177
J.K. Rowling Is So Transphobic Even Elon Musk Wants Her to Shut Up
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
177 points (74.9% liked)
News
23409 readers
1807 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think most people actually care. And if it doesn't affect the reading of the book, why should they care?
My shelves are filled with authors that have questionable views. I own some books by Marquis de Sade and Yukio Mishima and those authors are extremely controversial. I own a copy of Being and Time and Heidegger is associated with Anti-Semitism and Nazism. Agatha Christie's novels are filled with casual orientalism and racism, and Houellebecq is criticized for being a sexist Islamophobe whose stories have far-right extremist views. My shelves are filled with pessimists and misanthropists and I'm quite sure many of them would share Rowling's views on transgender issues, but I have no plans to get rid of those books.
I understand why someone no longer wants to read Rowling and essentially cancels her, but at the same time I wonder if cancelling authors is any different from banning books. Should we stop reading books because their authors were not good people or is there a difference between deceased authors and modern authors who are alive to profit from booksales? Do you separate the book from the writer or is the author's personal life relevant to you?
Letting parents know gives them the choice and letting people know that someone is a bigot is not 'canceling' them.
Cancelling authors is not like banning books. Oppressing transgender voices is instead much like burning and banning books lists, Florida-style. People are very much aware that Martin Heidegger hailed the Nazis and they can read his work at their own risk. This is not the case with Rowling, who people think is reasonably skeptic towards a radical, dangerous idea. At least this is what Facebook, in contrast to Lemmy, would have you believe. If people are similarly aware that Rowling is a holocaust denier, an obsessive hatred monger in disagreement to all major scientific and medical bodies, an accolade of antisemitic conspiracy theories, and a supporter of trans genocide, then there might be a place for her on your fucking bookshelf. You know, when she is history, not a direct threat to democracy, human life and people's health care and well being.
I don't see how JK is suppressing transgender voices, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But trying to suppress JK for having opinions you don't like IS oppression to me, and solves nothing.
It is not her own personal opinions, but a part of an agenda, for which she is lobbying and towards which she working. It is well documented by now, see the RESIST research program for example. Also watch her chats with transphobe Helen Joyce about transgender eradication. Hate speech is harming people and should not be protected as free speech. On the contrary, bigots have reclaimed the term free speech to silence queer voices, the ones they disagree with. So unless you condemn the surge of anti-transgender legislation that also restricts free speech for queer voices, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.
A free society must give breathing space to hateful speech in order to avoid thought control and the censorship of unpopular views by the government. Instead of stifling free speech, citizens have the power to most effectively answer hateful speech through protest, mockery, debate, questioning, silence, or by simply walking away.
Even if this leads to "what even is a free society anymore", I think that is a more useful discussion to pivot to.
Nope. You're falling into the Paradox of Tolerance trap. To protect the vulnerable, society must act against the powerful and hateful who intend them harm.
Having an opinion is not the same thing as intending harm. I have not seen anywhere that JK is intentionally doing that. But please prove me wrong.
Rowling is a holocaust denier and a nazi actively promoting trans genocide, and this is a crime. ThiS iS mY OPinIoN: Prove me wrong sealion.
https://transsafety.network/posts/institutional-capture/
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/landmark-systematic-review-of-trans
https://iv.datura.network/watch?v=NPmjNYt71fk
It is being heavily debated and debunked by all major medical and humanitarian organizations. You people love pretending there is no substantial comeback to this propaganda, just ignore it and continue spewing hate. Free speech is not protecting you from criticism and it does not mean we are obliged to hear or platform it. Society is just showing you the door. Read the room.
She's doing exactly the same thing the dude you just accused of oppression is doing.
The main difference is that she has billions of dollars to promote her perspective, and millions of followers that listen to what she has to say. The dude "oppressing" her in this situation is just some random nobody on a site that might as well not even exist for all the cultural power it wields.
You had a pretty reasonable argument on the first post, but this took a hard turn into bullshit real quick.
Am I missing something? Did the subject just change here? Are we really pulling strawmen?
I still don't see anyone trying to suppress opinions, which is my understanding of the topic we were discussing. I just see more disdain and unacceptance of people having dissenting opinions.
If you disagree with her and think she is influencing people wrongly in ANY way, I think it should be more of a concern to you that so many people agree with her.
Attacking someone for having an opinion you don't like is not going to change anything for the better. Educate people instead and we'll all be happier IMO.
GTFOH with that nonsense. Opinions are for flavors of ice cream and pizza toppings, not whether people have a right to exist and have equal rights.
IDK that sounds a lot like an opinion to me.
Who is claiming someone doesn't have a right to exist? Please cite specific examples.
Nah. I don't need to indulge your JAQing off. Go practice your bad faith elsewhere.
Rule 1: Attack the argument, not the person
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the person") is a type of informal logical fallacy. Instead of arguing against a person's position, an ad hominem argument attacks the person's character or actions in an effort to discredit them.
Not an ad hominem but a colloquialism of calling out the appearance of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You appear to be implying the assertion that transphobes like Rowling are NOT claiming that trans people do not have a right to exist and attempting to shift the burden of proof to me. In context of Musk and Rowling, the heap of evidence is significant and your apparent assertion is the extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence.
This logical fallacy is also most frequently the territory of bad faith actors.
Now, if there was miscommunication, please do clarify as I do not wish to unfairly characterize your comments.