4 ms·

it's not true that JK Rowling was or is doing that. that's a misrepresentation.

space_fountain 6y ago
I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can take which might actually be right, but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people
- makomk 6y ago
  The other problem with this claim is that even if you do believe that J K Rowling's personal views are transphobic (and honestly, they probably are), she really doesn't seem to have been using her power to push them. The woke establishment that's been going after her, on the other hand, absolutely used their power to push transphobia in ways that actually mattered, including into UK law.
  - space_fountain 6y ago
    I mean we wouldn’t even be talking about this if she wasn’t you know a famous well respected author. I haven’t read her latest book, but my understanding is it has a character who is pretty close to the terf idea of what a trans person is which would seem like it’s using her writing to perpetuate her view
    - zepto 6y ago
      The concept that it is perpetuating her view seems very questionable to me. Is it influenced by her view? Of course. Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like. My own view on this is complex. The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence. If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?
  - Eszik 6y ago
    What do you mean? Rowling has absolutely used her power, i.e her visibility as a very prominent public figure, to write and share tweets and articles that prop up and reinforce the current transphobic discourse in the UK. I'm also not sure who you're pointing you when you say "The woke establishment that's been going after her", because as far as I know the people who have called out her transphobia have definitely opposed the various UK bills and motions you're referring to.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people You can sanction Rowling, don't buy her books. You can criticize Rowling, you can publish books hating on Rowling, those are all great ways in a free society to show opposition. The problem is that activists want to destroy Rowling, erase her from public space, and deny others the right to buy and read her books. Rowling has enough power and stature where she isn't really threatened, but smaller authors are being "disappeared".
  - space_fountain 6y ago
    I mean I’m actually in a camp that this stuff can and has gone too far sometimes, but implicitly this is still almost always an argument about how bad the things said really are, because actually I’m pretty sure most people are fine with some ideas and people being “canceled”. They just think these particular ideas go too far. But the problem is that people then turn around and try to argue that really they’re just arguing for the free flow of ideas or some such
    - seneca 6y ago
      I think you're mostly right, but there are actually people who believe in the free flow of ideas. The liberals and libertarians believed it before the current spat of censorship started, and many people who just disagree with the censors this time are flocking to their banners in an alliance of convenience. That is to say, I think there are actual true believers when it comes to free speech. Edit: I just reread your comment and there's a "most" I missed the first time. Leaving this comment up, but safe to say I agree.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

I think this comment exemplifies the core of the issue. It’s not that many people actually have a problem with society holding famous people to account for their misdeeds. It’s that they simply don’t think they are misdeeds. They don’t find a problem with the things JK says and they feel like Woody Allen is probably a nice guy unfairly being attacked. Which like actually fine, that’s a legitimate position you can take which might actually be right, but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people

makomk 6y ago
The other problem with this claim is that even if you do believe that J K Rowling's personal views are transphobic (and honestly, they probably are), she really doesn't seem to have been using her power to push them. The woke establishment that's been going after her, on the other hand, absolutely used their power to push transphobia in ways that actually mattered, including into UK law.
- space_fountain 6y ago
  I mean we wouldn’t even be talking about this if she wasn’t you know a famous well respected author. I haven’t read her latest book, but my understanding is it has a character who is pretty close to the terf idea of what a trans person is which would seem like it’s using her writing to perpetuate her view
  - zepto 6y ago
    The concept that it is perpetuating her view seems very questionable to me. Is it influenced by her view? Of course. Does it perpetuate it? Surely that depends on how readers react to it. We are free to interpret works as we like. My own view on this is complex. The problems JK Rowling outlines are clearly real, but of course so are the problems of trans people in gaining acceptance in society. Both TERFs and Trans people are groups that face gendered violence. If the mere writing of a character that holds a view ‘perpetuates it’, then don’t we need to burn all books written before the 1990s?
- Eszik 6y ago
  What do you mean? Rowling has absolutely used her power, i.e her visibility as a very prominent public figure, to write and share tweets and articles that prop up and reinforce the current transphobic discourse in the UK. I'm also not sure who you're pointing you when you say "The woke establishment that's been going after her", because as far as I know the people who have called out her transphobia have definitely opposed the various UK bills and motions you're referring to.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
but it doesn’t really say anything about it being ok or not for the larger culture to sanction people You can sanction Rowling, don't buy her books. You can criticize Rowling, you can publish books hating on Rowling, those are all great ways in a free society to show opposition. The problem is that activists want to destroy Rowling, erase her from public space, and deny others the right to buy and read her books. Rowling has enough power and stature where she isn't really threatened, but smaller authors are being "disappeared".
- space_fountain 6y ago
  I mean I’m actually in a camp that this stuff can and has gone too far sometimes, but implicitly this is still almost always an argument about how bad the things said really are, because actually I’m pretty sure most people are fine with some ideas and people being “canceled”. They just think these particular ideas go too far. But the problem is that people then turn around and try to argue that really they’re just arguing for the free flow of ideas or some such
  - seneca 6y ago
    I think you're mostly right, but there are actually people who believe in the free flow of ideas. The liberals and libertarians believed it before the current spat of censorship started, and many people who just disagree with the censors this time are flocking to their banners in an alliance of convenience. That is to say, I think there are actual true believers when it comes to free speech. Edit: I just reread your comment and there's a "most" I missed the first time. Leaving this comment up, but safe to say I agree.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]