4 ms·

Regarding spelling: As an unbiased foreigner, many American variants seem superior to me (color, defense, program, meter) with british just being weird (and/or

Regarding spelling: As an unbiased foreigner, many American variants seem superior to me (color, defense, program, meter) with british just being weird (and/or tainted by the french). Regarding Rowling: It seems to me that she gets more pushback/hate being, say "50% modern left-ish" than people that are even less aligned with left values. This gives me kinda medieval religion vibes (better an unbeliever/outsider than an apostate). I think such a valuation system is inherently flawed. Curious about your view on this. Sidenote: If you're referring to the zombie-ant fungus, those go by Ophiocordyceps nowadays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis).

tjpnz 4mo ago
Counter example: Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston have both said similar things to Rowling and are on the left (one is a Labour peer). Neither have received anything resembling the backlash she has.
- edent 4mo ago
  They both have received significant opprobrium. But she's the one funding a massive hate campaign.
mghackerlady 4mo ago
I personally have massive problems with Rowling because of her transphobic views, as I am a transexual woman and she completely misunderstands us and has used her influence to make our lives hell in the UK. The rest of her political views aren't something I give much thought as she isn't nearly as influential in those areas >Sidenote: If you're referring to the zombie-ant fungus, those go by Ophiocordyceps nowadays Neat. I should probably explain why I called her that. She started noticeably becoming more unhinged a bit after she posted a picture of herself in a house that very clearly had a mould problem. Thus, as a way of coping, we (as in, the subset of the trans community I partake in) started joking that her views were caused by the mould
- myrmidon 4mo ago
  I can see how being personally affected would change the outlook on things like this. It just seems to me that often people that are politically still "somewhat close" (Rowling) catch more flak than politicians that associate "transgender" with something inbetween "subhuman" and "delusional", but don't talk about it too much (because their whole electorate coulnd't care less about the topic anyway). I had a similar impression with political fragmentation on the non-Trump side in the last US election. But maybe the behavior is even net-beneficial in some cases, and you gain more as a movement by pushing against a Rowling instead of a Farage.
  - mghackerlady 4mo ago
    It comes down to influence. One politician can only do so much damage, whereas Rowling is very wealthy and can b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶ lobby many politicians
    - myrmidon 4mo ago
      Do you think Rowling has more political effect in the UK than UK politicians, or are you talking global influence here? My own somewhat cynical take is basically the Planck-principle: Actual progress mostly happens one grave at a time... I still think from a political effectiveness point-of-view, pushing against Rowling is almost completely futile, because she has no electorate to satisfy and her view (from what I understand, her focus is on "protecting" cisgender women/their spaces from maliciously misdeclared transgender women?) is strawmanny, but difficult to just dismiss/pick apart. But I can see now how perceived "betrayal" and actual public engagement with personal issues would elicit a much stronger response than an ideologically even more distant politician that just hates you quietly. Thanks for the discussion!
      - mghackerlady 4mo ago
        Np. What I mean about political influence is limited to the UK. While it's mostly futile, a lot of us grew up with her works and don't want others to support her work through merchandise and stuff

tjpnz 4mo ago

Counter example: Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston have both said similar things to Rowling and are on the left (one is a Labour peer). Neither have received anything resembling the backlash she has.

edent 4mo ago
They both have received significant opprobrium. But she's the one funding a massive hate campaign.

mghackerlady 4mo ago

I personally have massive problems with Rowling because of her transphobic views, as I am a transexual woman and she completely misunderstands us and has used her influence to make our lives hell in the UK. The rest of her political views aren't something I give much thought as she isn't nearly as influential in those areas >Sidenote: If you're referring to the zombie-ant fungus, those go by Ophiocordyceps nowadays Neat. I should probably explain why I called her that. She started noticeably becoming more unhinged a bit after she posted a picture of herself in a house that very clearly had a mould problem. Thus, as a way of coping, we (as in, the subset of the trans community I partake in) started joking that her views were caused by the mould

myrmidon 4mo ago
I can see how being personally affected would change the outlook on things like this. It just seems to me that often people that are politically still "somewhat close" (Rowling) catch more flak than politicians that associate "transgender" with something inbetween "subhuman" and "delusional", but don't talk about it too much (because their whole electorate coulnd't care less about the topic anyway). I had a similar impression with political fragmentation on the non-Trump side in the last US election. But maybe the behavior is even net-beneficial in some cases, and you gain more as a movement by pushing against a Rowling instead of a Farage.
- mghackerlady 4mo ago
  It comes down to influence. One politician can only do so much damage, whereas Rowling is very wealthy and can b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶ lobby many politicians
  - myrmidon 4mo ago
    Do you think Rowling has more political effect in the UK than UK politicians, or are you talking global influence here? My own somewhat cynical take is basically the Planck-principle: Actual progress mostly happens one grave at a time... I still think from a political effectiveness point-of-view, pushing against Rowling is almost completely futile, because she has no electorate to satisfy and her view (from what I understand, her focus is on "protecting" cisgender women/their spaces from maliciously misdeclared transgender women?) is strawmanny, but difficult to just dismiss/pick apart. But I can see now how perceived "betrayal" and actual public engagement with personal issues would elicit a much stronger response than an ideologically even more distant politician that just hates you quietly. Thanks for the discussion!
    - mghackerlady 4mo ago
      Np. What I mean about political influence is limited to the UK. While it's mostly futile, a lot of us grew up with her works and don't want others to support her work through merchandise and stuff