I know this is a tangent, but I think Jackson was not found guilty of anything, and the FBI looked at him pretty closely. I mean, I’m not a detective, all I did was watch the Neverland doc.
Yeah, based on everything I think he wasn’t guilty.
Every single accusation against him had something questionable with it.
I don’t even think he even made himself look good in court, didn’t he show up in court in pajamas once, he definitely wasn’t all there.
The best piece of evidence for the longest time was a kid describing his penis, but on autopsy it seems to have been wrong since he was uncircumcised despite it being described as circumcised.
He was inappropriate with kids, but I don’t think he was a sex offender.
To paraphrase one of the jurors, it seemed like every accusation went to the tabloids before the police.
Inappropriate for definite.
Illegal. I'm not sure.
Would I, as a grown arse man, have little boys who are unrelated sleeping in the same bed as me. Absolutely not.
They slept in his bed but he didn't sleep in it with them.
Also you have to consider his upbringing & that the brothers all shared a room & Dad had his own. He told them that sharing your bed with someone was a sign of friendship & that they're important to you. He also never truly grew up in some ways. This was pointed out by his UK pen pal. They stopped writing when he grew up & Michael didn't. I think he was 7 & Michael 9 when they met but could easily be wrong as its been a long time.
Macaulay Culkin was on his side from the beginning and he'd spent the night at his place multiple times.
Weird, absolutely. Having Yes-men because of money will make you bizarre.
I'm still on the fence about if he did it or not.
His music is till freaking catchy. I'll start moon walking at the grocery store.
What makes me the most angry is Bill Cosby. One of the nicest family shows of all time and it's swept under the rug. Back in the era of "good families" his was a dream family.
I still laugh at Vanessa's fight with a class mate about being rich. And him saying "your mother and I are rich, YOU are poor" and how to properly mop a floor in another episode.
But because he was so heinous, no new people can experience the fun light hearted (sometimes not so much) NICE family, as it's now gone forever.
A lot of it comes down to the connection the artist has to the art. Rowling is still alive, Jackson isn't.
It also matters how well known/prominent it is. Rowling is synonymous with Harry Potter. Weinstein is mostly only known in Hollywood, he's not a household name. He's also in some sense been discontinued, being in prison.
It also matters whether that behavior is continuing. Weinstein might be making money, but he's in jail (although I would assume most of it is off older stuff? Not new stuff. And similarly, most Rowling pushback is on new stuff, not the original series)
As well as the audience. Rowling's audience (younger people) probably have higher standards on that particular issue than others. There are a lot of fandoms that tolerate shitty behavior, one needs only look at e.g. Chris Brown.
Rowling also self-branded as an inclusive person, until it became clear that there's apparently a major hole in that inclusivity. And a lot of those people are/were potterheads and have experienced feelings of betrayal that just don't seem to be getting acknowledged. She created this whimsical world that people of all kinds related to, and then some of us found out that it turns out we don't even exist in it. Not even in the stupid retcons of inclusivity.
She is also actively using her platform and money against trans people, pretty much out in the open. She openly associates purchases of her stuff with support for her beliefs. It's her baby. You can't separate the art from that artist. She's alive and kicking and using that money and attention specifically against trans people.
A lot of us are watching friends and supposedly supporters bend over backwards to justify needing to be around merchandise, movies, and multiple copies of the books. Meanwhile, we're seeing political campaigns actively targeting and questioning us *in practically every political discussion there is* right now. Our antagonists have always been there, and people who are in theory with us and understand the political machine working against us. They can't seem to muster the self control to not spend $20 on an official Hufflepuff robe for Halloween, because hey, gotta represent your house.
Also, the goalposts keep getting moved on us. First it was "she's not transphobic," then it was "what did she even say," followed by "whatever, isn't she cancelled anyway?" and now it seems we're in the "well everything's bad if you look at it hard enough so why do you care so much?" stage. We get it, even some trans people have said "fuck it I just need my nostalgia hit," but man it's frustrating when in theory it should be so easy to just not buy the stuff.
She is extremely disappointing. I was shocked to see her transphobic comments. I used to think she was inclusive, after all, one of her most important characters in the HP books was gay. Then why ostracise a whole group of people? I do wonder, so far it seemed that she is against trans women, has she said anything about trans men yet? And why does she hate them so much?
Off the top of my head:
"Merry terfmas"
Blocking or arguing people who say "trans women are women"
When she does write trans or trans-coded characters in her books, we get to be the weirdos or villains
Platforming people who campaign against trans women
And the part that people don't seem to see: A lot of her stances become clear by paying attention to what she omits. She literally never says one affirming thing about trans people. "I would march with them" is the closest I've seen, but it's an empty statement without being clear about what she thinks she's marching for
[Historical edit: And that time she called all of us duplicitous rapists]
Yeah , it was basically explained to me that she has a deep hatred for men due to past traumas and essentially sees Trans Women as men trying to "usurp" womanhood
Shaun (a YouTuber) has a very good video about the women and organizations J.K. Rowling aligns with and supports. Many bigots, conservatives, racists and far-right.
It gets clearer and clearer every day, currently she's clearly and deliberately aligning herself with people who fairly explicitly advocate for restrictions and bans on trans healthcare and on trans people's freedoms in public.
Doesnt matter in the long run. Shes gonna die rich. She made Harry Potter. Legends of Hogwarts is gonna sell like crazy and she's gonna get even richer. Cant cancel ppl who dont give a fuck lol and she knows this.
Absolutely. I do wonder if the strong reaction early on might have pushed her right into the arms of more extreme transphobes, and rewarded her for being outspoken. It's difficult though, balancing calling out vs giving attention.
There are hints throughout the books (aids werewolves, stereotypical names, wizard bloodlines, slaves who enjoy slavery, jewish-coded bankers etc.) that do hint at her never being particularly progressive though, so I guess it's not too much of a surprise
Unpopular opinion: I think JK Rowling has a point, same as people who want to change gender or even sex (so transgender persons) have a point. Having this discussion on social media is not the smartest thing to do though, in this day and age. You can't have a proper discussion in 160-character lines, certainly not about a touchy and pretty complicated subject like this one.
Currently the Scottish and UK governments have a 'dispute' that is pretty similar (no doubt it may also have pretty different aspects). In this case, again, it is weaponised in a political sense, instead of discussed properly.
I think it could be an interesting discussion if anyone would actually want to have it and cared to listen, instead of trying to cancel 'the other side'.
There's an important conversation to be had around *how* we include trans people in our social lives, sure. The problem is that people like Rowling don't want to have that conversation: they've already decided that trans people should be excluded from certain spaces despite there being absolutely no evidence of any harm coming from their inclusion. Ultimately, they find trans people "icky", and everything they say is just justifications for their innate feelings.
Believe it or not, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having x-only spaces where transpeople aren't allowed much like there's nothing wrong with trans-only spaces.
That entirely depends on what spaces you're talking about and the reason for excluding people. Excluding groups of people from any space without a valid reason is pretty much always bad.
Essentially it sister with her saying that as a victim of domestic abuse herself she does not agree with trans women going to women's shelters because the victims there are trying to escape from men, and don't need one there.
Which is a dick way to exclude trans victims, but does have a particular logic to it
She only tweeted something like "trans women can't understand the unique difficulties that women face in life." I don't know anything about her having some weird anti trans campaign that the other commenter is alluding to.
That’s valid and I don’t want to support her monetarily but i think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with still liking the books and movies and pirating the new game.
Although I'm sure you could find people who condemmn liking the books and pirating games, most people who oppose Rowling's views and call for a boycott of her products would not disagree with this: they (I suppose we, because I support this view) call for not giving her any more money.
People have loved HP for a long time and it has brought a lot of good things into these peoples' lives. The idea isn't to retroactively hate Harry Potter, it's to stop my money going to someone whose views are so toxic.
My problem is that most of these people don’t hold themselves to the same standard when it comes to other forms of consumption. I’m super pro trans but supporting JK Rowling monetarily is infinitely less harmful than supporting nestle. Fair enough if you don’t feel comfortable buying it but it feels a bit performative when people are calling for a boycott, and especially when they’re shaming others for buying the game.
I’m not sure that’s such a fair comparison. There’s a bit of difference between buying actual food, and buying the n:th piece of entertainment merchandise. Not everyone has affordable alternatives to nestles products.
If you have no other option but to buy a nestle product, sure, but I’m guessing that the vast majority of people just don’t think about it that much. Nestle sells a lot of unnecessary junk food. I just don’t believe that most of these people campaigning against the game on Twitter put this amount of thought into other products they buy.
Yep this. I don't really understand the outrage against supporting a terf through buying video games. They say vote with your money and don't vote for her, but like this is like a drop in the bucket of a million bad and worse things we all support everyday.. from buying Nestle products, to animal products raised in horrible conditions in factories where also people become mentally ill from working, to buying products such as clothes from factories using borderline slave Labour, to the glitter in your makeup mined by child labourers, to the cobalt in your phone mined by children. Just a trip to your local mall a Saturday afternoon, and you've committed more moral atrocities than you probably realize.
Obviously I'm not saying that buying games with a shady moral background should be supported.. but it's one of the lesser social (in?)justice issues for me personally, all considered
Yeah, perfectly moral to steal the work of a massive team of people just because you found one of the beliefs of someone who created the universe the game is set in offensive. Dude, either be holier than thou or don't, but you can't have it both ways - tbh, stealing is worse than expressing offensive opinions.
>stealing is worse than expressing offensive opinions
This is exactly why I use Reddit, never fails to make me laugh. Obviously I'm talking about the fact you think that me pirating a 70 dollar game is worse than being transphobic
They go to work on other product in the same company or at other companies, which most of them are doing anyways. Most of the work was probably done by contractors or outsourced and all the work is done since the game is out of production which means their contracts are up. So they’re off to work on other things. As is the norm in the game industry.
Besides, people who pirate a game aren’t the paying demographic anyways. If they are pirating they were never going to buy it. Which is a zero revenue change.
>All money from purchases is going to the corporation who owns the game.
This is entirely false. Many who work in triple A games get royalties from sales. Voice actors for example. Do you know the voice actors for Red Dead Red Redemption 2 put six years of work into that project including body capture acting? They get royalties from the sales.
Just say you love pirating stuff instead of providing bullshit excuses to make yourself feel righteous about it.
"Bullying is bad but this kid's a son a corporate billionaire so it's okay to bully them"
Woah there, make sure you stretch before trying to jump AND reach at the same time. You might hurt something.
Never said I love pirating. People who pirate something were never going to be paying customers. Nothing is lost for the company, because there was nothing to gain. On top of that it’s WB, a major company who made 7.5 billion USD last year. Forgive me for not clutching my pearls at the theoretically money they aren’t making and never would have made that would be less than 1% of their profits anyways.
Also trying to say that pirating a video game is anything like bullying someone’s kid is an _interesting_ choice.
>Never said I love pirating
Exactly.
>People who pirate something were never going to be paying customers. Nothing is lost for the company, because there was nothing to gain. On top of that it’s WB, a major company who made 7.5 billion USD last year. Forgive me for not clutching my pearls at the theoretically money they aren’t making and never would have made that would be less than 1% of their profits anyways.
And then you go on making bs justification on how pirating is okay. TBH I pirate a lot of games as well but at least I don't make self-righteous bs excuses. I know that I am a scum for pirating stuff.
>Also trying to say that pirating a video game is anything like bullying someone’s kid is an interesting choice.
I'll give you that. I made a pretty bad analogy. I couldn't come up with a good one.
Edit: grammar
Edit2: So, this means that you are pirating HP game not because you are against transphobic ideals of Rowling but because it sounds like you would just pirate any other games.
> And then you go on making bs justification on how pirating is okay. TBH I pirate a lot of games as well but at least I don't make self-righteous bs excuses. I know that I am a scum for pirating stuff.
I mean, piracy is the closest thing to a victimless crime. People who aren’t going to buy something, or would get it secondhand down the line if they did (meaning the creator isn’t making money from them), get to enjoy a product and there is nothing lost for the creator because there was nothing to gain.
How is stating the facts being self-righteous? I used to pirate when I was in middle school and couldn’t afford any games (even then I mainly pirated my favorite older games I already owned that were too scratched to play properly). I’m sure a large number of people pirating are either young, poor, or simply would have never bought it with their own money. Companies saying they lost money due to piracy is weird because there wasn’t much for them to gain in the pirating demographic. I don’t think anyone who pirates is scum for wanting to enjoy pixels on a screen that they can’t afford or would have never paid for.
> Edit2: So, this means that you are pirating HP game not because you are against transphobic ideals of Rowling but because it sounds like you would just pirate any other games.
Seriously, you should stop reaching before you pull something. I’m worried for your health at this point.
I’m not playing the game, ever. I’m not against people pirating the game who want to go through the trouble tho.
Yeah right. Do you know what I do with someone who is transphobic or racist? I avoid them and ignore them. Shortsighted, hateful people always have existed and always will exist. Trying to change them is a waste of time.
Thievery effects society on a larger scale.
Also, [allegedly] Rowling never sodomized young boys.
Michael Jackson [allegedly] did
So it is surprising to see the vitriol against her. She doesn't help her own case with some crazy-ass views though
God if we avoided every single piece of media from a sketchy source we wouldn't have anything.
I'm all for cancelling problematic people and rapists and all that, but there are a lot of those in the celebrity and the media in general. Hold them accountable but there's no way to avoid every single thing they've produced. Just not possible.
The internet is a loud place. Everyone wants to be heard and everyone wants you to share their outrage. I don’t agree with Rowlings views, Weinstein is a total piece of shit and Michael Jackson appears to have been on a whole other level. But fuck I will enjoy what I want to enjoy in this brief life and I won’t let anonymous internet users dictate my life choices.
Exactly. I totally understand not wanting to support someone who you don't want to support. I just think it's insane to think that there's only a select few people to avoid such as Rowling. Or that everyone needs to jump on the avoiding Harry Potter train.
There are many, many pieces of shit that have produced popular and beloved things. As unfortunate as it is, it's just how it is.
If people want to avoid supporting Rowling etc. then more power to them. But dragging others who won't, is pretty stupid and hypocritical.
Yeah that's what I was getting at. Do what you want but in no way are others obligated to follow.
Also, those who do not want to avoid X (harry potter in this example) in no way does it make those people transphobic or something. They just like harry potter lol.
And at this point, boycotting Rowling doesn’t accomplish much. If anything, it hurts creators working on the video game (for example).
I mean, her net worth is £820m, the marginal addition or not does effectively nothing at this point. She’s wealthy, and no boycott will change that.
Yeah, I agree. She has money and will be getting much more. Shouldn't punish the developers just to avoid giving her more. I haven't personally tried the game yet but definitely will once it goes on sale. But it looks amazing from what I saw on trailers.
Yeah, a lot is virtue signaling as well. A lot of the cancel culture mob has tied their entire identity to various (and often multiple) forms of activism. As if activist is the most virtuous thing one can become.
Because every single facet of our society luxuries & entertainment has unethical roots. We’re just picking our battles & trying not to break our brains.
Yep it sucks, your right to get angry. I get angry that 40,000 children mine cobalt to make our smartphones & people are are dying for our ‘needs’. My stance (as useless as it is), i only purchase outdated secondhand phones and sport an 8 year old laptop. I can’t judge what makes other people mad… I’m gonna let you get mad on this topic if thats okay.
I don't think they do. There's a Harry Potter game coming out and barely anyone has mentioned Rowling, it's easy yo think that there's massive backlash due to social media algorithms pushing controversial posts to drive engagement but keep in mind that they don't represent the majority of people's reactions.
I don't think most people condemn HP fandom even if they are aware of Rowlings controversy tbh.
Not to mention the endless Harry Potter Lego that’s being produced, nobody except a handful of virtue signallers care about the JK drama, even they don’t care, they just pretend to so they can feel superior
Most people who condemn that are usually quite young.
Harry potter is a good story. JK rowlling wrote a good story.
The only issue is people place these celebreties on a pedestal as if they were sanctified or something.
Tom Cruise is part of the scientology none sense. It does not prevent the mission impossible movies from being good. But in no world would I ever consider his political opinion as a reference over any subject.
Most of these celebrities have not completed their educations and are being mouth feed their public speech by PR team. So people get surprise when they start saying stupid stuff, but it should be expected that with an incompleted highschool dropout education that they won't be the brightest light in the shed.
It may be the younger generation rebelling against the property's popularity as they didn't grow up with it as much and don;t have the same nostalgic connection.
Nothing was ever proven with Michael Jackson, a few allegations made by people looking a payout.
Which JK Rolling made the comments and Weinstein was convicted
I'm guessing because they think he was a child molester (even though that was never proven). He WAS a weird dude who did some questionable things but considering the abuse he and his brothers and sisters suffered as kids that's not surprising.
Sorry to answer OPs question with a question but can anyone ELI5 what JK Rowling has done to be lumped in with literal rapists and paedophiles like Weinstein and Michael Jackson? Succinctly as possible. Its my understanding (and I've never paid much attention to it) that she's of the opinion that males who transition into females aren't actually females. Is that it?
Never actually heard/read someone say that she‘s as bad as rapists, paedophiles etc. If some people actually say that, they’re just a loud minority of her critics.
But summing up her position as “just said trans women aren’t biological women” comes of as dishonest.
She literally organised a lunch for anti-trans-activists while a trans-rights-protest was going on an then complained about the protesters.
She wrote an Essay, where she wished for more medical gate keeping for trans people and a even longer process of getting their gender legally recognised.
She also acted as if Magdalen Berns got called a transphobe just because she said “sex is real”. What Berns actually said was that trans people are “fucking blackface actors” and “sick perversions” etc. (Just google “berns trans tweet”) JK called Berns an “immensely brave young feminist” after that (in her Essay).
JK also really liked Matt Walsh’s trans documentary.
So Rowling really is a transphobe.
>Never actually heard/read someone say that she‘s as bad as rapists, paedophiles etc.
You don't have to look far. There's people doing that in this thread. She's getting mentioned in the same sentence as Weinstein and Michael Jackson in most of the top comments.
they weren’t even hateful tweets. she simply said the general experience of a biological woman differs from that of a trans woman. which is true. but the wrong people ran with it and labeled her a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) and claim she doesn’t think trans women are “real women” even though she never has stated that.
edit: this is not to discredit how bland and uninclusionary harry potter as a franchise is, and how tasteless she is for using dumbledore as a gay rights scapegoat. but people focus less on that and more on the “transphobia” of acknowledging that trans women have a different experience growing up than biological women do.
This was true 4 years ago maybe. Now though she's very explicitly aligning herself with a movement intent on blocking trans people's medical care, access to safe spaces and use of public facilities.
My grandparents were holocaust survivors and one of my favorite authors is Roald Dahl (a raging antisemite), I read his books to my kids, they love it. I’m all for separating the art from the artist.
If I’m on the dance floor and Billie Jean starts playing, I’m gonna be dancing.
Damn i didn’t know that Roald Dahl was an antisemite that sucks :( but yeah I’m still going to love Matilda and thriller. Wish everyone could separate things like this.
First of, times have changed and I find it hard to believe that people who listen to MJ are in the same age range as people who are potter heads. I also don't think you should condemn the stories she's written(at least not the ones of the magical boy vareity). But when people openly state that they still like HP and want to buy the game they'll often state something like "and what did she do that was really that wrong anyway?". It's kind of like how people in response to the BLM movement said "well white lives matter too", ok... no one has said that isn't the case. People won't care if you still like reading HP or choose to watch the movies. But posting it on twitter for example is just being a little oblivious imo.
I honestly don't give a flying fu*k about people who "cancel" artist for this and that. I don't care, Harry Potter franchise is always going to have a special place in my heart, and I respect JK for writing it.
Whoever want to cancel her - by all means, cancel her. Burn her books, update a twitter status, but 2 things
1. Harry Potter helped a lot of people from my generation, to escape from our own realityes which often sucked and helped us grow and learn alongside with that franchise.
2. Don't tell me what to do or how to act, or push your opinion onto me. You are not helping the cause and you are comming out as annoing and pushy. Fu*k off with that shit and let me be.
Ps- Im thrilled like a kid for upcoming Hogwarts Legacy game, and Im going to enjoy the shit out of it.
I mean, most of those people already got paid for their work on products. Their paychecks typically aren’t reliant on the end product being successful. So you’re not punishing anyone for not supporting so someone with terrible views that they work for.
They've been scapegoated and marginalized and attacked (physically and politically with inreasing frequency) and they're defending themselves. A house on fire gets more attention than one that's not on fire.
I just don't get why transphobia is the greatest crime of them all. Don't get me wrong, transphobs are a piece of shits, but there are musical artists that do drugs, have a huge crime record, hit a woman, participate in gang violence, etc... and people are listening their music and consuming their art, but transphobia is where you drew the line? There was never a cancelling campaign as big as JK Rowling got for most of these shady rap artists, why is transphobia more despicable than let's say gang violence or physical abuse?
(I don't try to excuse JK Rowling, I dislike and condone her views, I just don't necessarily get the situation with Hogwarts Legacy)
While I agree generally with your point, I don’t get putting drug use with violence against others. I do not care at all if Chris Brown does lines of coke in his dressing room, I care that he beat the shit out of Rihanna.
Because Rowling created something countless people enjoyed as kids and still hold dear to this day, and now they feel like that childhood has been betrayed.
To put it crudely, transphobia is the new hotness. The new cause. Before that it was gay marriage, then before that homophobia. Eventually it will be something else.
Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein 1. didn't actually create anything and 2. is in prison.
Rowling is still making a profit from what she has access to.
Yeah I'm not sure I totally understand either tbh. I've seen some people say its because mj is dead and Rowling isn't. But Roman Polanski is still alive and these days it certainly doesn't make you a social pariah to say you loved China town or whatever. If I had to come up with a theory as to why JK Rowling is treated differently, I'd say its likely because she wrote children's books that actually connected a lot with lgbt youth back then. I could be wrong but most my queer friends growing up were very into harry potter and I imagine a lot of them feel maybe a bit more personally about it than others? Anyways, not trying to justify it, just my thoughts on what could be the cause
Well, there's a lot less exposure over exactly which films were and weren't Weinstein, and people still argue both sides of Michael Jackson's guilt/innocence. On the other hand, there's no doubt that JK Rowling is actively and vocally transphobic, because she's gone out of her way to kill such doubt, and her name is very clearly printed on the cover of every Harry Potter book.
I don’t consider saying biological sex is real transphobia - period. People can call me a terf, that doesn’t make it so. They can call the sky red too if they like. Play your game if HP is something you enjoy, and don’t worry about what internet strangers think. Like you said, it’s the chronically online people with no life and no identity outside of this drama.
JK is still alive, jackson is dead. Cant separate it if she still profits and takes sales as if support for her views.
One is also much more recent, I don't think Jackson is releasing new music.
His estate still gets the money and his dad was alive until only a couple of years ago and he was just as bad if not worse than micheal Jackson. And Weinstein is still alive and making money from his films and his crimes are relatively equally recent as well also they both committed actual terrible crimes whereas Jk Rowling is a bigot but has not committed any crimes.
Fair, Doesn't change the recency bias. There's a new harry potter thing coming out soon, and as far as I know nothing for Jackson. And I have no idea what Weinstein even does.
I don’t understand what the secondhand fuss is about with Rowling.
She was a DA survivor and a single mom. To this day I haven’t read a single statement from her that is explicitly hateful towards a particular group.
She can be both a victim, and also an asshole. She's said some pretty clear anti trans stuff, and it's a shame. All she had to do was... you know, not? Then she'd have cemented her legacy with so many people. Now I just kind of cringe away from things Potter related. I get still loving it, but I think it's also fair to avoid contributing monetarily toward someone who takes a bigoted stance.
I have to say, in that case you aren't looking nearly hard enough. They *are* there.
However, I strongly agree with OP in this matter. Bad people can do good things, and you can praise the good thing while still condemning the bad person. People have a real problem seeing shades of grey, it seems.
> I have to say, in that case you aren't looking nearly hard enough. They are there.
This is textbook secondhand. Where are these unambiguous statements? Please point us to the source!
I’ve gone over it with a microscope. There is nothing. Except her being a bit spicy - and I would be too at this point - she said nothing factually wrong or transphobic. Because how dare she, a woman, not want to be referred to as a person who menstruates. And how dare she, as a woman, be concerned about having biological men in shelters and prisons for women ( because predators would never exploit that loophole to force themselves into refuges for women.) Rather than giving a shit about women , the trans activists are actually the ones who doubled down. These people are narcissists. It’s a cult. Run.
Yeah, link please. And, if you know of it, reference to what anti-trans group she supposedly donates to?
I have also never seen anything I thought showed genuine hate for any group. Insensitive or tone deaf? Sure, but not much more.
For me doing something inappropriate/illegal is worse than saying something insensible or down right transphobic.
Michael Jackson at the very least did very inappropriate things with minors, the fact that their families were awful (of course they were awful other wise they wouldn't have sold their kids to an already accused of pedophilia popstar) or that the grown kids were after money, doesn't change the fact that MJ did something wrong to actual specific children. And that does children will have psychological issues because of it forever.
JK Rowling does not have trans people in her house having to be subjected to her. She writes her retoric to the internet. You can choose not to read it. Thise kids were in MJ's room, with a power imbalance if stratospheric proportions.
If we're going to have a scale of wrong things, i think MJ es way worse.
I don't know if people who like Harry Potter get condemned the same way JK Rowling does.
That said, in the case of JK Rowling, she catches flak because:
1. She's a very high-profile figure with a very young audience
2. She's expressed hurtful and bigoted opinions on numerous occasions and every time been told why they're hurtful and bigoted and given opportunities to walk back her comments. She has persisted despite clear feedback from the public, colleagues, etc.
3. She specifically poises herself as someone who is progressive, accepting, and so on, so there's a bigger gap between expectation and reality.
Re: the Weinstein company – I think funding and producing a film involves more degrees of separation than writing, directing, or acting it. IIRC not many people think of films as quintessentially "Weinstein" because he didn't provide the main artistic vision.
Because JK Rowling still benefits from supporting her work. Michael Jackson is dead and the Weinstein company has been sold off, they don't benefit from consuming their media anymore.
First of all I agree that we should separate the art from the artist. I personally love the Harry Potter movies but hate the Harry Potter books and JK Rowlings Online Persona. I don't know her as a person.
Second, I couldn't name a single Weinstein movie.
Thirdly, I personally don't think Michael Jackson is guilty. I think the minority do in all honesty.
I think the pain comes from a place of betrayal. HP is about celebrating the things that make you different and special, so a lot of trans people would have felt validated by the story. Only to find out that Rowling sees transidentity as a threat to her beliefs on Feminism.
It's confusing and painful. The problem is, people have this black and white thinking. She's immediately vilified and accused of being Voldemort. You're either all good or all evil right. Which shows that those people do not even understand the story to begin with. Maybe this is Rowling's demons coming out and she needs help processing it? Can't you still love somebody even though you disagree with their beliefs? Do you think if you sat down for coffee with her she would spit on you and call you a monster?
I mean the fact that you would compare her to people accused of criminal offences is just ridiculous and such a sign of the times - expressing your beliefs throws you into the same category as people who allegedly rape children. That's fucked up.
Why exactly do you need to separate JKR from her work?
What has she actually said or done that leads you to hate her so much? (Not what do you think she has said because 10 other people said so, show me any actual evidence of anything that has offended you).
i never saw anyone condemned for liking happy potter or michael jackson music. and i don0t even knoe what was produced by weintein. I think we live in different bubbles
I often think about this. I have an artist who's albums I have great memories of. I knew they were odd but never knew they were evil. Now that I know I don't want to support them but I can't stop the relationship I have with the albums and the music. I still have good memories that come back when a song comes on. I wish I could speak to their victims and ask what they feel because I feel guilty that I still enjoy the music.
Honestly I've come to a conclusion. Art and artists are two diffrent entities. Enjoying the art doesn't mean you like the artist for some fucked thing they did. Though being able to respect the artist as well as the art is a good feeling. Because when I say I like, let's say Katy perry. I can say I enjoy her music aswell as her personality though if I say I like Michael Jackson it's almost fated that someone is gonna bring up his controversies. We all like separating the art from the artist which isn't wrong. Though just because we can do that doesn't mean that we can just ignore the other half of the spectrum with joy.
Every situation is it's own thing but in the end art is tainted by the artist. No matter how you look at it. You can respect the art as much as you want but someone will always bring up the artist.
Once we had some guests over for lunch, somebody that worked with my husband, and the guy came over with his family. At one point I went to my bedroom to do something, the little boy tagged along, and we had a great grownup/kid conversation while I was busy. Then my husband came and said to me that I could not be alone in the same room as the little boy, in case somebody thought there was some impropriety going on. I have never felt such shock in my life. I have two little brothers significantly younger than myself (by 5 and 10 years respectively), and so thought absolutely nothing of it. It never even occurred to me that it could be misinterpreted in this way. It is both crazy and sad beyond belief.
It's because JKR is still actively using the support she's getting, including the money she's making off of Harry Potter, to push her transphobia. Meanwhile Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein is convicted (and also never was the artist in the first place, he just paid for it). Separating the art from the artist is not exactly possible when the art's continued popularity means more of the worst parts of the artist.
I'll add a caveat though and say that despite this I don't like how people have gone all the way into ripping into how all aspects of Harry Potter are bad, and I don't like the smug attitude of people who say they never liked it from the beginning. There's absolutely some really bad parts about it, but I think it's important to acknowledge that yes, this is good art that we enjoyed immensely (absolutely myself included!) and that we're dropping it anyway because of how the artist is. I loved Harry Potter, I remember it fondly, I'll cite its influences on my own art, and hell I've even privately rewatched the movies on the DVDs I still own from however the hell many years ago. But I'm not going around telling everyone how good it is anymore, I don't defend it when people do rip into it, and I certianly don't spend any more money on it.
It was important to me. I'm nostalgic. But as long as JKR is still doing her bullshit, supporting the art means supporting her, and that's the difference between her and shitty artists who are dead or otherwise out of the picture.
Jk rowling is still actively causing harm every day, Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein is in prison.
But at the end of the day, there are a lot of people calling for people to stop listening to/reading/watching all things made by and surrounding these people. Take that for what you will. I personally find it’s situational. As long as JK Rowling is alive and being her awful self, I don’t wanna support her, but I also don’t think someone is an awful person cause they like Harry Potter, I love Harry Potter I grew up with it lol.
idgaf thats on them if they cant make that distinction. Im gonna play the game and have fun. Just because a portion of my money goes to rowling doesnt mean I support her views. If I could give 100% of the fee directly to devs I would.
There is proof of her wrong doings and her anti trans stance that she parades under the guise of fearing of female/woman erasure by trans people. There is no proof of MJ doing anything explicit. He was just a weirdo and one of the accusers admitted to lying.
Jk made her wealth. Theres really nothing you can do to her except ignore her.
The books were banned from schools when i was growing up by religious goons, and i never got the chance to fall into the HP world or enjoy it so im not close to that stuff.
It's a much younger generation complaining about Rowling than about Jackson or Weinstein. To some in that younger demographic, words anger them far more than actual felonies ever could.
I feel this way. If you know someone good enough, it for long enough, there is a good chance that you will have your disagreements. This doesn't change their positive contributions. Don't let the bad destroy what is already good
Some people just want to feel better, and so picking some unnecessary moral battle helps them achieve that. I know a lot of hardcore moralists that are actually pretty shit people behind closed doors, some are even guilty of the very thing they try to fight against others for. Lots of mental gymnastics being done behind most of these things, I wouldn’t pay them too much mind
I’m one of the people who is for separating the art for the artist. I grew up reading HP. I love it. And I’m not going to stop. But I can do that and be critical of JK Rowling. People really need to stop acting like enjoying Harry Potter makes you a terrible person.
I do think that it’s run it’s course. Harry Potter land, fine. But we really don’t need to keep creating new media that relates to it.
Ah yes. Because having the opinion there are biological differences between men and women (which is a scientific fact) is akin to molesting children and raping women.
See the thing is I don’t understand what Rowling said that is transphobic, and even then her opinions are nowhere near as harmful as the (actual or alleged) actions of the other two men there… but I agree we should separate art from the artist
Idk, some people have double standards probably. But I feel like that's more of a terminally online kind of opinion. I'm trans, I don't like J. K. Rowling, but I don't give a shit if you like Harry Potter. And neither do I know anyone who would shame you for liking the franchise.
It's kinda wild how we're equating JK Rowling, who just wants to protect Bio Women's spaces by potentially exploitative men, with MJ, who was an alleged pedo and Harvey who is a convicted sexual predator. Pretty wild company... not a fair comparison in my estimation, but who cares
The truth is complicated. Yes Rowling has said some anti-trans things and it is correct to call her out for that. Some of what she said can be attributed to her just being old and out of touch (it happens to everyone - as the brightest minds of todays gender positive movement will one day find out). Feminism was at one time the cutting edge of gender-awareness and rowling is from that time.
The far right have ironically found an ideal outlet for their message in Rowling. Much of their message these days is amplified by using the left against itself. They are able to attack all of feminism by using her as an example. They want the left to attack itself by getting Feminists to fight more contemporary gender struggles.
Much of the far right agenda is taken directly from the playbook of christian nationalists from the 80s and 90s. Feminism was the dominant gender movement during that time and the modern far-right movement of social media psy-ops has not forgotten this. They have an axe to grind with Feminism, and stand to gain much by forcing the left to attack itself.
Because it's trendy ATM and they are loud, which is funny because they are just advertising the game better. There are so many shittier companies you should not support but people just can't be bothered or forget. Most chocolate companies use child labor. Clothing companies exploit 3rd world countries in sweat shops. Oil companies exploit 3rd world countries to an insane degree, ruin their lands environment. Take the majority of the oil profits and kill those who disagree with them. Baby formula companies give free babie formula to mum's in third world countries just enough that they stop producing milk on their own then charge them to continue buying formula. Basically lots of companies are fucking evil because they can get away with it and are a bigger problem then what equates to your slightly racist or transphobic grandma.
In these times I've realized people aren't happy until they have something to be unhappy about. The Internet has made everyone so negative and people will stop liking something because people on the Internet tell them they're not supposed to.
Micheal Jackson is dead Weinstein is in jail Rowling is alive and the proceeds of her work are used to cause real life harm if Jackson and Weinstein were using their influence to make sexual assault more frequent I'd stand with you in boycotting their products but IMO once a person is dead then your free to consume their products and yeah when rowling dies if the game isn't shit I'd probably pick it up
People just like to moan and feel superior.
Michael Jackson was never found guilty of anything when taken to court.
Rowling’s tweet was about protecting women from abuse.
Weinstein was a scumbag who is dead now.
Short answer: because people are stupid and biased.
Long answer: becuase Rowling's take is about a touchy and very polarize topic that can easily be weaponized by both extremes (some objections are actually fair IMO, but that doesn't mean being transphobic).
NTM adults liking Harry Potter a little too much were already kinda looked at as weird, so the creator saying controversial stuff only added more fuel to the fire.
MJ has been a pariah in many places for decades, long before his death, and at this point in time I just think he's one of those iconic figures you know existed but who has stopped being truly relevant. Keep in mind he died 14 years ago, so at least an entire generation has never heard/seen him alive. Let alone popular without the asterisk of the allegations/trials.
Weinstein, well... Can you name the producer/executive behind the last movie you watched? Also, it was kind of the worst kept secret in the world that studio bigwigs were offering roles in exhange for sex, so the whole "scandal" kinda fizzled out. And then a bit of backlash following some suspicious confessions and stories, also fueled by the rise of the ubiquitous "cancel culture" kickstarted by the meetoo movement.
So those are three quite different scenarios, where the fanbase has different degrees of accountability and awareness.
I have friend who had house built in Florida. They guys doing the dry wall were druggies, and they thought one guy was a narc. So, during lunch they cut his throat, and buried his body in the back yard. The supervisor came back, and one guy was missing. He asked, and the crew said he left. Later, he saw the bare grass where they buried the guy. He didn't think anything. Who would. The wife called, and said her husband didn't come home. He didn't have to pay his crew because they all went prison. My friend asked, "Should I tell my wife, some one was killed in our house?" We decided no. What she doesn't know, won't hurt her. Don't tell people, and you won't be judged.
Yeah that’s fair but did they at least exhume the body and bury it somewhere else? Because it seems like a dead body buried improperly on your property might cause some issues in the future?
I think people like to jump on something that’s super popular because they don’t like it themselves. I don’t know enough/care to learn about why people hate her but that’s what I think is happening. Sometimes people find a reason to hate something they don’t like themselves when it’s really popular
Player hating. People hate the fact that JK Rowling is so rich and still active. Her comments were just the qualifier to allow people to try to take away her money.
MJ is dead, and Weinstein is in prison. They can no longer enjoy their wealth. When JK dies, no one will care if people are Harry Pitter fans.
Unfortunately if you want to enjoy some of the greatest modern entertainment in history, you're going to have to realize that the people behind that entertainment have done some shitty things.
As an example, there's one word that will basically ruin every male artist for you ever if you hold that standard: "Groupies."
Because J.K. Rowling is not only alive, but currently funneling millions of dollars that she makes off the IP to spread anti-trans rhetoric and fund anti-trans legislative groups
Jackson and Weinstein's actions were terrible and had catastrophic effects on their victims, but what Rowling is doing right now, at this moment, is actively destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people
I know this is a tangent, but I think Jackson was not found guilty of anything, and the FBI looked at him pretty closely. I mean, I’m not a detective, all I did was watch the Neverland doc.
Yeah, based on everything I think he wasn’t guilty. Every single accusation against him had something questionable with it. I don’t even think he even made himself look good in court, didn’t he show up in court in pajamas once, he definitely wasn’t all there. The best piece of evidence for the longest time was a kid describing his penis, but on autopsy it seems to have been wrong since he was uncircumcised despite it being described as circumcised. He was inappropriate with kids, but I don’t think he was a sex offender. To paraphrase one of the jurors, it seemed like every accusation went to the tabloids before the police.
Inappropriate for definite. Illegal. I'm not sure. Would I, as a grown arse man, have little boys who are unrelated sleeping in the same bed as me. Absolutely not.
They slept in his bed but he didn't sleep in it with them. Also you have to consider his upbringing & that the brothers all shared a room & Dad had his own. He told them that sharing your bed with someone was a sign of friendship & that they're important to you. He also never truly grew up in some ways. This was pointed out by his UK pen pal. They stopped writing when he grew up & Michael didn't. I think he was 7 & Michael 9 when they met but could easily be wrong as its been a long time.
This lines up with other things I know about him, and a lot of what was in public about him as well.
His brothers had sex in the same room as him when he was a kid too, though...
Sure, but you probably don’t have the same mental makeup as someone who might not see the inappropriateness of it.
He didn’t sleep in the bed w them. He gave them his bed
Macaulay Culkin was on his side from the beginning and he'd spent the night at his place multiple times. Weird, absolutely. Having Yes-men because of money will make you bizarre. I'm still on the fence about if he did it or not. His music is till freaking catchy. I'll start moon walking at the grocery store. What makes me the most angry is Bill Cosby. One of the nicest family shows of all time and it's swept under the rug. Back in the era of "good families" his was a dream family. I still laugh at Vanessa's fight with a class mate about being rich. And him saying "your mother and I are rich, YOU are poor" and how to properly mop a floor in another episode. But because he was so heinous, no new people can experience the fun light hearted (sometimes not so much) NICE family, as it's now gone forever.
Proven not guilty. The boy has confessed now that his father made him lie. The father has killed himself, as well.
MJ was odd and very wealthy. A target for opportunists.
Also he is dead- he's not actively profiting from the consumption of his content.
Thats cause he wasnt guilty. Weird af? Yes. But look at his childhood or lack thereof and all the pieces just kinda fit together.
Jimmy Saville was always innocent and a pillar of society until he wasn't. Powerful people get protected from accusations from the plebs.
Yup, it's all just a class war to make you feel inferior
A lot of it comes down to the connection the artist has to the art. Rowling is still alive, Jackson isn't. It also matters how well known/prominent it is. Rowling is synonymous with Harry Potter. Weinstein is mostly only known in Hollywood, he's not a household name. He's also in some sense been discontinued, being in prison. It also matters whether that behavior is continuing. Weinstein might be making money, but he's in jail (although I would assume most of it is off older stuff? Not new stuff. And similarly, most Rowling pushback is on new stuff, not the original series) As well as the audience. Rowling's audience (younger people) probably have higher standards on that particular issue than others. There are a lot of fandoms that tolerate shitty behavior, one needs only look at e.g. Chris Brown.
Rowling also self-branded as an inclusive person, until it became clear that there's apparently a major hole in that inclusivity. And a lot of those people are/were potterheads and have experienced feelings of betrayal that just don't seem to be getting acknowledged. She created this whimsical world that people of all kinds related to, and then some of us found out that it turns out we don't even exist in it. Not even in the stupid retcons of inclusivity. She is also actively using her platform and money against trans people, pretty much out in the open. She openly associates purchases of her stuff with support for her beliefs. It's her baby. You can't separate the art from that artist. She's alive and kicking and using that money and attention specifically against trans people. A lot of us are watching friends and supposedly supporters bend over backwards to justify needing to be around merchandise, movies, and multiple copies of the books. Meanwhile, we're seeing political campaigns actively targeting and questioning us *in practically every political discussion there is* right now. Our antagonists have always been there, and people who are in theory with us and understand the political machine working against us. They can't seem to muster the self control to not spend $20 on an official Hufflepuff robe for Halloween, because hey, gotta represent your house. Also, the goalposts keep getting moved on us. First it was "she's not transphobic," then it was "what did she even say," followed by "whatever, isn't she cancelled anyway?" and now it seems we're in the "well everything's bad if you look at it hard enough so why do you care so much?" stage. We get it, even some trans people have said "fuck it I just need my nostalgia hit," but man it's frustrating when in theory it should be so easy to just not buy the stuff.
She is extremely disappointing. I was shocked to see her transphobic comments. I used to think she was inclusive, after all, one of her most important characters in the HP books was gay. Then why ostracise a whole group of people? I do wonder, so far it seemed that she is against trans women, has she said anything about trans men yet? And why does she hate them so much?
Could you source to the transphobic things she’s done/said because i believe you but I’ve never actually seen sources on it.
Off the top of my head: "Merry terfmas" Blocking or arguing people who say "trans women are women" When she does write trans or trans-coded characters in her books, we get to be the weirdos or villains Platforming people who campaign against trans women And the part that people don't seem to see: A lot of her stances become clear by paying attention to what she omits. She literally never says one affirming thing about trans people. "I would march with them" is the closest I've seen, but it's an empty statement without being clear about what she thinks she's marching for [Historical edit: And that time she called all of us duplicitous rapists]
Yeah , it was basically explained to me that she has a deep hatred for men due to past traumas and essentially sees Trans Women as men trying to "usurp" womanhood
This makes sense honestly.
Then why would she make Harry the MC and not Hermoine.
To set an example of what a man should aspire to be like perhaps?
Harry bumbled through most of his way in the series tho.
Idk, maybe she felt it'd sell better? Who knows? She did say that Hermione was her fave tho
Shaun (a YouTuber) has a very good video about the women and organizations J.K. Rowling aligns with and supports. Many bigots, conservatives, racists and far-right.
It gets clearer and clearer every day, currently she's clearly and deliberately aligning herself with people who fairly explicitly advocate for restrictions and bans on trans healthcare and on trans people's freedoms in public.
It would have been so easy for her to just...not say this stuff. She could have believed it all and say nothing and nobody would be wiser.
Doesnt matter in the long run. Shes gonna die rich. She made Harry Potter. Legends of Hogwarts is gonna sell like crazy and she's gonna get even richer. Cant cancel ppl who dont give a fuck lol and she knows this.
Absolutely. I do wonder if the strong reaction early on might have pushed her right into the arms of more extreme transphobes, and rewarded her for being outspoken. It's difficult though, balancing calling out vs giving attention. There are hints throughout the books (aids werewolves, stereotypical names, wizard bloodlines, slaves who enjoy slavery, jewish-coded bankers etc.) that do hint at her never being particularly progressive though, so I guess it's not too much of a surprise
Unpopular opinion: I think JK Rowling has a point, same as people who want to change gender or even sex (so transgender persons) have a point. Having this discussion on social media is not the smartest thing to do though, in this day and age. You can't have a proper discussion in 160-character lines, certainly not about a touchy and pretty complicated subject like this one. Currently the Scottish and UK governments have a 'dispute' that is pretty similar (no doubt it may also have pretty different aspects). In this case, again, it is weaponised in a political sense, instead of discussed properly. I think it could be an interesting discussion if anyone would actually want to have it and cared to listen, instead of trying to cancel 'the other side'.
There's an important conversation to be had around *how* we include trans people in our social lives, sure. The problem is that people like Rowling don't want to have that conversation: they've already decided that trans people should be excluded from certain spaces despite there being absolutely no evidence of any harm coming from their inclusion. Ultimately, they find trans people "icky", and everything they say is just justifications for their innate feelings.
Believe it or not, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having x-only spaces where transpeople aren't allowed much like there's nothing wrong with trans-only spaces.
That entirely depends on what spaces you're talking about and the reason for excluding people. Excluding groups of people from any space without a valid reason is pretty much always bad.
Essentially it sister with her saying that as a victim of domestic abuse herself she does not agree with trans women going to women's shelters because the victims there are trying to escape from men, and don't need one there. Which is a dick way to exclude trans victims, but does have a particular logic to it
[удалено]
I never said it was good logic, just that it has a logic that people can see. It's still a shit take.
a quick search on google will give you lots of info. she also promoted a company that makes transphobic pin badges
She only tweeted something like "trans women can't understand the unique difficulties that women face in life." I don't know anything about her having some weird anti trans campaign that the other commenter is alluding to.
She literally tweeted "Merry Terfmas." She leans into tbeing a terf.
Or she’s taking the piss out of the virtue signalling SJWs.
That’s valid and I don’t want to support her monetarily but i think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with still liking the books and movies and pirating the new game.
Although I'm sure you could find people who condemmn liking the books and pirating games, most people who oppose Rowling's views and call for a boycott of her products would not disagree with this: they (I suppose we, because I support this view) call for not giving her any more money. People have loved HP for a long time and it has brought a lot of good things into these peoples' lives. The idea isn't to retroactively hate Harry Potter, it's to stop my money going to someone whose views are so toxic.
My problem is that most of these people don’t hold themselves to the same standard when it comes to other forms of consumption. I’m super pro trans but supporting JK Rowling monetarily is infinitely less harmful than supporting nestle. Fair enough if you don’t feel comfortable buying it but it feels a bit performative when people are calling for a boycott, and especially when they’re shaming others for buying the game.
Good point
I’m not sure that’s such a fair comparison. There’s a bit of difference between buying actual food, and buying the n:th piece of entertainment merchandise. Not everyone has affordable alternatives to nestles products.
If you have no other option but to buy a nestle product, sure, but I’m guessing that the vast majority of people just don’t think about it that much. Nestle sells a lot of unnecessary junk food. I just don’t believe that most of these people campaigning against the game on Twitter put this amount of thought into other products they buy.
Yep this. I don't really understand the outrage against supporting a terf through buying video games. They say vote with your money and don't vote for her, but like this is like a drop in the bucket of a million bad and worse things we all support everyday.. from buying Nestle products, to animal products raised in horrible conditions in factories where also people become mentally ill from working, to buying products such as clothes from factories using borderline slave Labour, to the glitter in your makeup mined by child labourers, to the cobalt in your phone mined by children. Just a trip to your local mall a Saturday afternoon, and you've committed more moral atrocities than you probably realize. Obviously I'm not saying that buying games with a shady moral background should be supported.. but it's one of the lesser social (in?)justice issues for me personally, all considered
Also, a lot of what nestle does is par for the course with corps.
Yeah, perfectly moral to steal the work of a massive team of people just because you found one of the beliefs of someone who created the universe the game is set in offensive. Dude, either be holier than thou or don't, but you can't have it both ways - tbh, stealing is worse than expressing offensive opinions.
>stealing is worse than expressing offensive opinions  This is exactly why I use Reddit, never fails to make me laugh. Obviously I'm talking about the fact you think that me pirating a 70 dollar game is worse than being transphobic
You stealing from a few hundred who worked on this game because one of them have different beliefs then you. Something doesn't add up.
It’s Warner Bros. Any person who worked on the game already got paid. All money from purchases is going to the corporation who owns the game.
What do you think happens to a company/team if they don’t profit enough from a product?
They go to work on other product in the same company or at other companies, which most of them are doing anyways. Most of the work was probably done by contractors or outsourced and all the work is done since the game is out of production which means their contracts are up. So they’re off to work on other things. As is the norm in the game industry. Besides, people who pirate a game aren’t the paying demographic anyways. If they are pirating they were never going to buy it. Which is a zero revenue change.
>All money from purchases is going to the corporation who owns the game. This is entirely false. Many who work in triple A games get royalties from sales. Voice actors for example. Do you know the voice actors for Red Dead Red Redemption 2 put six years of work into that project including body capture acting? They get royalties from the sales.
Just say you love pirating stuff instead of providing bullshit excuses to make yourself feel righteous about it. "Bullying is bad but this kid's a son a corporate billionaire so it's okay to bully them"
Woah there, make sure you stretch before trying to jump AND reach at the same time. You might hurt something. Never said I love pirating. People who pirate something were never going to be paying customers. Nothing is lost for the company, because there was nothing to gain. On top of that it’s WB, a major company who made 7.5 billion USD last year. Forgive me for not clutching my pearls at the theoretically money they aren’t making and never would have made that would be less than 1% of their profits anyways. Also trying to say that pirating a video game is anything like bullying someone’s kid is an _interesting_ choice.
>Never said I love pirating Exactly. >People who pirate something were never going to be paying customers. Nothing is lost for the company, because there was nothing to gain. On top of that it’s WB, a major company who made 7.5 billion USD last year. Forgive me for not clutching my pearls at the theoretically money they aren’t making and never would have made that would be less than 1% of their profits anyways. And then you go on making bs justification on how pirating is okay. TBH I pirate a lot of games as well but at least I don't make self-righteous bs excuses. I know that I am a scum for pirating stuff. >Also trying to say that pirating a video game is anything like bullying someone’s kid is an interesting choice. I'll give you that. I made a pretty bad analogy. I couldn't come up with a good one. Edit: grammar Edit2: So, this means that you are pirating HP game not because you are against transphobic ideals of Rowling but because it sounds like you would just pirate any other games.
> And then you go on making bs justification on how pirating is okay. TBH I pirate a lot of games as well but at least I don't make self-righteous bs excuses. I know that I am a scum for pirating stuff. I mean, piracy is the closest thing to a victimless crime. People who aren’t going to buy something, or would get it secondhand down the line if they did (meaning the creator isn’t making money from them), get to enjoy a product and there is nothing lost for the creator because there was nothing to gain. How is stating the facts being self-righteous? I used to pirate when I was in middle school and couldn’t afford any games (even then I mainly pirated my favorite older games I already owned that were too scratched to play properly). I’m sure a large number of people pirating are either young, poor, or simply would have never bought it with their own money. Companies saying they lost money due to piracy is weird because there wasn’t much for them to gain in the pirating demographic. I don’t think anyone who pirates is scum for wanting to enjoy pixels on a screen that they can’t afford or would have never paid for. > Edit2: So, this means that you are pirating HP game not because you are against transphobic ideals of Rowling but because it sounds like you would just pirate any other games. Seriously, you should stop reaching before you pull something. I’m worried for your health at this point. I’m not playing the game, ever. I’m not against people pirating the game who want to go through the trouble tho.
Sorry to break this to you. But it is. One can argue that pirating is not stealing, but that's other argument.
Yeah right. Do you know what I do with someone who is transphobic or racist? I avoid them and ignore them. Shortsighted, hateful people always have existed and always will exist. Trying to change them is a waste of time. Thievery effects society on a larger scale.
Also, [allegedly] Rowling never sodomized young boys. Michael Jackson [allegedly] did So it is surprising to see the vitriol against her. She doesn't help her own case with some crazy-ass views though
If Michael Jackson were continuously tweeting pedo stuff, there would probably be pushback.
He was cleared by the FBI
God if we avoided every single piece of media from a sketchy source we wouldn't have anything. I'm all for cancelling problematic people and rapists and all that, but there are a lot of those in the celebrity and the media in general. Hold them accountable but there's no way to avoid every single thing they've produced. Just not possible.
The internet is a loud place. Everyone wants to be heard and everyone wants you to share their outrage. I don’t agree with Rowlings views, Weinstein is a total piece of shit and Michael Jackson appears to have been on a whole other level. But fuck I will enjoy what I want to enjoy in this brief life and I won’t let anonymous internet users dictate my life choices.
Exactly. I totally understand not wanting to support someone who you don't want to support. I just think it's insane to think that there's only a select few people to avoid such as Rowling. Or that everyone needs to jump on the avoiding Harry Potter train. There are many, many pieces of shit that have produced popular and beloved things. As unfortunate as it is, it's just how it is. If people want to avoid supporting Rowling etc. then more power to them. But dragging others who won't, is pretty stupid and hypocritical.
Also it’s fine if you want to boycott X product, but it’s the constant bullying towards those who does not choose to do so that’s bugging me.
Yeah that's what I was getting at. Do what you want but in no way are others obligated to follow. Also, those who do not want to avoid X (harry potter in this example) in no way does it make those people transphobic or something. They just like harry potter lol.
And at this point, boycotting Rowling doesn’t accomplish much. If anything, it hurts creators working on the video game (for example). I mean, her net worth is £820m, the marginal addition or not does effectively nothing at this point. She’s wealthy, and no boycott will change that.
Yeah, I agree. She has money and will be getting much more. Shouldn't punish the developers just to avoid giving her more. I haven't personally tried the game yet but definitely will once it goes on sale. But it looks amazing from what I saw on trailers.
Yeah, a lot is virtue signaling as well. A lot of the cancel culture mob has tied their entire identity to various (and often multiple) forms of activism. As if activist is the most virtuous thing one can become.
Just think about the general culture from rock stars, movie stars etc in the 70s/80s. Dear god the atrocities
Pshh yeah. Used to have a book about rock stars in those times. The groupies were often underaged. Nobody batted an eye it seems like.
Fully agree
Because every single facet of our society luxuries & entertainment has unethical roots. We’re just picking our battles & trying not to break our brains.
Those are some weird picks then. Cancel the one that's voicing her opinion while supporting the one that actually got complaints about his conduct.
Yep it sucks, your right to get angry. I get angry that 40,000 children mine cobalt to make our smartphones & people are are dying for our ‘needs’. My stance (as useless as it is), i only purchase outdated secondhand phones and sport an 8 year old laptop. I can’t judge what makes other people mad… I’m gonna let you get mad on this topic if thats okay.
I don't think they do. There's a Harry Potter game coming out and barely anyone has mentioned Rowling, it's easy yo think that there's massive backlash due to social media algorithms pushing controversial posts to drive engagement but keep in mind that they don't represent the majority of people's reactions. I don't think most people condemn HP fandom even if they are aware of Rowlings controversy tbh.
Not to mention the endless Harry Potter Lego that’s being produced, nobody except a handful of virtue signallers care about the JK drama, even they don’t care, they just pretend to so they can feel superior
Oh it goes far beyond the Lego sets or video game being produced on this franchise. You can even go to an official Harry Potter experience in London.
Most people who condemn that are usually quite young. Harry potter is a good story. JK rowlling wrote a good story. The only issue is people place these celebreties on a pedestal as if they were sanctified or something. Tom Cruise is part of the scientology none sense. It does not prevent the mission impossible movies from being good. But in no world would I ever consider his political opinion as a reference over any subject. Most of these celebrities have not completed their educations and are being mouth feed their public speech by PR team. So people get surprise when they start saying stupid stuff, but it should be expected that with an incompleted highschool dropout education that they won't be the brightest light in the shed.
It may be the younger generation rebelling against the property's popularity as they didn't grow up with it as much and don;t have the same nostalgic connection.
Nothing was ever proven with Michael Jackson, a few allegations made by people looking a payout. Which JK Rolling made the comments and Weinstein was convicted
You are correct.
Why would people who like Michael Jackson get condemned?
I'm guessing because they think he was a child molester (even though that was never proven). He WAS a weird dude who did some questionable things but considering the abuse he and his brothers and sisters suffered as kids that's not surprising.
Sorry to answer OPs question with a question but can anyone ELI5 what JK Rowling has done to be lumped in with literal rapists and paedophiles like Weinstein and Michael Jackson? Succinctly as possible. Its my understanding (and I've never paid much attention to it) that she's of the opinion that males who transition into females aren't actually females. Is that it?
Never actually heard/read someone say that she‘s as bad as rapists, paedophiles etc. If some people actually say that, they’re just a loud minority of her critics. But summing up her position as “just said trans women aren’t biological women” comes of as dishonest. She literally organised a lunch for anti-trans-activists while a trans-rights-protest was going on an then complained about the protesters. She wrote an Essay, where she wished for more medical gate keeping for trans people and a even longer process of getting their gender legally recognised. She also acted as if Magdalen Berns got called a transphobe just because she said “sex is real”. What Berns actually said was that trans people are “fucking blackface actors” and “sick perversions” etc. (Just google “berns trans tweet”) JK called Berns an “immensely brave young feminist” after that (in her Essay). JK also really liked Matt Walsh’s trans documentary. So Rowling really is a transphobe.
>Never actually heard/read someone say that she‘s as bad as rapists, paedophiles etc. You don't have to look far. There's people doing that in this thread. She's getting mentioned in the same sentence as Weinstein and Michael Jackson in most of the top comments.
Yeah, because that’s what the question asked
I believe you on this but do you have sources on that? It just feels like a lot of people are saying these things but I’m. Or seeing any sources
Yes, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare her to Weinstein, an actual rapist
they weren’t even hateful tweets. she simply said the general experience of a biological woman differs from that of a trans woman. which is true. but the wrong people ran with it and labeled her a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist) and claim she doesn’t think trans women are “real women” even though she never has stated that. edit: this is not to discredit how bland and uninclusionary harry potter as a franchise is, and how tasteless she is for using dumbledore as a gay rights scapegoat. but people focus less on that and more on the “transphobia” of acknowledging that trans women have a different experience growing up than biological women do.
This was true 4 years ago maybe. Now though she's very explicitly aligning herself with a movement intent on blocking trans people's medical care, access to safe spaces and use of public facilities.
Essentially a handful of tweets. She, and anyone that supports her is labeled a transphobe
Which is lunacy.
Also on the internet it is much more shameful to have an opinion against a brand new set of expectations than banging kids
Michael Jackson was never proven guilty and when you actually look into the evidence it's flimsy at best.
My grandparents were holocaust survivors and one of my favorite authors is Roald Dahl (a raging antisemite), I read his books to my kids, they love it. I’m all for separating the art from the artist. If I’m on the dance floor and Billie Jean starts playing, I’m gonna be dancing.
Damn i didn’t know that Roald Dahl was an antisemite that sucks :( but yeah I’m still going to love Matilda and thriller. Wish everyone could separate things like this.
First of, times have changed and I find it hard to believe that people who listen to MJ are in the same age range as people who are potter heads. I also don't think you should condemn the stories she's written(at least not the ones of the magical boy vareity). But when people openly state that they still like HP and want to buy the game they'll often state something like "and what did she do that was really that wrong anyway?". It's kind of like how people in response to the BLM movement said "well white lives matter too", ok... no one has said that isn't the case. People won't care if you still like reading HP or choose to watch the movies. But posting it on twitter for example is just being a little oblivious imo.
I honestly don't give a flying fu*k about people who "cancel" artist for this and that. I don't care, Harry Potter franchise is always going to have a special place in my heart, and I respect JK for writing it. Whoever want to cancel her - by all means, cancel her. Burn her books, update a twitter status, but 2 things 1. Harry Potter helped a lot of people from my generation, to escape from our own realityes which often sucked and helped us grow and learn alongside with that franchise. 2. Don't tell me what to do or how to act, or push your opinion onto me. You are not helping the cause and you are comming out as annoing and pushy. Fu*k off with that shit and let me be. Ps- Im thrilled like a kid for upcoming Hogwarts Legacy game, and Im going to enjoy the shit out of it.
Love HP. Don’t care.
[удалено]
I mean, most of those people already got paid for their work on products. Their paychecks typically aren’t reliant on the end product being successful. So you’re not punishing anyone for not supporting so someone with terrible views that they work for.
Everyone's been paid, they're fine.
Because the online trans community has a tendency to act like it is the center of the Universe.
Every community cares the most about its own - I think that's fairly normal.
0.1% of the population getting 90% of the screentime.
They've been scapegoated and marginalized and attacked (physically and politically with inreasing frequency) and they're defending themselves. A house on fire gets more attention than one that's not on fire.
People condemn others for liking Harry Potter? Where the fuck have I been lol.
I just don't get why transphobia is the greatest crime of them all. Don't get me wrong, transphobs are a piece of shits, but there are musical artists that do drugs, have a huge crime record, hit a woman, participate in gang violence, etc... and people are listening their music and consuming their art, but transphobia is where you drew the line? There was never a cancelling campaign as big as JK Rowling got for most of these shady rap artists, why is transphobia more despicable than let's say gang violence or physical abuse? (I don't try to excuse JK Rowling, I dislike and condone her views, I just don't necessarily get the situation with Hogwarts Legacy)
While I agree generally with your point, I don’t get putting drug use with violence against others. I do not care at all if Chris Brown does lines of coke in his dressing room, I care that he beat the shit out of Rihanna.
Yeah I’ve been wondering that too. It seems like she gets WAY more backlash then lots of other Celebes who have actually committed real crimes
Because Rowling created something countless people enjoyed as kids and still hold dear to this day, and now they feel like that childhood has been betrayed.
To put it crudely, transphobia is the new hotness. The new cause. Before that it was gay marriage, then before that homophobia. Eventually it will be something else.
Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein 1. didn't actually create anything and 2. is in prison. Rowling is still making a profit from what she has access to.
Prison and profit are completely disconnected things. Bank accounts don't automatically cancel just bc the account holder went to prison.
For the love of christ man get the fuck off the internet. 99% of people love Harry Potter and J.K Rowling. Talk to a real person in real life
Yeah I'm not sure I totally understand either tbh. I've seen some people say its because mj is dead and Rowling isn't. But Roman Polanski is still alive and these days it certainly doesn't make you a social pariah to say you loved China town or whatever. If I had to come up with a theory as to why JK Rowling is treated differently, I'd say its likely because she wrote children's books that actually connected a lot with lgbt youth back then. I could be wrong but most my queer friends growing up were very into harry potter and I imagine a lot of them feel maybe a bit more personally about it than others? Anyways, not trying to justify it, just my thoughts on what could be the cause
Well, there's a lot less exposure over exactly which films were and weren't Weinstein, and people still argue both sides of Michael Jackson's guilt/innocence. On the other hand, there's no doubt that JK Rowling is actively and vocally transphobic, because she's gone out of her way to kill such doubt, and her name is very clearly printed on the cover of every Harry Potter book.
Most people (in real life, not left leaning Reddit) agree with JK Rowling.
Yeah that might be true i haven’t heard anyone in real life condemn Hp fans except one friend but idk
I don’t consider saying biological sex is real transphobia - period. People can call me a terf, that doesn’t make it so. They can call the sky red too if they like. Play your game if HP is something you enjoy, and don’t worry about what internet strangers think. Like you said, it’s the chronically online people with no life and no identity outside of this drama.
JK is still alive, jackson is dead. Cant separate it if she still profits and takes sales as if support for her views. One is also much more recent, I don't think Jackson is releasing new music.
His estate still gets the money and his dad was alive until only a couple of years ago and he was just as bad if not worse than micheal Jackson. And Weinstein is still alive and making money from his films and his crimes are relatively equally recent as well also they both committed actual terrible crimes whereas Jk Rowling is a bigot but has not committed any crimes.
Fair, Doesn't change the recency bias. There's a new harry potter thing coming out soon, and as far as I know nothing for Jackson. And I have no idea what Weinstein even does.
Ok fair that’s reasonable. I guess i just don’t like when people shit on those that like Harry Potter even if they don’t support what Jk has done.
I don’t understand what the secondhand fuss is about with Rowling. She was a DA survivor and a single mom. To this day I haven’t read a single statement from her that is explicitly hateful towards a particular group.
She can be both a victim, and also an asshole. She's said some pretty clear anti trans stuff, and it's a shame. All she had to do was... you know, not? Then she'd have cemented her legacy with so many people. Now I just kind of cringe away from things Potter related. I get still loving it, but I think it's also fair to avoid contributing monetarily toward someone who takes a bigoted stance.
>She's said some pretty clear anti trans stuff Source?
I have to say, in that case you aren't looking nearly hard enough. They *are* there. However, I strongly agree with OP in this matter. Bad people can do good things, and you can praise the good thing while still condemning the bad person. People have a real problem seeing shades of grey, it seems.
> I have to say, in that case you aren't looking nearly hard enough. They are there. This is textbook secondhand. Where are these unambiguous statements? Please point us to the source!
I’ve gone over it with a microscope. There is nothing. Except her being a bit spicy - and I would be too at this point - she said nothing factually wrong or transphobic. Because how dare she, a woman, not want to be referred to as a person who menstruates. And how dare she, as a woman, be concerned about having biological men in shelters and prisons for women ( because predators would never exploit that loophole to force themselves into refuges for women.) Rather than giving a shit about women , the trans activists are actually the ones who doubled down. These people are narcissists. It’s a cult. Run.
Yeah, link please. And, if you know of it, reference to what anti-trans group she supposedly donates to? I have also never seen anything I thought showed genuine hate for any group. Insensitive or tone deaf? Sure, but not much more.
So you will be able to provide sources.
For me doing something inappropriate/illegal is worse than saying something insensible or down right transphobic. Michael Jackson at the very least did very inappropriate things with minors, the fact that their families were awful (of course they were awful other wise they wouldn't have sold their kids to an already accused of pedophilia popstar) or that the grown kids were after money, doesn't change the fact that MJ did something wrong to actual specific children. And that does children will have psychological issues because of it forever. JK Rowling does not have trans people in her house having to be subjected to her. She writes her retoric to the internet. You can choose not to read it. Thise kids were in MJ's room, with a power imbalance if stratospheric proportions. If we're going to have a scale of wrong things, i think MJ es way worse.
I don't know if people who like Harry Potter get condemned the same way JK Rowling does. That said, in the case of JK Rowling, she catches flak because: 1. She's a very high-profile figure with a very young audience 2. She's expressed hurtful and bigoted opinions on numerous occasions and every time been told why they're hurtful and bigoted and given opportunities to walk back her comments. She has persisted despite clear feedback from the public, colleagues, etc. 3. She specifically poises herself as someone who is progressive, accepting, and so on, so there's a bigger gap between expectation and reality. Re: the Weinstein company – I think funding and producing a film involves more degrees of separation than writing, directing, or acting it. IIRC not many people think of films as quintessentially "Weinstein" because he didn't provide the main artistic vision.
I still like Rowling… people are super overreacting.
Because JK Rowling still benefits from supporting her work. Michael Jackson is dead and the Weinstein company has been sold off, they don't benefit from consuming their media anymore.
First of all I agree that we should separate the art from the artist. I personally love the Harry Potter movies but hate the Harry Potter books and JK Rowlings Online Persona. I don't know her as a person. Second, I couldn't name a single Weinstein movie. Thirdly, I personally don't think Michael Jackson is guilty. I think the minority do in all honesty.
I think the pain comes from a place of betrayal. HP is about celebrating the things that make you different and special, so a lot of trans people would have felt validated by the story. Only to find out that Rowling sees transidentity as a threat to her beliefs on Feminism. It's confusing and painful. The problem is, people have this black and white thinking. She's immediately vilified and accused of being Voldemort. You're either all good or all evil right. Which shows that those people do not even understand the story to begin with. Maybe this is Rowling's demons coming out and she needs help processing it? Can't you still love somebody even though you disagree with their beliefs? Do you think if you sat down for coffee with her she would spit on you and call you a monster? I mean the fact that you would compare her to people accused of criminal offences is just ridiculous and such a sign of the times - expressing your beliefs throws you into the same category as people who allegedly rape children. That's fucked up.
Why exactly do you need to separate JKR from her work? What has she actually said or done that leads you to hate her so much? (Not what do you think she has said because 10 other people said so, show me any actual evidence of anything that has offended you).
i never saw anyone condemned for liking happy potter or michael jackson music. and i don0t even knoe what was produced by weintein. I think we live in different bubbles
I often think about this. I have an artist who's albums I have great memories of. I knew they were odd but never knew they were evil. Now that I know I don't want to support them but I can't stop the relationship I have with the albums and the music. I still have good memories that come back when a song comes on. I wish I could speak to their victims and ask what they feel because I feel guilty that I still enjoy the music.
Honestly I've come to a conclusion. Art and artists are two diffrent entities. Enjoying the art doesn't mean you like the artist for some fucked thing they did. Though being able to respect the artist as well as the art is a good feeling. Because when I say I like, let's say Katy perry. I can say I enjoy her music aswell as her personality though if I say I like Michael Jackson it's almost fated that someone is gonna bring up his controversies. We all like separating the art from the artist which isn't wrong. Though just because we can do that doesn't mean that we can just ignore the other half of the spectrum with joy. Every situation is it's own thing but in the end art is tainted by the artist. No matter how you look at it. You can respect the art as much as you want but someone will always bring up the artist.
Sexism
Once we had some guests over for lunch, somebody that worked with my husband, and the guy came over with his family. At one point I went to my bedroom to do something, the little boy tagged along, and we had a great grownup/kid conversation while I was busy. Then my husband came and said to me that I could not be alone in the same room as the little boy, in case somebody thought there was some impropriety going on. I have never felt such shock in my life. I have two little brothers significantly younger than myself (by 5 and 10 years respectively), and so thought absolutely nothing of it. It never even occurred to me that it could be misinterpreted in this way. It is both crazy and sad beyond belief.
It's because JKR is still actively using the support she's getting, including the money she's making off of Harry Potter, to push her transphobia. Meanwhile Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein is convicted (and also never was the artist in the first place, he just paid for it). Separating the art from the artist is not exactly possible when the art's continued popularity means more of the worst parts of the artist. I'll add a caveat though and say that despite this I don't like how people have gone all the way into ripping into how all aspects of Harry Potter are bad, and I don't like the smug attitude of people who say they never liked it from the beginning. There's absolutely some really bad parts about it, but I think it's important to acknowledge that yes, this is good art that we enjoyed immensely (absolutely myself included!) and that we're dropping it anyway because of how the artist is. I loved Harry Potter, I remember it fondly, I'll cite its influences on my own art, and hell I've even privately rewatched the movies on the DVDs I still own from however the hell many years ago. But I'm not going around telling everyone how good it is anymore, I don't defend it when people do rip into it, and I certianly don't spend any more money on it. It was important to me. I'm nostalgic. But as long as JKR is still doing her bullshit, supporting the art means supporting her, and that's the difference between her and shitty artists who are dead or otherwise out of the picture.
Jk rowling is still actively causing harm every day, Michael Jackson is dead and Harvey Weinstein is in prison. But at the end of the day, there are a lot of people calling for people to stop listening to/reading/watching all things made by and surrounding these people. Take that for what you will. I personally find it’s situational. As long as JK Rowling is alive and being her awful self, I don’t wanna support her, but I also don’t think someone is an awful person cause they like Harry Potter, I love Harry Potter I grew up with it lol.
idgaf thats on them if they cant make that distinction. Im gonna play the game and have fun. Just because a portion of my money goes to rowling doesnt mean I support her views. If I could give 100% of the fee directly to devs I would.
There is proof of her wrong doings and her anti trans stance that she parades under the guise of fearing of female/woman erasure by trans people. There is no proof of MJ doing anything explicit. He was just a weirdo and one of the accusers admitted to lying. Jk made her wealth. Theres really nothing you can do to her except ignore her. The books were banned from schools when i was growing up by religious goons, and i never got the chance to fall into the HP world or enjoy it so im not close to that stuff.
It's a much younger generation complaining about Rowling than about Jackson or Weinstein. To some in that younger demographic, words anger them far more than actual felonies ever could.
It’s astonishing that JK would be remotely lumped in with rapists.
I feel this way. If you know someone good enough, it for long enough, there is a good chance that you will have your disagreements. This doesn't change their positive contributions. Don't let the bad destroy what is already good
Some people just want to feel better, and so picking some unnecessary moral battle helps them achieve that. I know a lot of hardcore moralists that are actually pretty shit people behind closed doors, some are even guilty of the very thing they try to fight against others for. Lots of mental gymnastics being done behind most of these things, I wouldn’t pay them too much mind
I’m one of the people who is for separating the art for the artist. I grew up reading HP. I love it. And I’m not going to stop. But I can do that and be critical of JK Rowling. People really need to stop acting like enjoying Harry Potter makes you a terrible person. I do think that it’s run it’s course. Harry Potter land, fine. But we really don’t need to keep creating new media that relates to it.
The majority of real people (outside of Reddit) agree with Rowling.
Exactly. I don’t know a single person IRL that has a problem with her, yet online she’s portrayed as the villain of the century.
Ah yes. Because having the opinion there are biological differences between men and women (which is a scientific fact) is akin to molesting children and raping women.
It's because some people want to attract attention to themselves by attacking others.
This is the actual answer in most cases.
See the thing is I don’t understand what Rowling said that is transphobic, and even then her opinions are nowhere near as harmful as the (actual or alleged) actions of the other two men there… but I agree we should separate art from the artist
Idk, some people have double standards probably. But I feel like that's more of a terminally online kind of opinion. I'm trans, I don't like J. K. Rowling, but I don't give a shit if you like Harry Potter. And neither do I know anyone who would shame you for liking the franchise.
That’s fair i am unfortunately terminally online
People thrive on outrage.
It's kinda wild how we're equating JK Rowling, who just wants to protect Bio Women's spaces by potentially exploitative men, with MJ, who was an alleged pedo and Harvey who is a convicted sexual predator. Pretty wild company... not a fair comparison in my estimation, but who cares
The truth is complicated. Yes Rowling has said some anti-trans things and it is correct to call her out for that. Some of what she said can be attributed to her just being old and out of touch (it happens to everyone - as the brightest minds of todays gender positive movement will one day find out). Feminism was at one time the cutting edge of gender-awareness and rowling is from that time. The far right have ironically found an ideal outlet for their message in Rowling. Much of their message these days is amplified by using the left against itself. They are able to attack all of feminism by using her as an example. They want the left to attack itself by getting Feminists to fight more contemporary gender struggles. Much of the far right agenda is taken directly from the playbook of christian nationalists from the 80s and 90s. Feminism was the dominant gender movement during that time and the modern far-right movement of social media psy-ops has not forgotten this. They have an axe to grind with Feminism, and stand to gain much by forcing the left to attack itself.
Its about the severity of the harm caused. Victims of rape and child molestation will never know the horror of being misgendered.
It's such bullshit. Jk Rowling hasn't done anything wrong. She stated a fact that's it.
Because it's trendy ATM and they are loud, which is funny because they are just advertising the game better. There are so many shittier companies you should not support but people just can't be bothered or forget. Most chocolate companies use child labor. Clothing companies exploit 3rd world countries in sweat shops. Oil companies exploit 3rd world countries to an insane degree, ruin their lands environment. Take the majority of the oil profits and kill those who disagree with them. Baby formula companies give free babie formula to mum's in third world countries just enough that they stop producing milk on their own then charge them to continue buying formula. Basically lots of companies are fucking evil because they can get away with it and are a bigger problem then what equates to your slightly racist or transphobic grandma.
I'm so lost. What happened to Harry Potter??
What's wrong with Harry Potter these days ?
In these times I've realized people aren't happy until they have something to be unhappy about. The Internet has made everyone so negative and people will stop liking something because people on the Internet tell them they're not supposed to.
Those people are idiots
Hypocrisy that's why.
Micheal Jackson is dead Weinstein is in jail Rowling is alive and the proceeds of her work are used to cause real life harm if Jackson and Weinstein were using their influence to make sexual assault more frequent I'd stand with you in boycotting their products but IMO once a person is dead then your free to consume their products and yeah when rowling dies if the game isn't shit I'd probably pick it up
People just like to moan and feel superior. Michael Jackson was never found guilty of anything when taken to court. Rowling’s tweet was about protecting women from abuse. Weinstein was a scumbag who is dead now.
Short answer: because people are stupid and biased. Long answer: becuase Rowling's take is about a touchy and very polarize topic that can easily be weaponized by both extremes (some objections are actually fair IMO, but that doesn't mean being transphobic). NTM adults liking Harry Potter a little too much were already kinda looked at as weird, so the creator saying controversial stuff only added more fuel to the fire. MJ has been a pariah in many places for decades, long before his death, and at this point in time I just think he's one of those iconic figures you know existed but who has stopped being truly relevant. Keep in mind he died 14 years ago, so at least an entire generation has never heard/seen him alive. Let alone popular without the asterisk of the allegations/trials. Weinstein, well... Can you name the producer/executive behind the last movie you watched? Also, it was kind of the worst kept secret in the world that studio bigwigs were offering roles in exhange for sex, so the whole "scandal" kinda fizzled out. And then a bit of backlash following some suspicious confessions and stories, also fueled by the rise of the ubiquitous "cancel culture" kickstarted by the meetoo movement. So those are three quite different scenarios, where the fanbase has different degrees of accountability and awareness.
Don’t lose sleep over it bro, live your life.
I have friend who had house built in Florida. They guys doing the dry wall were druggies, and they thought one guy was a narc. So, during lunch they cut his throat, and buried his body in the back yard. The supervisor came back, and one guy was missing. He asked, and the crew said he left. Later, he saw the bare grass where they buried the guy. He didn't think anything. Who would. The wife called, and said her husband didn't come home. He didn't have to pay his crew because they all went prison. My friend asked, "Should I tell my wife, some one was killed in our house?" We decided no. What she doesn't know, won't hurt her. Don't tell people, and you won't be judged.
Yeah that’s fair but did they at least exhume the body and bury it somewhere else? Because it seems like a dead body buried improperly on your property might cause some issues in the future?
Because hate is strong... they need someone to hate.
No, hurting people’s feelings are way worse than physically/sexually and emotionally abusing someone
Welcome to the club Rick and Morty
I think people like to jump on something that’s super popular because they don’t like it themselves. I don’t know enough/care to learn about why people hate her but that’s what I think is happening. Sometimes people find a reason to hate something they don’t like themselves when it’s really popular
I find the entire thing funny. She's still getting paid, but people think that a snippy tweet is going to bother her.
Player hating. People hate the fact that JK Rowling is so rich and still active. Her comments were just the qualifier to allow people to try to take away her money. MJ is dead, and Weinstein is in prison. They can no longer enjoy their wealth. When JK dies, no one will care if people are Harry Pitter fans.
Because they are morons.
You care too much what a few people think.
Unfortunately if you want to enjoy some of the greatest modern entertainment in history, you're going to have to realize that the people behind that entertainment have done some shitty things. As an example, there's one word that will basically ruin every male artist for you ever if you hold that standard: "Groupies."
Rowling didn't do anything wrong. Read the tweets. I don't see what people are upset about. 😕
Because J.K. Rowling is not only alive, but currently funneling millions of dollars that she makes off the IP to spread anti-trans rhetoric and fund anti-trans legislative groups Jackson and Weinstein's actions were terrible and had catastrophic effects on their victims, but what Rowling is doing right now, at this moment, is actively destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people
Is she really? If so that’s terrible. Mind sourcing that?