Octopus Overlords

Sorry, I'm trying to follow this across three topics in two forums here.

I am pretty sure her 2020 response where she's mocking trans women is a great place to start (linking an article that came out when she posted it):

Though Rowling was met with massive backlash at the time, she’s continued to express these views. On June 6, she appeared to openly belittle transgender people when she mocked a news headline about “people who menstruate.”

“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” Rowling tweeted, seeming to imply that all people who menstruate are women and that only people who menstruate are women.

And then as a follow up to that:

Then on Wednesday, Rowling attempted to explain her stance on trans identity with a long essay full of harmful transphobic stereotypes. It was a profoundly hurtful piece of writing, riddled with hand-wringing, groundless arguments about villainous trans women, outdated science, and exclusionary viewpoints. Especially gutting was the essay’s self-centeredness; Rowling masked obvious transphobia as a personal appeal to reason, rooted in her own experience as a woman and an abuse survivor. She asked for empathy and respect for her experiences while showing none for her targets.

Only the individual that referred to her position as "horrific" can explain why they chose that particular word.

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:44 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:40 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:38 pm Was she educated? Or did people start screaming at her?

Is it anyone else's responsibility to educate her?

You're missing the point.

I don't think I am. If she's uneducated, it isn't because she hasn't had plenty of opportunity. Or maybe the point is she got defensive when people yelled at her then didn't educate herself out of spite.

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:12 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:44 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:40 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:38 pm Was she educated? Or did people start screaming at her?

Is it anyone else's responsibility to educate her?

You're missing the point.

I don't think I am. If she's uneducated, it isn't because she hasn't had plenty of opportunity. Or maybe the point is she got defensive when people yelled at her then didn't educate herself out of spite.

More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea. She has a fundamental deep seated disagreement about sex versus gender identities. That was a hotly debated argument for a long time. It wasn't settled until a few years ago when it was seemingly decided that everyone who didn't agree was instead a hateful bigot. That sure moved the conversation forward.

Rowling is the master of tropes. I mean "Cho Chang?"

Her position on menstruation is downright nuanced by comparison.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:17 pm Rowling is the master of tropes. I mean "Cho Chang?"

Her position on menstruation is downright nuanced by comparison.

Fair point. Perhaps she used a "earth bound" version of the George Lucas name generator there.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:06 pm Sorry, I'm trying to follow this across three topics in two forums here.

I am pretty sure her 2020 response where she's mocking trans women is a great place to start (linking an article that came out when she posted it):

Though Rowling was met with massive backlash at the time, she’s continued to express these views. On June 6, she appeared to openly belittle transgender people when she mocked a news headline about “people who menstruate.”

“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” Rowling tweeted, seeming to imply that all people who menstruate are women and that only people who menstruate are women.

And then as a follow up to that:

Then on Wednesday, Rowling attempted to explain her stance on trans identity with a long essay full of harmful transphobic stereotypes. It was a profoundly hurtful piece of writing, riddled with hand-wringing, groundless arguments about villainous trans women, outdated science, and exclusionary viewpoints. Especially gutting was the essay’s self-centeredness; Rowling masked obvious transphobia as a personal appeal to reason, rooted in her own experience as a woman and an abuse survivor. She asked for empathy and respect for her experiences while showing none for her targets.

Not trying to be difficult here, but again, outside of the protest that referring to women as “people who menstruate” is stupid — an opinion not out of step with the mainstream- I’m still not seeing what Rowling said that’s hateful or evil or horrific or whatever word you want to use to indicate someone is truly deserving of being cancelled.

The more I look at this, the more I think it’s about a sense of betrayal. And that Vox article you linked to really brings this home.

Rowling had legions of fans in the LGBTQ community who thought she was an ally who would have their back. When it turned out she wasn’t who they thought she was, maybe that was particularly hurtful.

Again, I end up where Stephen King did:

https://twitter.com/stephenking/status/ ... 6dQVBJQmOQ

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:12 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:44 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 1:40 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:38 pm Was she educated? Or did people start screaming at her?

Is it anyone else's responsibility to educate her?

You're missing the point.

I don't think I am. If she's uneducated, it isn't because she hasn't had plenty of opportunity. Or maybe the point is she got defensive when people yelled at her then didn't educate herself out of spite.

More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea. She has a fundamental deep seated disagreement about sex versus gender identities. That was a hotly debated argument for a long time. It wasn't settled until a few years ago when it was seemingly decided that everyone who didn't agree was instead a hateful bigot. That sure moved the conversation forward.

FWIW my general sense / recollection on this stuff was that JKR's initial comments weren't that bad - more in the vein of ignorance of trans stuff and assumptions of traditional gender roles - but that her comments have gotten significant worse / more hurtful over time. Who knows what the process was, but I tend to imagine that stubbornness and reaction to her critics (and getting support from more anti-trans quarters) has contributed to her going that direction. Not to say that it's ok for her to respond that way, just I think that's part of the cause and effect here.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:34 pmFWIW my general sense / recollection on this stuff was that JKR's initial comments weren't that bad - more in the vein of ignorance of trans stuff and assumptions of traditional gender roles - but that her comments have gotten significant worse / more hurtful over time. Who knows what the process was, but I tend to imagine that stubbornness and reaction to her critics (and getting support from more anti-trans quarters) has contributed to her going that direction. Not to say that it's ok for her to respond that way, just I think that's part of the cause and effect here.

I'd argue she has only had one position. She thinks that sex assigned at birth has a far bigger role in your journey through life than gender. I don't know if I can argue against that as a man. At the very least I understand what she is arguing.

Others have found a way to marry their frame on what womanhood means with gender identity. She has not been able to get there. I disagree with her views and understand why some feel they are negated by exclusionary frameworks but still I think it's frankly authoritarian that we yell at her about what she is supposed to think and punish her for what she is supposedly feeling. It's my biggest problem with 'cancel culture'. There should be room for discourse here but there is not. Either get on the bus or get run over. At the very least I'll give her credit for not doing what a lot of folks in her position do which is throw in her lot with the political authoritarians.

My biggest problem with the whole kerfluffle is the people feeling the need to piss in everyone else's cornflakes over their personal opinions towards Rowling. If you don't want to buy the game, fine. But if you're out there review-bombing, leaking spoilers, etc. then you're not a moral crusader, you're just an asshole.

If you want to individually cancel Rowling, go right ahead. But don't take your wrath out on the hundreds of people who worked on the game that had nothing to do with her comments.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:34 pm
FWIW my general sense / recollection on this stuff was that JKR's initial comments weren't that bad - more in the vein of ignorance of trans stuff and assumptions of traditional gender roles - but that her comments have gotten significant worse / more hurtful over time. Who knows what the process was, but I tend to imagine that stubbornness and reaction to her critics (and getting support from more anti-trans quarters) has contributed to her going that direction. Not to say that it's ok for her to respond that way, just I think that's part of the cause and effect here.

She's posted many times about the threat that trans women pose in women's spaces, going so far as to write a book about a serial killer that dresses in women's clothes. I don't think her feelings about trans people are right, but they are her feelings. Trying to make trans women into threats when the evidence shows that they are drastically more likely to be the targets of violence than perpetrators is pretty awful behavior, though.

So in Rowling's world do people who go through menopause become men?

gbasden wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:24 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:34 pm
FWIW my general sense / recollection on this stuff was that JKR's initial comments weren't that bad - more in the vein of ignorance of trans stuff and assumptions of traditional gender roles - but that her comments have gotten significant worse / more hurtful over time. Who knows what the process was, but I tend to imagine that stubbornness and reaction to her critics (and getting support from more anti-trans quarters) has contributed to her going that direction. Not to say that it's ok for her to respond that way, just I think that's part of the cause and effect here.

She's posted many times about the threat that trans women pose in women's spaces, going so far as to write a book about a serial killer that dresses in women's clothes.

I'm not here to defend Rowling but I also won't stand for what I believe is misinformation. In particular, the early part of your sentence above. She made one at length post that aligned with TERF ideology. She did reference those issues (and in a negative, wrong way) but she as far as I know has not posted "many times" about those threats. Believe what you want about your conviction you can divine her feelings but you don't get to make up facts.

Jaymann wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:32 pm So in Rowling's world do people who go through menopause become men?

No. The point of the argument which has other issues is that normally only females assigned at birth can menstruate. FWIW there are other more practical "attacks" on this framework. What do you call a female assigned at birth who is later found to be sterile? They may or may not menstruate. Does that make them less of a woman? Are they less at risk?

Good discussion. Far too often the people who are confused and want to change, or those who just don't know better, are lumped in with the people who genuinely hate, and they're given the same hostile treatment. It is counterproductive, and makes it difficult to be on the right side of change sometimes.

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:42 pm What do you call a female assigned at birth who is later found to be sterile? They may or may not menstruate.

What did they ask to be called? And when you told them did they acknowledge your request or did they call you the same thing prior to asking or being told what their preference was?

I get the "cancel culture" element and I don't think she should be "silenced" - and I don't think she has been. Recently someone was commenting online about Brandon Sanderson and his hateful views on homosexuality, based on his religion. That was a new one to me and sure enough, he had made some rather problematic comments in the past (2007), oddly enough associated with JK Rowling and Harry Potter. However, he did revisit his opinions in 2011 and indicated he was wrong.

Like it or not, the court of public opinion works differently for a guy that sits at your bar vs an international public figure. If they're saying hurtful, backwards and problematic things they should be called out on it. Unless they live in Ohio then they can just teach that to kids without a problem, apparently.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:51 pm Good discussion. Far too often the people who are confused and want to change, or those who just don't know better, are lumped in with the people who genuinely hate, and they're given the same hostile treatment. It is counterproductive, and makes it difficult to be on the right side of change sometimes.

Exactly but on the change part I am reminded she does have a "shitty" position in there. In her TERF piece which is truly riddled with misinformation, she does essentially argue something straightforward. She argues that women have been fighting for their rights for a long time and trans women muddy that fight. Essentially sorry you have problems but get in line because we've been fighting a battle and you shouldn't mess that up for us. P.S. I'll totally march with you if they do discriminate against you. It is gross. I wouldn't call it hateful.

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.

What exactly is the new idea? That people should be treated equally and with dignity? Maybe the marginalized are tired of being gentle with marginalizers. Where would civil rights be if the activists made sure not to hurt anyone's feelings?

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:06 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.

Maybe the marginalized are tired of being gentle with marginalizers.

Which is justified. And if they follow that fully justified approach, they may feel better - but their cause doesn't benefit as much as the alternative. In fact, it may set their cause back.

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:35 pm

gbasden wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:24 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:34 pm
FWIW my general sense / recollection on this stuff was that JKR's initial comments weren't that bad - more in the vein of ignorance of trans stuff and assumptions of traditional gender roles - but that her comments have gotten significant worse / more hurtful over time. Who knows what the process was, but I tend to imagine that stubbornness and reaction to her critics (and getting support from more anti-trans quarters) has contributed to her going that direction. Not to say that it's ok for her to respond that way, just I think that's part of the cause and effect here.

She's posted many times about the threat that trans women pose in women's spaces, going so far as to write a book about a serial killer that dresses in women's clothes.

I'm not here to defend Rowling but I also won't stand for what I believe is misinformation. In particular, the early part of your sentence above. She made one at length post that aligned with TERF ideology. She did reference those issues (and in a negative, wrong way) but she as far as I know has not posted "many times" about those threats. Believe what you want about your conviction you can divine her feelings but you don't get to make up facts.

I apologize for being unclear. Yes, she herself has only tweeted once about trans women being a threat in womens bathrooms and wrote a book featuring a male in dress killing women. She has also liked a number of tweets that imply that trans women in women's spaces are a threat. I don't think that changes the thrust of my point at all, but you are correct that liking a tweet isn't precisely the same thing as posting a tweet.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:01 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:42 pm What do you call a female assigned at birth who is later found to be sterile? They may or may not menstruate.

What did they ask to be called? And when you told them did they acknowledge your request or did they call you the same thing prior to asking or being told what their preference was?

To be clear those are all rhetorical devices.

I get the "cancel culture" element and I don't think she should be "silenced" - and I don't think she has been. Recently someone was commenting online about Brandon Sanderson and his hateful views on homosexuality, based on his religion. That was a new one to me and sure enough, he had made some rather problematic comments in the past (2007), oddly enough associated with JK Rowling and Harry Potter. However, he did revisit his opinions in 2011 and indicated he was wrong.

Fair and she is just a useful example. I'd argue she has effectively been silenced though in major media. She has had a few interviews here and there but her access to media is nothing like what it was before this controversy broke.

Like it or not, the court of public opinion works differently for a guy that sits at your bar vs an international public figure. If they're saying hurtful, backwards and problematic things they should be called out on it. Unless they live in Ohio then they can just teach that to kids without a problem, apparently.

This discussion did remind me of some behavior that I saw personally pre-pandemic. I reffed a tournament up near Quebec where one of the refs kept referring to some folks as 'genuine women'. Specifically in reference to pointing out how the trans person on the crew wasn't one. He was asked to stop. He persisted. He got a light correction in the form of being sat out of a game. He persisted. He was removed from the crew. Seemed fair to me. He shouldn't volunteer in a sport with an outsized representation of trans people.

What was interesting to me is that he was somewhat of a known quantity about being disruptive. Everyone who knew him said that the guy picks fights. And truly I never picked up a hate vibe from him. So I'm not even arguing people shouldn't face consequences for being wrong even if it's not "hateful". I simply disagree with the belief you will obviously know people's feelings based on disagreements, the lack of discussion about true issues that exist in the space, and the understanding that change is a destination and you can't always force it to happen instantly.

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:06 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.

What exactly is the new idea?

Are you truly going to argue we were talking about 'people who menstruate' a decade back? Or seriously grapple with trans identity? Like it or not these are not mainstream ideas. And acting like a mob isn't winning many over.

That people should be treated equally and with dignity? Maybe the marginalized are tired of being gentle with marginalizers. Where would civil rights be if the activists made sure not to hurt anyone's feelings?

Of course people should be challenged. No one is arguing otherwise. But you do that with the truth. You don't exaggerate. You don't bully people into agreement. You disagree politely. You argue with the facts and from humanity. You don't froth up to a lather and berate people into agreement. It doesn't have a history of working. That's all I'm suggesting.

It's hard to quantify "new", but 2+ decades doesn't sound very new to me.

Inclusion of Transgender in Olympics

Despite the increasing belief of transgender athlete domination in sports, the two most recent Olympic games, the 2020 Summer Olympic Games and the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, were the first to have openly transgender athletes compete. Even with this being a recent development, the Olympics have allowed transgender athletes to compete since the early 2000s, as long as certain criteria were met. These criteria have changed over the years since their implementation in 2003 due to the increasing activism of both transgender individuals as well as LGBT activists. These changes in criteria have allowed the Olympics to be more welcoming to not only transgender athletes but all athletes who fall outside of the boxes that the early criteria created.

It's not like East German shot putters aren't a trope. This issue has always existed. People just weren't paying attention and trans people were very, very quiet about it, for reasons I feel are obvious.

Malcolm X had a different view on "disagree politely".

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:29 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:06 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.

What exactly is the new idea?

Are you truly going to argue we were talking about 'people who menstruate' a decade back? Or seriously grapple with trans identity? Like it or not these are not mainstream ideas. And acting like a mob isn't winning many over.

I had a trans classmate in college 30 years ago. There was definitely grappling, there just weren't social media platforms for famous people to stumble over their dumb opinions on, so the dialog was a lot more localized. The gender spectrum, gender identity and transgender issues are far from new. I'd say it was probably just a bit too soon for our society to deal with it as we were just recognizing that homosexuality existed and wasn't evil.

Anyone with such a platform and a freaking PR team should be handling things better even if they privately maintain their exclusionary positions. I guess I've talked myself more into thinking her actions are horrific in that she has helped to "other" trans women which is absolutely harmful. Yeah, she is not DeSantis' brand of actively harmful, but her less direct harm gets a lot more attention because of her massive audience.

coopasonic wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:58 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:29 pm

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:06 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:15 pm More the latter. If you want people to come along with your new idea then you need to win over people to the new idea.

What exactly is the new idea?

Are you truly going to argue we were talking about 'people who menstruate' a decade back? Or seriously grapple with trans identity? Like it or not these are not mainstream ideas. And acting like a mob isn't winning many over.

I had a trans classmate in college 30 years ago. There was definitely grappling, there just weren't social media platforms for famous people to stumble over their dumb opinions on, so the dialog was a lot more localized. The gender spectrum, gender identity and transgender issues are far from new. I'd say it was probably just a bit too soon for our society to deal with it as we were just recognizing that homosexuality existed and wasn't evil.

Oh yeah and to be clear I nodded earlier that these issues have been debated for decades. I'm not talking about the existence of discussions. I'm talking about trying to bring them out of the realm of academic debate into the mainstream. Awareness is obviously much higher now than any time in the past which is a victory on its own. But broad acceptance needs to develop over time.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:41 pm It's hard to quantify "new", but 2+ decades doesn't sound very new to me.

True and the point again is about mainstream recognition of the issue. Even with all this kvetching I'd argue this still isn't entirely mainstream. My experience is that even well-meaning people don't truly understand the basics much less the complicated gender identity issues out there. I have lots of exposure and I'd say my experience is the terrain is constantly shifting. Much is not even truly settled.

It's not like East German shot putters aren't a trope. This issue has always existed. People just weren't paying attention and trans people were very, very quiet about it, for reasons I feel are obvious.

I thought that was more a steroids meme rather than a trans meme but open to being wrong there.

There have always been trans people. The only difference is that recent medical technology makes it possible to transition biologically rather than just socially (or secretly).

Every generation has stories about soldiers or scholars or farmers or clergy who were found to be the opposite sex when stripped for burial. Sometimes it was even an open secret. And the records are just a small sample of what actually transpired.

And of course not every culture has been as hung up as the West on the "essential" nature of gender/sex identity. In many times and places, what we would now call trans people have been treated as just an other way of being in the world. Sometimes (as in some Native American cultures) they have even been regarded as more spiritually advanced.

Holman wrote:There have always been trans people. The only difference is that recent medical technology makes it possible to transition biologically rather than just socially (or secretly).

Every generation has stories about soldiers or scholars or farmers or clergy who were found to be the opposite sex when stripped for burial. Sometimes it was even an open secret. And the records are just a small sample of what actually transpired.

And of course not every culture has been as hung up as the West on the "essential" nature of gender/sex identity. In many times and places, what we would now call trans people have been treated as just an other way of being in the world. Sometimes (as in some Native American cultures) they have even been regarded as more spiritually advanced.

And if you project medical science out a decade or two, or is very, very likely that it will be fully reversible AND probably get to the point where folks born XY will be able to carry a baby to term and deliver it, IMHO.

Which makes this whole culture war stupid in my mind.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Speech has consequences. And sometimes when you’re famous and an ambassador for an intellectual property, you shut up or accept the consequences.

JK Rowling kept doubling down as her fans felt more and more betrayed. Personally, I was raised to be friends with both the local Jews and the Racists in my small town — my mom grew up Asian during Vietnam in a small town. But this isn’t my fight and she’s not attacking me.

It reminds me of a college friend — a Gay Republican with AIDS who was a social activist who studied his Masters in Divinity at a Chicago Catholic university and tried to join both the conservative club and start the GLBT club. He said young gay men were very outspoken and flamboyant because THEY had just overcome all of the things that were being said publicly — because coming out meant reconciling all of the things said politically and philosophically with who you WERE, and couldn’t deny anymore. And then wanting (and needing) to make everyone else take the same journey.

Her contribution was an inspiration to an entire growing generation. Kids who were preteens for Sorcerer's Stone were in their 20s for Deathly Hallows. And those same kids are in their 30s now, probably having their own KIDS (now teens) reading the books. That creates a significant impact on people, making a perceived betrayal feel much bigger.

On top of that, her books were a rarity in that the audience was children, teens, and adults. That makes such feelings extremely widespread.

Harry Potter was also an outcast who discovered a world full of magic, and an important destiny. It's easy to see GLBTQ kids read themselves into JK Rowling's main characters, which makes the perceived betrayal much more acute. Stepping into the role of the High Inquisitor isn't a good look.

She certainly caused people to take umbridge with her...

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:52 am She certainly caused people to take umbridge with her...

malchior wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 5:13 pm I thought that was more a steroids meme rather than a trans meme but open to being wrong there.

It was steroid use. That (former) woman now identifies as a man.

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:52 am She certainly caused people to take umbridge with her...

Some HP monster or something?

Jaymann wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:38 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:52 am She certainly caused people to take umbridge with her...

Some HP monster or something?

Close. HP character.

Jaymann wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:38 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:52 am She certainly caused people to take umbridge with her...

Some HP monster or something?

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:25 am Stepping into the role of the High Inquisitor isn't a good look.

Delores Umbridge, High Inquisitor.

Zarathud wrote:Harry Potter was also an outcast who discovered a world full of magic, and an important destiny. It's easy to see GLBTQ kids read themselves into JK Rowling's main characters, which makes the perceived betrayal much more acute. Stepping into the role of the High Inquisitor isn't a good look.

Exactly. One can even make the argument that Harry performs metaphorical 'trans' surgery on himself in book 7 as he changes himself to not have a part of voldemort in him.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

Blackhawk wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 12:52 pm

Delores Umbridge, High Inquisitor.

I recently found out she is a more hated antagonist that Voldemort (or however you spell his name). Not surprising since V is in the background for most of the books, and Umbridge was wrecking Hogwart's directly.

Wrecking the place out of a misguided sense of purpose, righteousness and disregard for empathy for others in her abuse of power.

A True Villain in the everyday sense, and a cautionary tale.

malchior wrote: Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:20 pm There have been a lot of people posting fish kills in the area as well. It does feel like a cover up (or very underreported) but it's not clear who would be orchestrating it and for what purpose.

But then you get less than convincing statements like this. Ignore the dead fish. The water is safe to drink.

https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/stat ... 9094584321

They had a town meeting and the representatives of train’s operators would not show up for questions. There must be some really bad stuff on that train, the list keeps growing. This is going to be a Love Canal – Camp Lejeune for lawyers.

So, I have not once heard the Ohio train derailment mentioned on CNBC but they just mentioned a derailment not too far from where I live (two towns away). Even the local news talking about the wreckage right now makes a spotlight of the Ohio derailment.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/train- ... police-say

"We are also in touch with the relevant federal authorities, including the EPA," she said. "At this time no one is aware of the release of any hazardous materials, the car carrying hazardous material has been put upright and is being removed from the area of the other derailed cars, and EPA is dispatching a team to ensure public safety.

MORE: Upset Ohio residents pack town hall meeting seeking answers over train derailment

The derailment happened nearly two weeks after a train went off the tracks on Ohio, in the city in East Palestine. The incident sent toxic chemicals into the air, prompting concerns of contamination in the immediate area.