It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
When asked why the British author's views on trans people aligned with the Nazis, and Rowling said that Nazis did not persecute trans people.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Acquiring a copy on the open ocean also provides no royalties.
Sure but used book stores are great, you can find some weird shit sometimes. Serisously I once found an old ass copy of dianetics in the sci-fi section, old lady running the place found it great that I got her little joke.
That's a great point. I've found treasures I'd never have found otherwise in used bookstores.
What's the joke ?
That she put it into sci-fi and not religion. According to her it made atleast one pissant angry.
Ok, I also looked it up and it's clearer now, thanks
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.
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.
She thinks she’s doing right
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.
I disagree. The Potter goblins are diminutive, hooknosed, saurian creatures, with creepy long fingers and crafty natures. They have exceptional financial skills and stop at nothing to acquire or protect money and precious objects. It is antisemitic that anyone would encounter such a character and think: “Aha, a Jew!”
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.The author once again attracted attention after donating $97,000 to For Women Scotland. The funds are earmarked for a legal challenge set to be heard in the UK Supreme Court. The objective of the lawsuit is to redefine the word "woman" such that it applies exclusively to cisgender women. The proposed redefinition stands to harm transgender women who have undergone gender-affirming procedures. Rowling publicly supported her donation, stating: "You know how proud I am to know you. Thank you for all your hard work and tenacity. This truly is a historic case."
LGBTQ+ activists are warning that redefining the word "woman" paves the way for discrimination and prejudice against transgender or non-binary individuals.
edit: Jon not John
To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:
I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.
To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:
I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.
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 JohnNone of these statements contradict each other.
I 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:
“tropes [like the goblins bankers] are so embedded in society that they're basically invisible.”
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.
Rowling’s goblins and her Holocaust denial 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
society as a whole and the power we give to racist stereotypical tropes in the first place
Ignoring racist stereotypes in fiction isn't the solution. We should want to do better.
On a separate note, do you not think it’s a stretch to lump her in with holocaust deniers this quickly?
No. Holocaust denial is holocaust denial. It's never too early to call it out.
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?
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.
If anything, doesn’t that water-down the category of Holocaust Deniers?
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
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.
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.
I hate her much as the next guy but the books are really good don't act like they are not there is a reason why they are famous. If you don't like her but still likes her work just pirate it .
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.
But HP is a shitty story with questionable moral lessons.