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
[–] 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