? People like to express their beliefs, even if their beliefs are unpopular.
>JK Rowling could have been the world’s most beloved author forever if she was content to dislike trans people quietly rather than loudly.
Seems like evidence that she prioritizes expression over status.
I think the idea here though is that it’s _weird_ that she’s seemingly let it consume her in such a complete way
This inconsistency on the part of the author struck me as well, apart from the obvious lie (it is not true that she "dislikes" trans people).
It started interesting but then I saw this:
> Rowling has turned into a one woman crusade against transgender people and the trans rights movement.
I understand people like oversimplifications but this is a longer piece and the statement above is simply untrue. Yes, her stance on transwomen being able to use private spaces dedicated to ordinary women is controversial, at least by today's standard, but she is not leading any "crusade against transgender people and the trans rights movement". For example of these, see any alt-right posting. Rowling has enormous respect to all trans-people, but she doesn't agree on some very specific points.
So if the author misses the truth an inch or two, I lost the trust in anything else they wrote in this piece.
It has always been astonishing to me—every single day, Elon Musk thinks to himself “instead of going off and being Richard Branson but richer, I will shitpost on this website that I bought.” Like what?
It is a shame, we have this giant wealth gap in the US but we waste it on the lamest rich people.
Don't be so proud of this technological terror that you have constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force.
if it really was the most powerful force, the button I’m going to press below should say “post”.
Instead it says “add comment”
Damn that free speech. It only causes problems. Better ban it altogether, then everything will be alright!
Did you read the article?
Did you? Punishing people for expressing themselves is Soviet, it's not Western.
Oh punishing people for expressing themselves is very Western. That's how we got the Inquisition, the witch trials, the Red Scare / McCarthyism, cancel culture and so on.
It's just morphed into generally non-violent forms over the years (which we can't argue aren't something of an improvement), rather than the classic bullet to the back of the neck technique preferred by the Soviet model.
“Punishing people” by calling them idiots, ignoring them, making fun of them, removing commercial opportunities from their grasp, and so on is exactly the marketplace of ideas in action.
Punishing people by exercising the power of the state — which is not what’s happening here — is the non-western thing.
Punishing them via the state is the next step. Imagine taking food from someone’s mouth because you disagree with them on a public issue.
Whatever happened to ‘I disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
What exactly are you advocating for here? Is it that people are obligated to just be nice to you regardless of what you say? Are you going to obligate people to engage in business transactions with you?
This dynamic has never existed in any free society, obviously.
Making fun of you, calling you names, and declining to associate with you is the marketplace of ideas. That's how ideas compete.
> JK Rowling could have lived out the rest of her life as the world's most beloved billionaire, with generations of adoring fans pouring out love at every opportunity. All she'd have to do is avoid making wildly controversial statements on the most divisive cultural issues imaginable.
Massive respect to JKR for standing up for the rights of women and girls, even if it is controversial.
Yes, she could have kept quiet and said nothing, but there are things much more important than being universally adored, and it's to JKR's credit that she values speaking out for what's right, way above basking in the adulation of celebrity.