JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[DGuller]

I am not sure why you think the expression of ideas should be immune from criticism.  About 30 or so pages ago Grumbler correctly described what freedom of expression is.  I suggest you go back and read it.

I suggest you drop your smarmy patronizing attitude.  You haven't earned the right to apply it, and you definitely earned the right to have it applied to you many times over.

[Valmy]

I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.

I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.

It's possible to have failed attempted at cancelling.  Thankfully.  Just because you're being cancelled unsuccessfully doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have feelings about that.

She can feel any way she wants. Cancel culture is bad.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure why you think the expression of ideas should be immune from criticism.  About 30 or so pages ago Grumbler correctly described what freedom of expression is.  I suggest you go back and read it.

I suggest you drop your smarmy patronizing attitude.  You haven't earned the right to apply it, and you definitely earned the right to have it applied to you many times over.

Your position still makes no sense.  Bad ideas should be criticized.  That is how it is supposed to work.  You have not earned the right to re-imagine this fundamental element of Liberal Democracy.

[Tamas]

i am all for colour blind casting because at some point people will need to get over the fact that the range of skin/hair/eye colour range of people living in their countries have expanded since whatever period a movie represents, but you could walk into a right Twitter storm if you ended up colourblind-casting in the wrong colour direction.

[Syt]

I don't think people stop having feelings when they get rich.

I was addressing the claim she was being cancelled.

It's possible to have failed attempted at cancelling.  Thankfully.  Just because you're being cancelled unsuccessfully doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have feelings about that.

She can feel any way she wants. Cancel culture is bad.

I fail to see how Mrs Rowling is "canceled."

[Valmy]

I fail to see how Mrs Rowling is "canceled."

She wasn't.

Here is my last take on this:

She has been a little odd in wanting to insert herself into social issues and wanting to somehow update her series to be more socially relevent (or express odd or weird concepts like the poop thing or all the weird retcons she put in that last movie) after it completed all the way back in 2007. Now she has an opinion that is generally unpopular with her largely millenial audience and just needs to make that as public as possible by continuing to make noise about it. She is free to do those things, I just don't understand why she is doing either of them it seems all rather unhealthy and erratic.

But hey she can do what she wants, it is really not my business.

Oh and her opinions on trans issues are misguieded if that needs to be said. I don't find her opinions on this matter particularly convincing.

[DGuller]

Your position still makes no sense.  Bad ideas should be criticized.  That is how it is supposed to work.

There is a huge difference between criticism and boycott intended to suppress speech being criticized.  And that was originally my response to grumbler's arguments that you so pleasantly suggested I read. 

The concept of free speech extends beyond the constitution.  Having a boss fire employees who do anything other than unconditionally agree with him is not unconstitutional, but it sure is an authoritarian manner of behavior that suppresses free expression of ideas and is worthy of disdain.  There are behaviors worthy of disdain that do not violate the constitution, but we nevertheless should strive to avoid them in ourselves and discourage them in others if we want to live in a truly civil society.

[Razgovory]

So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"?  Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.

What is your alternative?  I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.  It's like a keystone of all society.

Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I

[DGuller]

So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"?  Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.

What is your alternative?  I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.  It's like a keystone of all society.

Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I

I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling.  We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.

[Valmy]

The problem is that by being a mob they can hide behind their anonymity. If you put yourself out there complete with blue checkmark you are vulnerable. Just as if you leave your front door open, obviously stealing somebody's shit is far worse than leaving your front door open but doing that is still unwise.

Twitter is the law of all against all as leviathan only rarely intervenes. There is a reason I got off.

[Razgovory]

So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"?  Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.

What is your alternative?  I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.  It's like a keystone of all society.

Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I

I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling.  We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.

Maybe they did consider it and felt that being a Nazi was worse than asking someone not to be a Nazi.

[crazy canuck]

Your position still makes no sense.  Bad ideas should be criticized.  That is how it is supposed to work.

There is a huge difference between criticism and boycott intended to suppress speech being criticized.

Rather than just asserting it, explain why boycotting is wrong.  And perhaps more importantly, how do you reconcile freedom of expression with your denunciation of  boycotts as a form of expression?

[crazy canuck]

So if you an express an opinion, and a cancel culture mob converges and calls you a transophobe, the appropritate response is "point taken, let's move on"?  Seething resentment is an entirely predictable outcome of an environment where people are shamed for expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.

What is your alternative?  I don't think anyone alive today has ever lived in a period where people aren't shamed from expressing opinions that are currently incorrect.  It's like a keystone of all society.

Hell, I know for a fact that this concept exists even where you came from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYqCi6o5r5I

I already said that my alternative is for everyone to consider cancelling a worse sin than anything that brings about canceling.  We already consider vigilante justice to be a worse sin than anything that brings about vigilantism, so it's not a reach to extend that mindset a little bit to cover vigilantism that targets reputations rather than lives.

Maybe they did consider it and felt that being a Nazi was worse than asking someone not to be a Nazi.

He just equated expressing condemnation of an idea with vigilante justice.  Not sure how you reason with that.

[merithyn]

In early June, the author wrote a series of comments on Twitter laying out her views on gender identity, including one that said: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives."

This confuses me. How does the way that one person views his/herself in anyway impinge on "the lived reality of women"?

[DGuller]

Rather than just asserting it, explain why boycotting is wrong. 

They're wrong in free speech cases for the same reasons they're wrong in commerce:  they are coercive and suppress freedom.  In commerce, boycotts result in a market that is not free, hence why they've been illegal for a century now.  They have the same effect in the marketplace of ideas.

And perhaps more importantly, how do you reconcile freedom of expression with your denunciation of  boycotts as a form of expression?

I reconcile it in a way that maximally preserves it:  being intolerant of free speech that destroys free speech, and being intolerant of no other kind of speech.