Comments

Show 15 more comments
[hidden]

verifiably said in comment #2641463:

Well, in this case, she donated 70k to a group which attempted to legally define womanhood in a way that excluded trans women,, specifically to enshrine a definition of womanhood in Scottish law that excludes trans women, and the shelter you describe is one that neither provides services to nor hires transgender women, defining womanhood as cis womanhood.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I read the two articles, and it bothers me to admit it, but it does seem the hate against Rowling is legit, and not just a case of miscommunication. That sucks, but then again. I like Alfred Hitchcock's movies despite the dude being a giant piece of shit. I'll stick to enjoying Harry Potter while not liking the author.
Thank you again for taking the time to link to actual, real articles.

eumesmo said in comment #2641507:

All this aside, I don't get how genderswap characters should have anything to do with transsexuality. This is (should be?) an AU where Malfoy would be a cis woman regardless...

I mean, that too.

[hidden]

FRien said in comment #2641579:

Thank you, I appreciate that. I read the two articles, and it bothers me to admit it, but it does seem the hate against Rowling is legit, and not just a case of miscommunication. That sucks, but then again. I like Alfred Hitchcock's movies despite the dude being a giant piece of shit. I'll stick to enjoying Harry Potter while not liking the author.
Thank you again for taking the time to link to actual, real articles.

In this particular case, I'd make the distinction that Alfred Hitchcock is incapable of profiting from being a giant piece of shit, due to being dead, while Rowling is alive and continuously funneling her profits into anti-transgender activism.

But, yeah, I never mind linking sources. If I'm going to make a claim, I should be ready to demonstrate why I believe in it, right?

[hidden]

verifiably said in comment #2641816:

In this particular case, I'd make the distinction that Alfred Hitchcock is incapable of profiting from being a giant piece of shit, due to being dead, while Rowling is alive and continuously funneling her profits into anti-transgender activism.

I dunno, that fat fuck profiteed from being a director big time. I heard he slept with pretty much all his actresses, except the one from The Birds. That's why she gets slapped in the face with said birds. That bloked certainly enjoyed his position and never paid for it, and it pisses me off because I genuinely like his movies.
At least people are talking against J.K. Rowling.

verifiably said in comment #2641816:
But, yeah, I never mind linking sources. If I'm going to make a claim, I should be ready to demonstrate why I believe in it, right?

I dunno, given my comment asking for sources has been so downvoted that it's now hidden by default, giving proper sources doesn't seem a given. That's why I appreciate there's at least one person able to give proper sources instead of "dude just trust me" like I saw so often before.
Even if it hurts me to admit that Rowling is that bad of a person that I disagree with her. I mean I already mocked the fact that she named a black guy "Shacklebolt", but like, there's a difference between laughing at a blunder and see her specifically go out of her way to be a twat.

[hidden]

FRien said in comment #2641856:

I dunno, that fat fuck profiteed from being a director big time. I heard he slept with pretty much all his actresses, except the one from The Birds. That's why she gets slapped in the face with said birds. That bloked certainly enjoyed his position and never paid for it, and it pisses me off because I genuinely like his movies.
At least people are talking against J.K. Rowling.

I would quibble that Hitchcock cannot currently benefit from any of his films, and so you cannot meaningfully reward him for them – it might've been a different story, ethically, while he was alive, but you can't meaningfully reinforce or deter his behavior now. Whereas Rowling is actively using the money people spend on her work to fund legislation that would get me removed from public life.

[hidden]

verifiably said:
legislation that would get me removed from public life.

Please, be a lot more specific, because I find your worries extremely unlikely. What do you mean by "removed from public life" in practical terms? Surely you aren't just referring to women's shelters.

[hidden]

sxpp said in comment #2641838:

I don't want sound like that guy, but are you sure this is not AI?

To add to the comments above, the artist has some recent making ofs in their twitter page. Those can be faked of course, but you can check their legitimacy yourself (all Explicit, be careful when opening).
https://x.com/dikkosan/status/2109297552625684843
https://x.com/dikkosan/status/2109297484237586717
https://x.com/dikkosan/status/2109297189893931335

1 2 3 4 5