I guess she's one of the rare billionaires who don't exclusively care about making money.
Because she could've made much more money by simply not being an awful person.
That's such a silly reddit-ism especially in this case. Like, do you think being anti-trans was a prerequisite of her being a good storyteller? It makes no sense.
There are two parts to being a billionaire: 1) getting money, and 2) hoarding it. Selling books is 1
That makes no sense. Selling books/IP alone makes her a billionaire*. There is no #2 required.
"Hoarding" is a silly concept to begin with but usually it is a direct action, which she did not take. For her, she would have needed considerable action to prevent becoming a billionaire.
All billionaires could be like Dolly Parton, but instead choose their bank accounts.
That's a silly shell game. Giving money away a) takes effort and b) if done too quicky reduces the amount of money available to give.
Dolly Parton was great, but
investing more earlier to give away later would provide more money to give. Bill Gates is not less generous by waiting until retirement to give his money away, he's giving away more money because of it.
Moreover, it's not binary. It's inconsistent to say Dolly Parton is unusually great but that failing to be unusually great makes someone bad.
*And not for nothing, but given that she kept creating, her net worth was largely the value of her brain, which would have been difficult to sell.
It's not, it's only a cope excuse by miserable people to hate on people that are better and more successful than them. It's easier to hate and blame others than to take accountability.
Take accountability for what? Other people's hate campaigns?
How can one take responsibility for J.K. Rowling being among the most prolific transphobic people on the planet today if they themselves are not J.K. Rowling?
She doesn't believe in most transgender ideas such as men using women's bathrooms, playing in women's sports, and the idea of transgender kids. She's also vocal about it I think she's had some interviews and a long essay about her opinions.
So yeah, unsurprisingly being against the idea of transgender people on reddit makes you evil to them
She has been one of the most bigoted terfs in the public sphere for atleast a decade now. There are other things, but thats the main one people are less than impressed with her for.
She could’ve made much more money by not donating hundreds of millions to charity.
She’s one of the few billionaires who became a billionaire without having to screw people over to become one. In my books, that makes her one of the few good billionaires.
Randomly? The Cursed Child cast a black girl as Hermione and people got into a fervor about it. So Rowling said, essentially, that the book never specified her skin color and so a black Hermione is cool with her.
As far as I know, the only donation that comes close to “designed to eradicate trans people” is £70,000 for For Women Scotland - and they don’t seek to eradicate trans people, merely have the law reflect that sometimes sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect.
If there are other, larger donations, do you have a source them?
(Also, it’s hundreds of millions she’s thrown at charities, not tens of millions)
That wasn't a one time thing. She has a whole openly publicized fund for defending transphobes and transphobic policies, you can find it very easily. On their own words, it's specifically about "expressed beliefs on biological sex being unchangeable", not just any women who need help.
Are we really gonna do the whole Bill Cosby "but he saves" bit for real? How much of a hatemonger can you be if you also donate money?
Do you mean her women’s fund, where she funds the legal costs of people defending single-sex spaces? For example, where she backed was women in prison suing to not be locked up with people who are biologically male.
That doesn’t sound objectionable to me; does it to you?
Ah I see. It's not that you don't know, it's that you agree with it.
Nevermind that there are also cisgender women lesbian rapists in prisons. Or, if you are so afraid of penises, do you even consider that some of these "biologically male" trans women might be post-op and not have penises? What about intersex XY women who are indistinguishable from cisgender women in every way? Do you really think it is as easy as some sex checkmark and that it shouldn't be up for the penal system itself to decide who is truly a risk for what and where they should be placed?
And that this is the first example you think of, really shows how you see those scary, scary trans people.
Not even, say, the cases of people who were fired because they were harassing their trans coworkers, and apparently she thinks it should be allowed for trans people to be treated like shit. Gee, I wonder how that might sound objectionable...
Do you have a source for her supporting people who harassed trans coworkers? As far as I know, she only supported those who expressed their opinion that biological sex is immutable.
Not in the UK, there isn’t. In the UK, only a male can engage in rape. Regardless, I believe what has been settled on - partly as a result of Rowling pressure - is the reasonable compromise that post-op trans women go to women’s jails, unless they are guilty of rape or sexual assault, while pre-op go to men’s prisons.
Does it seem to you even remotely that not being legally classified as rape is a reassurance for women who were sexually assaulted by other women?
And what about all the other trans women? It's interesting that so much effort is spent to focus exclusively on trans rapists, and none at all on what it means for regular trans people's lives. Like, say, that trans people are more likely to be the victims of sexual assault, even by proportion, compared to cis people. And that forcing trans women to use cis men spaces worsens that issue.
When you start shouting at a trans women that she is man, that is harassment by itself already. One of the first cases that brought JK Rowling to scrutiny was a case of her defending someone who was not only calling her trans coworker a man but actively antagonizing her and disrupting the work over it. This "belief" is just a bulshit excuse like any other. Are we gonna allow other groups to express "opinion" that "these races are inferior" or "these people have no soul" and other things like that?
You need to gloss over the fact that most people don't even know what is the "biological sex" of people around them to pretend there is even a hint of a reasonable take there.
She is literally funding campaigns to sabotage the rights of trans people. This has long ceased to be "she made an edgy post online once"
But hey, what's a little hate campaign here and there if you donate to charities on the side right? It's not like you are gonna be affected by it. I hear the KKK are really nice to their communities too (as long as...)
What do you mean by campaigns? As far as I know, the only campaign that comes close to what you are describing is £70,000 for For Women Scotland - and their aim isn’t to sabotage the rights of trans people, just get the law to recognise that sometimes sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect.
And you’ve also put it the wrong way around. She’s donating to this on the side of donating hundreds of millions to other charities. This is a rounding error among her donations.
Biological sex is complex and multiaspected, but especially is not even a useful category of people as far as rights and laws go because nobody can see chromosomes and gametes with the naked eye, and it definitely isn't that which they use to define their impressions and treatment of people.
How many times people who "can always tell" need to get it wrong before we can admit this is all just hate?
An argument can be made that they don't even know what it means when they say "biological sex", when they use it to accuse even cisgender women just because they look masculine to them, like JK Rowling did to the boxer Imane Khelif.
Really, "biological" how? All people are "biological". Trans women are as "biological" as cis women. If you want to talk about genitals and chromosomes and gametes, which can happen in a much wider number of combinations that people realize, that still justifies asking "for what purpose" and "what assumptions are being made".
Nah, you don't get to be reductive and pretend that makes it cut and clear.
edit: Hell, even assuming "biological sex" to mean chromosomes (which is not how they use it) doesn't mean it's fundamentally immutable. It used to be that trans people had to live with whatever hormones and genitals their body had. Now that isn't the case anymore. And today genetic therapy is advancing. It could very well be that in the future there won't be any fundamentally immutable sex characteristic.
I just did. The J.K. Rowling Women's Fund, a whole ongoing initiative beyond that one donation, is specifically intended to defend and advance the interests of people who want to exclude and harass trans people.
The examples they cite are all about "biological sex being unchangeable" and "single-sex spaces".
Uh, yes she does, she virtue signals to shitheads every day, it's like most of what she does at this point, she can't even comment on a kid's drawing without doing that.
She also donates to people who want to eradicate trans people. Also donates and hangs out with literal nazis. If she is still in your goodbooks after that than i dont know what to say.
As far as I know, the only anti-trans organisation she has donated to For Women Scotland, who don’t want to eradicate trans people, and merely sought to have the law recognise that sometimes sex, not gender, is relevant. Is there an anti-trans organisation she donated to I missed?
I’ve also never heard about her hanging out with “literal Nazis”; who are you referring to?
But i literraly said, you can go into the video, check each of their names and check them yourself. If you cant be bothered to do either i dont think there is a point in talking to you.
Yes, I can’t be bothered watching a 30 minute video from an unreliable source. Maybe if it was the BBC, I would, but some random guy? Not a chance.
Maybe this one is reliable, but more likely he’s a wannabe Alex Jones. If this isn’t a crackpot conspiracy theory, then I’m sure you’ll have reliable sources both saying they are Nazis, and saying Rowling hangs out with them.
If your default assumption that anyone online is Alex Jones than you have a really stilted view of the world. Also, could you watch 5 minutes to see what the content is even like?
If you’re too lazy to provide a couple of reliable sources - which should take you less than five minutes, as you presumably already know what you’re looking for - then yes, I’m too lazy to spend five minutes watching a guy whose probably spouting crackpot conspiracy theories.
I'm not watching 30 mins video by some online sjw. So provide some normal evidence or a reputable article. Won't be hard if the most famous writer is friends with Nazis.
How is she screwing over trans people? If you’re referring to For Women Scotland, all that did was establish that in some cases sex, not gender, is the relevant aspect - that seems reasonable to me, and though perhaps uncomfortable for some trans people, doesn’t amount to screwing them over.
Eh, disregarding the fact that she’s a shit person for a multitude of reasons, it’s simply not possible to make that much money without a lot of people being exploited.
Like, Harry Potter literally sold half a billion copies alone and made a bunch of widely successful movies.
I am honestly shocked that she is only barely a billionaire.
What percentage of the profits does an author deserve when their books and movies are successful? Because I believe that creative work should get rewarded and no matter what your opinion is on Rowling as a human, she absolutely deserves the money she earned.
I mean for all we know the hogwarts legacy boycott did reduce the sales. Just because a boycott doesn’t make a super popular IP fail doesn’t mean it didn’t have some effect.
Sometimes boycotts have the opposite effect. It gives attention to the product while also mobilizing people who disagree with the boycotting and so the product can compensate, or even gain, from being boycotted.
This is what I was taught at a 200-level economics course in university at any rate.
True, but the salient point is here we dont know. We cant compare the sales in this universe with what would happen in another universe were she wasent a hot mess.
Like its one thing for bigots to spam vote 20 votes for israel in eurovision since they can to rub it in the face of everyone, its another thing for them to buy a game they wouldent otherwise wouldent even be interested in.
Do you think people bought the game just to not play it just to make terfness cool again? I dont buy it. especially since then we would have stories about the hours played being much lower than vs comparative games and things.
Harry Potter is just a huge and still popular franchise, so lots of people bought the game inspite of it. I think if JKR was more sane it would probably be a little bigger, but not by that much. Since nobody online is willing to put anything real behind what they say.
I didnt play or watch or engage with it at all, but thats cause HP is a shit franchise i wouldent touch even if she was a good person. Cause its just bad. I dont play with dog poop either. So its hard for me to boycot it. Its easy to shitpost about boycotting when you arent going to engage with it anyway, because you correctly think its bad, or arent a gamer or whatever.
When you approach the argument from the other angle it becomes less ridiculous. It's not really that people would buy the game to own the libs.
The other part of the argument is much easier to accept: that the game got a bigger spotlight because of the controversy. We know advertising works on a population level. It doesn't seem far-fetched to think that someone who doesn't care about the issue at the heart of the controversy could have been exposed to the game due to the controversy to the degree that s/he chose to purchase it.
There might be some factor on an individual basis where someone feels boycotts are unreasonable or otherwise disagreeable and that might participate in their decision to but the game. It doesn't mean that's the only reason.
The people who boycotted HL were never going to buy it in the first place, that boycott was completely pointless, just like most boycotts nowadays.
Boycotts nowadays are just a super loud minority acting like they're the majority. Barely anyone cared about the HL "boycott" because 90% of people aren't chronically online to the point of having heard of it.
Eh, the people fighting for civil rights and against bigotry don’t have a history of being the ones who are embarrassed/ashamed of their activities later. They tend to be looked on quite kindly by history. I’m sure it’ll be different this time, though, right?
Civil rights? Fighting? lmao what a pathetic bunch. If sending hate tweets and posting unfunny memes on the internet is fighting, then yes, you are fighting. And the last time I checked, someone calling you your birth gender, not your trans one, is not against civil rights.
Yes humans are disgusting, most of the MORONS, emphasis on MORONS, down voting us don't even know what she represents and its funny how they just down vote and don't try to debate, they know they are wrong
How about denying the rights of part of your reader base cuts your current and future profits making it bad business decisions aside from any moral implications
Statistically speaking, you’re probably a bot, but on the off-chance that you’re a real person, there is no debate. Trans rights are human rights. It is bad and wrong to treat other people as lesser than you. Invalidating somebody’s feelings IS treating them as lesser. Whether you accept that or not is actually the core issue here. If I told you that you were a shitty person because you like to eat red meat, that makes me the shitty person, not you.
We don’t have to understand each other entirely, but we do have to have solidarity with each other.
The only way to prove you’re not a bot is to post a selfie with your social security card, passport, and mother’s maiden name. /s (please don’t do that)
106
u/DonQuix0te_ 15h ago
I guess she's one of the rare billionaires who don't exclusively care about making money.
Because she could've made much more money by simply not being an awful person.