you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AreYouSureee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I stand with Rowling. I think this article hit the nail on the head. She’s not a transphobe, nothing she’s said does any harm to trans, and the thing’s she’s compared to are ridiculous.

However, I also agree with this part:

“The wealthy should not use their position to threaten people into silence. Given the size of Rowling’s platform, she could easily have ridiculed the article and won public support instead. As someone who has been targeted for cancellation, Rowling should know better.“

[–]lefterfield 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ehh, when you're telling actual lies about people, wealthy or not, that's not the same thing as being silenced. Yes, it'd be nice if non-wealthy people had the resources to pursue these kinds of resolutions, but that doesn't make JKR wrong because she can.

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

^ Agreed.

Also, I can't help but wonder if this same "advice" to be ever-saintly toward your libelous abusers would have been applied if she'd been a wealthy man.