Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What JK Rowling Can Teach Us About Surviving Cancel Culture
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Jan 14, 2022, 4:30:12 AM1/14/22
to
Cancel Culture has been around long enough for victims to develop a
strategy against it.
Don’t apologize, unless you truly did something wrong. Realize the so-
called mob is often very small and disconnected from the public at
large.
Best of all? Ignore the mob until they find another target. Mark
Wahlberg did just that after woke scolds attempted to cancel him after
his unsavory past “resurfaced” anew.
Yes, a young Wahlberg attacked innocents as a teenager, hurling racial
slurs in the process. He faced criminal punishment for his gross
actions, apologized repeatedly and went on to lead a seemingly
exemplary life as a father, husband and A-list actor.
“Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling essentially aped all of the above
strategies when the mob came to her door, but the Cancel Culture crowd
refuses to back down.
They may never leave her alone.
It all started in 2020, a time when Rowling’s “Potter” legacy, and a
crush of progressive-approved stances, marked her as celebrity royalty.
She hated Donald Trump, retconned her own literary canon to make it
more inclusive and enjoyed media adoration along the way.
Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter,
triggered by an op-ed calling women, “people who menstruate.” Far-left
progressives recoiled at her verbiage, but Rowling didn’t back down.
She doubled down.
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real,
the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans
people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to
meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth …
The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for
decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as
women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex
is real and has lived consequences—is nonsense.”
Rowling, like Dave Chappelle in recent months, reached out to the trans
community in the process.
“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels
authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were
discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my
life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to
say so.”
That changed everything. Suddenly, her seemingly invincible brand took
a direct hit. Media outlets raged against her. Columnists said the
“Potter” legacy had been permanently soiled.
The three main actors from the “Harry Potter” franchise – Emma Watson,
Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint – distanced themselves from her in
the public arena. Rowling had been branded a bigot in the public square
by actors who owed their career (and bank accounts) to her imagination.
Things looked grim for the author’s public persona, but the Cancel
Culture mob routinely moves on to other targets. Rowling’s “crimes”
were Tweets and essays, after all, not physical violence or calls for
anything other than kindness.
It didn’t matter. Cancel Culture places anti-trans critiques above all
else (just ask Chappelle), and Rowling had crossed a line that couldn’t
be uncrossed.
Even a hostage-style apology might not work at this point to undo the
damage.
Some could argue Rowling wasn’t “canceled” in any profound way. She
still had the “Fantastic Beasts” film franchise, and no one had
siphoned her book royalties from her. That didn’t capture the efforts
made across the culture, either by those who truly believed she had
attacked the trans community or just feared anyone suspecting they
sided with her, to erase her from the mainstream.
“Harry Potter” fan sites like MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron vowed
not to report on her, her honors, or similar news items.
She ironically became like Lord Voldemort, the Potter villain whose
name should not be spoken. Her name no longer appeared on the site,
along with fan art or related imagery of the British author.
A New Zealand book festival removed a Potter-themed event in 2021 due
to Rowling’s gender commentary.
The recent HBO Max reunion special, “Return to Hogwarts,” made sure not
to include Rowling in the ceremony. She appeared, oh so briefly, via
archival footage of the franchise she created.
A British secondary school removed Rowling as the name of one of its
houses due to her trans comments, replacing it with Olympian Dame Kelly
Holmes.
Even threats of potential violence couldn’t slow the Cancel Culture
attacks on Rowling. A trio of trans activists shared the author’s
address on Twitter last year, drawing a sharp, revealing rebuke from
Rowling.
“They should have reflected on the fact that I’ve now received so many
death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped
speaking out … perhaps – and I’m just throwing this out there – the
best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop
stalking, harassing and threatening us.”
Reporters refused to attack or critique the activists in question, nor
were they “canceled” for putting Rowling’s life in danger.
It’s important to note the press, by and large, agreed with Rowling’s
cultural cancellation, either quietly or with how they framed stories
about her. Reporters have shared every last morsel of punishment she
faced without the sense that things had gone too far.
That explains why reporters pounced on former “Daily Show” host Jon
Stewart’s claim that Rowling’s “Potter” films were anti-Semitic for
including gold-grubbing goblins with pointy ears and sharp teeth,
similar to anti-Semitic tropes of yore.
Stewart’s rant on the subject caught fire in a media environment eager
to pile on Rowling for clicks and Cancel Culture kudos.
Stewart quickly backpedaled, denying the charge and arguing his
comments were “light-hearted” in nature. Perhaps the far-left comic
didn’t realize all the work Rowling has done to battle anti-Semitism.
The same media also framed another Rowling news cycle in a curious way.
Two U.S. groups that run the Quidditch sport, invented by Rowling for
the “Harry Potter” books, changed their names to distance themselves
from the author.
Turns out a key reason for the change involved trademark issues, but
that narrative is less damaging to Rowling, of course, so it didn’t
make many headlines on the subject.
This list is incomplete but indicative of how Rowling has been treated
over the past 18-plus months.
How has Rowling responded to this cavalcade of cancellations? She’s
stood tall through it all. She hasn’t backed down or served up a
“hostage”-style apology. She doesn’t poke the Cancel Culture beast
quite like Chappelle does with his humor, but she refuses to change her
mind despite the endless backlash.
Compare that to how Stephen King and Scarlett Johansson responded to
their respective Cancel Culture attacks. King quickly apologized in
2020 for daring to say quality should matter most when it comes to art.
Johansson, after briefly accepting the role of a trans woman in a film
to be called “Rub and Tug,” served up a mewling apology (more than one,
actually) while turning the part down.
Both King and Johansson are wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and
could survive a Cancel Culture retribution.
Instead, they let the mob speak for them.
Rowling may remain as progressive as before, but her steely response to
an attack with no signs of stopping puts her in a rare category these
days.
--
Let's go Brandon!
strategy against it.
Don’t apologize, unless you truly did something wrong. Realize the so-
called mob is often very small and disconnected from the public at
large.
Best of all? Ignore the mob until they find another target. Mark
Wahlberg did just that after woke scolds attempted to cancel him after
his unsavory past “resurfaced” anew.
Yes, a young Wahlberg attacked innocents as a teenager, hurling racial
slurs in the process. He faced criminal punishment for his gross
actions, apologized repeatedly and went on to lead a seemingly
exemplary life as a father, husband and A-list actor.
“Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling essentially aped all of the above
strategies when the mob came to her door, but the Cancel Culture crowd
refuses to back down.
They may never leave her alone.
It all started in 2020, a time when Rowling’s “Potter” legacy, and a
crush of progressive-approved stances, marked her as celebrity royalty.
She hated Donald Trump, retconned her own literary canon to make it
more inclusive and enjoyed media adoration along the way.
Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter,
triggered by an op-ed calling women, “people who menstruate.” Far-left
progressives recoiled at her verbiage, but Rowling didn’t back down.
She doubled down.
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real,
the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans
people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to
meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth …
The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for
decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as
women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex
is real and has lived consequences—is nonsense.”
Rowling, like Dave Chappelle in recent months, reached out to the trans
community in the process.
“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels
authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were
discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my
life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to
say so.”
That changed everything. Suddenly, her seemingly invincible brand took
a direct hit. Media outlets raged against her. Columnists said the
“Potter” legacy had been permanently soiled.
The three main actors from the “Harry Potter” franchise – Emma Watson,
Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint – distanced themselves from her in
the public arena. Rowling had been branded a bigot in the public square
by actors who owed their career (and bank accounts) to her imagination.
Things looked grim for the author’s public persona, but the Cancel
Culture mob routinely moves on to other targets. Rowling’s “crimes”
were Tweets and essays, after all, not physical violence or calls for
anything other than kindness.
It didn’t matter. Cancel Culture places anti-trans critiques above all
else (just ask Chappelle), and Rowling had crossed a line that couldn’t
be uncrossed.
Even a hostage-style apology might not work at this point to undo the
damage.
Some could argue Rowling wasn’t “canceled” in any profound way. She
still had the “Fantastic Beasts” film franchise, and no one had
siphoned her book royalties from her. That didn’t capture the efforts
made across the culture, either by those who truly believed she had
attacked the trans community or just feared anyone suspecting they
sided with her, to erase her from the mainstream.
“Harry Potter” fan sites like MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron vowed
not to report on her, her honors, or similar news items.
She ironically became like Lord Voldemort, the Potter villain whose
name should not be spoken. Her name no longer appeared on the site,
along with fan art or related imagery of the British author.
A New Zealand book festival removed a Potter-themed event in 2021 due
to Rowling’s gender commentary.
The recent HBO Max reunion special, “Return to Hogwarts,” made sure not
to include Rowling in the ceremony. She appeared, oh so briefly, via
archival footage of the franchise she created.
A British secondary school removed Rowling as the name of one of its
houses due to her trans comments, replacing it with Olympian Dame Kelly
Holmes.
Even threats of potential violence couldn’t slow the Cancel Culture
attacks on Rowling. A trio of trans activists shared the author’s
address on Twitter last year, drawing a sharp, revealing rebuke from
Rowling.
“They should have reflected on the fact that I’ve now received so many
death threats I could paper the house with them, and I haven’t stopped
speaking out … perhaps – and I’m just throwing this out there – the
best way to prove your movement isn’t a threat to women, is to stop
stalking, harassing and threatening us.”
Reporters refused to attack or critique the activists in question, nor
were they “canceled” for putting Rowling’s life in danger.
It’s important to note the press, by and large, agreed with Rowling’s
cultural cancellation, either quietly or with how they framed stories
about her. Reporters have shared every last morsel of punishment she
faced without the sense that things had gone too far.
That explains why reporters pounced on former “Daily Show” host Jon
Stewart’s claim that Rowling’s “Potter” films were anti-Semitic for
including gold-grubbing goblins with pointy ears and sharp teeth,
similar to anti-Semitic tropes of yore.
Stewart’s rant on the subject caught fire in a media environment eager
to pile on Rowling for clicks and Cancel Culture kudos.
Stewart quickly backpedaled, denying the charge and arguing his
comments were “light-hearted” in nature. Perhaps the far-left comic
didn’t realize all the work Rowling has done to battle anti-Semitism.
The same media also framed another Rowling news cycle in a curious way.
Two U.S. groups that run the Quidditch sport, invented by Rowling for
the “Harry Potter” books, changed their names to distance themselves
from the author.
Turns out a key reason for the change involved trademark issues, but
that narrative is less damaging to Rowling, of course, so it didn’t
make many headlines on the subject.
This list is incomplete but indicative of how Rowling has been treated
over the past 18-plus months.
How has Rowling responded to this cavalcade of cancellations? She’s
stood tall through it all. She hasn’t backed down or served up a
“hostage”-style apology. She doesn’t poke the Cancel Culture beast
quite like Chappelle does with his humor, but she refuses to change her
mind despite the endless backlash.
Compare that to how Stephen King and Scarlett Johansson responded to
their respective Cancel Culture attacks. King quickly apologized in
2020 for daring to say quality should matter most when it comes to art.
Johansson, after briefly accepting the role of a trans woman in a film
to be called “Rub and Tug,” served up a mewling apology (more than one,
actually) while turning the part down.
Both King and Johansson are wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and
could survive a Cancel Culture retribution.
Instead, they let the mob speak for them.
Rowling may remain as progressive as before, but her steely response to
an attack with no signs of stopping puts her in a rare category these
days.
--
Let's go Brandon!
A Friend
Jan 14, 2022, 7:27:33 AM1/14/22
to
In article <Pb2dnZRx198G33z8...@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
plow through the headers to find out.
Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
plow through the headers to find out.
anim8rfsk
Jan 14, 2022, 8:46:41 AM1/14/22
to
Christian Toto
Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of
HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with
Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto.
Read more
--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”
A Friend
Jan 14, 2022, 9:52:30 AM1/14/22
to
In article
<1282589123.663859299.0...@news.easynews.com>,
>
>
>
> Read more
Thanks.
<1282589123.663859299.0...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <Pb2dnZRx198G33z8...@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
> > <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter
> >
> >
> > Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
> > plow through the headers to find out.
> >
>
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-ca
> ncel-culture
>
> Christian Toto
> Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of
> HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with
> Breitbart Newsน Big Hollywood. Follow him at @HollywoodInToto.
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <Pb2dnZRx198G33z8...@giganews.com>, Ubiquitous
> > <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter
> >
> >
> > Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
> > plow through the headers to find out.
> >
>
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-ca
> ncel-culture
>
> Christian Toto
> Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of
> HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with
>
>
>
> Read more
Thanks.
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 14, 2022, 11:11:56 AM1/14/22
to
A Friend wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>>Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter
>Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
>plow through the headers to find out.
That made me smile. I took it as humor.
I thought it was written reasonably well. The problem is that Rowling
stuck with her opinion and, other than the death threats, it could have
said a lot more about what she's going through.
The question to ask is, Why are we giving up all of our own power to
these idiots that we've allowed to decide whom to despise?
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>>Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter
>Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
>plow through the headers to find out.
I thought it was written reasonably well. The problem is that Rowling
stuck with her opinion and, other than the death threats, it could have
said a lot more about what she's going through.
The question to ask is, Why are we giving up all of our own power to
these idiots that we've allowed to decide whom to despise?
Rhino
Jan 14, 2022, 11:31:10 AM1/14/22
to
On 2022-01-14 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
> copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
> crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>
It won't let me read beyond the first few paragraphs without
> A Friend wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
> copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
> crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
>
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>
subscribing. I have no desire to subscribe just to read one article.
>>> Then she Tweeted an unabashed defense of her fellow women on Twitter
>
>> Her "fellow women"? Who's the idiot who wrote this? I'm not going to
>> plow through the headers to find out.
>
> That made me smile. I took it as humor.
>
> I thought it was written reasonably well. The problem is that Rowling
> stuck with her opinion and, other than the death threats, it could have
> said a lot more about what she's going through.
>
that Rowling is a billionaire, which means she can ride out things that
people with less stratospheric wealth find difficult.
> The question to ask is, Why are we giving up all of our own power to
> these idiots that we've allowed to decide whom to despise?
movement: why do we listen to these idiots and give them (almost?)
everything they want, no matter how ludicrous?
There is an ancient axiom about the squeaky wheel getting the grease but
I can't believe this explains it. Isn't the opposition - which I call
the forces of sanity - to this nonsense making noise too? Why are THOSE
voices, which surely speak for the overwhelming majority, not being heard?
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 14, 2022, 11:49:15 AM1/14/22
to
Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-01-14 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
>>copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
>>crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
>>https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>It won't let me read beyond the first few paragraphs without
>subscribing. I have no desire to subscribe just to read one article.
As we all tell Ed Stasiak when he complains, TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT.
>On 2022-01-14 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>Ubi-the-shithead hid the URL in the headers of the article whose
>>copyright he infringed upon again. Also, I'm cutting Ubi-the-shithead's
>>crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those groups.
>>https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-jk-rowling-can-teach-us-about-surviving-cancel-culture
>It won't let me read beyond the first few paragraphs without
>subscribing. I have no desire to subscribe just to read one article.
>>>>. . .
Ed Stasiak
Jan 14, 2022, 12:52:55 PM1/14/22
to
> Rhino
governments and corporations promote and encourage this insanity in an
effort to normalize the ever expanding efforts by the Elites to censor and
control the People.
>
> There is an ancient axiom about the squeaky wheel getting the grease but
> I can't believe this explains it. Isn't the opposition - which I call the forces
> of sanity - to this nonsense making noise too? Why are THOSE voices,
> which surely speak for the overwhelming majority, not being heard?
Because its more then just a handful of squeaky woketards on social media,
> There is an ancient axiom about the squeaky wheel getting the grease but
> I can't believe this explains it. Isn't the opposition - which I call the forces
> of sanity - to this nonsense making noise too? Why are THOSE voices,
> which surely speak for the overwhelming majority, not being heard?
governments and corporations promote and encourage this insanity in an
effort to normalize the ever expanding efforts by the Elites to censor and
control the People.
Ubiquitous
Jan 18, 2022, 5:46:38 AM1/18/22
to
In article <srs7c8$5q4$1...@dont-email.me>, a...@chinet.com wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> I'm cutting Ubi's crossposts considering he doesn't read any of those
> A Friend wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> groups.
You can tell when someone is reading a newsfroup?
Please explain how you manage to do that...
Ubiquitous
Jan 18, 2022, 5:51:51 AM1/18/22
to
no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
Message-ID: <Pb2dnZRx198G33z8...@giganews.com>
>On 2022-01-14 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> A Friend wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> A Friend wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>It won't let me read beyond the first few paragraphs without
>subscribing. I have no desire to subscribe just to read one article.
Read the original article.
>subscribing. I have no desire to subscribe just to read one article.
Message-ID: <Pb2dnZRx198G33z8...@giganews.com>
0 new messages