Yes! And this is very good. This is how abusers and violators of consent should be treated by potential employers. They really were “canceled”, and their canceling is a positive good.
I haven’t decided about her books. Not all criticism is necessarily “fair and right”, but criticism, even incorrect criticism, is nothing to be concerned about (unlike threats, which are always wrong). It’s something to discuss. I don’t see what criticism has to do with “public list”.
You are asserting that since I criticize JKR for what she says, that I am “alongside” the religious right.
You don’t get much more guilt by association than that.
I agree with this. Similarly, if one finds themselves demonizing, denigrating, or dehumanizing trans people (and trans allies) alongside the religious right, I’d recommend they reexamine their philosophy of life.
I note that context may be ambiguous here.
When I say that criticism is always fair and right, I mean that it is always fair and right to criticize, not necessarily that the content of the criticism itself, is.
In post #18, there is a video from Jon Ronston (?) that addresses this. Did you happen to watch it? What are your thoughts?
Never mind, I worked it out.
Freedom of thought and speech is a very important value for me. Ditto belief in the value of evidence and reason. (The scientific method, in other words.) A big reason I dislike religions is their frequent opposition to these values.
In other words, I think the Catholic church is bad because it bans books, and bad when it locked up scientists and burned heretics at the stake, not because of the particular views they tried to suppress. If you believe the only bad thing is that they burned the wrong books and locked up the wrong scientists, I’m not on your side.
100%.
I guess I’m struggling with balancing the importance of criticism and what sometimes turns into mob justice. I don’t want to shut down one for the sake of avoiding the other. But I do think that mobs tend to shut down discussions.
She caters to a certain audience that doesn’t seem to mind. I enjoy the movies as an entertaining escape but I prefer other writers and genres.
For those who are interested, iiandyiiii objected to her tweeting:
In reference to an article titled “Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”.
And to her quoting a researcher into adolescents presenting with gender dysphoria who wrote:
Worth taking away someone’s livelihood? (It really did, another, less famous author was fired for supporting JRK.)
Isn’t the complaint about cancel culture that people are jumping on a bandwagon without examining the facts for themselves?
“Rowling hates trans people, burn her books!”, is what it seems that those of us who criticize are perceived as saying. (even indirectly accused of).
The reason that you don’t get upset if I say that I will never pay for a Bill Cosby is that we agree that he should be “canceled”.
We don’t agree that what JKR did was as egregious, so we disagree on whether we should continue to support her. (Not that I’ve done much to support her. I did read the first 3 books, but I read them in Spanish as practice. For that purpose, they are actually pretty good.)
I’ll agree with the notion that someone who just retweets a “JKR hates the trans” hashtag is closer to the religious fundy who is acting out of ignorance. However, given that I have seen many very well written essays, articles, and posts on exactly what she said and how that harmed others, I do not accept the blanket accusation that everyone is doing it out of ignorance.
I think this is a reasonable discussion, and I read Jon Ronston’s book about it and I think he handled it well. In general I think random non famous people are at risk of occasional unjust treatment by online mobs, but powerful people like JKR are pretty much immune (aside from the threats, which are wrong). A bunch of random internet strangers criticizing JKR online isn’t going to significantly affect her livelihood.
I think that whether it is social action or mob justice only depends on your perspective.
If you say something that a bunch of people disagree with you, they are individually expressing their disagreement. From their perspective, all they are doing is saying their piece.
From the public figure’s perspective, they don’t see the individuals, they don’t hear the individual arguments and criticisms, they just see a whole bunch of people arrayed against them, a mob.
I’ll admit that it can sometimes be overwhelming to have a whole bunch of people disagree with you and cast aspersions upon you and your views. It’s happened to me here on numerous occasions. Sometimes it means it’s time to end the discussion and bow out, and sometimes it means it’s time to step up and advocate for what you believe to be right.
I don’t think that it is the mob that shuts down the discussion, it is the reaction to criticism that one does not have the time, patience, or temperament to respond to that shuts it down. Pretty much by definition, what the “mob” is offering is further discussion, just not on your terms.
I just want to be clear that I’m not concerned about JKR’s financial stability and future. I’m concerned about people less famous and less financially secure who will (and have) suffered unjust treatment by online mobs (bullying, really), because that is the kind of culture (cancel culture) that is being fostered when it’s okay to drag someone through the mud for an unpopular (not racist or bigoted, mind you) opinion. And often, due to a rush to convict because it’s expedient and because it feels good to be among the ‘(self)righteous’ majority.
Sure, this is reasonable. Occasionally online nonsense actually hurts people.
I did some glancing about, and I cannot find this reference.
Could you at least give me a name?
It’s a distinction without a difference. If you cannot respond effectively due to overwhelming odds, the mob has effectively shut down the discussion on their unilateral terms.
“Mob justice” online is conflated with social justice because a bunch of wealthy and influential anti social justice people (Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, etc.) have successfully conflated the two, even though there’s just as much, if not more, anti social justice mob bullying than done in the name of social justice. And for some reason, some prominent “centrist” (or at least not right wing like Shapiro, Peterson, and the like) white people (Andrew Sullivan, Steven Pinker, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and others) have glommed onto this bullshit because (I presume) their egos can’t take being criticized by online strangers.
Oh, maybe answered my own question. Is this who you were talking about?
It may be more than just her #IStandWithJKRowling hashtag that people got upset with.
Right. And history teaches us that it is often a lone voice or idea that changes things. Few mobs are credited with important social change and progress. Social media is often credited with democratizing speech. What I’m realizing (hardly the first to do so) is that democratized speech is not always socially just. What damage and harm used to be credited to mobs is now made easier by online swarming. What makes it worse is that it may lead to the shutting down of individual voices that have something to say and ought to be heard.
Yeah, I think it’s the bandwagon jumpers we’re talking about when we say cancel culture, not so much the people who take time to write thoughtful essays. And there’s not much chance for discussion with people who in many cases didn’t even read the original comments but are piling on based on hearsay.
What overwhelming odds are there that prevents effective response? They still have twitter, they still have facebook, they probably still have the power of their commercial platform.
It’s not that they cannot respond, it is that they choose not to.
And that’s fine. You don’t have to respond to every criticism. You don’t have to respond to any, even. Many youtubers that I watch specifically never read the comments on their videos. They know that there is no point to it.