The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.
The amount of people defending her statements in this thread is absolutely disgusting. I wonder why she feels so emboldened as to say such horrific things in public?
I thought it was pretty well known that the Nazi party destroyed the first thing we would consider a Trans hospital?
She should have done a tiny bit of googling.
Third result on Google was the right wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft
Yes. And also it should be known that this isnt part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the genocide against Jews. But the Nazis persecuted lots of groups of people, and committed all kinds of crimes against humanity.
Not every heinous Nazi crime is “the Holocaust”. But it’s just as awful and denying it should lead to a social ban against the denier.
Lotta dipshits in the comments here, block button is working extra today.
She knows she is doing it and doesnt care.
Like every conservative, they just want queer people dead, unless its their own children.
She’s not a conservative, she’s a liberal (in the political science sense of the word, not the USian synonym for leftist).
It’s not 100% clear where Rowling’s transphobia comes from. She certainly fits into the group of transphobic cis women who have been abused by cis men and concluded that all men are evil, including the ones that want to be women.
But there’s also a dynamic which I think you can see with Graham Linehan and Dave Chappelle as well. Born into comfortable middle-class families, well-educated, never really thought about their bog-standard liberalism. Became extremely successful, became accustomed to near universal adoration, made a thoughtless transphobic comment/skit, received criticism and reacted with absolute fury at the idea they could possibly be prejudiced about anything. Because they’re liberals, you see.
All three just keep digging that hole deeper rather than face up to the idea that maybe they got something wrong. Linehan’s career is over (as is his marriage), Dave Chappelle is hanging on by a thread and flirting with the right, and Rowling doesn’t give a shit because she’s a billionaire and does not have to give a shit about anything at all.
She’s a blairist, and blairists are only slightly less morally bankrupt thatcherites.
For all their sins, a true European style liberal wouldn’t want the state to tell you which restroom you use or what medical treatment they have access to - of course they also believe that trans people that were born into poor families don’t deserve access to any medical treatment at all but that’s another story.
She’s not a conservative, she’s a liberal…
You are mixing definitions.
In fiscal policy, “conservatism” is opposite “liberalism”.
In social policy, “conservatism” is opposite “progressivism”.
No one here is accusing this homophobic bridge troll of having conservative fiscal policy.
She is socially conservative. And as such, she is a bigot. There can be no defense of her from anyone who is not a bigot.
No. We’re talking political categorisations, not the dictionary definition.
Conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal.
Liberals are socially liberal and economically liberal.
Liberals have never had a problem abandoning their high-minded ideals when there were savages to civilise. Because liberalism has no analysis of power, and an absolute belief in the fundamental impossibility that they could be wrong about anything.
There’s no doubt that she is shifting to the right, because they are fawning over her and she has no politics. See also Linehan and Chappelle. They were all bog-standard liberals before being criticised.
Chappelle was only liberal where racism was concerned. Otherwise he has been squarely neo-liberal when pushed into any political discussion. I believe Rowling has also always been neo-liberal.
Neo-liberals are conservatives. They toy with progressivism only when it benefits them. But, neo-liberals are otherwise conservatives with a bit more tact than typical conservatives.
You’re not wrong, except in believing that classical liberalism was ever any different.
I no longer confuse classical liberalism with progressivism. I was corrected on that topic a few years ago and learned my lesson.
I hate that conservatives in the U.S. worked so hard to use these terms interchangably. They’ve gleefully created chaos with their misuse of words as pejoratives and it makes having adult conversations so much more complicated. Which I suppose was their goal all along.
It’s almost like conservatives are vile, grotesque garbage-based life forms who thrive on the misery and death of others.
Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.
It’s almost like you were posting this in a space full of people who will agree with you just cause you are of the same bunch.
Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction due to unbridled human activities.
Are they also a plague?You should avoid bringing negative connotations to words that can be or are a force for good.
Rename the evil if you want, but don’t turn away the good as you focus solely on the bad.Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction
No. “Conservative” and “conservationist” are two very different words with two very different definitions. You seem to be confusing the two.
Oh! I thought they were referring to hunters or something.
You’re partially right. I am confusing the two, but not the spirit of their meaning, which is “to conserve”. Conservation is a force for good, but this political party thing is only focused on the bad.
Why let it occupy the entire meaning and overshadow its better uses? To say “Conservative” with disgust is to ignore its potential for better uses.Why change things when you can argue semantics?
Lol bro really doesn’t know the difference between conservatives and conservationists.
Naturally when people called her out for being wrong she quickly set up a strawman to keep herself from having to admit any ignorance or fault. What a stupid hill she has chosen to die on, she could have been universally beloved if she just kept her shitty views to herself.
Ok, fellas: the intention of the author is inaccessible, the intention of the work can be interpreted, her public persona is that of a transphobe who always finds new lows to fall to in her brigade. You can still read HP and recognize that she is a shitty person.
Pro tip: used book sales do not generate royalties. I bought the full set of HP from a local used bookstore with no guilt.
That’s kind of an individual thing. Like, I get it, I get what you’re saying, but, when I think about the books (which I used to love), I just didn’t think of them fondly anymore; I can’t think of any of those characters without that irritation and disappointment coming up.
I was super excited about having my kids read those books – and my oldest started the series, but then needed a break to mature a little before hitting book…3 I think? Idr. And now I just don’t really care whether they read them. (If they do choose to read them on their own, I won’t tell them about JKR until after they’ve finished them.)
However I have no problem setting aside the shittiness of Knut Hamsun or Henry Miller; I still really enjoy their books. Heidegger? Too shitty for me. Picasso: meh, he’s fine.
That’s My Hot Take: if it bothers you, acknowledge that, and don’t force yourself to be uncomfortable. But also don’t shame people for whom her toxicity is something they can set aside.
(As long as they are setting it aside and not enjoying the work because of her toxicity.)
That said: pirate her shit, you don’t need to give her money.
I can’t listen to many bands I used to listen because their members turned out to be really shitty people.
I mean, if I have to hone my skills at slap.bass in a rock context, Flea is my go-to choice, but Anthony Kiedis boasted about having sex with an underage girl and regularly dates girls 40 years younger than him, that soured the whole RHCP thing for me.
In short, my ethical and moral principles are worth more than aesthetic enjoyment.
Ethics are interesting because you can ignore them. It’s like, ethics exist within you regardless of whether you agree to them; if you don’t listen to that little voice, it gets easier and easier to ignore it. To put that in practical terms: murdering someone is pretty ethically difficult. Murdering a second time is less ethically difficult. It’s like we build a climate around ourselves; the more you listen to your ethical beliefs, the more repugnant the idea of ignoring them becomes.
That said, I’m not sure I’m on board with you on RHCP – but that’s maybe just me. I used to listen to them a lot in jr high (I’m old) when blood sugar sex magic had just come out. And while your opinion is totally valid, for me, like, I never thought he was much of an ethical role model. His lyrics are pretty misogynistic. (And, not great regardless, from a “objective artistic/poetic” perspective.) So like yeah he’s not a great person, but he never pretended to be, so to find out he isn’t doesn’t change much.
(As opposed to, say, Jowling Kowling Rowling, who used to talk about hating bigotry, but then turned out to be a super terrible bigot.)
Flea, on the other hand – I’ve never looked into him. I’m also a bassist and his influence on my bass education is so deep that I’m afraid to find out if he’s toxic lol. But he’s been in a band with Anthony Keidis for like 40 years, so, he’s probably not perfect.
(I’m not a slap or funk bassist, but what I learned from Flea was how to feel it. You can’t play Flea’s bass lines mechanically, they literally don’t sound correct; you have to feel the vibe, the groove has to move your fingers, not the time signature. That dude, ffs I hope he’s not an asshole, because he’s fucking incredible.)
Though IDK – after long careers together, from what I understand, people tend to see each other less.
For example, after the whole Me Too thing started, I heard an interview with Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s brother, the two of them started Miramax together and were basically partners. But he knew his brother was a piece of shit, and, at that time a few years ago, hadn’t actually spoken to him in “many years.” He didn’t dwell on the topic, he just said that, basically, and his tone was like, obviously disgusted, but he didn’t want to spend the time talking about that, so he didn’t.
He wasn’t exactly going to snitch his own brother into prison, and that’s asking a bit too much imo, but it shows ethical strength to not slip into that same kind of toxicity, especially when it’s so close to you, and probably so easy.
Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names I was already turned off… but once I got to the obviously antisemitic goblins, I was done.
I wish it wasn’t so damn popular.
Edit: I realize this article isn’t about antisemitism. This is just another example of Rowling’s bigotry.
I don’t care about HP, but it’s just a standard fairy tale. I read the books to my kids. Stories about knights, kings, princesses, super heroes…pretty much any story in which a normal person can fantasize about being someone who has much more power than they do, have been the stock-in-trade for story-tellers forever. Harry Potter lives a terrible life with his abusive relatives until he gets whisked off to a fancy private school where, it turns out, he is pretty special. Does it glorify the British class system? Sure, in some ways. But, it also undermines it insofar as Harry’s friends are mostly from the lower classes, and the villains are mostly “old money” and those who are obsessed with genetic purity. Also, the entrenched authorities like the Ministry of Magic are shown in a rather poor light, with their dementors, cruel bureaucrats, and insanity-inducing prisons. Hermione is meant to symbolize someone who got to Hogwart’s based on ability, not birth or connections. So, the story is at least partially about the transformation of the old structures of power from being based on money and birth to being based on ability. It shows British power structures in transition, I would say. What do you think?
That may very well be so. I did not get that impression from the first book, but, as I said, it was the only book I read and maybe it was clarified in the sequels.
By the way, my father was a similarly privileged to go to a prestigious British school on scholarship despite coming from a poor background and had nothing but bad things to say about it, so that does color my judgment a little.
That explains it. Each book gets progressively darker. The first book was written for 11 year olds, if I recall correctly. It doesn’t really get into politics. The subsequent books expose the corruption of the class system and the horrifying complicity of the bureaucracy.
And at the end the main characters shut up and perpetuate the system
I love liberals
I don’t understand why you are criticizing liberals here. Would you prefer illiberalism? Or are you an armchair revolutionary?
End of history looking ass thinking the only two political positions are lukewarm defense of the current system and nazis
What? That isn’t even a sentence.
She is transphobic, ableist, handiphobic, etc.
The saddest is that we will always find a fan boy taking her defense. Seriously, stop! She is garbage.
Hello there, fellow internet person! Harry Potter fan boy here. I just sort of did. Doubt I’ll stop any time soon. And while she might be, I don’t know her well enough to confirm your opinion on her.
I am pretty sure that’s not the right definition. Holocaust denial isn’t about denying the impact of the holocaust had on the victims and the survivors. It’s about denying the scale and planned nature of the genocide.
JK Rowling doesn’t deny the holocaust. She’s not even denying that trans people were targeted, she is denying that they were among the first victims of the nazis. And while denying that they were targeted is wrong, it’s not denying the holocaust happened.
No, she moved the goalpost to “they were not the first”, her original statement was completely different.
Who cares…?
The more you share these people, the more you support them.
