180
JK Rowling condemns Lilly Wachowski's claim she's 'funding trans genocide' (www.thepinknews.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [M] to c/fuck_jk@quokk.au
79 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Sense8 creator said: “JK Rowling funds trans genocide, full stop. So, if you support Harry Potter, you’re supporting trans genocide.

“The money that goes into you enjoying these products, a portion of that money goes to JK Rowling and that money goes into her funding anti-trans legislation all over the world.”

Wachowski suggested that trans allies should boycott work that benefitted Rowling financially, including HBO’s upcoming TV adaptation of the Harry Potter series.

“In the same way that if you are against Elon Musk, you boycott or don’t buy Tesla; and if you’re against global warming/climate change, you try not to buy as much gas, you try to mitigate your use of these products,” she said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

No way you can expect anyone to read that after the first sentence. You highly earned a tag edit. And the first one was not complimentary as it was

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (12 children)

    I mean, if you wanna judge a book by its cover and tell the person, that says a lot more about you than it does me. And you can't really dispute that since you said you can't comprehend a post longer than a Tweet or a TikTok video.

    That said, I wish I could figure out this user tagging thing. It sounds kinda useful. I thought it was a PieFed thing, but you're on Lemmy.world. It could be the interface I'm using. The app I use doesn't present the option, either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

    It's entirely possible to have the ability but not the desire to read a wall of text.

    Not reading a wall of text doesn't reasonably preclude someone from disputing a claim unrelated to the content of that text, it's odd that you'd think that.

    Complicit probably isn't the right word, but to claim there's no link at all is factually incorrect.

    The fact that a proportion of the money in rowling's hands goes directly into funding anti-trans efforts isn't in dispute.

    She's the first in line to back up that claim.

    If your enjoyment of the media isn't soured by that, thats your call, everybody does what they can live with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    If your enjoyment of the media isn't soured by the knowledge that it directly funds hate and genocide, you're a piece of shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    That's an opinion, sure.

    There's a great deal of modern day interactions that are similar in nature, where each person draws their line is up to them.

    How people view other peoples line is also up to them.

    What i was getting at here wasn't the subjective morality or ethics, that is an interesting subject though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    The rise of Donald Trump has shown me that a full third of the population is unrepentantly mean and bigoted and actively wants people like me dead. A full half the population doesn't care that they want to kill me as long as I didn't disturb their peace, and if I do then I'm the problem. And most of the rest seem willing to sacrifice trans kids to the bigots and uncaring majority in a misguided attempt to save themselves. Humans aren't good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    People are people, peoples perception of "good" and "bad" is relative and contextual.

    Take that in to account when building your expectations of people.

    I personally try to take the approach that everyone is inherently selfish and will do what's best/convenient for themselves (and perhaps the people closest to them).

    and i mean selfish as a neutral descriptor, not a derogatory term.

    No expectations, no disappointment, but i know that's not a viable approach for a lot of people (and i'm not immune to the occasional hope of someone pleasantly surprising me).

    I'm not saying i don't expect good things/behaviours to happen, i just try not to build expectations on that eventuality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    That's not very useful though. There are perfectly sound arguments that empathy and altruism are inherently selfish and self serving. Selfish behaviors can be pro-social, but humans tend strongly toward the anti-social ones in spite of being intrinsically social creatures. Humans are not good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    It's useful to me, ymmv.

    And again, your perception of good is just that, yours.

    I happen to agree with the sentiment in general terms but I fully understand it's just my subjective experience and i wouldn't use it as a baseline for others.

    There are people I would consider "good" , but it's very contextual, people are mercurial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    My perception of good is based on empirical evidence on the affects of pro- and antisocial behaviors at the societal level. Our current society is inherently antisocial, and more humans are concerned with maintaining the status quo than improving things for everyone. Humans are not good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    An excellently described personal and subjective approach to determining good vs bad.

    Im not saying you're wrong, im saying your chosen usage and/or perception of metrics isn't universal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Nothing is universal, and not every discussion on lemmy about good or evil needs to devolve into a philosophical discussion on ontology. Good or bad are ultimately meaningless value judgements but you didn't need value judgements to see how large scale human behavior and society is actively harmful to humans. I'm perfectly comfortable declaring that state to be "not good."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It’s entirely possible to have the ability but not the desire to read a wall of text.

    Okay, but if you refuse to comprehend and understand what someone is saying, your ability isn't relevant. The person you're telling the world you aren't listening to isn't obligated to take you seriously at all. Because you're not making arguments. You're stating that you're ignorant — whether or not this is true is not relevant, because you're presenting that about yourself. Who am I to dispute your claims about you? I don't know you IRL. I'm just going to take your word that you're a pigeon on a chessboard — rather than make an intelligent move, you're just going to knock over all the pieces and make a big show of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    It is directly relevant if you're making a claim against that ability.

    since you said you can’t comprehend a post longer than a Tweet or a TikTok video.

    It isn't what they said, at all

    No way you can expect anyone to read that after the first sentence.

    Is what they actually said.

    The person you’re telling the world you aren’t listening to isn’t obligated to take you seriously at all.

    Fair.

    You’re stating that you’re ignorant — whether or not this is true is not relevant, because you’re presenting that about yourself. Who am I to dispute your claims about you? I don’t know you IRL. I’m just going to take your word that you’re a pigeon on a chessboard — rather than make an intelligent move, you’re just going to knock over all the pieces and make a big show of it.

    I'm not the person same person from that reply.

    While that imagery is vivid and amusing, it's a lot to read from a two line reply that doesn't mention intelligence at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent