this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
523 points (97.1% liked)

LGBTQ+

4677 readers
16 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 56 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

The clues to who she is were there all along in her writing. She couldn't keep quiet, because she believes what she's doing is right. Because she's conservative.
The only major black character in the series is called "Shacklebolt". The only Asian, "Cho Chang". Zero LGBTQ representation in the books. Harry had the world at his feet and decided to join the police. The whole struggle of the saga is for a return to the status quo, rather than a better world. General lack of female agency, and women just being hysterical and needing to be slapped out of it. Goblins as an antisemitic trope. I could go on.
I put it to you that it was inevitable that, one way or another, her rancorous bile would have spilled out into the public debate as soon as she got famous.

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 7 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I want to caution about reading -isms into authors works. People often don't really know their own stereotyping unless it's pointed out (you, dear reader, probably have some problematic world views that no one has noticed or mentioned...). The fallout afterwards is where the problems exist, when someone doubles down on their viewpoints after being informed of them.

Rowling has clearly done that and is dismissed because of it. I will avoid things that give her a platform, and the original art itself is tainted due to her continued stances; but, back to the general case, just because art might be racist or antisemitic, etc., at the time of creation, if the artist can be convinced that their views are wrong, we should celebrate that -- just with footnotes and context.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I think everyone -including public figures- should be allowed to learn from their mistakes and grow. I think social media can interfere with that and make people refuse to admit error and double down for fear of being cancelled. Ideally this should change.
But, the case of Jo Rowling in particular is egregious. Not only does she refuse to engage with the possibility of being wrong, her bigotry extends beyond words, into concrete, hateful actions where she is fuelling the fire of transphobia worldwide with her influence, both parasocial and financial. That results in misery and suffering for millions. Fuck Jo Rowling.
This condemnation of her doesn't extend to everyone. And if she one day sees the light and walks everything back, then she should get a chance to redeem herself, too.

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was certainly not defending her. She is, as you say, egregious in part because when she was called out she refused to reflect. I was more talking in the general sense. The world sucks right now, but we are quick to attack people on their views without granting them opportunity to change.

I call this out because of the trend of 'leopards-eating-faces' kind of jokes. When the leopards eat your face, you might notice they were not friendly to begin with and the rest of civilization can welcome you back instead of mocking you; or they can mock you and you will feel isolated and defensive and the other bigots will welcome and validate you instead.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

I think you've got s point there. Making fun of people in that way is surely going to entrench their views.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)