The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.
JK Rowling is one of the many people who never should’ve gone to Twitter.
But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial.
That’s stupidity and moron behaviour, not holocaust denial, can you even comprehend the sheer difference between no. of holocaust victims and other targeted groups, one was planned and constructed for exterminating a specific race.
Stop pandering your bullshit, comparing everything to the holocaust is just demeaning and takes away the seriousness of the impact of the horror of the Holocaust victims.
Fuck off with your bullshit. The Nazis DID deliberately target sexual minorities and other groups, in fact sexual minorities were the first people they went after. Destroying LGBT people was absolutely part of their eugenics philosophy.
This is Holocaust denial. Fucking Nazi-defending homophobe.
Fucking Nazi-defending homophobe.
hitler and Nazi-defending are like a prefix of disagreement, but a homophobe, where does that come from, that is too specific cause If you think I am defending J.K then doesn’t transphobe makes more sense and if you go by the logic that I hate queer people shouldn’t it be anti-queer or queerphobe?
Lmao this is the guy who’s like “hey Nazis suck but…”
Then 2 years later you see him sig hailing on some Facebook pic and like “yupppp”
What a tool.
You can’t become more right just by being angry
Your summarized argument is thus:
It’ can’t be Holocaust denial because I’m only denying PART of the Holocaust
Correct?
If so, then you are wrong. Sorry.
I don’t make the rules but you really should follow them.
Your summarized argument is thus:
It’ can’t be Holocaust denial because I’m only denying PART of the Holocaust
Correct?
No, My argument is one is history illiterate asshole while the other is special-grade asshole, and putting both under the same blanket gives the latter one more power,
Just like there are stupid people who think the moon landing is fake and then there are anti-vaxxers, one is just stupid while the latter is much more destructive and potentially harmful to society.
there are overlaps between them and they can be totally categorized as one but we need separation to neutralize the potential damage they can cause.
This goal post shift is so long reached, you probably needed to get a city permit to move it.
one is history illiterate asshole while the other is special-grade asshole
I contend that they are the same type of asshole with the same goal but they present their arguments in a way that makes a portion of the populace jump ever so slightly onto their side. If they can get people to agree that one portion of the Holocaust was more tragic than another then they have already begun to chip away at what made the Holocaust so horrendous. Holocaust denial isn’t about not thinking it happened, it’s about pretending they think it didn’t happen to devillainize their side. Just because they picked one group affected by the Holocaust over another doesn’t make it any less Holocaust denial, it just makes it Holocaust denial that doesn’t bother you, meaning they won.
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for meClassic nazi tactic to come for groups you don’t care about so they can eventually come for you.
I agree, but the tribe has made up its mind.
You’re either with them, or against them. There is no in-between.
Yeah I hate it when “the tribe” calls out my factually wrong opinions.
How can an opinion be “factually wrong?”
Lol.
There you go doing it again. Pretending that anyone who goes against the tribe is immediately, factually wrong.
Thanks for proving my point.
They are not factually wrong becuase their opinion does not match the popular opinion. They are factually wrong because their opinion does not align with the fact that the holocaust was not only about exterminating jews.
How can an opinion be “factually wrong?”
If I formed the opinion that the third Reich did not want to exterminate disabled people as part of the holocaust that would be factually wrong. That’s how facts and opinions work.
You don’t know what the word “opinion” means. I highly recommend brushing up on your vocabulary.
People have the opinion that the climate isn’t changing. People have the opinion that the world is flat. People have the opinion everyone with dark skin is sub human.
Some people frame their terrible views as opinions so they can use the bad faith argument that it’s just a difference of opinions so everyone should just be ok with their hateful or ignorant stances. Some people frame their terrible views as opinions to try and avoid valid criticism of their opinions contradictions with reality.
You are fervently engaging in a behavior exhibited by the hateful and ignorant and there is a pretty safe bet as to why.
Let’s quote the oxford dictionary then:
opinion (noun) your feelings or thoughts about somebody/something, rather than a fact
In this context the opinion is the thought that the holocaust was only about exterminating jews. This thought does not align with the facts.
Wow. You also need to brush up on your reading comprehension because you can’t even understand the words you’re reading!
Goodbye. I’m gonna block you now because you aren’t worth conversing with.
Trans, gay, Romani, Black people all got deported to concentration camps as well as jews. The death machinery worked against a lot of people, even if it was designed to exterminate jews.
They even had a badgesystem to visually identify for what “crime” someone was in the camp.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_of_inmates_in_Nazi_concentration_camps
Lotta dipshits in the comments here, block button is working extra today.
A piece of shit said a shitty thing. No need to dwell on it.
I think it’s important she’s called out. Her works are deep in the hearts of 3 generations and her shitty takes need to be addressed so those fans don’t make the same choices.
Just like Bill Cosby, its important for everyone to know how much a skeezebag he is because he shaped the lives of so many people
She is transphobic, ableist, handiphobic, etc.
The saddest is that we will always find a fan boy taking her defense. Seriously, stop! She is garbage.
Hello there, fellow internet person! Harry Potter fan boy here. I just sort of did. Doubt I’ll stop any time soon. And while she might be, I don’t know her well enough to confirm your opinion on her.
If being transphobic and racist isn’t enough, read more. In particular, after reading Earthsea series by Ursula K. LeGuin, it’s clear that the main ideas of the Harry Potter series (an elite wizarding school and a wreckless magic student meddling in death and how that threatens the whole world) is not Rowling’s own original idea. I’m sorry for putting down an author you like if it means you won’t give LeGuin a try, because I really do think you will like her stuff.
I have no doubt that Rowling’s story isn’t original. There are many authors better than her, yet less popular. The Harry Potter story is a love-hate thing for most of its fans and its success is a matter opportunity i’d guess.
But it is part of childhood for many and that alone makes it important enough to keep the better parts of it close to heart.I’ll probably get to read Earthsea eventually, I just need to find the time to invest in it properly.
Given the enthusiasm with which you’ve been spreading your own bigotry and lies around the rest of this thread, I don’t believe you and I regret responding to your comment. I don’t think you’ll appreciate LeGuin. I’d rather you stay a vocal Rowling fan, you seem to be very representative of that willfully ignorant and hateful lot.
So bigotry and lies is now “don’t focus on hatred”? Ok.
The following text is hyperbole to make a point and should be treated as such.
…
Let’s say you’re right. Let’s hate on Rowling. Let’s burn her books. Let’s take her wealth and property. Let’s send her to a special place for bigots, separate from the proper society. Let’s do the same for the rest like her. I mean, who needs bigots in this society? They’re poison. We’ll be doing the world a favour…
The Nazis grew in power with a similar message about a certain kind of people. But yes, it’s not Nazism. It’s not the same. You’re not really letting your hatred fester until it’s all that is left. You can stop before that. You CAN stop. Because you’re different. You’re special. You’re how the world should be. And anyone who thinks differently is beneath you.
…
Why are we here? Why is this topic important? Why is Lemmy important? Some people say it’s a safe space, for those who believe the same things can agree with and encourage each other.
That’s good and well for nice and positive ideas of growth and cooperation.
But when you start echoing anger, disgust, hatred and all other kinds of negative emotions, they get reinforced just as well as the positive side of things.Look at this topic. Hate on Rowling. Hate on bigots. Hate on everything bad. And look at the number of up votes.
Is this really the type of safe space and reinforcement you want? If so, then I’m sorry, but that hyperbole above is the unavoidable path all those before you have fallen into.
Balance in all things is the path I try to walk, the good and the bad. Though I fail and stumble once in a while, I try to remember that no one is inherently good or bad. We simply are, each with faults of our own.
What path do you walk?
See Le Guin --> upvote,
Simple as
Stand up for what you believe in.
Don’t let these people put you in the closet.
No, people who support bigots should go into a closet.
And let me guess, a “bigot” is someone who doesn’t see you the way you want to be seen?
The thing about Lemmy is that it’s like jumping from closet to closet, with everyone thinking they’re the ones outside. And I don’t feel like the exception.
It’s an active process to take a moment and consider that maybe the walls we surround ourselves with aren’t really that healthy.
You know what they say about people who sit at tables with Nazis without protest.
I actually don’t. Is it something specific to Nazism or to authoritarian governments in general?
You should be careful lying about who is a Nazi.
The more you do it, the less power that word has.
Similar to antisemetic.
You should be careful lying about who isn’t a Nazi.
The more you do it, the less power that word has.
Similar to antisemetic.
Yeah. This is why rational people don’t take you seriously.
You’re addicted to arguing in bad faith because you get so much support for it on these forums.
You need to step out into the real world to get some real perspectives.
Err umm sooo rAtIoNaL
Ditto.
I am pretty sure that’s not the right definition. Holocaust denial isn’t about denying the impact of the holocaust had on the victims and the survivors. It’s about denying the scale and planned nature of the genocide.
JK Rowling doesn’t deny the holocaust. She’s not even denying that trans people were targeted, she is denying that they were among the first victims of the nazis. And while denying that they were targeted is wrong, it’s not denying the holocaust happened.
It’s about denying the scale and planned nature of the genocide.
That’s just an angle that anti-semites use to discredit the Holocaust historians. Does it matter that it was 6 million? Could have been 1 million for all I care, but people who already don’t like Jews will get pedantic about the EXACT number before explaining that number is wrong because (((they))) control the media and none of it happened. It’s a dog whistle.
Not according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory[1][2] that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a fabrication or exaggeration.[3][4][5] Holocaust denial involves making one or more of the following false claims:[6][7][8]
Nazi Germany’s “Final Solution” was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination. Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers for the mass murder of Jews. The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately six million. The Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Allies, Jews, or the Soviet Union.[4][9]
No, she moved the goalpost to “they were not the first”, her original statement was completely different.
What was it? I’ve only seen the screenshots shared by the other person, it was them who put the focus on it imho. Either way I haven’t seen any other statement, care to share that?
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735
I don’t have a Twitter account anymore, so I can’t look for the whole thread. The “not the first” tweet is an answer to someone replying to this tweet here.
Edit: found it:
Yeah it’s because the Alejandra person actually claimed those things.
As critical as I’m of JK Rowlings trans denial, this appears to be blown way out of proportion by people who want to pin another label on her that will make their fight more righteous.
This is nothing but culture war
Where?
Some person: Nazis burned books on transgenders
Rowling: That’s a lie. Alejandra: Here sources proving, that nazis did indeed burn books, including a German court ruling that explicitly stated, that nazis moved against transgenders too and the denial of that is Holocaust denial.
Rowling: But they were not the first victims and they didn’t burn all books.Like, her whole argument is completely off. She is the only one, that ever mentioned “all books” and “first victims”.
She isn’t the one that first spoke of “all”, she’s referring to this message.
Anyway, I don’t think this entire argument is done in good faith nor by Alejandra nor JK Rowling.
That’s a different thread though. Alejandra might not have been aware of it, like I was.
There are multiple faces to Holocaust denial, and this one, is denying the scale of it by excluding a group that has knowingly been targeted by Nazis. They had to wear the pink triangle too.
I understand that you believe that, it’s just as far as I know not the definition
Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names… but once I got to the obviously antisemitic goblins, I was done.
I wish it wasn’t so damn popular.
Edit: I realize this article isn’t about antisemitism. This is just another example of Rowling’s bigotry.
Hogwarts is not elite. Anyone can enrol if they have magical ability. It’s addressed in a later book that attendance is not mandatory but nearly every witch and wizard in Britain is educated there. It’s just a school that doesn’t even have an admittance exam.
if they have magical ability
That’s exactly what makes it elite. There’s automatically a class system.
A genetics-based one, no less
I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean, do you want non magical people to attend a magical school?
They could just fail every class for 8 years and be passed to the next anyway.
No different then public school system st the end of the day.
The fact that magic is only for some, that’s the elitist part. There are some people that are inherently better than others
Like the main characters are looked down upon, you mean?
Goblins are not obviously antisemitic. They are a blending of various trolls\elves\dwarves of folklore.
Not any more antisemitic than Ferengi in Star Trek anyways. But Star Trek is leftist, so all you guys pretend it’s not there.
You seem as intelligent as people who’d want to remove Nazis from movies about WWII (actually I’m not sure if I’ve met such specimen).
I wish it wasn’t so damn popular.
It’s so damn popular because the author made many deep references, at the same time emotionally reaching the audience.
If you are not a brick or just as intelligent, you’d see that.
There’s a Star of David in the middle of the floor of the “Goblin Bank”
It was filmed in a real building built when the association between this symbol and Judaism wasn’t yet a thing. So it’s not a Star of David.
I hope (not really) you are aware that it’s not historically a Jewish symbol, it’s been used as widely as, eh, a few other famous ornaments, and relatively recently became a symbol of secular Jewish identity and Zionism, and then Judaism too.
Should’ve gone with the Scottish architect sent from Australia in charge of the project, John Smith Murdoch, who was a member of the Masonic Order, a group which also makes use of the 6-pointed star.
Nope
Why did you decide to insult me? Did I insult you? Did I make a personal attack?
And I guess I’m not part of “all you guys” because I always thought that about the Ferengi.
Also, what did I want to remove and from where? Please show where I said I wanted to remove something.
As far as the goblins not being antisemitic-
https://www.popdust.com/gringotts-warner-bros-2627451691.html
Not just her books, even the games based on them-
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/hogwarts-legacy-antisemitism-goblins-horn/
Did she do it intending to be antisemitic? I don’t know, but it hardly matters.
Maybe I have the intelligence of a brick, but at least I don’t tell lies about people like you did about me.
You’ve made a personal attack against the author of one book I consider not terribly bad.
As far as the goblins not being antisemitic-
Somebody wrote an article and I’m supposed to assume that person is right and I’m wrong?
I’ll quote the title seen even in the link you provided - “HP goblins echo Jewish caricatures”. Have you considered even once that Jewish caricatures too did echo something aesthetically familiar? Or that the folklore I’m talking about grew intertwined with antisemitic beliefs?
Medieval-style fairy-tales always touch this subject.
And then this
Did she do it intending to be antisemitic? I don’t know, but it hardly matters.
and this
Maybe I have the intelligence of a brick,
form a syllogism.
Yes, it definitely matters, because to get rid of each and every antisemitic or similar (“middleman minority” etc) stereotype manifesting itself unintentionally you’d simply have to burn European-cultured countries with nukes and start from scratch.
Also I’m Jewish.
Sorry… you’re insulting me because I besmirched J. K. Rowling’s honor? Are you her great protector?
And I don’t care if you’re Jewish.
And I don’t care if you’re Jewish.
The point is that those things don’t seem antisemitic to me and my opinion weighs more than yours.
Sorry… you’re insulting me because I besmirched J. K. Rowling’s honor? Are you her great protector?
I’m not insulting you, I just don’t respect you and call you what you are. But, of course, you starting the thread with self-righteous crap make insulting you easier.
Why does your opinion weigh more?
Now you’re lying about not insulting me:
You seem as intelligent as people who’d want to remove Nazis from movies about WWII (actually I’m not sure if I’ve met such specimen).
If you are not a brick or just as intelligent, you’d see that.
Stating a fact is not an insult
my opinion weighs more than yours.
No it doesn’t. Anyone can claim to be anything they want on the Internet.
Including my opinion weighing more.
Imagine going this far out on a limb over a series of children’s books.
Nah, that’s not the reason. I just really don’t like people partaking in collective condemnation. They are worthless cowards.
I don’t care about HP, but it’s just a standard fairy tale. I read the books to my kids. Stories about knights, kings, princesses, super heroes…pretty much any story in which a normal person can fantasize about being someone who has much more power than they do, have been the stock-in-trade for story-tellers forever. Harry Potter lives a terrible life with his abusive relatives until he gets whisked off to a fancy private school where, it turns out, he is pretty special. Does it glorify the British class system? Sure, in some ways. But, it also undermines it insofar as Harry’s friends are mostly from the lower classes, and the villains are mostly “old money” and those who are obsessed with genetic purity. Also, the entrenched authorities like the Ministry of Magic are shown in a rather poor light, with their dementors, cruel bureaucrats, and insanity-inducing prisons. Hermione is meant to symbolize someone who got to Hogwart’s based on ability, not birth or connections. So, the story is at least partially about the transformation of the old structures of power from being based on money and birth to being based on ability. It shows British power structures in transition, I would say. What do you think?
That may very well be so. I did not get that impression from the first book, but, as I said, it was the only book I read and maybe it was clarified in the sequels.
By the way, my father was a similarly privileged to go to a prestigious British school on scholarship despite coming from a poor background and had nothing but bad things to say about it, so that does color my judgment a little.
That explains it. Each book gets progressively darker. The first book was written for 11 year olds, if I recall correctly. It doesn’t really get into politics. The subsequent books expose the corruption of the class system and the horrifying complicity of the bureaucracy.
That’s the thing that makes everyone defending this shit so sus. Harry Potter has so. many. layers. of terrible shit in it. Maybe people didn’t realize it when they were reading the books as a child because they were young and naive, but as an adult you should be able to recognize shit like the only Asian character being named “Cho Chang” and realize you’re reading an awful book written by an awful person. The fact that people know about Rowlings bigotry and still read HP to their kids blows my mind. If we all just agreed she was a shitty person and stopped passing her garbage writing along, she’d be forgotten in a generation.
There’s a city in China called Chongqing, I’m guessing that’s racist too?
If you’re grasping at straws trying to defend a well known bigot who is publicly proud of her bigotry, it’s time to re-evaluate your life.
I think it’ll be alright.
Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names I was already turned off
Do the books glorify that, though? I seem to remember that only the blatantly evil characters thought like that.
Granted, the last 3 Harry Potter books I read were all Methods of Rationality, so perhaps my understanding of canon is too good.
I admit it’s been a long time and I only read the first book, but I seem to remember everyone used the term “muggles.”
Like @mellowwheat said, the main character is a “half-blood” and the chosen one; one of the friends is “muggle-born” yet one of the most powerful magic users in recent memory; and the other friend is a “full blood” wizard who still kinda sucks.
Even the core three characters are supposed to be allegorical for “racism doesn’t mean shit.” I honestly don’t know how JK went from writing fiction that could be interpreted as pro-trans (at least from the standpoint of the movies), into doubling down on bigotry. I guess it was Twitter after all.
I guess, but the impression I got from the book I read was that those terms weren’t considered offensive enough for even the good characters to stop using them. Maybe I’m misremembering or maybe that gets addressed in a future book?
Tbh I’ve only watched the movies so I can’t say for the books, but the movies definitely gave me that vibe. Well, any of them after the first one. And from what I remember, the main “good guys” only use the “no-no human words” a few times at the beginning of the series, whereas they’re mostly used by the bad guys throughout the whole thing.
In that case, it’s hard to know whether that is Rowling and I have a poor memory about this or that the movie’s screenwriter made revisions on that front. I think either is a possibility at this point. I’d love someone else to chime in who is more familiar with the books.
I think thats the script writers, if memory serves right muggle is pretty inoffensive in the books partly cause the bad guys have their own term “mud blood” for those who are born to non magical parents. Honestly I think at worst its comparable to how people said “negro” in a non racist way back during and before the civil rights era here in the US. But I legit dont know if Rowling meant for those undertones, im not familiar enough with British civil rights history.
Also Rowling may have been aluding to that for all I know cause the wizarding world is pretty explicitly backwards, serisouly they cut themselves off from the rest of the world sometime in the 1800. One of the secondary protagonists dad is a magical ATF agent who tracks down enchanted mundane artifacts that re-enter the non magical world.
Muggle isn’t considered offensive within the world, it’s just the British term for a non-magical person. Wizard/witch for those with magic, muggle for those without (in America we call them No-Maj, which is fucking awful)
Some of the bad characters will say it in a sneering or mean-spirited way, but they often don’t use it at all and go instead for subtler terms like “those lesser than us” or “the filth” and similar
The only term in the series that’s considered “offensive” is mudblood, which is basically a mixed race slur (it’s a wizard/witch born to one or both muggle parents), and it’s very much addressed as not OK to be said and why it shouldn’t be said and how much it can hurt people (from Rowlings fave character, no less!)
It’s insane to me that the person who wrote that into book 2 went on to be a fucking TERF
It’s “the British term” because Rowling made it up.
The main character is “half-blood” and his main sidekick is “muggle” herself, so I’d wager not so glorified. Of course, there’s an undercurrent of racism there, because the bloodlines really really matter. But this is fantasy fiction so I don’t how much of a sin it is. Bloodlines mattered in Tolkien too.
I’m not sure if that last sentence is against or for my argument.
Ok, fellas: the intention of the author is inaccessible, the intention of the work can be interpreted, her public persona is that of a transphobe who always finds new lows to fall to in her brigade. You can still read HP and recognize that she is a shitty person.
That’s kind of an individual thing. Like, I get it, I get what you’re saying, but, when I think about the books (which I used to love), I just didn’t think of them fondly anymore; I can’t think of any of those characters without that irritation and disappointment coming up.
I was super excited about having my kids read those books – and my oldest started the series, but then needed a break to mature a little before hitting book…3 I think? Idr. And now I just don’t really care whether they read them. (If they do choose to read them on their own, I won’t tell them about JKR until after they’ve finished them.)
However I have no problem setting aside the shittiness of Knut Hamsun or Henry Miller; I still really enjoy their books. Heidegger? Too shitty for me. Picasso: meh, he’s fine.
That’s My Hot Take: if it bothers you, acknowledge that, and don’t force yourself to be uncomfortable. But also don’t shame people for whom her toxicity is something they can set aside.
(As long as they are setting it aside and not enjoying the work because of her toxicity.)
That said: pirate her shit, you don’t need to give her money.
It’s also possible for someone to be a shitty person and a shitty author. There are tons of discussions on just how badly written HP is and that would be true even if she suddenly stopped being a horrible person.
Yeah, 1-4 are fun “monster of the week” kids book with worldbuilding that falls apart if you look at it too much. 5-7 have “George Lucas” syndrome - editors couldn’t say “no” anymore. The Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows were clearly last minute ass pulls.
Idk I read a lot of similar quality YA when I was a child. I don’t get the obsession.
I hate her much as the next guy but the books are really good don’t act like they are not there is a reason why they are famous. If you don’t like her but still likes her work just pirate it .
But HP is a shitty story with questionable moral lessons.
I will wait until she dies so she can’t profit from it. I know it’s a drop in the bucket but it’s my drop.
She had a choice. Her Twatter account could have just been happy stuff about Harry Potter. She repeatedly choose to create this situation. So fuck her she isn’t getting a cent from me.
🏴☠️
Same. As a cys person I stand in solidarity with You … Feck that Bitch… Feck her and Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan ETC
I gotta say, I’m dealing with cognitive dissonance right now. I remember having bookmarked her Harvard commencement speech and listening to it from time to time, admiring the principles and standing up for the good of all people. I felt someone who wrote those books would HAVE to have a keen understanding of right from wrong and fighting the good fight.
So these recent years with her position on this have been confusing and sad for me. I hope she grows and learns from this.
Also unpopular opinion but I stumbled across this article from OP’s source which I largely agree with: https://forward.com/culture/480388/please-shut-up-about-the-harry-potter-jew-goblins-antisemitism-jk-rowling/
In her mind she IS fighting for “right vs wrong”. She’s just REALLY fucking wrong about which side is “right”. One of the biggest things I’ve learned in life is that EVERYONE thinks that they’re the hero. That they’re doing good and the “others” are the bad guys. Rowling is a piece of a shit but she THINKS she’s the good guy and that’s the most dangerous part of all.
I disagree. I have felt like crap many times when I did what I consider the wrong thing. She knows what she is doing which pretty much only leaves sociopath or sadistic. Either way time to stop apologizing for her.
No one is apologizing for her. You felt like crap when you did something wrong because you realized it was wrong. Good people make mistakes and learn from them. People should be like you. She thinks she’s doing right and is a pig headed bigot. People should not be like her.
She thinks she’s doing right
How did you determine that? Not trying to be snarky and I think it is important to give everyone the assumption of good faith (once) but I really don’t see any effort on her part that confirms this.
She hasnt even done the fake non-apology celebrity thing where she pays a charity and says she has to learn more. she has repeatedly doubled down.
I’m heavily confused by this. If she thought she was doing wrong she’d do the whole apology tour. Which she hasn’t, as you said. Your two paragraphs don’t play well with each other. She has exactly doubled down, which means she thinks she’s right so I have no idea what point you’re trying to argue.
I do something wrong, I know it’s wrong. Someone calls me out on it.
-
Yeah you are right = lose face admit that I wasnt being a good person.
-
No, I am right = don’t lose face and say it enough no longer feel guilty. Because now you get to feel like you are the real victim here. And a victim can never be wrong.
This is why you keep getting these well liked rich fucks bitch about how much harm has been done to them by being cancelled. That woman quite literally has a net worth equal to what I will earn if I worked for over 10,000 years. And yet she is the victim in this? Hell I bet every single trans person combined net worth in the UK isn’t equal to her own.
She knows she is wrong but she thinks if she keeps saying 2 + 2 = 5 she will win.
-
It’s weird to me because I don’t view her in the same way I do, say, Republicans or Trump or Bannon or Miller or Putin, etc. For all intents she is a bleeding-heart leftist who vehemently opposes the narrative of the right’s fearmongering in respect to most other issues. If she was just another greedy sociopathic republican-type then I wouldn’t be the least-bit surprised.
So I’m not convinced she’s a psychopath sociopath on par with the aforementioned; from what I can tell I do think she’s deeply confused and has some personal trauma that feeds a puritannical belief in feminism.
Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are a thing. I’m not sure why but it is. There are many. From what I’ve seen it’s mainly women who are SO heavily misandrist and hateful of men they think any trans woman is still a man and therefore out to rape and kill them by design, but I haven’t looked that deep into the bigotry.
If she was a leftist, Harry wouldn’t have become a cop. Hermione wouldn’t have been ridiculed about SPEW until she gave up. And so on.
Unless she is the most pessimistic leftist who can’t even dream of a world where things change for the better when she creates that world all by her own.
What gate-keeping philosophy suggests all leftists must oppose cops – did I not get the memo? I didn’t realize she’s a Thatcher plant because Harry went to work for the Ministry and overhaul it for a place of good lol.
In a capitalist society, cops are mostly busy with protecting rich people. I don’t think a material analysis of what cops are and do will result in anything that redeems the institution as it is now.
Hot take but I think that probably over-generalizes the role of police and is particularly centered specifically around American cop culture and not, say, European or Scandinavian ones.
Thus I remain unconvinced that this is what they are destined to do. If good cops exist, then it’s a matter of altering the system and model to promote good instead of bad seeds no differently than paying teachers better, or giving nurses more training.
On your link there, I’m sorry to say the author is making a very silly argument. It boils down to ‘if you see a specific race in this racist caricature then you’re the real racist’. This would only be true if racist caricatures were a new thing never seen before. It’s akin to saying ‘oh i didn’t mean black people when i screamed the n- word. You’re the racist for thinking the n- word refers to black people’.
That’s an extreme example but you see my point that there’s a history that’s being ignored.
Reading the article after playing Hogwarts Legacy gives me a slightly different feeling about that last paragraph…
Still a good article though.
I disagree. The Potter goblins are diminutive, hooknosed, saurian creatures, with creepy long fingers and crafty natures. They have exceptional financial skills and stop at nothing to acquire or protect money and precious objects. It is antisemitic that anyone would encounter such a character and think: “Aha, a Jew!”
No, John Stewart looked at the Harry Potter goblins and saw an offensive Jewish caricature. As an ethnically Jewish trans woman I agree with him. Rowling’s goblins and her Holocaust denial are harmful. I’m a huge Harry Potter fan too, so I don’t begrudge anyone for enjoying her content or even paying for content. I of course appreciate when people avoid those things. Profits from her games, books and movies go to funding anti-trans causes which make her content harmful. All I ask is that when Rowling does something harmful, like Holocaust denial or fund anti-trans causes people agree that what she is doing and her content is harmful.
The author once again attracted attention after donating $97,000 to For Women Scotland. The funds are earmarked for a legal challenge set to be heard in the UK Supreme Court. The objective of the lawsuit is to redefine the word “woman” such that it applies exclusively to cisgender women. The proposed redefinition stands to harm transgender women who have undergone gender-affirming procedures. Rowling publicly supported her donation, stating: “You know how proud I am to know you. Thank you for all your hard work and tenacity. This truly is a historic case.”
LGBTQ+ activists are warning that redefining the word “woman” paves the way for discrimination and prejudice against transgender or non-binary individuals.
To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:
I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.
To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:
I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.
John Stewart said the goblins are an offensive Jewish caricature. None of these statements contradict each other. The point is, no one looked at the goblins and thought they were Jews as the author of Please shut up about the Harry Potter Jew-goblins suggests. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that the goblins are collectively an offensive Jewish caricature.
None of these statements contradict each other.
I didn’t say they were, but I do think it’s an important distinction because the entire purpose of highlighting this in context of J.K. Rowling is to accuse her of explicit antisemitism. Whereas Jon (not John) continued to write:
“tropes [like the goblins bankers] are so embedded in society that they’re basically invisible.”
This means, indeed, that two things can be true at the same time: Rowling subconsciously used a Jewish caricature (as did Tolkien before her), and (2) Rowling is not Antisemitic.
Many people – not you, necessarily – equate the two.
Nowhere in my argument did I say Rowling was antisemitic. I said her goblins are harmful.
Rowling’s goblins and her Holocaust denial are harmful.
It really doesn’t matter if she did it intentionally or not, it’s harmful regardless.
Perhaps; though that’s not a reflection of her – but as Stewart points out society as a whole and the power we give to racist stereotypical tropes in the first place – it’s a convenient target for those who are already looking to hate on her for other more substantive reasons.
On a separate note, do you not think it’s a stretch to lump her in with holocaust deniers this quickly? Isn’t it a little too soon to categorize her lack of understanding that the concept of trans or books being burned occurred under nazis versus those who deny millions were murdered in general? If anything, doesn’t that water-down the category of Holocaust Deniers?
Pro tip: used book sales do not generate royalties. I bought the full set of HP from a local used bookstore with no guilt.
Acquiring a copy on the open ocean also provides no royalties.
Sure but used book stores are great, you can find some weird shit sometimes. Serisously I once found an old ass copy of dianetics in the sci-fi section, old lady running the place found it great that I got her little joke.
My kids are trans/have trans friends and they square this circle by believing that “J.K. Rowling” is Danny Devito’s pen name
Damn, the kids ARE alright. That’s awesome.
The type of Holocaust denial they’re suggesting she’s doing wouldn’t make her antisemitic, because she’s not denying its impact on the Jewish people. It just makes her more transphobic, which we already knew.
It is an interesting question, is she denying this because she hates jews or because she hates trans
Why not both?
Because we have substantially more evidence for one than the other.
Didn’t she name the only black character Shacklebolt? Also, Cho Chang is the only Asian?
Kingsley Shacklebolt…
The Irish character kept blowing things up…
Ah yes, Seamus
Maybe she just likes Nazis?
It’s almost like conservatives are vile, grotesque garbage-based life forms who thrive on the misery and death of others.
Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.
Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction due to unbridled human activities.
Are they also a plague?You should avoid bringing negative connotations to words that can be or are a force for good.
Rename the evil if you want, but don’t turn away the good as you focus solely on the bad.even if they were the same word… context has meaning.
in a politics news sub, talking about politics; you’d have to be a moron to conflate conservatives [individuals who espouse conservative politics] with something else.
One, this is regular news. Nowhere in the title of the community or the rules listed does it say only politics news, far as I’ve seen.
Two, you’d have to be a moron to consider people who don’t think the same way you do as morons.
Three, morons are allowed to participate in society. If you disagree with this, well, good thing we’re in the right place to discuss discrimination.context.
You wouldn’t expect an article about MC Hammer, some one saying “its hammer time!” to mean home improvement. it’s a news sub, and the article is about politics, not wildlife conservation. you’re being obtuse.
Why not? Here’s an example.
“It’s Hammer Time”
MC Hammer, famously known for hit song decides to change careers and go into home improvement.
It’s completely in line with media expectations.
That could actually be a great The Onion theme.
Inflamatory - but ambiguos - headline with the article jumping from theme to theme through homonyms and context changesHomonym: The Game from 30 Rock.
Only if we get the construction vest guy from the Village people to do a cover. Is he still alive?
Lol bro really doesn’t know the difference between conservatives and conservationists.
Hey can everyone please assume good faith. This is an easy enough mistake to make if you are ESL.
Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction
No. “Conservative” and “conservationist” are two very different words with two very different definitions. You seem to be confusing the two.
Oh! I thought they were referring to hunters or something.
You’re partially right. I am confusing the two, but not the spirit of their meaning, which is “to conserve”. Conservation is a force for good, but this political party thing is only focused on the bad.
Why let it occupy the entire meaning and overshadow its better uses? To say “Conservative” with disgust is to ignore its potential for better uses.To believe “conservative” branded political parties are conflated with the English connotations of the word is quite frankly falling for propaganda at this point. Politically speaking “conservative” has a unique meaning that has nothing really to do with financial prudence or slow and measured progress. What they seek to “conserve” is old power structures. Heirachies founded on intergenerational wealth or old exclusionary policy that created privileged citizen classes. Sometimes they dress it up in the mask of “traditional values” but it’s all basically just smoke and mirrors. It’s why they attack inclusive policy, civil rights fights including education policies, social safety nets and tax policies that target wealthier citizens. They have to “conserve” the pecking order where old money remains uncontested power, new money casts the illusion that upward mobility it possible and nobody is allowed to mention that they are being treated as a second class citizen.
The idea of self branding yourself a “conservative” serves by flattering ones own ego because as a label it’s primed to make one feel reasonable and measured… But. It’s just fluff.
Why change things when you can argue semantics?
This is about changing things. But we’re talking about different things to change it seems.
And yes, semantics.
I appreciate that there has been some confusion regarding the use of this word. And I also appreciate your sentiment that it would be nice to focus on the positive. However, so much evil throughout history has come from conservatism, that the word weighs heavily with negative connotation that should not be removed.
In social context, nothing good in the history of mankind has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Here is a non-political definition, for some clarification. Note the lack of preservation of nature.
conservative /kən-sûr′və-tĭv/ adjective
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style. "a conservative dark suit." Moderate; cautious. "a conservative estimate."The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Moderate; cautious.
Yes, these are my thoughts on the word’s meaning, in large.
A moderate and cautious approach to change.
Absolute refusal of change is the extremism part of this definition that seems to be viewed as its defining attribute instead.
Fair enough. If politically conservative people legislated with a moderate, cautious demeanor, I would respect that. In fact, I might even side with them on several policies.
Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.
Lol no
Viewing words that prescriptively is kinda insane and willfully ignorant.
When someone says “gay”, do you start arguing about how “it has nothing to do with sexuality, it just means carefree’, ‘cheerful’, or ‘bright and showy’.”?
Cmon. Cmon. CMON
It means both. And both meanings started as positive, then one meaning became the focus and the other completely ignored.
That’s what you should be upset about.
A moderate and cautious approach to change.
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to gain independence from colonialists?
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to ending slavery?
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to giving workers basic rights?
-
Shore up the defenses, create logistics trains, be certain of the allies available, initiate battle when ready and after all diplomatic recourses have failed.
-
Have a standing replacement framework, compensate losses, ratify laws to support equal rights in its entirety, reduce support of transgressors in public eyes over time. There were few slave owners. Turning the masses against them wouldn’t have been difficult.
-
Prepare alternative replacement in case of refusal, then support unionizing while giving subsidies to encourage participation.
Ideally, it’s supposed to advance slowly while keeping everyone relatively happy and stable.
A government is supposed to consider all of its citizens and that means taking into consideration the consequences of failure, while also planning how to remedy them.-
Oh my fuck, clearly the context is lost on you.
I think context is more important and in this context disgust is the correct emotion.
I’ve found that context matters little when emotion takes precedence.
So which of your emotions made you ignore the context?
Pity.
Conservative is yet another word that’s been commandeered to the ends of the right wing. They have a long history of distorting or outright willfully misinterpreting words and symbols. Their use of the punisher logo is a classic example
That’s the thing though, anyone can twist words to fit one’s view. So why accept their vilification? Why jump into that pot of vitriol and say “yes, this is how it has to be”?
sheesh you have thoroughly drunk the kool aid, wake up
That’s conservationists. Different word, different meaning, and most importantly different people for the most part
This makes me think of that woman who was insistent that she was not a musician because she makes music, not magic
It’s almost like you were posting this in a space full of people who will agree with you just cause you are of the same bunch.
Absolutely.
The person above apparently posts here specifically because they don’t agree with us based on their responses in this thread. So I guess they don’t understand why people would want to be around those they are in agreement with.
Who cares…?
The more you share these people, the more you support them.
Nah, put them on blast, air out their dirty laundry, let people see that these aren’t just ‘respected people’ with concerns about the evil transgenders but actually broadly politically active ghouls
She’s denying that nazis committed genocidal actions against trans people during the holocaust.
I get that that may not matter to you, but that is incredibly important to me. I cannot ignore when someone is trying to claim that trans people like me were not victims of the holocaust. I cannot ignore genocide denial. She had a real effect on politics and public opinion. It is very important that she be called out for her words and actions.
Maybe it’s just me, but she said “Nazis did not persecute trans people.”
Do you have evidence showing that Nazis specifically targeted trans people? If I had to guess, I’d wager they didn’t even consider “trans” to be a thing. They probably just lumped them in with the other “queers.”
I’m not responsible for you or JK Rowling being ignorant on history.
Good place to start. They absolutely considered trans people to be a thing and specifically targeted trans people as part of the holocaust and in their propaganda. They demonized Magnus Hirschfield as being a pedophile and corrupting the natural order of man and woman. They appealed to eugenicist mothers by saying that the influence of his clinic would cause their children to be trans and therefore subhuman.
Magnus was a gay jewish man. He was a pioneering figure in transgender rights. Lili Elbe, the Danish woman, received vaginoplasty and a womb transplant at his institute for sexology. She wasn’t the first person to receive it there. Trans women were prescribed hormones there in very early hormone therapy regimens.
Stop denying genocide against us. You are literally doing the thing we’re all here to talk about. Stop denying my history.
Care to elaborate?
Lack reading comprehension?
I thought it was pretty well known that the Nazi party destroyed the first thing we would consider a Trans hospital?
She should have done a tiny bit of googling.
Third result on Google was the right wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft
The vast majority of people dont know this. Its an obscure fact that people share regularly in forums like Lemmy, but are not part of any mainstream discussion of the holocaust.
It wasn’t news to me and I feel I have a fairly decent understanding of nazi atrocities, but I also wouldn’t be confident in denying it without first researching.
Iirc, one of the most famous pictures of a book burning was right outside that hospital, and the books came from inside it.
Non gender conforming people were the first group they came after.
Yes. And also it should be known that this isnt part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the genocide against Jews. But the Nazis persecuted lots of groups of people, and committed all kinds of crimes against humanity.
Not every heinous Nazi crime is “the Holocaust”. But it’s just as awful and denying it should lead to a social ban against the denier.
Sadly, for those involved, society at large didn’t really give a shit enough to teach about every group attacked by nazis. From the history books openly available at the time in my country at least, post communist era, Jews were the main victims, gypsies second and the handicapped or malformed in third place, as per importance in extermination.
That’s it.I doubt her education was better than mine and she seemed willing to accept the updated information as explained in the article, so it’s not that she’s completely rigid.
And to be unbiased, “deviants from the norm” were attacked in every major country, before and after the nazist period. Book burnings are common enough even now. So linking this exclusively to the Holocaust is in poor taste and denies it being a global issue that has little to do with Nazism itself but rather the causes that elected its rise.
But it’s also true that the Nazis specifically exterminated them, as opposed to for example Weimar or GDR.
It’s a good point that British education is awful, it was illegal to talk about gays at all when JK was getting her education, but also that’s why you shouldn’t make bold definitive claims like this and when you get proven wrong you should apologize and stop and when you get schooled by George Takei you should listen.
The amount of people defending her statements in this thread is absolutely disgusting. I wonder why she feels so emboldened as to say such horrific things in public?
Because people can’t tell the difference between the Israeli government and a random jewish person in North America that has nothing to do with anything
I think it’s great. My block-list is filling out nicely. Hope the trolls keep exposing themselves in such brazen careless fashion :)
Maybe I’m missing a federation because I’m not seeing the agreement comments.
I was wrong. So so wrong. Phone wouldn’t scroll.
It’s honestly upsetting to see.
When they’re financially or socially insulated from the consequences of their actions or words it’s pretty awful what people reveal about themselves.
