Five years ago, the MAGA crowd hated her guts, and viewed her as one of the dreaded “feminazis.” People like noted failed screenwriter Ben Shapiro even tried to roast her by claiming that Harry Potter is just a “crappy Lord of the Rings knockoff.” Hell, if you go back even further than that, Bible thumpers were previously trying to get her books banned because they believed they promoted witchcraft.
Some of you guys sure are singing a different tune about her these days, aren’t you?
Well - one day she stood up for women and women rights and didnt back down when woke mob tried to scare and cancel her.
That why people respect her. Usually celebrities just get scared for their careers and back track. But she continues to defend what she think is right. Because she is woman herself. And misogynistic men try to attack women. And woke idiots help them.
Eh, if anything, it’s the left that’s singing a different tune about her now. She was a god to them not that long ago, but when she said one little thing not approved by the hive mind, now she’s Hitler 2.0
The right just seemed surprised that she acknowledges biological facts, and like what emori said, they respect that she sticks to her views despite previously bending over to activists such as when she turned Dumbledore gay, or approved blackwashing Hermione by claiming she never described her as white (when clearly she did).
With that said, from what I’ve seen, the right hasn’t forgotten her past pandering and has said she deserves any hate that comes her way, but they’re not gonna let her views ruin their love for Harry Potter.
Actually, as I recall, she started to get some backlash even before the trans controversy. There were people who criticized some of the choices she made with the Fantastic Beasts films, and people also accused her of things like queerbating and promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes. Plus, people were clowning on her for all the odd statements and retcons she made regarding her work, like when she claimed that wizards used to poop their pants before they discovered indoor plumbing (and yes, that was an actual thing she said).
There was a lot of retroactive judgment on Rowling and the harry potter mythos in general. I remember there was a short phase where people said she put Umbridge as the center of a rape joke and that Ron was mocking her subsequent PTSD.
It is maybe implied that Umbridge was raped by the centaurs, but it's not clear if Ron knew what had happened.
It is hardly strange either that Ron wouldn't feel any sympathy for a woman, who had just spent nine months persecuting his friends.
Five years ago, the MAGA crowd hated her guts, and viewed her as one of the dreaded “feminazis.” People like noted failed screenwriter Ben Shapiro even tried to roast her by claiming that Harry Potter is just a “crappy Lord of the Rings knockoff.” Hell, if you go back even further than that, Bible thumpers were previously trying to get her books banned because they believed they promoted witchcraft.
Some of you guys sure are singing a different tune about her these days, aren’t you?
It's no different from the mentally unbalanced lefties who now hate her because she said what any sane person is thinking.
Feel free to continue your moral grandstanding. though. It's always funny to read.
reply share
Exactly. I remember when they said Harry Potter was Satanic.
But many feminists are anti-transgender, the idea that men in dresses can glom on and claim they've suffered male oppression. Transgender theory is not popular on the feminist left.
Most of the conservatives I know (myself included) do not have such a black/white view of Rowling, or other left/liberals who are admired for some things by people on the right (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard). We recognize that Rowling (like Gabbard) is not one of us; there are more issues perhaps on which we would disagree than agree. But... Rowling is the kind of left/liberal we wish there were more of. We need them, because it's not healthy in society for everyone to think the same way, or to agree on everything all the time. But we also want them to be reasonable people who are willing to agree to disagree with others, and tolerate different viewpoints. You can work with people like that, and reach workable compromises with people of that mindset. That's better for everyone, and it leads to better results in society, instead of a stifling groupthink, which is bad no matter which side it comes from.
We can also admire Rowling and Gabbard for having the moral courage (a rarer and more valuable commodity than physical courage) to be willing to stand up forthrightly for their convictions and their principles, and weather the vitriol, the attacks, and the attempts at cancellation. We can admire this moral courage, even when we disagree with them
That's the sense in which Rowling has become a hero to the right: she is pushing back against woke intolerance, and we can admire her for that, and the courage she shows in doing it; it's not that we suddenly think she's one of us now.
Nah, she's just like practically everyone else (regardless of whether they're 'liberal' or 'conservative'). She's left-wing when it suits her, and right-wing when it suits her (i.e. when it comes to cis women's rights she's 'left-wing', when it comes to capitalism/elitism and trans rights, she's right-wing).
Socialism/liberalism nor capitalism/conservatism are the real problem. No, the problem is more fundamental and older than that. The problem is selfishness/self-interest.
As for the poster above you, what takes *true* moral courage is standing up for people who are different to oneself rather than simply seeing things from one's own (selfish and narrow-minded) POV.
so she's moderate, and doesn't align to a specific side out of blind allegiance? You made me like her even more. Only fools and tools draw a line in the sand and stick only to the group think.
I'm not arguing against moderation, and in fact I'm no fan of rigid idealogues who take a blindly left-wing or right-wing stance on *every* issue.
I'm arguing against people who are only driven by self-interest rather than concern for people who belong to a different category to themselves. I've encountered plenty of Black people who support civil rights, but don't care for feminism or gay rights, and plenty of gay people who support LGBTQ+ rights, but don't care for feminism or civil rights, and so on. I personally don't see how any genuine progressive can support one marginalised community, but draw the line at others. IMHO, it demonstrates a lack of empathy and a display of double-standards.