? Because as far as I'm concerned if I were conducting an anti trans psyop I'd absolutely be encouraging that behavior. It feels good while being easier than activism, community building, and being a positive first interaction with trans people, all while giving plenty of room to allow bigots to claim that they're the victims of the people they're actually taking rights from.
Hon, don't try and play Good Queer to people who want you gone. It doesn't work. That's explicitly why we have Pride.
You don't play it to her, you play it to the crowd she's trying to convince. When we're being rougher around the edges we should be targeted. The Stonewall riots are a great example, we had been attacked by the law and resisted violently. ACT UP was loud and disruptive and never let you forget that it was about our people dying.
I'm not saying we should be quiet about her or play nice with her, I'm saying when you go on the offensive make sure that someone who has no idea what's going on here and might be sympathetic to your cause doesn't think you're the bad guy. Constantly saying "kill yourself" to a children's author turned bigotry financier without even bringing up why she's evil when you do it is just venting your anger, not advancing our cause.
The right is going to depict us as unsympathetic and violent no matter what we do. They feel no responsibility to the truth because the crowd they play to believes everything they say without question. Playing the good queer gets us nowhere. Their acceptance cannot be gained that way.
Yeah and we can provide them with easy screenshots pre made or we can make it so random people stumbling across us on the internet don't think "well that's a really hateful response".
Once again, I'm not talking about appealing to the bigots, I'm talking about appealing to the undecided and those uncommitted to their side. They actually can often be won over or at the very least made to not be convinced by right wing attacks. Or they can see our behavior and conclude the right was telling the truth about us.
Forgive me for not wanting us to pointlessly depict ourselves the way people who hate us do.
Anyone who claims to be undecided about whether trans people should exist is lying and sides with the transphobes.
"My, people are talking shit on the internet to a controversial celebrity known for bigotry and writing rather midding childrens books. Clearly this means she's right in her bigotry!"
Do you hear yourself. "I used to be left / support X/ be a decent person until-" is a fucking lie.
So do you see where you're misrepresenting my statements? Because I didn't say they were right, I implied that people who never met us and don't care might think so.
Rowling and her hate aren’t unknown though. She spends as much time on Twitter spewing her bs and baiting responses she can cry “Look, I’m the victim” as she does writing novels.
She leveraged her established celebrity and presence to become a very public spokesperson for TERFs. She knows what she’s doing when she plays “but I’m a beloved children’s author and only want to protect kids”. It’s the same thing Trump did when he decided to become political. He didn’t have to build his name and recognition, he used the fact he was already well known to champion a cause. The difference is Trump’s brand was asshole all along, Rowling was a bit of a surprise because, yeah, she was a beloved children’s author.
She’s made this fight a main topic of her Internet presence. People who are likely to read her tweets and see the reposts are internet literate and this has been going on long enough most of those people know the hill she’s dying on without context. It’d be like telling Bill Cosby to kill himself. He was once a beloved TV dad, but the vast majority of people would know why someone would tell him that.
It’s also a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. She’s already made herself a victim of her fantasies, she’s going to keep being a famous mouthpiece for the haters. It is anger, which is fine, it’s the frustration that none of us are going to deplatform or silence her. As for advancing the cause? The haters have chosen hate, they know they’ve chosen hate, they like to hate, they have the power to hate, and they are either going to see their hate through to the conclusion of their goals or die trying. They’re not going to suddenly change their minds because the people they seek to destroy are polite and compliant.
Finally, someone treating my stance as it actually is rather than just calling me a simp for bigots.
But I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also do think that it's really easy to overestimate how much the average person knows about what we care about. That's something generally true about everyone who cares about anything.
And you're right she is baiting these responses so she can play victim, my problem is that it's rarely considered a good idea to take bait. I'm not saying don't denounce her, I'm not saying don't be mean to her, what I am saying is to not hand her the screenshots she's angling for.
You're right that we're damned no matter what we do, and I'm deeply sympathetic to the people who are angry and frustrated and just want to lash out. Gods know I feel similarly, and even moreso when I was hormonal as hell and new to navigating the world as an out trans woman. But I wish that when I was that age an older trans person had sat me down and explained the difference between productive and unproductive expressions of that anger.
You gave reasons you believe it wasn't destructive, and that's fair, I disagree because it's a screenshot for her supporters to use as propaganda, but I get where everyone is coming from. However, I believe there's nothing it can really do to help. She's not going to take the advice. She's not going to stop posting bait or funding the loss of our rights. As everyone seems to be in agreement, there's no course of action to cause that. It won't even hurt her feelings, because as already said, she wants this. But it's also not going to invigorate our allies or lead to further support. It's not going to make her fans who are uncomfortable with her bigotry stop consuming her media. At best it's impotent catharsis that doesn't spread a message.
I see the median voter as an amoral idiot who decides opinions largely based on vibes and emotions. I'm calling for our public expressions of anger to be ones that invite sympathy when taken independently of context. Not necessarily because of this specific situation, but because it's a good habit, and because even those who support us judge us harshly. It's not fair and I'm not calling for this because I think it's some moral responsibility or anything, but because over the years I've seen our community utilize different tactics and we got a lot better results when we played to sympathy and likability. It was an underrated flank in the fight for gay rights as well. I'm not calling for mattachine style respectability, but PFLAG style sympathy.
Sigh, idk
IDK what the right course is either. I’ve been around long enough to have seen peaceful protest and eventually democracy validate the change we’re fighting for. I remember when being queer was a death sentence, whether it was Regan and his ilk celebrating AIDS as if it was a curse from God or Matt Shepherd’s killers claiming “he looked at me weird”, and I remember when gay marriage finally became official.
I’m also a person who was raised in bigotry and found my way out because on some levels I am the “ideal” (white male) and on others I’m not (queer af). I am also a believer in restorative justice. I volunteer at the local prison and have met plenty of people who have done bad things but are working to be better as well as people who’ve done bad shit and would continue to do bad shit without a second thought if given the opportunity. I’ve been accused of being misanthropic, an ecofascist, and delusional by both right-wingers and leftists. Personally I consider myself a disappointed optimist. Humanity is singular among animals and exceptional in their potential, but we keep being vile as a whole. Every one of us has the capacity for harm as well as the potential for selflessness, up to the point of trading our life in the hope someone who comes later will benefit because of that. I don’t hate people, but I hate some persons and have been increasingly put in situations where I have to make a judgement call on whether their potential for change outweighs the immediate threat of their ability to act on their beliefs and destroy someone more vulnerable than them.
“I’m condemned to use the tools of my enemy to defeat them. I burn my decency for someone else’s future. I burn my life to make a sunrise that I know I’ll never see.” It’s a quote from fiction, and a space fantasy at that, but I think it sums up exactly where I’ve landed in life. I don’t want to hate people, but I’m emotionally exhausted and tired of watching them choose harm without pushback. And that’s all I can offer, pushback. Whatever I do isn’t going to change the world, but it might change someone else’s world. What I have done, am doing, and will do is amoral by human ideals, but I don’t see a polite option left. We let them pick the battleground, they have the high ground and army, all we can do is make sure we’re giving better than we get and hope it clears the playing field so whoever comes next can live through their inevitable human struggles less painfully. We can all read our history as a species, we all can recognize there’s moments where we resolved our differences with violence, some of us can strive to learn from that and seek a different path in our own lives. But there comes a point where you have to accept the terms of your enemy and meet them with reciprocal force in the hope you do it better or accept annihilation.
Stonewall is why ACT UP happened. Riots and protests are why people get prosecuted when they kill us now.
Don't try and convince me milquetoast appeasement works, i'm fucking old enough to have lived through the AIDS epidemic.
Counterpoint: the venn diagram of transphobes and fascists is a circle, and the only language fascists understand is violence.
She's had ample opportunity to educate herself and come around. She's refused to do so and has continued to double down on her bigotry. Fuck that bitch. Anyone that would be sympathetic to her should dome themselves too.
Every day, Bob claims Percy punched him in the face. Many people support Bob because they hate Percy. Many others support Percy, because Bob deserves to be punched in the face.
Now, one day, Percy punches Bob in the face. Bob can only make the same claim he always does, to the same reception he always gets. The only difference is Percy having given Bob the face punch he deserves. And Percy is happy.
I call this story "The TERF who cried Trans Violence"
She's asking about vapes so now she's a double tit, so she can get all that's coming to her.
Are we going to start murdering anyone who shares a different opinion than the mob? That's fucked. Anyway, happy pride month everyone.
I mean, there is no suggestion of murder in this post at all. The suggestion is that J.K. Rowling should blow her own brains out.
It may be crude and some people may not like it, but kill yourself is still a great insult in my opinion, to those who deserve it
People who just want rights are not a "mob", they're rightfully pissed off.
Anyway the implication is suicide, not murder.
"Mob" doesn't mean "trans people trying to live without getting harassed and beaten" fuckface. Go cry about it on Xitter if you feel so offended.
Oh, so she can demand the Community shut up and cease to exist but we have to be Good Polite little Queers?
I've got something much tastier you can gobble than that boot
Calm down, it's a tweet. And to add a bit of nuance to the conversation, it is clearly implied that she should kill herself.
Sorry for not being loving to someone who calls me a rapist 🤷
If you look at everything JK has said and done, and you DON'T hate the spiteful, Nazi-apologist, transphobic billionaire from the Epstein files for something, then I'd say you're the one with serious issues.
Are you a spiteful, Nazi-apologist, transphobic billionaire from the Epstein files? If not, your comment is irrelevant.
I'm not. I'm curious what irrelevant comment means
Your comment about someone telling you to kill yourself is only relevant to this discussion if you are a spiteful, Nazi-apologist, transphobic billionaire from the Epstein files. Otherwise, it's a disconnected distraction that should be discarded.
Of course, run away like the chickenshit pissant troll that you are 🤡

all 89 comments