View Poll Results: what type is JK Rowling?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE (ENTp)

    0 0%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    5 17.24%
  • LII (INTj)

    1 3.45%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    1 3.45%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    0 0%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    0 0%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    0 0%
  • ILI (INTp)

    2 6.90%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    5 17.24%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    2 6.90%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    0 0%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    1 3.45%
  • EII (INFj)

    14 48.28%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: JK Rowling

  1. #81

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Her recent comments about gender are disappointing. I'm not sure she really said anything particularly transphobic, but she did seem a whole lot more interested in validating the idea that "sex is real," an idea that hardly needs defense since most people agree with it while the ones who don't aren't harming anyone, than she did in validating transgender people, who are often sorely in need of acceptance. The worst part of it is that if she really isn't transphobic and her comments were just clumsy, she has almost completely failed to explain the fact. I don't follow her Twitter page, but as far as I can tell, she has mostly responded to her fans' outrage with silence, which does as much to make her look transphobic as her original comments did.

    Anyway, I think she is probably an EII. The little controversy I mentioned in the above paragraph seems to be a classic case of Fi > Fe. She's far more attentive to defending a personal conviction of hers than she is in considering how her comments are affecting other people and the general emotional atmosphere. And I think the Harry Potter books are very Ne. She cobbled together a great many external myths and put a wacky spin on them, and her presentation in the books has much more breadth than depth.
    Why or how are they "sorely" in need of acceptance and emotional validation? Why make things so personal?

    People in minorities do need to be accepted in terms of equal and fair treatment, but they cannot demand emotional validation and other personal attitudes in public. They need to handle their own feelings like everyone else does it too.

    It is completely crazy to me, the idea that I should keep paying attention to the feelings of people I don't even know up close personally. And that I should talk with consideration of their imaginary feelings.

    Again, even if they were not imaginary, it is still not my business and not my problem as to what they are feeling. Just because trans people are in the minority, I don't need to handle their feelings with more care than other people's. If I knew a trans person personally then fine I'm glad to pay attention to their emotions if I'm on good enough and close enough terms with them, but if I don't even know them then no, it's not my responsibility or my business whatsoever.

    They can just stop taking everything so personally, the ones that get upset over imagined slights.

  2. #82
    Psychic/Ghost Type Nunki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grumpyvic81
    Why or how are they "sorely" in need of acceptance and emotional validation? Why make things so personal?
    They're sorely in need of it in the sense that it's what many of them deeply desire and fail to get. Whether they're entitled to such validation is a different question. In my opinion, no one is really entitled to validation. But it is good-natured, not to mention wise, to be well-disposed toward people who haven't done you any harm. And transgender people have never harmed me, at least not on account of their being transgender. If anything, they've been more accepting of me than a lot people. So I return the favor.

    Just because trans people are in the minority, I don't need to handle their feelings with more care than other people's.
    I'm not suggesting that people in the minority require special treatment. What I'm suggesting, or trying to suggest, is that they should be treated like anyone else. My use of the word "validate" is to point out what J.K. Rowling might have done to make it clear that she isn't biased against transgender people. I didn't use it with the intention of suggesting that people are responsible for other's feelings. The only one responsible for your feelings is you.

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    They're sorely in need of it in the sense that it's what many of them deeply desire and fail to get. Whether they're entitled to such validation is a different question. In my opinion, no one is really entitled to validation. But it is good-natured, not to mention wise, to be well-disposed toward people who haven't done you any harm. And transgender people have never harmed me, at least not on account of their being transgender. If anything, they've been more accepting of me than a lot people. So I return the favor.

    I'm not suggesting that people in the minority require special treatment. What I'm suggesting, or trying to suggest, is that they should be treated like anyone else. My use of the word "validate" is to point out what J.K. Rowling might have done to make it clear that she isn't biased against transgender people. I didn't use it with the intention of suggesting that people are responsible for other's feelings. The only one responsible for your feelings is you.
    You know, entitlement is a great word for all that crap.

    Also, even if I was trans (I'm not) I don't see why I should care if someone else says something that, if viewed in a negative enough light stemming from existing psychological-emotional issues of the viewer, can be seen as bias against transgender people.

    No, I don't see why I would care to take it personally even if I was trans, since I don't even know the person.

    And expecting a person to fix their wording "correctly" and in the "proper" way just because the person who "sounds like" they MIGHT have bias, sounds that way because the offended person has issues (and by "issues" I don't mean them being trans but just generic psychological-emotional issues)......no that is not about trying to get treated equally like anyone else. No, it's the offended person pushing their own issues on the other person who "seemed" to have the "bias".

    I'm sick of this whole new fashion of needing to "validate" people's every single little feeling. The word "validation" is complete bullshit there. You are responsible for giving yourself validation first and foremost, no one else can be expected to give it to you. Anyone else giving you validation is just a bonus and doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things eventually.

    So your first sentence - bolded by me, my answer to it is this exactly. Validate yourself first, don't expect others to do it for you just because you "sorely" "need" it. Then when you are no longer "sorely in need of it", you can enjoy it from other people too as a bonus. Until then nah. Until then it's just crappy entitlement and even if you get the "validation", your issues will not get fixed from it so you will constantly "need" more "validation" and get to feel more and more entitled to it. No, it can only be a bonus, not a need. End of story.


    Addition:

    But it is good-natured, not to mention wise, to be well-disposed toward people who haven't done you any harm.
    Sure, but my and other people's idea of well-disposed behaviour is different from such entitled people's idea on what it should be. So, this is where the devil's in the details even tho your line may sound reasonable at first sight/first read/on the surface.

    It'd be an incredibly intrusive boundary violation to expect me to walk on eggshells and change my wordings of stuff and suppress my own self and my own expression/way of being just so entitled people can be satisfied.

  4. #84

    Default

    I googled it again. I remembered, that she first talked about Dumbledored sexuality when asked by fans at a fan meeting (backstories, backstories, backstories :D). Later on she talked about his relationship with Gellert Grindelwald and the feelings Dumbledore had for him at that time (oooooh Dumbledores has lived and has been young too :o). I can only assume, that she didn't wanted to go down the Dumbledore is *+~°~+°gay°+~°~+° road. (speculation follows) I assume she wanted to be like Harry likes Ginny, Dumbledore liked Grindelwald. Harry straight and Dumbledore gay (so what). It's a relationship, that they had at one point in time towards someone (realtionships :D). Unfortunately Dumbledores uhm ended unhappy. I think that was her focus. From what I gathered on tumblr she starts to... lets say swim, when it comes to the sexual sense. Hach yah... in a perfect world.... Maybe I understood it from - Harry Potter the book about an orphan that lived under a staircase and one day suddenly realizes he has magic powers (ya a wizard Harry - sorry I had to) fighting the bad people (take that how you want).

    (McGonagall had a sad backstory, too you know) :(
    (for all the emotional masochists)

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    TIM
    ILE-Ti SO/SX 7w6
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is good natured and wise to not piss off people who have done you no harm, but it is also not good natured and unwise to "infer" peoples' opinions from vague statements and then make serious accusations against them (e.g., they are racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.). That is my issue with the J.K. Rowling situation: people are demanding she respect them/transgendered individuals, but don't have the respect themselves to not infer her opinions of transgenderism as a topic from a vague tweet, and then, as punishment for holding an opinion she has never actually stated, she is "canceled" and pretty serious accusations are made against her (e.g., she is transphobic) or she is told she's a c-word, bitch, to go kill herself etc. And the people doing this actually feel justified and that they are doing the right thing, but then get confused as to why someone may not respect every demand them make of them to "validate" and "respect" them

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    TIM
    ILE-Ti SO/SX 7w6
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I changed my mind I think that she is IEI now

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    454
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    She doesn't seem Ne/Si valuer imo, more Se/Ni and Fe ego. So most likely EIE.

    I doubt she is IEI as she doesn't seems as spontaneous/ optimistic/open as IEIs and she has an Exxj vibe.

  8. #88
    died on many ant hills inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    946 sp/so IP mess
    Posts
    6,481
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still see her as EII.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •