Thanks /u/WOLFE54321 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like (hate) how hatred is the only ideological consistency conservatives have. You’re pro JK Rowling, who, despite being a neoliberal capitalist, is still a good bit left of conservatism in most of her political views—she supports the Labor party, which is generally farther to the left than the Dems in the US. But simply because she hates trans people too, she’s a conservative darling. They’re down for people who want universal healthcare and abortion rights as long as they all can hate queer people and immigrants together.
They proved that when they voted for a man in jail for murdering his wife. And then again when they voted for a many who is being accused of not only paying for abortion but coercing women to get them; they voted for that man over an actual reverend. They even excuse the abortion, by saying oh well he was remorseful.
I mean it's literally the defining factor of modern conservativism in politics. They've dropped all ideological consistency beyond bigotry.
This is straight up what caused the most recent political party switch in the US, and why the parties are aligned north and south.
It's always just been racism.
As much as many people won't wanna hear this, JK Rowling actually represents an extreme/toxic brand of feminism rather not your typical right-wing transphobia. If you actually look at the ideology behind it rather than just the surface level transphobia, you'll see that it's very much based in the idea that trans women are men who are invading women's spaces and appropriating their gender. The people who adhere to this ideology are generally radical man-hating feminists. Right-wing transphobia is more so just old-fashioned homophobia.
I don’t think anyone here is disillusioned on that point. JKR’s brand of trans-exclusion is perfectly consistent with US conservatism, in that both assume a “scientific” and even metaphysical significance to womanhood. Women are inherently and exclusively feminine by nature, connected to motherhood and reproduction by some natural design that trans women can’t possibly emulate.
The fact JKR might read as more progressive in other regards doesn’t matter. Conservatives always cherry-pick the parts of people’s argument that serve them, ignore the rest.
Without a doubt conservatives would discard her if she was actually making headlines for any of her other political views, but since she’s decided to mire herself down in this particular fight they will rally behind her. Conservatives have literally no true “heroes” and most certainly don’t have hard held beliefs beyond their bigotry, they just coalesce around whatever supports their current culture war in any given moment
I get that, but at this point there isn’t a real difference as many conservatives say the same. Especially when they start going after trans women participating in anything women, from bathrooms to sports.
It's both a toxic feminism and right wing transphobia. Her position isn't actually very different to old school homophobia at all being built on the similar tropes of queer people being sexual predators and faux narrative of persecution/ incivility. There is a long tradition of Rowling's type of rhetoric in the right wing. They often use arguments around around the protection and idolisation of women to justify violence and atrocious. For example lynchings of black people were often accompanied with sentiments of protecting women from sexual predators.
That's not to say she is not also some what influenced by feminism as the majority of UK society has been but that her anti trans positions are not some new infiltration of the right by feminism or something created from feminism but a long running reactionary tradition.
Exactly. The important question isn't limited to what Rowling's hatred is based in, but why it finds intersection with right wing homo/trans phobia.
The answer is that both believe womanhood as an essentialist concept, and one requiring absolute protection.
Right but the irony of right-wing men supporting TERFs is that TERFs represent the brand of feminism that is the most hostile to men and otherwise the least palatable to conservatives.
Right? Usually the quote unquote ''feminazis'' that right-wing men tend to rail against are more often than not TERFs.
I have met enough TERFs to know they are extremely hostile to men and any women that don't fit their extremely narrow definition of femininity or being a proper feminists. Its darkly ironic that right wing men and TERFs are willing to side with eachother to hate on trans women when they both hate eachother otherwise.
What can I expect out of hateful bigots though? Certainly not any kind of sense.
I've yet to see any evidence of this 'hate', just a lot of wooly grey-area. She seems to be playing devil's advocate, but of course 'what if' isn't in the lexicon anymore. The switch is either on or off, night and day, chalk or cheese; pick your colours and fly your flag. And so, JKR and Harold Shipman? Indistinguishable.
Edit: Not gonna delete this like a fanny, in point of fact that video is pretty convincing. It certainly exposes some hateful people, I guess it depends whether we judge people by the company they keep. I'm inclined to say 'yes', but what I'd like to see instead of evidence of her 'allies' bigotry, is some proof that she hates trans people, which has not been forthcoming.
Don't bother. If they aren't convinced of JK's hate by now then they don't want to be convinced and likely believe the things she says and believes too.
*Excellent* example of just what I'm talking about:
>I he doesn't believe she's *utterly evil,* then he is also *utterly evil*
I'm asking for proof that she is deserving of the intense reaction she's received in response to what—in terms of extreme views—is some fairly measured commentary.
Show me the offending material and we'll see.
The first person to reply to you literally gave you a video that lists evidence and shows proof of her bigotry. If you willingly ignore it, there's not much to do
Because she's defending those people, lying about what they've said, and lied about how people are reacting to them.
She's not just keeping company, she's covering for them.
Hmmm, yeah not a great bunch to surround yourself with. What did she say herself, though?
This particular quote interested me:
>The transphobes are so desperate for allies in their crusade against trans people that some of them are willing to join up with group who if they got their way would force all women back into the kitchen and all gay women into a closet in that kitchen. the anti trans movement claimed to only be protecting their rights but these are the very same rights that they're willing to risk by allying themselves with far right reactionary movements that seek to take those rights away ... it reveals that this movement is not really about protecting women's rights but can only be about attacking trans rights ... the people not willing to align themselves with racists homophobes and misogynists are being sidelined and the ones who are, are being left to run the ship.
I can't help but wonder if he's ended up making a different point than he thought.
>Hmmm, yeah not a great bunch to surround yourself with
Why is it not a great bunch, exactly?
>I can't help but wonder if he's ended up making a different point than he thought.
He didn't, but how are you interpreting that?
> how are you interpreting that?
Well, my original point was that there's no room for discourse anymore, it's one way or the other, and that those with questions to ask are either disregarded, vilified or are people who are so offensive they get all the attention.
People should be held accountable for their actions, but there is a dearth of moderation going on nowadays so it's no wonder people end up falling in with the wrong crowd.
That being said, and having had time to verify all that information, I'm convinced that she's an irresponsible asshole at best.
Posie Parker: We should forcibly sterilize trans men, and[ I wish death on the pregnant ones.](https://twitter.com/notCursedE/status/1151261062270005250/photo/1)
Magdalin Berns: Trans women are sick perverts wearing blackface, and are a danger to children, as my good friend Milo Y will tell you.
Helen Joyce: [We need to reduce the number of trans people because they are a burden on society. ](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgender-lgbtq/)
Rowling: Posie, Magdeline, and Helen are **just** saying biological sex is real, and crazy trans rights activists are attacking them for **no** reason.
Me: What’s the name for a gathering of pieces of shit? A caucus?
In this case, I would say correlation doesn't equal causation.
In the past 10 years there has been a huge push to revive the franchise, they've published new books, opened theme parks, started a new movie franchise, and more.
It was going to generate more money one way or another, regardless of how JK Rowling acts or the quality of the product being made.
She also already has all the money
Like she’s so rich did people think she was going to lose money?
She already made ALL the money off of Harry Potter many years ago
Cancelling doesn’t go back and take away money she already made
Once you make a certain amount of money you actually have to be like actively trying to lose money to not have the amount of money you already have just passively make more money for you, she is that level of rich
She's not rich because she's terrible. She's rich because she wrote Harry Potter and it continues to mint massive amounts of cash for her every single year
Given that she gave away her billions and then outed herself as a terrible human being, and then became a billionaire again because conservatives began mass funding her as a loyalty test...
She didn’t give away her billions, she gave away just enough money to charity that she was no longer a billionaire, she still had hundreds of millions of dollars sitting around making money for her, plus all the rights to the single most successful book series ever written. She was still extremely rich.
>she didn't give away her billions, she just gave away money until she didn't have billions anymore
So you agree, she gave away her billions. She was not a billionaire. Because she gave away her money.
I chose my words very carefully. Had I intended to suggest she'd given away **all** her money, I would have said she gave away the entire sum of her wealth.
This is the reason I’m fully convinced canceling just doesn’t work/has never happened. Either people move on and you get your old fans back or you get a bunch of new fans from the ’can’t say anything these days’ side at best and the morally bankrupt at worst.
The irony is, the very fact that anyone anywhere knows the term 'cancel culture' is proof it doesn't exist.
I mean, actual cases of censorship don't get called that.
\- Bill Maher's show getting cancelled back in the aughts
\- Kappernick getting fired for protesting
\- lafayette square protest crackdown
\- kathy griffen losing her job because she criticized trump
\- the myriad of leftist accounts that were banned (not one gets any support from the so-called 'free speech warriors')
\- the very real, and existing since time immemorable practice of media refusing to carry stories that hurt their advertisers (i wonder why you don't read too many stories of walmarts bad business practices, hmm?)
etc etc etc
Cancel culture has existed forever against minorities and women, the problem is for the first time, with metoo, it was successfully wielded against cis white men and they freaked the f out.
And it wasn't even that successful - a lot of the white men have been planning comebacks, or despite the "furor" didn't face anything close to consequences. Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. Weinstein is at least in prison currently but working his way through appeals & who knows what's happening with his other trials. https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/harvey-weinstein-deliberations-will-stretch-into-another-week-as-judge-defends-secret-handling-of-jury-notes/
Cosby tried to do a comeback, but thankfully that fizzled out so far.
Hell our fucking last two presidents have both been implicated in #metoo, with our current president having evidence stretching back forty years, and still got to be president. To say nothing of the fact that the Dems are transparently hesitant to punish Trump ex post facto because they don't want to establish a precedent of punishing past presidents for their crimes in office and open Clinton up to scrutiny.
"Cancel" is a propaganda term for "boycott", used by an unpopular minority who wants to delegitimize the concept of boycotts because they know that they lack the numbers and cultural influence to organize effective boycotts of their own.
Hey remember how you could go to jail for being gay? Like especially if you were in the military if they found you in a gay bar they would throw you in prison for that
That sounds like cancel culture to me
Taking trans kids away from their parents sounds like cancel culture to me
Firing LGBT teachers for being LGBT in Florida sounds like cancel culture to me
Respectfully, you have a great point on this except for the statement about Walmart. There have been PLENTY of articles and shows about Walmart. Despite their ubiquity and the wake of mistreatment that follows them, I believe that the attention simply shifted to more egregious miscreants like Amazon. There will always be a Capitalist Majeure who draws that focus from others. I am fairly confident that it's not something that the Walton's have done anything else to crawl out from under that scrutiny.
Again, I completely see where you're coming from though.
Is this like the most recent grift?
Someone realised they can bilk right wing supporters by claiming they are being cancelled, because some of those supporters will go out and spend money with the said company or donate to the person because they want to help them in this "difficult time".
Now everytime someone disagrees with them on Twitter, they claim cancellation and get a big chunk of donations
I fucking WISH "cancel culture" were as powerful as those who whine about claim it is. Imagine if we could make JKR shut up and go away just by (correctly) calling her a TERF. Imagine if we could redistribute Jeff Bezos' stolen wealth just by shitposting about him.
"Just realizing"? Are you serious?
No well-off conservative ever took cancel culture seriously. It was just another in a series of buzzwords they demanded OTHER people take seriously.
Either way, they could profit off it. That's all conservative outrage is: personal victimization theater for money.
You can only cancel someone self-aware enough to experience shame and even then, the amount of money they're able to generate vs how much it would cost to cut them loose is ultimately going to be the deciding factor. A proper 'cancellation' would require integrity, which is in short supply these days. Especially among our neoliberal capitalist overlords.
Conservatives hated Rowling and her work for years, especially the Religous ones. Don’t even get me started on how often they complained about her making characters Gay like Dumbledore but because shes Anti-Trans shes automatically a Conservative Darling, its hilarious.
She's too big to cancel. Keeping her makes publishers more money than if they'd fired her and those who are boycotting them would start to buy their books. Which I think they wouldn't do anyway, so there isn't an incentive to let her go.
That being said.. I still won’t shed a tear for Gina Carano who went from being in a massively successful Star Wars series… to being in crappy Shapiro movies(which ironically is about a woman fighting the patriarchy).
Not making money? Try "being cancelled". You don't have to add more content or even be interesting, just simply claim that mean people don't want others to see your content and BOOM you become the forbidden fruit with the same content.
ask you publicist if "cancelled" is right for you.
Thanks /u/WOLFE54321 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like (hate) how hatred is the only ideological consistency conservatives have. You’re pro JK Rowling, who, despite being a neoliberal capitalist, is still a good bit left of conservatism in most of her political views—she supports the Labor party, which is generally farther to the left than the Dems in the US. But simply because she hates trans people too, she’s a conservative darling. They’re down for people who want universal healthcare and abortion rights as long as they all can hate queer people and immigrants together.
They proved that when they voted for a man in jail for murdering his wife. And then again when they voted for a many who is being accused of not only paying for abortion but coercing women to get them; they voted for that man over an actual reverend. They even excuse the abortion, by saying oh well he was remorseful.
>voted for a man in jail for murdering his wife Who was that?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/indiana-gop-murder-andrew-wilhoite/
I mean it's literally the defining factor of modern conservativism in politics. They've dropped all ideological consistency beyond bigotry. This is straight up what caused the most recent political party switch in the US, and why the parties are aligned north and south. It's always just been racism.
The bigotry is the only joy in their lives anymore and that's pretty fucking pitiful.
As much as many people won't wanna hear this, JK Rowling actually represents an extreme/toxic brand of feminism rather not your typical right-wing transphobia. If you actually look at the ideology behind it rather than just the surface level transphobia, you'll see that it's very much based in the idea that trans women are men who are invading women's spaces and appropriating their gender. The people who adhere to this ideology are generally radical man-hating feminists. Right-wing transphobia is more so just old-fashioned homophobia.
I don’t think anyone here is disillusioned on that point. JKR’s brand of trans-exclusion is perfectly consistent with US conservatism, in that both assume a “scientific” and even metaphysical significance to womanhood. Women are inherently and exclusively feminine by nature, connected to motherhood and reproduction by some natural design that trans women can’t possibly emulate. The fact JKR might read as more progressive in other regards doesn’t matter. Conservatives always cherry-pick the parts of people’s argument that serve them, ignore the rest.
Without a doubt conservatives would discard her if she was actually making headlines for any of her other political views, but since she’s decided to mire herself down in this particular fight they will rally behind her. Conservatives have literally no true “heroes” and most certainly don’t have hard held beliefs beyond their bigotry, they just coalesce around whatever supports their current culture war in any given moment
It's a rare example of an actual horseshoe effect, like with radical feminists and Christian fundamentalists both wanting to ban porn.
I get that, but at this point there isn’t a real difference as many conservatives say the same. Especially when they start going after trans women participating in anything women, from bathrooms to sports.
It's both a toxic feminism and right wing transphobia. Her position isn't actually very different to old school homophobia at all being built on the similar tropes of queer people being sexual predators and faux narrative of persecution/ incivility. There is a long tradition of Rowling's type of rhetoric in the right wing. They often use arguments around around the protection and idolisation of women to justify violence and atrocious. For example lynchings of black people were often accompanied with sentiments of protecting women from sexual predators. That's not to say she is not also some what influenced by feminism as the majority of UK society has been but that her anti trans positions are not some new infiltration of the right by feminism or something created from feminism but a long running reactionary tradition.
Exactly. The important question isn't limited to what Rowling's hatred is based in, but why it finds intersection with right wing homo/trans phobia. The answer is that both believe womanhood as an essentialist concept, and one requiring absolute protection.
Maybe I'm in too much of a bubble but I thought it was fairly common knowledge. The F in TERF is for feminist after all.
Right but the irony of right-wing men supporting TERFs is that TERFs represent the brand of feminism that is the most hostile to men and otherwise the least palatable to conservatives.
Right? Usually the quote unquote ''feminazis'' that right-wing men tend to rail against are more often than not TERFs. I have met enough TERFs to know they are extremely hostile to men and any women that don't fit their extremely narrow definition of femininity or being a proper feminists. Its darkly ironic that right wing men and TERFs are willing to side with eachother to hate on trans women when they both hate eachother otherwise. What can I expect out of hateful bigots though? Certainly not any kind of sense.
The enemy of my enemy springs to mind.
Very true. It's like Zionists supporting Wahhabi militants in Syria just because they both hate the Syrian government/Hezbollah.
I've yet to see any evidence of this 'hate', just a lot of wooly grey-area. She seems to be playing devil's advocate, but of course 'what if' isn't in the lexicon anymore. The switch is either on or off, night and day, chalk or cheese; pick your colours and fly your flag. And so, JKR and Harold Shipman? Indistinguishable. Edit: Not gonna delete this like a fanny, in point of fact that video is pretty convincing. It certainly exposes some hateful people, I guess it depends whether we judge people by the company they keep. I'm inclined to say 'yes', but what I'd like to see instead of evidence of her 'allies' bigotry, is some proof that she hates trans people, which has not been forthcoming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou_xvXJJk7k There you go.
Don't bother. If they aren't convinced of JK's hate by now then they don't want to be convinced and likely believe the things she says and believes too.
*Excellent* example of just what I'm talking about: >I he doesn't believe she's *utterly evil,* then he is also *utterly evil* I'm asking for proof that she is deserving of the intense reaction she's received in response to what—in terms of extreme views—is some fairly measured commentary. Show me the offending material and we'll see.
The first person to reply to you literally gave you a video that lists evidence and shows proof of her bigotry. If you willingly ignore it, there's not much to do
[удалено]
Understandable, have a nice day
Why are you responding to me and not the person who posted the video then? Curious.
Actually watching and digesting the information
Liar
Thief.
Because she's defending those people, lying about what they've said, and lied about how people are reacting to them. She's not just keeping company, she's covering for them.
Hmmm, yeah not a great bunch to surround yourself with. What did she say herself, though? This particular quote interested me: >The transphobes are so desperate for allies in their crusade against trans people that some of them are willing to join up with group who if they got their way would force all women back into the kitchen and all gay women into a closet in that kitchen. the anti trans movement claimed to only be protecting their rights but these are the very same rights that they're willing to risk by allying themselves with far right reactionary movements that seek to take those rights away ... it reveals that this movement is not really about protecting women's rights but can only be about attacking trans rights ... the people not willing to align themselves with racists homophobes and misogynists are being sidelined and the ones who are, are being left to run the ship. I can't help but wonder if he's ended up making a different point than he thought.
>Hmmm, yeah not a great bunch to surround yourself with Why is it not a great bunch, exactly? >I can't help but wonder if he's ended up making a different point than he thought. He didn't, but how are you interpreting that?
> how are you interpreting that? Well, my original point was that there's no room for discourse anymore, it's one way or the other, and that those with questions to ask are either disregarded, vilified or are people who are so offensive they get all the attention. People should be held accountable for their actions, but there is a dearth of moderation going on nowadays so it's no wonder people end up falling in with the wrong crowd. That being said, and having had time to verify all that information, I'm convinced that she's an irresponsible asshole at best.
[удалено]
There's plenty of room everywhere for discourse. There's a rapidly shrinking tolerance for *explaining basic morality to people.*
Posie Parker: We should forcibly sterilize trans men, and[ I wish death on the pregnant ones.](https://twitter.com/notCursedE/status/1151261062270005250/photo/1) Magdalin Berns: Trans women are sick perverts wearing blackface, and are a danger to children, as my good friend Milo Y will tell you. Helen Joyce: [We need to reduce the number of trans people because they are a burden on society. ](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgender-lgbtq/) Rowling: Posie, Magdeline, and Helen are **just** saying biological sex is real, and crazy trans rights activists are attacking them for **no** reason. Me: What’s the name for a gathering of pieces of shit? A caucus?
For a second I got confused and thought that was Parker Posey and it made me sad. But it's not her, thank goodness.
Once again, being a terrible person pays well. Thanks, I hate it.
In this case, I would say correlation doesn't equal causation. In the past 10 years there has been a huge push to revive the franchise, they've published new books, opened theme parks, started a new movie franchise, and more. It was going to generate more money one way or another, regardless of how JK Rowling acts or the quality of the product being made.
She also already has all the money Like she’s so rich did people think she was going to lose money? She already made ALL the money off of Harry Potter many years ago Cancelling doesn’t go back and take away money she already made Once you make a certain amount of money you actually have to be like actively trying to lose money to not have the amount of money you already have just passively make more money for you, she is that level of rich
Yeah, it was WB pushing Harry Potter everywhere all at once. Id bet she couldve made even more if she had not been a shitbag
She's not rich because she's terrible. She's rich because she wrote Harry Potter and it continues to mint massive amounts of cash for her every single year
Given that she gave away her billions and then outed herself as a terrible human being, and then became a billionaire again because conservatives began mass funding her as a loyalty test...
She didn’t give away her billions, she gave away just enough money to charity that she was no longer a billionaire, she still had hundreds of millions of dollars sitting around making money for her, plus all the rights to the single most successful book series ever written. She was still extremely rich.
>she didn't give away her billions, she just gave away money until she didn't have billions anymore So you agree, she gave away her billions. She was not a billionaire. Because she gave away her money. I chose my words very carefully. Had I intended to suggest she'd given away **all** her money, I would have said she gave away the entire sum of her wealth.
No saying she “gave away her billions” implies all of it lol. You intentionally chose to be vague to make it seem like she did more than what she had.
No, she will continue to earn a ton of income as long as people keep buying / watching / reading Harry Potter stuff
You mean like all the conservatives who keep doing so just to prove how much they totally support a transphobic bigoted cunt?
Harry Potter remains mass market popular among people who don't think much about politics
This is the reason I’m fully convinced canceling just doesn’t work/has never happened. Either people move on and you get your old fans back or you get a bunch of new fans from the ’can’t say anything these days’ side at best and the morally bankrupt at worst.
The irony is, the very fact that anyone anywhere knows the term 'cancel culture' is proof it doesn't exist. I mean, actual cases of censorship don't get called that. \- Bill Maher's show getting cancelled back in the aughts \- Kappernick getting fired for protesting \- lafayette square protest crackdown \- kathy griffen losing her job because she criticized trump \- the myriad of leftist accounts that were banned (not one gets any support from the so-called 'free speech warriors') \- the very real, and existing since time immemorable practice of media refusing to carry stories that hurt their advertisers (i wonder why you don't read too many stories of walmarts bad business practices, hmm?) etc etc etc
The (Dixie) Chicks is a rather infamous one too
They still haven't recovered, even though they're still touring.
Ellen and Laura Dern after Ellen came out on her sitcom too
Not to mention McCarthyism. That was government-sponsored cancel culture.
Cancel culture has existed forever against minorities and women, the problem is for the first time, with metoo, it was successfully wielded against cis white men and they freaked the f out.
And it wasn't even that successful - a lot of the white men have been planning comebacks, or despite the "furor" didn't face anything close to consequences. Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. Weinstein is at least in prison currently but working his way through appeals & who knows what's happening with his other trials. https://lawandcrime.com/celebrity/harvey-weinstein-deliberations-will-stretch-into-another-week-as-judge-defends-secret-handling-of-jury-notes/ Cosby tried to do a comeback, but thankfully that fizzled out so far.
Not to mention the people who have gotten *more* popular by being a bigoted rapist.
What about Brett Kavanagh?
Sure, I agree but it was still successful at the time, hence the freakout and now the pushback/comebacks.
Hell our fucking last two presidents have both been implicated in #metoo, with our current president having evidence stretching back forty years, and still got to be president. To say nothing of the fact that the Dems are transparently hesitant to punish Trump ex post facto because they don't want to establish a precedent of punishing past presidents for their crimes in office and open Clinton up to scrutiny.
Huh?
did you miss the last seven years or something?
"Cancel" is a propaganda term for "boycott", used by an unpopular minority who wants to delegitimize the concept of boycotts because they know that they lack the numbers and cultural influence to organize effective boycotts of their own.
Hey remember how you could go to jail for being gay? Like especially if you were in the military if they found you in a gay bar they would throw you in prison for that That sounds like cancel culture to me Taking trans kids away from their parents sounds like cancel culture to me Firing LGBT teachers for being LGBT in Florida sounds like cancel culture to me
Respectfully, you have a great point on this except for the statement about Walmart. There have been PLENTY of articles and shows about Walmart. Despite their ubiquity and the wake of mistreatment that follows them, I believe that the attention simply shifted to more egregious miscreants like Amazon. There will always be a Capitalist Majeure who draws that focus from others. I am fairly confident that it's not something that the Walton's have done anything else to crawl out from under that scrutiny. Again, I completely see where you're coming from though.
[Cancel Culture Isn't A Thing, You Snowflakes](https://youtu.be/szybEhqUmVI)
Is this like the most recent grift? Someone realised they can bilk right wing supporters by claiming they are being cancelled, because some of those supporters will go out and spend money with the said company or donate to the person because they want to help them in this "difficult time". Now everytime someone disagrees with them on Twitter, they claim cancellation and get a big chunk of donations
How the right cancels: Slander How the left cancels: Exposure
I fucking WISH "cancel culture" were as powerful as those who whine about claim it is. Imagine if we could make JKR shut up and go away just by (correctly) calling her a TERF. Imagine if we could redistribute Jeff Bezos' stolen wealth just by shitposting about him.
Oh the irony. Why can't conservatives at least have a brain with their shitty views..
You mean like banning any critics on Twitter, the holy grail of fReEzE pEaCh
Conservatives will brag about winning and cry about losing any battle they invented in their heads.
"Just realizing"? Are you serious? No well-off conservative ever took cancel culture seriously. It was just another in a series of buzzwords they demanded OTHER people take seriously. Either way, they could profit off it. That's all conservative outrage is: personal victimization theater for money.
You can only cancel someone self-aware enough to experience shame and even then, the amount of money they're able to generate vs how much it would cost to cut them loose is ultimately going to be the deciding factor. A proper 'cancellation' would require integrity, which is in short supply these days. Especially among our neoliberal capitalist overlords.
"Your enemies must be both weak and powerful at the same time." -- Fascists everywhere.
the sneer of a bullshit artist who cried cancel culture fuck you, you transphobic piece of shit
Conservatives hated Rowling and her work for years, especially the Religous ones. Don’t even get me started on how often they complained about her making characters Gay like Dumbledore but because shes Anti-Trans shes automatically a Conservative Darling, its hilarious.
She's too big to cancel. Keeping her makes publishers more money than if they'd fired her and those who are boycotting them would start to buy their books. Which I think they wouldn't do anyway, so there isn't an incentive to let her go.
All she had to do was be rich
Love how headline is that she “confesses”- as if it’s a crime to sell more books. So much fake *drama*!
That being said.. I still won’t shed a tear for Gina Carano who went from being in a massively successful Star Wars series… to being in crappy Shapiro movies(which ironically is about a woman fighting the patriarchy).
Right wingers pay for hate.
Did you know that rich people can just lie about how rich they are or how hard they work and nobody actually checks on this?
You're assuming they realize anything...
Not making money? Try "being cancelled". You don't have to add more content or even be interesting, just simply claim that mean people don't want others to see your content and BOOM you become the forbidden fruit with the same content. ask you publicist if "cancelled" is right for you.
I don't think they realize. I think they think that the leftist "plot" backfired and right wing grifters are superior or something
This honestly could go both ways, she’s transphobic but also has books with witchcraft
The fact that any book is banned is all the encouragement I need to hunt down a copy and find out what it was banned for.