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

[merithyn]

And you see that as "bad" across the board?

[Sheilbh]

Sure I mean her children would be mixed race if Hermione's black, no?

Right. But if it was colorblind casting accounting for that kind of thing wouldn't be needed and surely not just Hermione would be different races as well yes?

Well as I say I think there's an open question in the book - I just looked at something on this and she's mainly described as having bushy hair and buck-teeth, that's it physically. The only mention of her skin, apparently, is of her and Ron: "they were there, both of them, sitting outside Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor — Ron looking incredibly freckly, Hermione very brown, both waving frantically at him." The only reason we think of Hermione as white is because of the films. So I don't see this as a kind of retro-fit dictated by Rowling in the way the "Dumbledore is gay" stuff sort of is.

I don't know if the other roles went through colour-blind casting. I think it's fair that you then cast mixed race kids. The play creates a world in its own way. But the other point is theatre especially tends to be the most fluid and the most adaptive - so in loads of productions where this isn't the point you'll see colour and gender blind casting - so you know I think the actor who played Hermione had previously been working on a new piece in the Royal Court (theatre for new writing) where she'd replace Kim Cattrall. And then there are some where it very much is the point - I've seen all female productions of Julius Caesar, all male A Midsummer Knight's Dream, famously there was a race-reversed production of Othello starring Patrick Stewart as Othello.

[DGuller]

And you see that as "bad" across the board?

I see that as highly dangerous.  Sure, it's warm and fuzzy when "bad guys" are on the receiving end, but who defines who the "bad guys" are?  Redlining was also a boycott, and people engaging in it thought they were doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[garbon]

And you see that as "bad" across the board?

I see that as highly dangerous.  Sure, it's warm and fuzzy when "bad guys" are on the receiving end, but who defines who the "bad guys" are?  Redlining was also a boycott, and people engaging in it thought they were doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Okay, yes things can be used for good and bad.

In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?

[DGuller]

In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?

Democratic participation can absolutely be a highly dangerous thing.  That's why we have a very elaborate system of limits on what the majority can impose on minority, and why democracies without those limits often degenerate into extremely autocratic regimes. 

The Soviet Union during Stalin's times is thought of as a totalitarian place, and it was, but how it got there was by democratic process within the Communist Party.  The winning majority within the party essentially voted to have the losing minority shot.  Pretty soon everyone within the surviving majority realized that they would never ever want to wind up in minority, so every decision was unanimous (as lampooned in "The Death of Stalin").

[merithyn]

I see it as an option for the "silent majority" to make their voices heard through their pocketbook/stated opinion.

No matter how I vote in my current state, Republicans will be elected to the East, and Democrats to the West. I can't influence that in any way. But I can say, "I don't approve of this way of thinking." It's happened the other direction for years, repressing "others" for as long as this country has been around. Are we now going to say this is a problem because the "others" are finally using it to get those rights?

[garbon]

In 2008, voters in California voted to get rid of gay marriage. Is democratic participation then a highly dangerous thing?

Democratic participation can absolutely be a highly dangerous thing.  That's why we have a very elaborate system of limits on what the majority can impose on minority, and why democracies without those limits often degenerate into extremely autocratic regimes. 

The Soviet Union during Stalin's times is thought of as a totalitarian place, and it was, but how it got there was by democratic process within the Communist Party.  The winning majority within the party essentially voted to have the losing minority shot.  Pretty soon everyone within the surviving majority realized that they would never ever want to wind up in minority, so every decision was unanimous (as lampooned in "The Death of Stalin").

Well there are limits to what you can do on social media too. Death threats and real life harassment can end in prosecution.

I'm not sure it makes to have limits on what can happen to a brand/company or livelihood though as far as job being lost or company going out of business.

[garbon]

Also what about the flipside where we have that hashtag about standing with Rowling and that mob is saying truly vile/transphobic things to trans people. Do we not care about their mental health because some people are "cancelling" Rowling?

[crazy canuck]

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.

boycotts have been illegal for a century?  Please indicate the criminal or civil code sections which make it illegal for a consumer to decide not to purchase a product or service? 

Also, how do you preserve free speech by restricting its use to criticize or express opposition.  You brought up 1984.  You should think about your own double meaning.

[viper37]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

For instance, I have a list of stores that I won't shop at because I don't want my money supporting their causes. If asked, I'll explain why I won't go there, but I haven't gone online and advocated for others to do the same. Again, if asked, I'll explain on Facebook or Twitter, but it's not something I'm actively pushing on others. I have also let those businesses know why I won't be spending my money in their stores.

If you are protesting in front of the store, harrassing customers, it's a step too far.  If you convince some of your friends to do it with you, enough so that you blockade entry to the store, it is beyond harrassment.  In the real world, they could sue you, or ask the police to clear you from their front lawn.  On the internet, even if it goes to death threat, it's unlikely anything would happen, unless you're alone and you are targetting a visible minority group or individual, or someone influent/rich enough to afford lawyers to draft a formal complaint against you.  Otherwise, it will be lost in the noise.

If, like some vegan activists, you enter a slaughterhouse to film yourself mistreating animals then post it online saying this is the animal cruelty you witnessed at this place, it is, at the very least, libel.

Again, in the real world, if they identify you, you are in trouble.  On the internet, if you create a fake video, post it on the darkweb behind a vpn, it's highly unlikely you'll be traced, and then the thing goes viral and the company suffers bad publicity for something undeserved.  This is the equivalent of cancel culture: you don't like something X does or say, so you destroy their reputation and the truth gets lost in the war.

That would be no different than what we all complain about coming from Fox News, Breitbart and the likes.

[Solmyr]

Does this apply to personal boycotting?

There is no such thing as personal boycotting, just like there is no personal strike.  Boycott is by definition a collective behavior.

So I no longer shop at Hobby Lobby because they fucked me over 9 years ago, yes I hold grudges. Is that a boycott or something else?

Something else.  A boycott would be if you join a movement to not shop at Hobby Lobby, and also hassle others to not shop there either.

If my company does something unethical and I resign in protest, I'm not going on strike.  I'm doing something, but striking is not it.  If I get 75% of my colleagues to walk out of a job and demand changes, then I'm striking.  Boycott is more or less a strike by commercial counter-parties (not necessarily customers).

So basically, you see organizing mass protests against a company acting unethically as very bad and unacceptable. Does this apply only to companies? Can you organize mass protests against a government acting unethically?

[merithyn]

Well, he's on record as disliking organized mass protests against individuals like JK Rowling, too.

[Sophie Scholl]

1) Was Hermione shown (and as such her apparent race) on any book covers or official materials prior to her casting? I honestly don't know. I never read the books and only saw pieces of the movies when I worked at a movie theater. I was just starting the first book recently when Rowling's TERF bullshit went from a "maybe" to 100% confirmed. I decided to stop reading it immediately.
2) Was boycotting South Africa during the Apartheid era a bad thing? Was the Anti-Apartheid Movement/Boycott Movement evil and an abuse of free speech?
3) The TERF Movement seems to be focused primarily in Britain. Personally, I'd like to see it contained and eliminated there before it spreads. Even now though, anti-trans arguments are being injected globally by the Right.
4) So many of the anti-trans arguments are literal recycling of prior anti-gay and racist arguments just brought back from the dead like the product of a hate necromancer.
5) Thank you to those individuals who stand in support of Trans Rights.

[Valmy]

1) Was Hermione shown (and as such her apparent race) on any book covers or official materials prior to her casting? I honestly don't know. I never read the books and only saw pieces of the movies when I worked at a movie theater. I was just starting the first book recently when Rowling's TERF bullshit went from a "maybe" to 100% confirmed. I decided to stop reading it immediately.

Yes. Here she is on the the original cover of Prisoner of Azkaban from 1999, prior to the first film.

[grumbler]

I must admit that seeing the pro-trans community tear itself apart (going so far as to label a person who has vehemently supported trans rights a "TERF") is pretty bizarre.  People on both sides seem absolutely determined to misread and twist the statements of the "other side" (which is really the same side) to create a crisis that only the actual anti-trans types will benefit from.

I guess this is just another example of the radical driving out the rational.