Ok, yes - except that with Rowling it's 100% cancel culture - and it has to stop, now.
Rowling's views are not 'dated' (that's your opinion) - they are thought out, and reasonable. They are controversial, possibly.
Of course, nobody has to buy her books. It's a little infantile, but it's fine. I don't.
The issue is not 'people not buying her books' - the issue is that people are trying to suppress and silence her, and stop the publication of her books & material.
It's 100% 'cancel culture' for groups to organize and vent their petty, minority opinions towards instilling fear in publishers, distributors, points-of-sale, and pressure other groups (i.e. Hollywood, Netflix) to suppress the voices of those they disagree with.
That is exactly cancel culture - and it's why so many of those luminary thinkers had to take out a page in Harper's.
If we were allowed to do anonymous voting on these things it would be snuffed out immediately, the antagonizing base is very small.
It's ludicrous to suggest that the wealthiest author of the 21st century, who can get articles published in any news outlet of her choice whenever she likes, who could get interviews broadcast on any UK tv channel, is somehow "being silenced".
But let's look at the trans people she hates: where do we hear their voices? We don't.
I'm sorry, it's not Rowling that is 'bullshit' - rather it's this comment.
a) Plenty of wealthy people have been 'cancelled', that they haven't been, is not evidence that many have not tried.
b) Her positions are entirely reasonable and in good faith.
Comments like these are exactly the problem, representative the totalitarian mobs wanting to destroy anyone who doesn't agree using outrageous tactics of bullying and slander.
Take a dose of self-awareness and understand that this trite is the category of those pushing to overthrow elections or deny COVID.
> Rowling's views are not 'dated' (that's your opinion)
They are. Bigotry is not static. It's a dynamic reaction to progress being made in the rest of society.
Her views are not a reaction to fringe whackjobs on twitter screaming for some rights that the rest of society is not willing to give them.
Her views are a reaction to changes in government policy that do not happen overnight, are themselves a result of decades of progress made in conjunction with medical and scientific subject matter experts.
> they are thought out, and reasonable.
They are not. They are based on strawmen interpretations of trans people's lived experiences, and their desired outcomes. It would take a really long time to go through all her points and point out the various logical flaws in it, but the main issue is they are founded on her own personal beliefs, anxieties, and prior trauma, not a reasonable detached view of the status quo. Contrapoints just did a pretty thorough deep dive analysis[1].
> The issue is not 'people not buying her books' - the issue is that people are trying to suppress and silence her
An author's interaction with their audience, and their "platform" goes far beyond the books they publish. They have other channels, and other ways to reach people - in Rowling's case millions of people, primarily children.
While not everyone would agree with me on this, but if Rowling was quietly harboring transphobic beliefs, and made no further follow-up, I wouldn't care, and there would be no uproar.
Instead, she is using her notability, credibility, and large reach to post long essays promoting an opinion that is intended to regress social progress, and make life harder for trans youth (including lack of access to medical resources, increased bullying, and the corresponding increase with depression/suicide)
So, again, what you're calling suppression and silencing is simply consequences to her explicit actions - not just beliefs.
So this is the root of cancel culture, right here.
Those that disagree with you are 'uninformed stupid bigots and must be suppressed'.
Take a moment consider why a very progressive person, of enormous goodwill and who's done so much charity work, and is obviously very intelligent would act on bad faith?
So maybe she just sees the world differently as is entitled to her opinion.
These initiatives are as bad as a President usurping the legitimacy of his office to lie about elections.
"Progressive" isn't a bucket that you are either in or out of.
Just as expertise in one field does not guarantee expertise in another (See: Dawkins, Richard; Peterson, Jordan), having progressive views about one subject does not guarantee progressive views about another.
Rowling's views are not 'dated' (that's your opinion) - they are thought out, and reasonable. They are controversial, possibly.
Of course, nobody has to buy her books. It's a little infantile, but it's fine. I don't.
The issue is not 'people not buying her books' - the issue is that people are trying to suppress and silence her, and stop the publication of her books & material.
It's 100% 'cancel culture' for groups to organize and vent their petty, minority opinions towards instilling fear in publishers, distributors, points-of-sale, and pressure other groups (i.e. Hollywood, Netflix) to suppress the voices of those they disagree with.
That is exactly cancel culture - and it's why so many of those luminary thinkers had to take out a page in Harper's.
If we were allowed to do anonymous voting on these things it would be snuffed out immediately, the antagonizing base is very small.