In the same sentence
Oh is that how it works.
His own family’s religion – so he’s not allowed to critique and satirise other people’s families’ religions?
Plus of course Rowling’s not “peddling hate speech at a minority group” – she’s disputing the truth claims of a new and deranged belief system that’s carving up children and calling it “gender-affirmation surgery.”
Yo, transgenderism is a human-made belief system, and a very destructive one, and we all get to “pick it apart” aka say what’s wrong with it.
Are you listening, JKR? This could be a best-seller.
Rushdie’s writing offended a a religion famous for being murderous and easily offended; Rowling’s writing offended a religion famous for being easily offended. Fairly similar.
Trying to carve out space only for “man made belief systems” is not gonna work. But let’s assume it does. Say there’s a fact, represented by a proposition P, that we’re not allowed to critique. That’s uninteresting until someone believes something about P; e.g., P is true. At this point, we have a man made belief system containing “P is true.” As we are permitted to critique man made belief systems, we may critique this one. Thus we may critique anything, including beliefs about groups.
Also, really? We’re only allowed to critique things we’re born to? Fuck off with yerself.
Nullius, perhaps it’s best to say we’re only allowed to critique things we’re assigned to at birth?
I see that a Twit who praised the attacker and told JK Rowling “don’t worry you’re next” has had his account deleted or otherwise rendered to “does not exist” state. Link to Rowling’s tweet seeking action from Twitter support:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1558438465284481024
Maybe they took action, maybe the guy did it on his own, I don’t know.
Papito: That made me groan aloud. You get a cookie.