It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
When asked why the British author's views on trans people aligned with the Nazis, and Rowling said that Nazis did not persecute trans people.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
She knows she is doing it and doesnt care.
Like every conservative, they just want queer people dead, unless its their own children.
She's not a conservative, she's a liberal (in the political science sense of the word, not the USian synonym for leftist).
It's not 100% clear where Rowling's transphobia comes from. She certainly fits into the group of transphobic cis women who have been abused by cis men and concluded that all men are evil, including the ones that want to be women.
But there's also a dynamic which I think you can see with Graham Linehan and Dave Chappelle as well. Born into comfortable middle-class families, well-educated, never really thought about their bog-standard liberalism. Became extremely successful, became accustomed to near universal adoration, made a thoughtless transphobic comment/skit, received criticism and reacted with absolute fury at the idea they could possibly be prejudiced about anything. Because they're liberals, you see.
All three just keep digging that hole deeper rather than face up to the idea that maybe they got something wrong. Linehan's career is over (as is his marriage), Dave Chappelle is hanging on by a thread and flirting with the right, and Rowling doesn't give a shit because she's a billionaire and does not have to give a shit about anything at all.
She's a blairist, and blairists are only slightly less morally bankrupt thatcherites.
For all their sins, a true European style liberal wouldn't want the state to tell you which restroom you use or what medical treatment they have access to - of course they also believe that trans people that were born into poor families don't deserve access to any medical treatment at all but that's another story.
She's not a conservative, she's a liberal...
You are mixing definitions.
In fiscal policy, "conservatism" is opposite "liberalism".
In social policy, "conservatism" is opposite "progressivism".
No one here is accusing this homophobic bridge troll of having conservative fiscal policy.
She is socially conservative. And as such, she is a bigot. There can be no defense of her from anyone who is not a bigot.
No. We're talking political categorisations, not the dictionary definition.
Conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal.
Liberals are socially liberal and economically liberal.
Liberals have never had a problem abandoning their high-minded ideals when there were savages to civilise. Because liberalism has no analysis of power, and an absolute belief in the fundamental impossibility that they could be wrong about anything.
There's no doubt that she is shifting to the right, because they are fawning over her and she has no politics. See also Linehan and Chappelle. They were all bog-standard liberals before being criticised.
Chappelle was only liberal where racism was concerned. Otherwise he has been squarely neo-liberal when pushed into any political discussion. I believe Rowling has also always been neo-liberal.
Neo-liberals are conservatives. They toy with progressivism only when it benefits them. But, neo-liberals are otherwise conservatives with a bit more tact than typical conservatives.
You're not wrong, except in believing that classical liberalism was ever any different.
I no longer confuse classical liberalism with progressivism. I was corrected on that topic a few years ago and learned my lesson.
I hate that conservatives in the U.S. worked so hard to use these terms interchangably. They've gleefully created chaos with their misuse of words as pejoratives and it makes having adult conversations so much more complicated. Which I suppose was their goal all along.
I believe that's why "centrist" has become a popular substitute word, to sidestep the confusion.
Don't get me started on centrists. What a wonderfully convenient way for a conservative to hide their shame in social settings! Ten years ago, that word meant nothing to me. Now, it just means "embarrassed conservative" to me.
I assume you talk about centrist as in USA context? Because what you're saying doesn't make much sense to me as Northern European
Ahh, yes. Here in the U.S., some conservatives have become ashamed to admit they are conservatives, especially after the Trump presidency. So now they call themselves centrists.
They are still very conservative. They just don't want to be equated with the most extreme of their party. They think being somewhere between neo-nazi and neo-liberal is called "centrist".
Her world views are absolutely conservative by today’s standard. Especially her views on gender roles. I mean have you read Harry Potter when you were younger? All important characters that actually shape the plot are male. She went out of her way to give Harry different father figures, believing that‘s what a boy needs when he grows up. But it‘s enough when his mother just loved him. Her female characters are far less layered than the male ones and more often than not reduced to mere tropes. The most prominent one being the pedantically strict auntie, a template which wich gets pasted a lot. There’s also the crazy auntie character and the tomboy. But that‘s pretty much it, really. Hermione herself ranges between overly strict and tomboy throughout the books and the only way she managed to escape this pattern is by… magic plastic surgery to shrink her front teeth. Rowling has clearly defined genders to be a black or white kind of thing for herself and she clearly outlined which gender has to fill what role.
Totally agree with all of that. But I think the disagreement is based on what you think a liberal is. She is a New Labourite through and through.
British transphobia is as prevalent amongst middle-class, white liberals (centrists) as it is on the right; I'd say that they started it here.
Writers for The Guardian (US) wrote a letter protesting that bastion of liberalism's transphobic stance: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK.
The political dividing line here is very, very different to that in the US.
The reason traditional gender roles are called than and are that is because most people act in accordance with them.
And I disagree that all female characters have less depth intentionally.
These are still books about a boy, told from his point of view. Most of the depth is in his head.
She’s not a conservative, she’s a liberal (in the political science sense of the word, not the USian synonym for leftist).
No leftist self-identifies as a liberal in the US.
Liberal and leftist are synonyms to the US right such that everyone left of them is considered a "liberal", and the term is usually used pejoratively.
It's usually used perjoratively by the left, tbf.
In the established party-political sense, Liberal is now clear enough. But liberal as a term of political discourse is complex. It has been under regular and heavy attack from conservative positions, where the senses of lack of restraint and lack of discipline have been brought to bear, and also the sense of a (weak and sentimental) generosity. The sense of a lack of rigour has also been drawn on in intellectual disputes. Against this kind of attack, liberal has often been a group term for PROGRESSIVE or RADICAL (qq.v.) opinions, and is still clear in this sense, notably in USA. But liberal as a pejorative term has also been widely used by socialists and especially Marxists. This use shares the conservative sense of lack of rigour and of weak and sentimental beliefs. Thus far it is interpreted by liberals as a familiar complaint, and there is a special edge in their reply to socialists, that they are concerned with political freedom and that socialists are not. But this masks the most serious sense of the socialist use, which is the historically accurate observation that liberalism is a doctrine based on INDIVIDUALIST (q.v.) theories of man and society and is thus in fundamental conflict not only with SOCIALIST (q.v.) but with most strictly SOCIAL (q.v.) theories. The further observation, that liberalism is the highest form of thought developed within BOURGEOIS (q.v.) society and in terms of CAPITALISM (q.v.), is also relevant, for when liberal is not being used as a loose swear-word, it is to this mixture of liberating and limiting ideas that it is intended to refer. Liberalism is then a doctrine of certain necessary kinds of freedom but also, and essentially, a doctrine of possessive individualism.
Good point that is also true and it's the reason no leftist self-identifies as a liberal. However, my comment was in response to this statement:
She’s not a conservative, she’s a liberal (in the political science sense of the word, not the USian synonym for leftist).
My point (which you are supporting) is that leftist and liberal are not synonyms in the US except to people in the US who apply the term liberal wrongly.
I think the trans thing started as a sincerely held conviction very much a long the lines as you're describing, and while this is and can only be utter speculation, I have a feeling a lot of what comes after as in Chappelle, probably with Linehan (but I don't really know anything about his case) and also other examples like the vaccines cause autism guy, I think these people are seeing an opportunity in their ostracism to keeping their profiles high and business opportunities as well.
I think it's a sort of a 'hung for a sheep as for a lamb' kind of logic where you mightn't really have had any particular common cause with a lot of conservative views, or fringe elements before, but their willingness to embrace and lionize you for this one particular stance creates a new audience and market for you just as others are shrinking. From there it makes sense to gradually dole out hints and allusions to more conservative talking points and just keep ratcheting it up piecemeal to keep that profile up. For this to work you have to eventually be less hinting and more direct and the positions have to be more extreme and on more and more diverse matters, even ones you probably never had any opinion on because this is a pathway to becoming a kind professional provocateur and shock jock.
For some feminists, especially older ones, the transphobia comes from the long fight against the patriarchy and the feeling that men are trying to encroach on everything they fought for by becoming women. I had that explained to me by multiple (three) feminists in the last few years.
Yes, that's the divide within 'radical feminism'. The trans-exclusionary TERFs and the trans-inclusionary TIRFs. They both start with "gender is a social construct" but the TERFs have somehow got from there to biological essentialism. They're a minority of a minority. But they tend to be middle-class so they make a lot of noise.
They sound like pleasant people to be around
Graham Linehan
Wow, Linehan really dug in hard according to his Wiki.
A really tragic trajectory. His work was genuinely great. And there isn't going to be any more of it (unless his new fascist pals persuade him to do a Leni Riefenstahl for them).
HBomberGuy’s Donkey Kong 64 “Fuck You Graham” nightmare stream for trans rights was absolutely marvelous
and Rowling doesn’t give a shit
Basically when a virtue-signaling crowd wants you to confess your sins or something, not giving a shit is the right response. One can make it even better if in possession of a machine gun, of course.
Are you advocating for violence? I don’t understand your machine gun comment.
Just for having the right tools if the crowd doesn't stop with verbal demands
So you are advocating for shooting people who disagree with you. Got it. Thank you for showing the caliber of person you are.
If when you disagree with someone, you
doesn’t stop with verbal demands
instead of just going of with your life, then you deserve to be shot. Correct.
Maybe she just has her own views and your tribalistic mind can't comprehend that?
I know what I'd put my money on.
And her views are fucking hateful and stupid.
Not really. They're pretty rational.
You're just getting upset because she doesn't see people the way they want to be seen. Heads up buddy, that's how the real world works. Adults learn to get over it while children throw tantrums.
Adults with empathy do their best to make the world better for the people around them instead of just telling everyone to deal with it.
Children do what others tell them to even if they disagree with it.
So you're saying we should just turn the children of all conservatives queer? Alright, bring in the cat girls, 196 memes and let's pounce!
Joking aside, there's two archetypes of conservative:
- The Xenofobe, who is afraid of a changing world and that fear is strengthened by anything they experience as threatening to their image of how the world works. These people are more likely to warm to LGBTQIA+ people if they learn they're not so different, and everyone is just trying to exist, be themselves and love who they love. There is no agenda for taking over the world.
- The Cultist. These people are beyond saving and generally consist of the hardcore christofascist bible belt inbred morons that are generally dumb as fuck, but loud as hell. They are indoctrinated by their own bubble of conspiracy theorists to the point where they are firmly dug into their own story and nothing will change their views.
It is not worth fighting either group with animosity, condemnation or attacks, as they are more than capable of spinning the story their side and reinforcing their ideas that queers are somehow threatening.
But at least we should be capable of showing the xenofobes that there is no monster in that closet (pun intended), or under their beds.
As for Rowling, she is likely part of the cultist group, which means we're going to have issues. Her status as a celebrity and her wealth further isolates her from the rest of society, which is a real problem because that makes you able to opt out of confrontation with reality. She can just stategically isolate herself from ever coming into contact and having a real human interaction with the people she's having all these misguided ideas about.
I think everyone should be made more aware of the damage that social bubbles cause to society. Whether it's conservative communities, religious indoctrination, closed internet discussion groups or just the wealthy and famous distancing themselves from society (which is usually not by choice but because we treat them to a permanent dose of spotlights).
I wonder if you have read/heard the things Rowling has actually said about trans issues.
I also find it ironic that you liken her to a chrisofachist, when in the early 00s she was basically crucified by those people.
I certainly don't agree with everything she has said. But some of her points are genuine "maybe this is something that deserves conversation and contemplating", which are immediately construed as transphobic or hateful by many people who haven't personally read/heard what she said. People jump to screaming online instead of trying to refute her points.
Again, I do NOT agree with her on many, many things!