The "Cancellation" of J.K. Rowling

[Trunkage]

J.K. Rowling has been getting people saying they want her dead just FYI.

Though this isn't that new she was getting them before and had to have a security gate installed a her hope in the past few months.

I think that proves my point rather than dissuades it.

Did you stop to think that people hate cancel culture because it's used to stifle debate and criticism?

It totally does. I think it should stop too.

I’m going to reiterate my point. I wish we would stop calling all CRITICISM cancel culture. I didn’t say that cancel culture is good, or shouldn’t be called out. I’m specifically saying that cancel culture, as a term, is used so broadly it covers heaps of things that aren’t even remotely cancel culture.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Did you stop to think that people hate cancel culture because it's used to stifle debate and criticism?

Here's my issue with people labeling stuff cancel culture, and/or pc. They are now the catch-all terms for the derisive current mindset of a certain "overly sensitive" group, when this mindset is as old as society.

It wasn't cancel culture when the Dixie Chicks condemned Bush and their once meteoric rise came crashing down because people didn't want to support anyone who dare spoke ill of the president. It wasn't cancel culture when white supremacists called for Boycotts of the Force Awakens or Rogue One because there wasn't enough white representation in an alien galaxy. It's not cancel culture when calls to boycott Starbucks over cups, not giving Marines free product, and same sex marriage. And a ton of other things

Now, personally, I'm a huge advocate of tolerance. Things should be talked out, the middle should always be sought. However, there was no conversation during these movements. They aren't retroactively labeled as cancel culture. They were people just speaking their minds, believing in a cause.

It feels like the label 'cancel culture' will only be affixed to certain people, while others do the same thing and are just true patriots or believers who will fight to death for their cause. Doesn't seem really balanced when you think of it.

​

​

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I think that proves my point rather than dissuades it.



It totally does. I think it should stop too.

I’m going to reiterate my point. I wish we would stop calling all CRITICISM cancel culture. I didn’t say that cancel culture is good, or shouldn’t be called out. I’m specifically saying that cancel culture, as a term, is used so broadly it covers heaps of things that aren’t even remotely cancel culture.

Well part of the reason this time is people pushing others to boycott or pirate J.K.'s works instead of supporting them

Here's my issue with people labeling stuff cancel culture, and/or pc. They are now the catch-all terms for the derisive current mindset of a certain "overly sensitive" group, when this mindset is as old as society.

It wasn't cancel culture when the Dixie Chicks condemned Bush and their once meteoric rise came crashing down because people didn't want to support anyone who dare spoke ill of the president. It wasn't cancel culture when white supremacists called for Boycotts of the Force Awakens or Rogue One because there wasn't enough white representation in an alien galaxy. It's not cancel culture when calls to boycott Starbucks over cups, not giving Marines free product, and same sex marriage. And a ton of other things

Now, personally, I'm a huge advocate of tolerance. Things should be talked out, the middle should always be sought. However, there was no conversation during these movements. They aren't retroactively labeled as cancel culture. They were people just speaking their minds, believing in a cause.

It feels like the label 'cancel culture' will only be affixed to certain people, while others do the same thing and are just true patriots or believers who will fight to death for their cause. Doesn't seem really balanced when you think of it.

​

​

That was mostly because people thought said moves and the groups doing them were morons to begin with.

Yes it's been happening for a while but now it's been named

Most likely the cancel term comes from #cancelcolbert that ran on social media many years back..

 

[Zeke davis]

Did you stop to think that people hate cancel culture because it's used to stifle debate and criticism?

People can be hypocrites and may use all the same kind of generalizations and rationalizations of bad faith they are defending their own group from on different targets. News at 11.

Rowling's in a better position to survive than other people. But it's the principle that matters.

I've already listed examples up people in similar circumstances, some of whom got fired, some of whom weren't. It doesn't take long for people to at least perceie a double standard. Plus, the questionable act of dredging up old tweets and springing out "gothca."

But there's the more practical side of things. Does cancel culture even work? Because so far, the evidence suggests that it hasn't. If you try to ban works, people will want to get those works. If you try to ban people, listening to them will seem all the more appealing.

A good chuck of that is different institutions with different cultures and different responses to pressure.
An objective definition of cancel culture will view as a form of actions different group may take part in. Not an ideological that will ever have a consistent list of what it's offended by.
As other said there's more to the JK story than those two tweets that this was months if not years in the making: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/19/21029874/jk-rowling-transgender-tweet-terf

The court judgement clafifes saying the person she's defending wants to cancel trans people out of women's spaces because then the rapists can get in.
When pressed she simplicity called the trans speaker a sexist deviant: https://assets.publishing.service.g...l_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf (Pages 7-8)
Despite what the OP personally believes about trans brains both maya and JK believe that sex being real means that they're not women and that they're too similar to an opportunistic rapists to not be canceled from women's spaces.

The fact remains in defense against cancel culture y'all just defended a canceler.
To be clear i wish society could be rational when discussing disagreements reasonably and only get offended at correct things. But what y'all just needs kinda leads to a confimation biases that this just isn't in the cards. Our discourse in it's very structure can't allow that to happen.

 

[Zeke davis]

People can be hypocrites and may use all the same kind of generalizations and rationalizations of bad faith they are defending their own group from on different targets. News at 11.

A good chuck of that is different institutions with different cultures and different responses to pressure.
An objective definition of cancel culture will view as a form of actions different group may take part in. Not an ideological that will ever have a consistent list of what it's offended by.
As other said there's more to the JK story than those two tweets that this was months if not years in the making: https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/12/19/21029874/jk-rowling-transgender-tweet-terf

The court judgement clafifes saying the person she's defending wants to cancel trans people out of women's spaces because then the rapists can get in.
When pressed she simplicity called the trans speaker a sexist deviant: https://assets.publishing.service.g...l_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf (Pages 7-8)
Despite what the OP personally believes about trans brains both maya and JK believe that sex being real means that they're not women and that they're too similar to an opportunistic rapists to not be canceled from women's spaces.

The fact remains in defense against cancel culture y'all just defended a canceler.
To be clear i wish society could be rational when discussing disagreements reasonably and only get offended at correct things. But what y'all just needs kinda leads to a confimation biases that this just isn't in the cards. Our discourse in it's very structure can't allow that to happen.

My edit got locked so let me make clear what i think the issue of what you guys of doing.

Misinformation leads people to project more innocent views onto the canceler allowing them to declare others the real cancelers leaving them free to block others.

The key thing is to note is that this may not even be the canceler's intent(It may not even be their attempt to cancel) this is all due to context fluidity of both ideological biases and internet context.

Now her actions doesn't jusfily by themselves the "canceling" of her but one needs to avoid the vice versa.

 

[Dreiko]

Not sure how you can cancel her, she's not writing any new Potter books, right? She still has her money. People will just kiss her ass less online?


This reminds me of the thing where she was trying to virtue signal by making chars gay or Hermione black in that one theatrical play and being celebrated for it. Back then people who called it out for the cynical calculated virtue signaling that it is were being met with insults by the very same groups seeking to cancel her now.

Irony is a dish best served cold.


I think as long as people don't care about what people's real views are and make it impractical to be earnest while also flocking to anyone who espouses the "correct opinions" things like this will keep happening. You'll get a series of fake woke people trying to survive by faking their wokeness until they eventually get revealed for being impure normal humans instead and then they get a taste of their own medicine. Best not play this game at all. Also it's good to realize most people don't care about the things you do, and aren't obligated to, so it's wise to stop expecting it out of them.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not sure how you can cancel her, she's not writing any new Potter books, right? She still has her money. People will just kiss her ass less online?


This reminds me of the thing where she was trying to virtue signal by making chars gay or Hermione black in that one theatrical play and being celebrated for it. Back then people who called it out for cynical calculated virtue signaling that it is were being met with insults by the very same groups seeking to cancel her now.

Irony is a dish best served cold.


I think as long as people don't care about what people's real vies are and will flock to anyone who espouses the 3 "correct opinions" things like this will keep happening.

Technically she is still writing something possibly potter related (I've not seen the latest Fantastic Beasts film) but I'm under the impression she's writing the scripts for Fantastic Beasts 3 (also apparently there will be a 4 & 5 so those too).

Also there is that Harry Potter Open world RPG game at some point too though that's only using the licence she's not as involved in that.

I find it funny about the whole making Hermione black in the play because the entire point was they just happened to pick a black actress apparently at least for the UK performances. When the play was licensed or whatever to other countries quite a few of them decided to also specifically pick a black actress for Hermione when the kind of point was meant to be anyone could play any role really so you could have had a Japanese Hermione but nope none of the other companies decided to go with that.

 

[Dreiko]

Technically she is still writing something possibly potter related (I've not seen the latest Fantastic Beasts film) but I'm under the impression she's writing the scripts for Fantastic Beasts 3 (also apparently there will be a 4 & 5 so those too).

Also there is that Harry Potter Open world RPG game at some point too though that's only using the licence she's not as involved in that.

I find it funny about the whole making Hermione black in the play because the entire point was they just happened to pick a black actress apparently at least for the UK performances. When the play was licensed or whatever to other countries quite a few of them decided to also specifically pick a black actress for Hermione when the kind of point was meant to be anyone could play any role really so you could have had a Japanese Hermione but nope none of the other companies decided to go with that.

Legit didn't know about the fantastic beast movies, I kinda tuned out of those. Same for that rpg lol. I never came across any good potter games from back in the ps2 era so I just checked out. They all seemed to be mediocre-terrible cashgrabs.

And yeah initially they just picked that actress cause she fit the role but then Rowling had to virtue signal to try to be woke and say that Hermione being black somehow makes sense when people pointed at the literal drawing on the literal book cover which shows she isn't black (not to mention all the movies) lol. After that it became an exercise in more virtue signaling which is why they kept her that way.

 

[Breakdown]

Rowling is too big to be cancelled. If she writes books she will always be able to find a publisher, and there will always be studios lining up to buy the rights.

 

[Hawki]

I’m going to reiterate my point. I wish we would stop calling all CRITICISM cancel culture. I didn’t say that cancel culture is good, or shouldn’t be called out. I’m specifically saying that cancel culture, as a term, is used so broadly it covers heaps of things that aren’t even remotely cancel culture.

I actually agree that like a lot of terms, "cancel culture" is thrown around too much. But at least for me, there's a reasonably clear line between cancelling, criticizing, and boycotting.

Not sure how you can cancel her, she's not writing any new Potter books, right? She still has her money. People will just kiss her ass less online?

Rowling keeps coming back to Harry Potter, for better or worse. Even that aside, she's written other works, such as the Comaron Strike series, and the Ichabog. People have already stated that they'll boycott the former in response to her essay. And no, that isn't "cancelling" - people are free to consume whatever media they want to, or not consume it.

This reminds me of the thing where she was trying to virtue signal by making chars gay or Hermione black in that one theatrical play and being celebrated for it. Back then people who called it out for the cynical calculated virtue signaling that it is were being met with insults by the very same groups seeking to cancel her now.

Concerning the casting of a black Hermione, didn't Rowling defend it after people were already criticizing the casting?

TBH, I think the whole thing was silly. On one hand, Hermione is white in the books, or at least, she was depicted as being white on the front cover of Prisoner of Azkaban. Whether Emma Watson 'canonized' as Hermione being white is another matter (certainly it seems that Dean Thomas was 'canonized' as being black in the films, even if the books never specified his skin colour IIRC). On the other, plays will always have a cycling cast, and there's many different productions of a play. So I think it's perfectly fair to give various people a shot at roles in the context of those plays because there'll never be a definitive stage production. There'll be exceptions, true (e.g. Othello), but again, exceptions. So in this particular case, I have far more criticism for those criticizing the casting.

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, the obvious answer to to not buy the new book. Whatever the fuck it is. Let her publish the bastard and have it shelf warm for weeks with no one interested in buying them. That way none of her liberties are infringed, and the clear message is sent.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Should it not be the "cancelling"? That's pretty much all I care to contribute to this discussion. Rowling can go fuck herself. After The Cursed Child, Fantastic Beasts 2, and all the random bullshit lore "additions", it's clear that's she's let fame get to her and will do anything for attention. If anything should get her "cancelled", it should be because she's a terrible author.

Concerning the casting of a black Hermione, didn't Rowling defend it after people were already criticizing the casting?

TBH, I think the whole thing was silly. On one hand, Hermione is white in the books, or at least, she was depicted as being white on the front cover of Prisoner of Azkaban.

She is explicitly mentioned as white in the books, unlike what Rowling claims. And honestly that's my problem, Hermione can be black for all I care, but don't fucking pretend that you dOn'T sEe RaCe or some shit. Same with Dumbledore. If she wanted diversity and representation, she should have done so when she wrote the damn things decades ago.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Edit: An extension of this is the trawling of tweets. James Gunn is the example that comes to mind. Gunn made some tweets about something years before he worked for Disney.

The reason I think Gunn is a good example, is that the whole controversy with Gunn was entirely fabricated by a literal rapist who was just angry that Gunn said mean stuff about Trump.

JK Rowling can sit on a sorting hat and spin though. Liberals need another book to read.

 

[Agema]

...and Dr Ragini Verma has proved he synaptic structure in adult men vs adult women can explain these differences...

Proving that something might do something else is tantamount to not proving anything.

Summarises probably 100 or so years of research into sex differences in terms of neurology and psychology rather than the more common arguments around Physiology

Neurology is a branch of medicine that deals with disorders of the nervous system. It's not the most appropriate discipline for examining normal differences between men and women, because when we want to examine the normal activity of men and women, we're not dealing with a medical disorder. Where disorders may be useful is to shed light on normal function through comparison with dysfunction. For instance, early work understanding what bits of the brain did what were based on people with brain injuries: e.g. cerebellar injuries cause motor problems, therefore the cerebellum is involved in motor control. Physiology - i.e. the function of the body - is absolutely intrinsic if we are to have any hope of understanding how men and women may differ. Translational neuroscience is currently heavily involved in trying to combine biological sciences - anatomy, physiology, cell biology, etc. with psychology.

That male/female brain stuff is particularly problematic even at the most superficial analysis. About 30% of men have "female" brains and and 30% of women have "male" brains. The bllindingly obvious answer to that is that whatever definition of male and female brains is being used is bullshit. Either it's a classification of two types of brain that need non-gendered terminology (e.g. "Type A" and "Type B"), or researchers need go back and find out what the real difference is between male and female brains, because they clearly haven't found it yet.

* * *

The most important summary anyone needs to know about how differences in brain structure and activity relate to differences in behaviour by sex or gender is that currently no-one knows enough to make any firm conclusions, so stop trying to hang your flag on a flagpole that doesn't exist.

 

[Hawki]

JK Rowling can sit on a sorting hat and spin though. Liberals need another book to read.

The Percy Jackson series seems to be the de facto replacement.

Don't worry, I'm sure the masses can find something Riordan has said or done as well.

 

[Agema]

If J.K. Rowling had said things like gender dysphoria was a myth, that trans people were just mentally ill people who needed psychological care to be brought round to the right way of thinking, that gender reassignment should be banned, that trans women can't be considered women, I could understand the extent of the hostility.

One could perhaps best sum up her essay as an expression of skepticism at some people's desire to change gender, and caveats about what society might do in the process of enabling people with gender reassignment. I wonder how many people have read her essay, because I'm not sure it's even half as bad as some seem to think. It's always a disappointing when someone influential comes out with a statement you disagree with, but it is most definitely nothing like the sort of vitriolic, absolute rejection TERFs have generally been coming out with.

I feel a bit sad to find myself sitting in the same terrain as the sorts of people who often come out with this shit as cover to support their fundamental opposition to progressive policies (and I guess so would Rowling), but that's the way it is: I think treatment of Rowling has a fair degree of intolerance and overreaction.

 

[CM156]

It wasn't cancel culture when the Dixie Chicks condemned Bush and their once meteoric rise came crashing down because people didn't want to support anyone who dare spoke ill of the president. It wasn't cancel culture when white supremacists called for Boycotts of the Force Awakens or Rogue One because there wasn't enough white representation in an alien galaxy. It's not cancel culture when calls to boycott Starbucks over cups, not giving Marines free product, and same sex marriage. And a ton of other things

You can also add to that list Ward Churchill getting fired from his job for his outrageous comments about the victims of 9/11.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Don't worry, I'm sure the masses can find something Riordan has said or done as well.

That's not really how this works.

Again, the whole thing with James Gunn was fabricated by literal rapist and pizzagate guy Mike Cernovich. The masses didn't find something Gunn said, Cernovich went through his online history, edited stuff to make it look more incriminating than it was and circulated it in right wing circles with the claim that Gunn was literally supporting paedophilia. A large part of "the masses" calling for James Gunn to be fired from Disney were right-wing actors who believed that James Gunn had actually supported or engaged in paedophilia, or right-wing centrists crying about "hypocrisy". Did some liberals and well meaning people get caught up in it, sure. But you can't really hold them entirely responsible for being manipulated by bad actors.

JK Rowling has been saying transphobic shit for years. This is not the first time she has done this. She also wrote a fucking creepy book in which an evil transwoman is threatened with prison rape as a punishment and this is a good thing. It's been an ongoing thing, and she has never apologised or attempted to change as a person. Noone went through her internet history and noone needed to. All that has happened now is that she has finally crossed the line where many of her fans and fellow celebrities felt they could no longer support her.

These are not the same thing, and if you lump them together into some kind of "both sides are as bad as each other", "cancel culture is out of control" rhetoric, what you're actually saying is that there is no justifiable situation where someone can be ever called out for their behaviour, and that's bullshit.

James Gunn apologised years ago for the things he said and made a comprehensive effort to change his behaviour. JK Rowling has had countless chances to apologise, to clarify her position or even just to lay low and be quiet, and she chose instead to keep pushing until she finally crossed the line.

 

[Silvanus]

The essay is, in a lot of places, highly sympathetic towards others, and seems to make it clear that none of this is coming from a place of ill intent.

However it also, unfortunately, relies on the old discredited idea that allowing trans women into women-only spaces will lead to abuse by men, and that this concern outweighs the benefits of inclusivity. To repost what I wrote in the other thread;

Transwomen are subject to an enormous amount of prejudice and stigma, and are one of the most frequent groups to be targeted by violence. They require access to support networks, resources, and safe-spaces. Further restricting their access to the few resources that exist for victims of abuse would allow that problem to explode.

On the other hand, they do not represent any significant threat to other women in these spaces. There's no solid evidence supporting that notion.

I recognise the need for women-only spaces and the value they have, particularly as a resource for survivors of domestic abuse. I recognise that people are going to be worried about who they might come into contact with. But with no evidence-based reason for concern, this particular worry is prejudicial; just as it would be if the providers were to start excluding gay women on the basis of someone's discomfort.

In short, we weigh that discomfort (potentially caused by inclusion) against the immediate threat to wellbeing posed by abuse and violence (definitely caused by exclusion).

So, I don't believe she means harm. But it's a harmful stance to take.

(Plus, some of the other things she's said have compounded the problem. The "if sex isn't real..." tweet was a facetious strawman).

Disclaimer: It should go without saying, obviously, that abuse of any kind is a shitty response to this.

 

[ObsidianJones]

That was mostly because people thought said moves and the groups doing them were morons to begin with.

Yes it's been happening for a while but now it's been named

Most likely the cancel term comes from #cancelcolbert that ran on social media many years back..

Dude, I just named some of them. Ellen, The Book of Daniel, Volkswagen ads.

Moronic or no, outcry is how things get done in this world. Pizzagate incensed morons who believed our political leaders were having sex with minors for fun and/or profit, I guess. But it took one idiot to listen, and we narrowly avoided danger.

But then people rush to defend Alex Jones 'way of life' when they call to boycott him, even though what he was doing and still is doing is obviously dangerous because there are unhinged people in this nation and almost anyone can get a gun.

Nothing is balanced is what I'm saying.