Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
This is interesting, I’ll listen to it.
I watched the Contrapoints video already, which has good evidence of J. K. Rowling being insulting on Twitter. That is true. It also has evidence of some of her friends being even hateful, but I think this kind of falls into a fallacy, because either she’s exposing her affiliations to show how she must share those ideas (without actual evidence) or to remark how much worse she must be for having them. But, again, there is evidence for J. K. Rowling alone turning rude towards trans people. I thank Contrapoints for the time and effort of putting this together.
She says the main topic of this documentary you’re sharing is whether it’s fair to cancel J. K. Rowling or not. She argues that it is fair because of the whole ideas and tweets she’s been presenting. But this is a weird generalization as she only demonstrated that Rowling is low-key hateful in her personal tweets, not that the entirety of gender critical feminism is wrong or hateful. Even if she demonstrated that every single gender critical feminist is hateful, that does not refute GC feminism per se or the need to consider these ideas. So it might be fair to cancel Rowling for her tweets (at least to censor the acid, hateful humor), but the rest?
What is still unresolved is whether GC feminism should be listened to and not censored (defended by a non-hateful person). Contrapoints herself addresses gender critical feminism in another video, an old video, where she goes through some of the arguments presented by this movement. This reveals that, behind the hateful activists, there is a conversation to be had that can advance without harm.
This I just said is a very complex issue. Many feel like listening to gender critical or other critical movements will undermine their lives and will endanger the help they receive today, and I think there lies the importance of ‘provisional moralities’. It is not bad to question whether autism exists, in which sense, with which characteristics, with what implications; it is not bad to wonder if gender is what we believe it is, what other takes there are, and what would that mean to everyone. Those are important questions, but pondering this should not take away what is making people comfortable. As we change and correct our paradigms, we can better support autists, trans people, etc. I’m sorry I’m mixing the neurodiversity movement in this last part of my comment. While different, I see a similar aspect here, in which we want people to live to the fullest, but we all are using concepts that go beyond our current understanding and, of course, debates arise. I consider them necessary and even helpful. As a person risking a lot in these topics (they are personal), I also think I can gain a lot.
Sorry for the long comment and my grammar.
P. S.: Our nicknames are funnily similar.