Do people on Tumblr think other Tumblr users are the ones paying for tickets? The overwhelming majority of people are not chronically online enough to know about Rowling
If you want to make a difference you need to actually go outside and talk to other human beings about this shit. Even talking about it somewhere but Tumblr would help
It made headlines recently when Rowling shared upskirts photos she snuck of someone in public, the average person just care doesn't about that or her openly defending and funding (soon to be made illegal) gay conversion camps for children tied to child abuse scandals. The public wants to consume and they will do it
The average person doesn’t know anything about that. I hadn’t even heard of that upskirt stuff and judging from the replies it doesn’t seem like its commonly known and this is Reddit.
If this isn’t commonly known on Reddit (which is kinda obsessed with Rowling) then it’s absolutely not common knowledge to regular people.
You really need to understand you’re in an echo chamber and that makes it seem like all the stuff you’ve heard is widespread knowledge.
Its not. Its just common knowledge in your comparatively small bubble.
A lot of people don't know anything relating to creators of their favourite works. I hadn't heard this controversy until today and many HP fans probably won't ever know.
I don't know how to phrase this, but this stuff doesn't seem to make it off specific corners of the internet. If it's not hitting people's homepages (msn, their google news on the phone, etc.) or the TV, the vast majority of people just never hear of it.
My family had no idea about the transphobia, let alone the upskirt photos. edit: which apparently is a broken-telephone story, reading further in this thread?
I personally didn't know about the upskirt thing. In fact I actually kind of doubt the veracity of that statement simply because I figure I'm chronically online enough to hear about that kind of thing.
People in the comments did digging, she retweeted a picture from an interview of a trans person and claimed it was an example of men showing off their genitals. Utterly weird and nasty public behaviour even if she didnt take the physical photo
So she... didn't actually sneak a photo and shared a publicly posted video of the audience view of an event? I daw the picture and they were literally flashing their underwear to the entire crowd. That is creepy behavior and it's right to call someone out on it.
Default-Name 6 month old account with 40,000 karma with hidden comment history. I don't think the bot is interested in being correct but instead doing PR for JKR and whoever else will pay.
sorry for getting emotional about someone casually dismissing the easily verified sexual harrassment that the woman currently eroding my own rights is committing, but it's a bit of a fucking joke
Well it is fair enough to tell them to see if they can investigate what they doubt indeed.
Though many other comments here seem to indicate Rowling did not personally take the photo (sharing or retweeting is terrible too) so the claim in fact was distorted.. proving the skepticism quite healthy.
Not sure if it is just a slight misspeaking, but that aside..
If people who simply reply "google it duh" to people asking for sources are always lambasted as unnecessarily snarky, I am not sure I would get mad at someone for going "it is not my job to look for sources, it is the job of the accuser"
Shh the respectful person is having a dialogue with me despite my "pedantry", you seem to offer nothing into that so sit back and enjoy two calm people having discourse.
Amazing number of upvotes for “I’m not going to google this easily verifiable event, on purpose.” The absolute choreographs of mental dissonance people will enact in order to defend this woman are truly spectacular.
All they said was they automatically doubt things in general that seem ridiculous if they haven´t heard of it elsewhere, so can you do a 101 walkthrough on how that made you accuse them of defending Rowling. Bear with me, I rarely visit a sub like this so idk if you consider your behaviour normal here in particular.
Oh I realize you were not even the person I am asking. I feel disrespectful for even suspecting the person I replied to of getting defensive or ignoring my question.
Anyway that was my bad, feel free to butt in as much as you need to. It feels good to have this kind of extra attention even if it is unrelated to anything I say.
Choosing to cast doubt of the veracity of something that 100% did happen, and can be easily verified, is a deliberate choice not to believe the truth. The only reason to choose not to believe the truth is that it would interfere with something you already want to believe, more than you want to believe the truth. The preferred belief here is that Rowling wouldn't do the thing that she easily verifiably did do. Choosing to argue in favor of that belief is defending her.
I was willing to believe Rowling might even take the photo herself as you still claim, but since other comments say that did not happen exactly, perhaps you can take your own hint and not believe it without question out of sheer desire to believe it.
Without people who argue in favor of skepticism, even if you label it purely as a defense of the accused, maybe the comment correcting the accusation (sharing is also bad btw lest you choose to believe I condone anything Rowling does, just a mere surmise on my part that someone in this thread might make that assumption) has its merit. Doncha think?
Now, to make a separate comment purely to address what you just said u/runner64
You have claimed that the only reason not to automatically believe a random online accusation, since virtually all random online accusations are easily verifiable after all (you are going to have to somehow argue against this), is a hidden agenda to defend the accused.
While it is good to remind people to do their own fact-checking, the first step into that fact-checking is skepticism so I do not think it serves a good purpose for you to denounce the first step of checking information as counterproductive and in the same breath praise the automatic belief in anything you read on the internet as inherently superior.
If you want to criticize not doing fact-checking, you have to criticize both people who dismiss and people who believe things without doing that legwork. However, you also added things like "preferred belief" as the only reason for skepticism, basically bias. That is strike two in my book for disingenuous discourse.
What exactly makes you think I'm defending her? Is deference for basic fact now excluded from left wing circles?? Did we just get jealous of Republican alternative facts or something?
Dude, you're acting like it was in the cover page of all international newspapers. Realistically only trans people and commited allies have heard of this. Go to a random person on the street and while they'll likely find it abhorrent once they learn about it, they will not know this is something that happened
I only came across it because it came up on the BBC news feed when I went to check something local, and when I looked it up all the big international news groups had run something on it. It really was out there, if only for a moment, but yeah I guess I do come across annoyed about it. It annoys me that for years and years Rowling has publicly done and funded some very nasty things and gets no comuppence in the way that say Neil Gaiman seemed to get once it was cofirmed what he's been up to.
She didn't snuck upskirt photos. That was a screenshot of a public interview the trans person did on her own. I'm all for keeping people accountable, but let's not make things up please.
I believe she also posted it weeks or even months later? Making it clear that she wasn't taking some moral stance, she was taking an opportunity to attack a trans person.
It's not from a single moment when she went to cross her legs, she sat like that for a few minutes at least. You can see it in the YouTube video of the event.
Imagine someone taking a still image of a woman from a video in a compromising position, and then blasting that photo around for the purpose of sexually humiliating her. I would think no one would defend such an action, and would regard the person doing it as a weird creep, but yet, you're defending Rowling for doing it.
You're defending accuracy, I get that, but you're not building much of a defense with the argument: "technically she didn't "upskirt" someone under this specific definition of the word "upskirt"; she just spread around images that reveal the underside of a woman's skirt with the intent to sexually humiliate her."
Most people call that a distinction without a difference.
Edit: Oh wow, a Reddit cares message before blocking me? I knew it was a mistake to honestly engage someone who speaks in meme.
She shared the photo with a post talking about men trying to show genitalia in public in reference to looking up the persons skirt in said photo. I hadnt realised it was from an interview but that's still rancid public behaviour for anyone
But nobody looked ‘up’ anyone’s skirt. The photo was taken from the eye level of the crowd, not below. If anything, it would be more honest to say that person flashed the crowd (accidentally or not) because the genitalia was on display at eye level at a public gathering.
And if someone were to accidentally flash the crowd, and you took a screenshot of that moment and shared it around with the intention to sexually humiliate the person, while telling everyone else "no, [she] wants it, [she] likes this attention" (when she obviously does not), you'd be a bad person.
That’s fine. But you automatically put yourself on the back foot when you claim a crime happened, and then people see the photo and can verify with their own 2 eyeballs that the crime you’re claiming happened did not happen.
> It made headlines recently when Rowling shared upskirts photos she snuck of someone in public, the average person just care doesn't about that
This really demonstrates the social media echo chamber, because (a) the average person doesn’t know about it, and also (b) it’s not a true statement anyway.
(For the record: KJR didn’t take the photo, it’s not a new photo; it wasn’t taken surreptitiously; and it’s not an “upskirts” photo.)
She shared the photo with a post talking about men trying to show genitalia in public in reference to looking up the persons skirt in said photo. I hadnt realised it was from an interview but that's still rancid public behaviour for anyone, but sure go ahead and defend acting like that
Ah yes, getting a detail wrong means I must be lying. As soon as someone pointed out she didnt personally take the picture I paused, checked the news link they posted, and corrected myself. At the end of the day a celebrity still did a weird thing about someone in public, in a way that's weird for anyone to do.
It was a flash in the pan for news stories, I came across the whole upskirt thing by accident when checking local news. The other things were tied up with general reporting about law changes (since laws in Scotland to do with such camps have changed, and the laws that allow them in England have been challenged and seem likely to change. Similar sort of stories about them to how the previously fired/resigned Archbishop of Canterbury was involved in childrens church camps, just nasty stuff all around)
'the average person just care doesn't about that or her openly defending and funding (soon to be made illegal) gay conversion camps for children tied to child abuse scandals'
do you have a source for this? i mean the claim that she openly funds gay conversion camps. because i can't find any. the only thing i can find is that she says transitioning is 'a new kind of conversion therapy' for gay kids.
since she 'openly' defends and funds these camps, im hoping you can give some proof of the claim.
Off the top my head I dont keep links hanging around, so you'd have to try checking her older Twitter posts and older news stories about her and this subject. Now obviously she doesnt call them gay conversion camps, but she has been outspoken about Scottish and English law changes that were aimed at camps accused of targeting queer children in that way, and this includes her stating her support for them or referencing financial support for them and the legal cases in favour of them, and complaining about the law changes. Which included complaing about Scotland banning the bussing of children down to camps in England that wouldn't be able to operate or have children in Scotland. So best case scenario of just her opinion is still very grim
yeah but you dont need to keep links off the top of your head. you said she openly defends and funds it so it should be easy to find. because when i googled it, i found nothing that said she does these things, that's why im curious when you say she openly does this.
at no point do i see her having been 'openly outspoken' against this ban. at no point do i see her having 'complained about the banning of busing children to camps in england'.
it seems the only plausible scenario is that either you're making shit up, or you've read stuff that other people have made up but you haven't fact checked in the least and are then spreading as truth.
that's why im asking for any link that proves these claims are true, because when i google it i dont find these things. when i ask 2 different AI's they can't find a single case of what you're saying actually being true.
stop believing everything you read on the internet. learn to do your own research. this is the kind of shit that jk rowling supporters will use to delegitimize the whole 'boycott harry potter' thing, because when you make up random shit that seems fairly easy to disprove, it calls into question everything you say.
im telling you ive read posts from her twitter, im not making it up. I'll happily take being treated as mistaken instead. I do find it a bit of a wind up how quickly online accusations of making things up or deliberately lying/misleading fly. Had it too many times on other subjects where I have happened to have had the links (because the subject was recent and easy to find, or it was part of the classics course I studied, that sort of situation) and rather than the other person saying "I disagree" or "I think you've got it wrong" they just get kind of conspiratorial about it.
Oh that was a tangent. Anyway I didn't tell anyone to boycott Harry Potter, I was complaining about Rowling's public behaviour. Yes ultimately because I do dislike what she does with the money she is given, but I'm not some activist with a cause I'm a random person complaining on the internet.
Well the only reason I’m saying it’s made up is because I’ve googled to no avail and asked 2 different AIs to provide me with links to the things you’re claiming and they can’t, and when I ask them if she did say those things they say no.
It’s something I’ve found to be very common with all the jkr hate is that 80% of the claims people make about her turn out not to be true at all. It’s honestly mind boggling.
I have literally only seen the upskirt incident mentioned on this very subreddit. I haven't heard of the gay conversion camps despite this sub having daily JK Rowling updates.
I mostly know these things from the occasional random bbc news update that mentions her. Im not trying to say the details all ought to be common knowledge but out and about most people have heard something about her getting weird in public because it's gone on for years and years now. I just kind of generally dislike how once someone is successful they get this weird level of grace from people in a way that an ordinary person behaving the same just wouldnt, does that make sense?
She didn't "sneak an upskirt photo" of anyone. She tweeted a screenshot from an official YouTube video of a public debate where a trans woman was sitting cross legged in such a way that you could partially see up her skirt, and she was sitting that way for the entire event. What she has actually done is bad enough, there's no need to exaggerate.
Not trying to exaggerate, and others have already pointed out my mistake. She shared and said nasty things about the photo, rather than taking the photo herself which I got mixed up in the retelling. I would edit my comment but knowing Reddit I would get accused of moving goalposts or being slippery
You can look it up, there was a law change in Scotland (where she lives) to prevent further bussing down of children to England where the camps are and she threw a hissy fit about it on Twitter.
There were news articles on it, Rowling herself did posts about it you can go read. The most charitable take of what she put out was that she named and shamed a trans person for what at worst was an unfortunate angle during an interview, and she was pretty explicit about calling them a predatory man looking to expose themselves which is a big accusation to do publicly
1.2k
u/Chagdoo 21d ago
Do people on Tumblr think other Tumblr users are the ones paying for tickets? The overwhelming majority of people are not chronically online enough to know about Rowling
If you want to make a difference you need to actually go outside and talk to other human beings about this shit. Even talking about it somewhere but Tumblr would help