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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.