It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
forward.com
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.
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.
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.
I believe that's why "centrist" has become a popular substitute word, to sidestep the confusion.
Don't get me started on centrists. What a wonderfully convenient way for a conservative to hide their shame in social settings! Ten years ago, that word meant nothing to me. Now, it just means "embarrassed conservative" to me.
I assume you talk about centrist as in USA context? Because what you're saying doesn't make much sense to me as Northern European
Ahh, yes. Here in the U.S., some conservatives have become ashamed to admit they are conservatives, especially after the Trump presidency. So now they call themselves centrists.
They are still very conservative. They just don't want to be equated with the most extreme of their party. They think being somewhere between neo-nazi and neo-liberal is called "centrist".
Her world views are absolutely conservative by today’s standard. Especially her views on gender roles. I mean have you read Harry Potter when you were younger? All important characters that actually shape the plot are male. She went out of her way to give Harry different father figures, believing that‘s what a boy needs when he grows up. But it‘s enough when his mother just loved him. Her female characters are far less layered than the male ones and more often than not reduced to mere tropes. The most prominent one being the pedantically strict auntie, a template which wich gets pasted a lot. There’s also the crazy auntie character and the tomboy. But that‘s pretty much it, really. Hermione herself ranges between overly strict and tomboy throughout the books and the only way she managed to escape this pattern is by… magic plastic surgery to shrink her front teeth. Rowling has clearly defined genders to be a black or white kind of thing for herself and she clearly outlined which gender has to fill what role.
Totally agree with all of that. But I think the disagreement is based on what you think a liberal is. She is a New Labourite through and through.
British transphobia is as prevalent amongst middle-class, white liberals (centrists) as it is on the right; I'd say that they started it here.
Writers for The Guardian (US) wrote a letter protesting that bastion of liberalism's transphobic stance: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK.
The political dividing line here is very, very different to that in the US.
The reason traditional gender roles are called than and are that is because most people act in accordance with them.
And I disagree that all female characters have less depth intentionally.
These are still books about a boy, told from his point of view. Most of the depth is in his head.
No leftist self-identifies as a liberal in the US.
Liberal and leftist are synonyms to the US right such that everyone left of them is considered a "liberal", and the term is usually used pejoratively.
It's usually used perjoratively by the left, tbf.
Keywords --Raymond Williams
Good point that is also true and it's the reason no leftist self-identifies as a liberal. However, my comment was in response to this statement:
My point (which you are supporting) is that leftist and liberal are not synonyms in the US except to people in the US who apply the term liberal wrongly.
I think the trans thing started as a sincerely held conviction very much a long the lines as you're describing, and while this is and can only be utter speculation, I have a feeling a lot of what comes after as in Chappelle, probably with Linehan (but I don't really know anything about his case) and also other examples like the vaccines cause autism guy, I think these people are seeing an opportunity in their ostracism to keeping their profiles high and business opportunities as well.
I think it's a sort of a 'hung for a sheep as for a lamb' kind of logic where you mightn't really have had any particular common cause with a lot of conservative views, or fringe elements before, but their willingness to embrace and lionize you for this one particular stance creates a new audience and market for you just as others are shrinking. From there it makes sense to gradually dole out hints and allusions to more conservative talking points and just keep ratcheting it up piecemeal to keep that profile up. For this to work you have to eventually be less hinting and more direct and the positions have to be more extreme and on more and more diverse matters, even ones you probably never had any opinion on because this is a pathway to becoming a kind professional provocateur and shock jock.
For some feminists, especially older ones, the transphobia comes from the long fight against the patriarchy and the feeling that men are trying to encroach on everything they fought for by becoming women. I had that explained to me by multiple (three) feminists in the last few years.
Yes, that's the divide within 'radical feminism'. The trans-exclusionary TERFs and the trans-inclusionary TIRFs. They both start with "gender is a social construct" but the TERFs have somehow got from there to biological essentialism. They're a minority of a minority. But they tend to be middle-class so they make a lot of noise.
They sound like pleasant people to be around
Wow, Linehan really dug in hard according to his Wiki.
A really tragic trajectory. His work was genuinely great. And there isn't going to be any more of it (unless his new fascist pals persuade him to do a Leni Riefenstahl for them).
HBomberGuy’s Donkey Kong 64 “Fuck You Graham” nightmare stream for trans rights was absolutely marvelous
Maybe she just has her own views and your tribalistic mind can't comprehend that?
I know what I'd put my money on.
And her views are fucking hateful and stupid.
So you're saying we should just turn the children of all conservatives queer? Alright, bring in the cat girls, 196 memes and let's pounce!
Joking aside, there's two archetypes of conservative:
It is not worth fighting either group with animosity, condemnation or attacks, as they are more than capable of spinning the story their side and reinforcing their ideas that queers are somehow threatening.
But at least we should be capable of showing the xenofobes that there is no monster in that closet (pun intended), or under their beds.
As for Rowling, she is likely part of the cultist group, which means we're going to have issues. Her status as a celebrity and her wealth further isolates her from the rest of society, which is a real problem because that makes you able to opt out of confrontation with reality. She can just stategically isolate herself from ever coming into contact and having a real human interaction with the people she's having all these misguided ideas about.
I think everyone should be made more aware of the damage that social bubbles cause to society. Whether it's conservative communities, religious indoctrination, closed internet discussion groups or just the wealthy and famous distancing themselves from society (which is usually not by choice but because we treat them to a permanent dose of spotlights).
I wonder if you have read/heard the things Rowling has actually said about trans issues.
I also find it ironic that you liken her to a chrisofachist, when in the early 00s she was basically crucified by those people.
I certainly don't agree with everything she has said. But some of her points are genuine "maybe this is something that deserves conversation and contemplating", which are immediately construed as transphobic or hateful by many people who haven't personally read/heard what she said. People jump to screaming online instead of trying to refute her points.
Again, I do NOT agree with her on many, many things!
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?
Because people can't tell the difference between the Israeli government and a random jewish person in North America that has nothing to do with anything
It’s honestly upsetting to see.
I think it's great. My block-list is filling out nicely. Hope the trolls keep exposing themselves in such brazen careless fashion :)
When they’re financially or socially insulated from the consequences of their actions or words it’s pretty awful what people reveal about themselves.
Maybe I'm missing a federation because I'm not seeing the agreement comments.
I was wrong. So so wrong. Phone wouldn't scroll.
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_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
Iirc, one of the most famous pictures of a book burning was right outside that hospital, and the books came from inside it.
Non gender conforming people were the first group they came after.
The vast majority of people dont know this. Its an obscure fact that people share regularly in forums like Lemmy, but are not part of any mainstream discussion of the holocaust.
Trade unions and lgbt clubs were attacked within the first three months after Hitler became the Chancellor. Already in the first month trade union offices and lgbt clubs were destroyed by the SA and people were sent to camps.
It was news to me and I feel I have a fairly decent understanding of nazi atrocities, but I also wouldn't be confident in denying it without first researching.
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.
Which brings to question, why the genocides of the concentration camps are quite deliberately reduced to the holocaust in many perceptions.
The German government denied adequate compensation to LGBT concentration camps survivors to this day and only in 2017 they opened for legal rehabilitation. So until 2017 someone that was convicted for homosexuality by the Nazis and put into a concentration camp was considered a convict.
Equally political activists, Sint and Roma and disakled people (or people ascribes as being so) faced similiar issues of non recognition and non compensation.
And it is no surprise that the option for homosexuals was only opened when almost all the surviving victims have died of old age. Focusing the spotlight on the Holocaust was done to deflect from the continued discrimination and subjugation of other victim groups.
I was going to argue that that was a slightly reductive statement because of all the other groups that the Nazis genocided, but I looked it up and you are correct.
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.
This is good advice
I will wait until she dies so she can't profit from it. I know it's a drop in the bucket but it's my drop.
She had a choice. Her Twatter account could have just been happy stuff about Harry Potter. She repeatedly choose to create this situation. So fuck her she isn't getting a cent from me.
🏴☠️
Same. As a cys person I stand in solidarity with You ... Feck that Bitch... Feck her and Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan ETC
Is Joe Rogan transphobic? It would be entirely unsurprising, I already hated him because he was constantly putting air into the Alt Right.
If he isn't already, I think he would be within five minutes if anyone talked him into it
My kids are trans/have trans friends and they square this circle by believing that "J.K. Rowling" is Danny Devito's pen name
Damn, the kids ARE alright. That's awesome.
I would pay oodles to read Doanne Dathleen Rowling's version of events.
It's also possible for someone to be a shitty person and a shitty author. There are tons of discussions on just how badly written HP is and that would be true even if she suddenly stopped being a horrible person.
Yeah, 1-4 are fun “monster of the week” kids book with worldbuilding that falls apart if you look at it too much. 5-7 have “George Lucas” syndrome - editors couldn’t say “no” anymore. The Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows were clearly last minute ass pulls.
Idk I read a lot of similar quality YA when I was a child. I don’t get the obsession.
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.
I gotta say, I'm dealing with cognitive dissonance right now. I remember having bookmarked her Harvard commencement speech and listening to it from time to time, admiring the principles and standing up for the good of all people. I felt someone who wrote those books would HAVE to have a keen understanding of right from wrong and fighting the good fight.
So these recent years with her position on this have been confusing and sad for me. I hope she grows and learns from this.
Also unpopular opinion but I stumbled across this article from OP's source which I largely agree with: https://forward.com/culture/480388/please-shut-up-about-the-harry-potter-jew-goblins-antisemitism-jk-rowling/
In her mind she IS fighting for "right vs wrong". She's just REALLY fucking wrong about which side is "right". One of the biggest things I've learned in life is that EVERYONE thinks that they're the hero. That they're doing good and the "others" are the bad guys. Rowling is a piece of a shit but she THINKS she's the good guy and that's the most dangerous part of all.
I disagree. I have felt like crap many times when I did what I consider the wrong thing. She knows what she is doing which pretty much only leaves sociopath or sadistic. Either way time to stop apologizing for her.
No one is apologizing for her. You felt like crap when you did something wrong because you realized it was wrong. Good people make mistakes and learn from them. People should be like you. She thinks she's doing right and is a pig headed bigot. People should not be like her.
How did you determine that? Not trying to be snarky and I think it is important to give everyone the assumption of good faith (once) but I really don't see any effort on her part that confirms this.
She hasnt even done the fake non-apology celebrity thing where she pays a charity and says she has to learn more. she has repeatedly doubled down.
I'm heavily confused by this. If she thought she was doing wrong she'd do the whole apology tour. Which she hasn't, as you said. Your two paragraphs don't play well with each other. She has exactly doubled down, which means she thinks she's right so I have no idea what point you're trying to argue.
I do something wrong, I know it's wrong. Someone calls me out on it.
Yeah you are right = lose face admit that I wasnt being a good person.
No, I am right = don't lose face and say it enough no longer feel guilty. Because now you get to feel like you are the real victim here. And a victim can never be wrong.
This is why you keep getting these well liked rich fucks bitch about how much harm has been done to them by being cancelled. That woman quite literally has a net worth equal to what I will earn if I worked for over 10,000 years. And yet she is the victim in this? Hell I bet every single trans person combined net worth in the UK isn't equal to her own.
She knows she is wrong but she thinks if she keeps saying 2 + 2 = 5 she will win.
Yes, that's...that's what I'm saying lol. Which is why your argumentative nature of the post confused me. And still does. Well, sorta. She DOESNT know she's wrong because she 100% believes she's right and everyone else are the "bad guys". That's my whole point. She DOESNT GET that she's wrong. It's everyone ELSE who is wrong.
She knows she is wrong.
Why do you say that? There's heaps and heaps of evidence of her believing she's right, I'd honestly like to hear this take.
It's weird to me because I don't view her in the same way I do, say, Republicans or Trump or Bannon or Miller or Putin, etc. For all intents she is a bleeding-heart leftist who vehemently opposes the narrative of the right's fearmongering in respect to most other issues. If she was just another greedy sociopathic republican-type then I wouldn't be the least-bit surprised.
So I'm not convinced she's a psychopath sociopath on par with the aforementioned; from what I can tell I do think she's deeply confused and has some personal trauma that feeds a puritannical belief in feminism.
If she was a leftist, Harry wouldn't have become a cop. Hermione wouldn't have been ridiculed about SPEW until she gave up. And so on.
Unless she is the most pessimistic leftist who can't even dream of a world where things change for the better when she creates that world all by her own.
What gate-keeping philosophy suggests all leftists must oppose cops -- did I not get the memo? I didn't realize she's a Thatcher plant because Harry went to work for the Ministry and overhaul it for a place of good lol.
In a capitalist society, cops are mostly busy with protecting rich people. I don't think a material analysis of what cops are and do will result in anything that redeems the institution as it is now.
Hot take but I think that probably over-generalizes the role of police and is particularly centered specifically around American cop culture and not, say, European or Scandinavian ones.
Thus I remain unconvinced that this is what they are destined to do. If good cops exist, then it's a matter of altering the system and model to promote good instead of bad seeds no differently than paying teachers better, or giving nurses more training.
That's not how it works. Not in America and not here in Germany. Good cops only exist until one of their comrades fucks up, then they're bullied out of their job unless they cover for them.
It's a self purifying system.
Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are a thing. I'm not sure why but it is. There are many. From what I've seen it's mainly women who are SO heavily misandrist and hateful of men they think any trans woman is still a man and therefore out to rape and kill them by design, but I haven't looked that deep into the bigotry.
On your link there, I'm sorry to say the author is making a very silly argument. It boils down to 'if you see a specific race in this racist caricature then you're the real racist'. This would only be true if racist caricatures were a new thing never seen before. It's akin to saying 'oh i didn't mean black people when i screamed the n- word. You're the racist for thinking the n- word refers to black people'.
That's an extreme example but you see my point that there's a history that's being ignored.
No,
JohnJon Stewart looked at the Harry Potter goblins and saw an offensive Jewish caricature. As an ethnically Jewish trans woman I agree with him. Rowling's goblins and her Holocaust denial are harmful. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan too, so I don't begrudge anyone for enjoying her content or even paying for content. I of course appreciate when people avoid those things. Profits from her games, books and movies go to funding anti-trans causes which make her content harmful. All I ask is that when Rowling does something harmful, like Holocaust denial or fund anti-trans causes people agree that what she is doing and her content is harmful.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/harry-potter-author-jk-rowling-faces-backlash-over-donations-to-group-challenging-transgender-rights/ar-BB1iw90J
edit: Jon not John
To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:
JohnJon Stewart said the goblins are an offensive Jewish caricature. None of these statements contradict each other. The point is, no one looked at the goblins and thought they were Jews as the author of Please shut up about the Harry Potter Jew-goblins suggests. It is not antisemitic to point out that the goblins are collectively an offensive Jewish caricature. edit: typo, https://www.adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism, typo, Jon not JohnI didn't say they were, but I do think it's an important distinction because the entire purpose of highlighting this in context of J.K. Rowling is to accuse her of explicit antisemitism. Whereas Jon (not John) continued to write:
This means, indeed, that two things can be true at the same time: Rowling subconsciously used a Jewish caricature (as did Tolkien before her), and (2) Rowling is not Antisemitic.
Many people -- not you, necessarily -- equate the two.
Nowhere in my argument did I say Rowling was antisemitic. I said her goblins are harmful.
It really doesn't matter if she did it intentionally or not, it's harmful regardless.
Perhaps; though that's not a reflection of her -- but as Stewart points out society as a whole and the power we give to racist stereotypical tropes in the first place -- it's a convenient target for those who are already looking to hate on her for other more substantive reasons.
On a separate note, do you not think it's a stretch to lump her in with holocaust deniers this quickly? Isn't it a little too soon to categorize her lack of understanding that the concept of trans or books being burned occurred under nazis versus those who deny millions were murdered in general? If anything, doesn't that water-down the category of Holocaust Deniers?
Doesn't anyone who actively tries to defend literal Nazis by saying "wait wait guys the Nazis weren't THAT bad" https://www.thedailybeast.com/jk-rowling-adds-holocaust-denialism-to-her-transphobia warrent like....an immediate "this fucker is insane" thing? I mean if you're trying to defend someone who is trying to defend WW2 Nazis I think you're in the wrong camp is all
I think there is a considerable logical leap if not an outright non-sequitur between being misinformed on nazi atrocities / history, and "defending nazis"
I don't think we can strawman what Rowling did with, "Nazis weren't THAT bad."
I think it's too early to put considerable weight on her intent or beliefs surrounding nazis on this singular tweet.
But yes, I do agree people who legitimately defend nazis are insane.
Categorically calling it holocaust denial to me diminishes the scale of damage caused by legitimate holocaust deniers.
I suspect there are many individuals who already hate Rowling personally for comments related to Trans rights are looking for things to an irrational degree.
That being said I don't think I can add any more to this conversation that I haven't already and so thank you for the discussion and oblige you with the final word.
Doesn't she, as a public figure, whose tweets (xhits?) will reach millions, have more of an onus of responsibility on her to fact check herself? I do agree with you on the fact that she's not ENTIRELLY denying the holocaust and to put her in the same camp as those who do DOES weaken what that means, 100% agreed on that. She's not a holocaust denier, she just denies some specific things that happened in the holocaust. It's still SUPER shitty and SUPER wrong but yes, agreed, she's not going around spouting "it never happened!" shit. I just came into this conversation but I appreciate your input all the same
PS Rowling is a hateful bigot
Ignoring racist stereotypes in fiction isn't the solution. We should want to do better.
No. Holocaust denial is holocaust denial. It's never too early to call it out.
No. Valuable research was lost that could have benefited millions of people. Not to mention trans people were killed by the Nazis. The fact millions of Jews were killed does not diminish the harm in denying that other groups were targeted by the Nazis.
Although Jews were the group who had the most causalities, the Holocaust affected many different groups of people. Denying any part of the Holocaust is harmful and calling that out in no way diminishes the seriousness of Holocaust denial.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/mosaic-of-victims-an-overview
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Holocaust-Facts-and-Figures
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-research-reveals-how-the-nazis-targeted-transgender-people-180982931/
I appreciate the sources and acknowledge everyone from Jews to Communists to Gypsies, LGBTQ, to the Handicapped and so forth were ostracized, discriminated upon, and murdered by the Nazis. What I note does not detract from that; merely to say that someone not recognizing what is frankly not a mainstream fact about the Holocaust does not make them a holocaust denier; it may make them holocaust illiterate. So I mean it's good to be proactive with this stuff but it's also important to give people the chance to take a step back and give people a way out instead of compelling them to become what you repeatedly label them as. Reading too much into a single tweet when there -- to my knowledge -- hasn't been a response or clarification from Rowling -- is jumping the gun. I admire the confidence in your convictions but I don't agree with your conclusions.
Despite your argument's insistence to the contrary nowhere in my argument do I accuse Rowling of being anything. Whether or not Rowling is ignorant is irrelevant. Her actions are what matter. When presented with new information about the Holocaust her response was not to become more informed, but to deny the information. That is Holocaust denial and it is harmful. edit: typos
Reading the article after playing Hogwarts Legacy gives me a slightly different feeling about that last paragraph...
Still a good article though.
But HP is a shitty story with questionable moral lessons.
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.
Absolutely.
The person above apparently posts here specifically because they don't agree with us based on their responses in this thread. So I guess they don't understand why people would want to be around those they are in agreement with.
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.
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?
This is about changing things. But we're talking about different things to change it seems.
And yes, semantics.
I appreciate that there has been some confusion regarding the use of this word. And I also appreciate your sentiment that it would be nice to focus on the positive. However, so much evil throughout history has come from conservatism, that the word weighs heavily with negative connotation that should not be removed.
In social context, nothing good in the history of mankind has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Here is a non-political definition, for some clarification. Note the lack of preservation of nature.
conservative /kən-sûr′və-tĭv/ adjective
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
(My apologies for the American dictionary reference in a thread about an English person. It was just the easiest one to copy/paste on a phone.)
Yes, these are my thoughts on the word's meaning, in large.
A moderate and cautious approach to change.
Absolute refusal of change is the extremism part of this definition that seems to be viewed as its defining attribute instead.
Edit: Maybe this view of mine is flawed, but it's how I see a Conservative party should be. To avoid unchecked progress, maintain stability and implement only rigorously verified policies, in small, but certain steps. Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.
Lol no
Viewing words that prescriptively is kinda insane and willfully ignorant.
When someone says "gay", do you start arguing about how "it has nothing to do with sexuality, it just means carefree', 'cheerful', or 'bright and showy'."?
Cmon. Cmon. CMON
It means both. And both meanings started as positive, then one meaning became the focus and the other completely ignored.
That's what you should be upset about.
Fair enough. If politically conservative people legislated with a moderate, cautious demeanor, I would respect that. In fact, I might even side with them on several policies.
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to gain independence from colonialists?
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to ending slavery?
What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to giving workers basic rights?
Shore up the defenses, create logistics trains, be certain of the allies available, initiate battle when ready and after all diplomatic recourses have failed.
Have a standing replacement framework, compensate losses, ratify laws to support equal rights in its entirety, reduce support of transgressors in public eyes over time. There were few slave owners. Turning the masses against them wouldn't have been difficult.
Prepare alternative replacement in case of refusal, then support unionizing while giving subsidies to encourage participation.
Ideally, it's supposed to advance slowly while keeping everyone relatively happy and stable.
A government is supposed to consider all of its citizens and that means taking into consideration the consequences of failure, while also planning how to remedy them.
I'm sorry... are you actually going against revolutions against colonial powers?
And if turning the masses against slave owners wouldn't have been difficult, why did a war have to be fought over it?
You asked for a moderate and cautious approach. I gave you an example of one.
If you draw from this more than what it is, then that's on you, not me.
The war in the US at least was fought due to a poor approach on the subject.
The UK, at the very least if anything, managed to end slavery peacefully on its soil.
Britain has not ended slavery. And when it technically outlawed slavery within the British Isles (which is actually all the anti slavery laws did), it was neither a moderate nor a cautious approach.
But, more importantly, there is still slavery in Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_Kingdom
Britain didn't even end slavery in the 19th century either. They just changed the term to 'indentured servitude' and 'blackbirding.'
So it wasn't ended peacefully because it wasn't ended.
Also, the idea that you even should end slavery gradually is pretty offensive to all of the people enslaved throughout history. Would you be comfortable saying to them, "you won't be freed, but we're ending this eventually because it's a gradual process."
Yes, it should be done gradually.
What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can't afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?
You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?
The big problem about discussing conservatives / Conservatives here is that this board seems quite US-focused. The British Conservative Party (the current party of UK government) pretty much came in to existence back in the day to “conserve” things and put a check on “progressive / liberal” policies. Conservative means something different whether your context is American-politics or whether it’s politics-politics.
I think context is more important and in this context disgust is the correct emotion.
I've found that context matters little when emotion takes precedence.
So which of your emotions made you ignore the context?
Pity.
Well time to pack up the pity party, Lath. There's context to consider.
Nah. Context rarely matters.
Oh my fuck, clearly the context is lost on you.
Conservative is yet another word that's been commandeered to the ends of the right wing. They have a long history of distorting or outright willfully misinterpreting words and symbols. Their use of the punisher logo is a classic example
That's the thing though, anyone can twist words to fit one's view. So why accept their vilification? Why jump into that pot of vitriol and say "yes, this is how it has to be"?
To believe "conservative" branded political parties are conflated with the English connotations of the word is quite frankly falling for propaganda at this point. Politically speaking "conservative" has a unique meaning that has nothing really to do with financial prudence or slow and measured progress. What they seek to "conserve" is old power structures. Heirachies founded on intergenerational wealth or old exclusionary policy that created privileged citizen classes. Sometimes they dress it up in the mask of "traditional values" but it's all basically just smoke and mirrors. It's why they attack inclusive policy, civil rights fights including education policies, social safety nets and tax policies that target wealthier citizens. They have to "conserve" the pecking order where old money remains uncontested power, new money casts the illusion that upward mobility it possible and nobody is allowed to mention that they are being treated as a second class citizen.
The idea of self branding yourself a "conservative" serves by flattering ones own ego because as a label it's primed to make one feel reasonable and measured... But. It's just fluff.
Lol bro really doesn’t know the difference between conservatives and conservationists.
even if they were the same word... context has meaning.
in a politics news sub, talking about politics; you'd have to be a moron to conflate conservatives [individuals who espouse conservative politics] with something else.
One, this is regular news. Nowhere in the title of the community or the rules listed does it say only politics news, far as I've seen.
Two, you'd have to be a moron to consider people who don't think the same way you do as morons.
Three, morons are allowed to participate in society. If you disagree with this, well, good thing we're in the right place to discuss discrimination.
context.
You wouldn't expect an article about MC Hammer, some one saying "its hammer time!" to mean home improvement. it's a news sub, and the article is about politics, not wildlife conservation. you're being obtuse.
That could actually be a great The Onion theme.
Inflamatory - but ambiguos - headline with the article jumping from theme to theme through homonyms and context changes
Homonym: The Game from 30 Rock.
Only if we get the construction vest guy from the Village people to do a cover. Is he still alive?
Why not? Here's an example.
"It's Hammer Time"
MC Hammer, famously known for hit song decides to change careers and go into home improvement.
It's completely in line with media expectations.
sheesh you have thoroughly drunk the kool aid, wake up
This makes me think of that woman who was insistent that she was not a musician because she makes music, not magic
That’s conservationists. Different word, different meaning, and most importantly different people for the most part
Hey can everyone please assume good faith. This is an easy enough mistake to make if you are ESL.
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.
I'm sorry I just ran out of crayons and won't be able to explain it to you :(
Okay, good, keep doing what you're doing.
Hogwarts is not elite. Anyone can enrol if they have magical ability. It's addressed in a later book that attendance is not mandatory but nearly every witch and wizard in Britain is educated there. It's just a school that doesn't even have an admittance exam.
That's exactly what makes it elite. There's automatically a class system.
A genetics-based one, no less
I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean, do you want non magical people to attend a magical school?
The fact that magic is only for some, that's the elitist part. There are some people that are inherently better than others
They could just fail every class for 8 years and be passed to the next anyway.
No different then public school system st the end of the day.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean, do you want non magical people to attend a magical school?
That's the thing that makes everyone defending this shit so sus. Harry Potter has so. many. layers. of terrible shit in it. Maybe people didn't realize it when they were reading the books as a child because they were young and naive, but as an adult you should be able to recognize shit like the only Asian character being named "Cho Chang" and realize you're reading an awful book written by an awful person. The fact that people know about Rowlings bigotry and still read HP to their kids blows my mind. If we all just agreed she was a shitty person and stopped passing her garbage writing along, she'd be forgotten in a generation.
There's a city in China called Chongqing, I'm guessing that's racist too?
If you're grasping at straws trying to defend a well known bigot who is publicly proud of her bigotry, it's time to re-evaluate your life.
I think it'll be alright.
It's sad that she's likely repressing a LOT of gender dysphoria, but just doubles down on the bigotry and hate. Fuck JK Umbridge.
All direct quotes:
Oh yikes. Yikes yikes yikes. I would feel bad for her* if she* wasn't such a petty evil person.
Is it normal to feel mentally sexful? Asking for a friend.
Yeah, mentally I feel my assigned gender at birth which ironically is why I can see how people maybe wouldn't.
Weird. I feel kind of ambivalent, but not dysphoric or anything. Like I could just as easily have been born into a different body and felt no worse off.
I went through a bi panic in college and did a bunch of thought experiments with myself, mainly because I want getting action from either gender to try and test that out.
Anything your brains do that do not cause harm to you or others is just fine.
It is an interesting question, is she denying this because she hates jews or because she hates trans
Why not both?
Because we have substantially more evidence for one than the other.
Didn't she name the only black character Shacklebolt? Also, Cho Chang is the only Asian?
The Irish character kept blowing things up...
Ah yes, Seamus
Wait a minute, that's right !! haha
Kingsley Shacklebolt..
What's with the name Shacklebolt ?
Maybe she just likes Nazis?
The type of Holocaust denial they're suggesting she's doing wouldn't make her antisemitic, because she's not denying its impact on the Jewish people. It just makes her more transphobic, which we already knew.
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.
You know what they say about people who sit at tables with Nazis without protest.
I actually don't. Is it something specific to Nazism or to authoritarian governments in general?
You should be careful lying about who is a Nazi.
The more you do it, the less power that word has.
Similar to antisemetic.
You should be careful lying about who isn't a Nazi.
The more you do it, the less power that word has.
Similar to antisemetic.
Yeah. This is why rational people don't take you seriously.
You're addicted to arguing in bad faith because you get so much support for it on these forums.
You need to step out into the real world to get some real perspectives.
Ditto.
Fucking BINGO.
In these types of posts, Lemmy reads exactly like a Fox News comment thread.
What a drag. The “Lookit me I am 14 and a totes badass” cult infesting Lemmy has just about killed it for me. I just hope things change and more adults show up.
Yeah it's pretty lame, but I'm fighting back any way I can.
Err umm sooo rAtIoNaL
If being transphobic and racist isn't enough, read more. In particular, after reading Earthsea series by Ursula K. LeGuin, it's clear that the main ideas of the Harry Potter series (an elite wizarding school and a wreckless magic student meddling in death and how that threatens the whole world) is not Rowling's own original idea. I'm sorry for putting down an author you like if it means you won't give LeGuin a try, because I really do think you will like her stuff.
See Le Guin --> upvote,
Simple as
I have no doubt that Rowling's story isn't original. There are many authors better than her, yet less popular. The Harry Potter story is a love-hate thing for most of its fans and its success is a matter opportunity i'd guess.
But it is part of childhood for many and that alone makes it important enough to keep the better parts of it close to heart.
I'll probably get to read Earthsea eventually, I just need to find the time to invest in it properly.
Given the enthusiasm with which you've been spreading your own bigotry and lies around the rest of this thread, I don't believe you and I regret responding to your comment. I don't think you'll appreciate LeGuin. I'd rather you stay a vocal Rowling fan, you seem to be very representative of that willfully ignorant and hateful lot.
So bigotry and lies is now "don't focus on hatred"? Ok.
The following text is hyperbole to make a point and should be treated as such.
...
Let's say you're right. Let's hate on Rowling. Let's burn her books. Let's take her wealth and property. Let's send her to a special place for bigots, separate from the proper society. Let's do the same for the rest like her. I mean, who needs bigots in this society? They're poison. We'll be doing the world a favour...
The Nazis grew in power with a similar message about a certain kind of people. But yes, it's not Nazism. It's not the same. You're not really letting your hatred fester until it's all that is left. You can stop before that. You CAN stop. Because you're different. You're special. You're how the world should be. And anyone who thinks differently is beneath you.
...
Why are we here? Why is this topic important? Why is Lemmy important? Some people say it's a safe space, for those who believe the same things can agree with and encourage each other.
That's good and well for nice and positive ideas of growth and cooperation.
But when you start echoing anger, disgust, hatred and all other kinds of negative emotions, they get reinforced just as well as the positive side of things.
Look at this topic. Hate on Rowling. Hate on bigots. Hate on everything bad. And look at the number of up votes.
Is this really the type of safe space and reinforcement you want? If so, then I'm sorry, but that hyperbole above is the unavoidable path all those before you have fallen into.
Balance in all things is the path I try to walk, the good and the bad. Though I fail and stumble once in a while, I try to remember that no one is inherently good or bad. We simply are, each with faults of our own.
What path do you walk?
Stand up for what you believe in.
Don't let these people put you in the closet.
No, people who support bigots should go into a closet.
And let me guess, a "bigot" is someone who doesn't see you the way you want to be seen?
The thing about Lemmy is that it's like jumping from closet to closet, with everyone thinking they're the ones outside. And I don't feel like the exception.
It's an active process to take a moment and consider that maybe the walls we surround ourselves with aren't really that healthy.
A piece of shit said a shitty thing. No need to dwell on it.
Lotta dipshits in the comments here, block button is working extra today.
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.
Fuck J.K. Rowling. Femcel. Lol
Did we just discover the TERF to Nazi pipeline?
Sadly, for those involved, society at large didn't really give a shit enough to teach about every group attacked by nazis. From the history books openly available at the time in my country at least, post communist era, Jews were the main victims, gypsies second and the handicapped or malformed in third place, as per importance in extermination.
That's it.
I doubt her education was better than mine and she seemed willing to accept the updated information as explained in the article, so it's not that she's completely rigid.
And to be unbiased, "deviants from the norm" were attacked in every major country, before and after the nazist period. Book burnings are common enough even now. So linking this exclusively to the Holocaust is in poor taste and denies it being a global issue that has little to do with Nazism itself but rather the causes that elected its rise.
But it's also true that the Nazis specifically exterminated them, as opposed to for example Weimar or GDR.
It's a good point that British education is awful, it was illegal to talk about gays at all when JK was getting her education, but also that's why you shouldn't make bold definitive claims like this and when you get proven wrong you should apologize and stop and when you get schooled by George Takei you should listen.
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.
What was it? I’ve only seen the screenshots shared by the other person, it was them who put the focus on it imho. Either way I haven’t seen any other statement, care to share that?
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735
I don't have a Twitter account anymore, so I can't look for the whole thread. The "not the first" tweet is an answer to someone replying to this tweet here.
Edit: found it:
Yeah it’s because the Alejandra person actually claimed those things.
As critical as I’m of JK Rowlings trans denial, this appears to be blown way out of proportion by people who want to pin another label on her that will make their fight more righteous.
This is nothing but culture war
Where?
Some person: Nazis burned books on transgenders
Rowling: That's a lie. Alejandra: Here sources proving, that nazis did indeed burn books, including a German court ruling that explicitly stated, that nazis moved against transgenders too and the denial of that is Holocaust denial.
Rowling: But they were not the first victims and they didn't burn all books.
Like, her whole argument is completely off. She is the only one, that ever mentioned "all books" and "first victims".
She isn’t the one that first spoke of “all”, she’s referring to this message.
Anyway, I don’t think this entire argument is done in good faith nor by Alejandra nor JK Rowling.
That's a different thread though. Alejandra might not have been aware of it, like I was.
Good point. I didn’t realise that it was a different thread under the same post.
But regardless this doesn’t make Alejandra look like she’s acting in good faith. Her accusation of holocaust denial is a reaction to this post
I don’t read that as “JKR demands a source for persecution of transgender by the nazis” and more as a “JKR demands a source for her upholding gender ideology of the nazis”.
At the very least Alejandra could have asked for clarification before throwing “holocaust denier” in the ring.
But I also admit that I don’t actually follow this very closely, so it’s possible I’m wrong and JKR meant to state there was no persecution of transgender.
Again, a follow up question would have clarified that. But both sides, her, her supporters and the people who attack her are so deep down that cycle of outrage that they are not really interested in understanding where the other person is coming from. They just want to be right.
In my opinion it’s a pointless discussion.
There are multiple faces to Holocaust denial, and this one, is denying the scale of it by excluding a group that has knowingly been targeted by Nazis. They had to wear the pink triangle too.
I understand that you believe that, it’s just as far as I know not the definition
That's just an angle that anti-semites use to discredit the Holocaust historians. Does it matter that it was 6 million? Could have been 1 million for all I care, but people who already don't like Jews will get pedantic about the EXACT number before explaining that number is wrong because (((they))) control the media and none of it happened. It's a dog whistle.
Not according to Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
It's Wiki. It's not terribly useful for controversial topics. Why don't you call the Holocaust Museum tomorrow and ask them.
I had a look at the homepage of the holocaust museum. They differentiate between soft and hard holocaust denial, i.e. the genocide of the Jews wasn’t planned and didn’t happen at this scale, and the the genocide of the Jews didn’t happen, respectively.
That is, by the way, in line with Wikipedia states. I don’t expect you to actually walk away and learn something of course, but on the off chance that you’ll reflect on this I’d say: start opening your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.
lol
Who cares...?
The more you share these people, the more you support them.
She's denying that nazis committed genocidal actions against trans people during the holocaust.
I get that that may not matter to you, but that is incredibly important to me. I cannot ignore when someone is trying to claim that trans people like me were not victims of the holocaust. I cannot ignore genocide denial. She has a real effect on politics and public opinion. It is very important that she be called out for her words and actions.
Maybe it's just me, but she said "Nazis did not persecute trans people."
Do you have evidence showing that Nazis specifically targeted trans people? If I had to guess, I'd wager they didn't even consider "trans" to be a thing. They probably just lumped them in with the other "queers."
I'm not responsible for you or JK Rowling being ignorant on history.
Good place to start. They absolutely considered trans people to be a thing and specifically targeted trans people as part of the holocaust and in their propaganda. They demonized Magnus Hirschfield as being a pedophile and corrupting the natural order of man and woman. They appealed to eugenicist mothers by saying that the influence of his clinic would cause their children to be trans and therefore subhuman.
Magnus was a gay jewish man. He was a pioneering figure in transgender rights. Lili Elbe, the Danish woman, received vaginoplasty and a womb transplant at his institute for sexology. She wasn't the first person to receive it there. Trans women were prescribed hormones there in very early hormone therapy regimens.
They'd be around to tell you about it but they were sent to concentration camps and even if they survived that the allied occupation forces all also had laws that persecuted trans people. Many were forced into the closet to survive.
Stop denying genocide against us. You are literally doing the thing we're all here to talk about. Stop denying my history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
Care to elaborate?
Lack reading comprehension?
Nah, put them on blast, air out their dirty laundry, let people see that these aren't just 'respected people' with concerns about the evil transgenders but actually broadly politically active ghouls