6 ms·

Edit: can’t delete my post but realised I have no interest in being a part of this conversation so deleting the text

by untog 6y ago

mc32 6y ago
She has the clout and independence that affords her that. Other people don’t enjoy that possibility.
- untog 6y ago
  So why on earth cite her as an example?
rglullis 6y ago
Cancel culture is not just that. It is the 21st century version of ostracism. She was not just "criticized" for it. You have industry-related websites now claiming to mention her only with hashtag #JKR. She's literally become "the one who shall not be named". Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. All of that for the very controversial opinion of "There is a word for 'people who menstruate' that the newspaper could've used" Also Martina. One of the first openly gay tennis players, an actual defender of women's rights, "canceled" because she dared to say that trans-women would have an unfair advantage and should not be put to play with biologically-born women. The audacity...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. The future project is Ickabog, which continues its progress through publishing. Some staff tried saying they no longer wanted to work on anything by JKR, but their employer told them they had no choice and must continue to work on Ickabog or leave the company. All her books remain in print. All her merch is still being sold. The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Yet you are also refusing to use her name? Why is that? > The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled. It is not just who "gets cancelled" and who doesn't. It is about the threat. She is a multimillionaire with enough clout to survive this absurd backlash and to make her own gravity for her work if she needs to. Others aren't. Please let me know of any young and talented YA author that made any kind of "controversial" statement and still stayed around and I might start believing that cancel culture is not such a big threat as you seem to believe.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > Yet you are also refusing to use her name? What a baffling question. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. > It is about the threat. It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled.
      - rglullis 6y ago
        > I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. I mentioned articles that declared would only mention her by initials to avoid calling her name, you followed that pattern. If it was not deliberate, it was an interesting coincidence. > It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled. No one can deny the fact that JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were more than "criticized" for their "opinions". They were misrepresented in their views to create attrition with some minority group, then coerced into getting some kind of apology for saying something that in no way entices animosity towards said minority and still after that get their work and professional relationships harassed to try to get them ostracized. This by itself is already is cancel culture, not the fact that people actually get canceled. It feels even weirder that you are trying to minimize the harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it.
        DanBC 6y ago
        People have been calling her JKR for years. > They were misrepresented in their views Rowling was not misrepresented. She really said those things. > then coerced into getting some kind of apology She hasn't apologised. She's made no concessions. She's repeated what she said. > harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it No, I'm pointing out that she was never at any risk at all from being cancelled. You keep talking about how dangerous cancel culture is, and how people keep being attacked. But you're entirely one-sided in your "analysis". You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. You never mention the people driven off platforms by the people you're defending. You cherry pick examples to try to get sympathetic victims, but when you do that you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. Are you serious? There are three (three!) studio films in production based on her works. She has two novels in the publication channel right now for release this year. I don't even want to count the number of auxiliary projects like theme parks and derivative products she's currently involved with. And none of this, NONE OF THIS, has changed in the last few weeks since she got in trouble for being a TERF. In my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine being cancelled so hard. This "cancel culture" paranoia is just out of control. There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. What you think happening, though, is simply NOT HAPPENING. You're being misled, yet again, by your media who are telling you about "problems" that don't exist that Just So Happen to be "solved" by voting for the right candidates or hating the right people.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Please read the answer I gave to sibling comment. The point is not whether she actually gets to be "canceled" effectively. The problem with "cancel culture" is more about the culture than the cancelling part. It is the matter of coercing every prominent public figure into some uniform view point that is supposed to be spread around unquestioned. > hating the right people. I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people, yet you are ready to label them TERFs. Who is the one trigger-happy on the hate again? > There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. It's funny how when we see "our side" making something clearly wrong and immoral, we are okay with just calling it "excesses". But if you are so forgiving for mistakes on one side, why not the other?
    - newacct583 6y ago
      > I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people Just to educate you on the subject, since you don't seem very plugged in: What Rowling did was effectively deny that trans women are "women"[1]. To a demographic that is defined in terms of personal identity, that's offensive on its face. It's "hate", in the simplest form of the word. Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal", etc... Now, obviously you don't see it that way, nor does Rowling. But if you want to make pontifications on internet culture you need to understand where the offense comes from. [1] It's also notable that she was asymmetric about this and did not apply the same logic to trans men. She's part of an identifiable group of women who view the trans issue as a dilution of traditional feminism, which is why the "TERF" label got invented. It's not a label of hate, like "Antifa".
- AvocadoPanic 6y ago
  It seems that ostracism has been ceded to the cultural Marxists.

Edit: can’t delete my post but realised I have no interest in being a part of this conversation so deleting the text

by untog 6y ago

Edit: can’t delete my post but realised I have no interest in being a part of this conversation so deleting the text

mc32 6y ago

She has the clout and independence that affords her that. Other people don’t enjoy that possibility.

untog 6y ago
So why on earth cite her as an example?

rglullis 6y ago

Cancel culture is not just that. It is the 21st century version of ostracism. She was not just "criticized" for it. You have industry-related websites now claiming to mention her only with hashtag #JKR. She's literally become "the one who shall not be named". Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. All of that for the very controversial opinion of "There is a word for 'people who menstruate' that the newspaper could've used" Also Martina. One of the first openly gay tennis players, an actual defender of women's rights, "canceled" because she dared to say that trans-women would have an unfair advantage and should not be put to play with biologically-born women. The audacity...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 6y ago
> Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. The future project is Ickabog, which continues its progress through publishing. Some staff tried saying they no longer wanted to work on anything by JKR, but their employer told them they had no choice and must continue to work on Ickabog or leave the company. All her books remain in print. All her merch is still being sold. The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled.
- rglullis 6y ago
  Yet you are also refusing to use her name? Why is that? > The multimillionaire JKR has not been cancelled. It is not just who "gets cancelled" and who doesn't. It is about the threat. She is a multimillionaire with enough clout to survive this absurd backlash and to make her own gravity for her work if she needs to. Others aren't. Please let me know of any young and talented YA author that made any kind of "controversial" statement and still stayed around and I might start believing that cancel culture is not such a big threat as you seem to believe.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    > Yet you are also refusing to use her name? What a baffling question. I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. > It is about the threat. It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      > I genuinely have no idea what you're getting at. I mentioned articles that declared would only mention her by initials to avoid calling her name, you followed that pattern. If it was not deliberate, it was an interesting coincidence. > It feels weird that to talk about cancel culture you pick someone who's at no risk of being cancelled. No one can deny the fact that JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were more than "criticized" for their "opinions". They were misrepresented in their views to create attrition with some minority group, then coerced into getting some kind of apology for saying something that in no way entices animosity towards said minority and still after that get their work and professional relationships harassed to try to get them ostracized. This by itself is already is cancel culture, not the fact that people actually get canceled. It feels even weirder that you are trying to minimize the harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it.
      - DanBC 6y ago
        People have been calling her JKR for years. > They were misrepresented in their views Rowling was not misrepresented. She really said those things. > then coerced into getting some kind of apology She hasn't apologised. She's made no concessions. She's repeated what she said. > harm caused by cancel culture by pointing out the fact that someone survived it No, I'm pointing out that she was never at any risk at all from being cancelled. You keep talking about how dangerous cancel culture is, and how people keep being attacked. But you're entirely one-sided in your "analysis". You've failed to account for JKR's 14 million followers that she uses to harass people. You never mention the people driven off platforms by the people you're defending. You cherry pick examples to try to get sympathetic victims, but when you do that you're unable to find anyone who actually got cancelled, and you provide examples of people who are at zero risk of cancellation and who keep saying whatever they want.
newacct583 6y ago
> Who knows what will come of any future project that she is working on. Are you serious? There are three (three!) studio films in production based on her works. She has two novels in the publication channel right now for release this year. I don't even want to count the number of auxiliary projects like theme parks and derivative products she's currently involved with. And none of this, NONE OF THIS, has changed in the last few weeks since she got in trouble for being a TERF. In my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine being cancelled so hard. This "cancel culture" paranoia is just out of control. There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. What you think happening, though, is simply NOT HAPPENING. You're being misled, yet again, by your media who are telling you about "problems" that don't exist that Just So Happen to be "solved" by voting for the right candidates or hating the right people.
- rglullis 6y ago
  Please read the answer I gave to sibling comment. The point is not whether she actually gets to be "canceled" effectively. The problem with "cancel culture" is more about the culture than the cancelling part. It is the matter of coercing every prominent public figure into some uniform view point that is supposed to be spread around unquestioned. > hating the right people. I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people, yet you are ready to label them TERFs. Who is the one trigger-happy on the hate again? > There are excesses, sure. People are mean on the internet everywhere. It's funny how when we see "our side" making something clearly wrong and immoral, we are okay with just calling it "excesses". But if you are so forgiving for mistakes on one side, why not the other?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I didn't see any animosity from JK Rowling or Navratilova towards trans-people Just to educate you on the subject, since you don't seem very plugged in: What Rowling did was effectively deny that trans women are "women"[1]. To a demographic that is defined in terms of personal identity, that's offensive on its face. It's "hate", in the simplest form of the word. Compare "Negro facilities are separate but equal", etc... Now, obviously you don't see it that way, nor does Rowling. But if you want to make pontifications on internet culture you need to understand where the offense comes from. [1] It's also notable that she was asymmetric about this and did not apply the same logic to trans men. She's part of an identifiable group of women who view the trans issue as a dilution of traditional feminism, which is why the "TERF" label got invented. It's not a label of hate, like "Antifa".
AvocadoPanic 6y ago
It seems that ostracism has been ceded to the cultural Marxists.