This idea that political leaders will meet with Joanne disgusts me.
What is she a leader in? I understand that she’s popular and has influence but she has no official role in transgender rights or ANY rights for that matter. She signs off on how Harry Potter can be used on lunchboxes and mugs. THAT’S IT.
I think the main reason is because she used to be quite publicly associated with Labour and has donated to them. She still considers herself a progressive and paints herself as such despite her views increasingly suggesting otherwise. This also seems to be a popular view among people who haven’t been scrutinising her increasingly mad Twitter feed over the last couple of years because of her historically more progressive views. I saw trans people and allies making fun of her being named on a recent list of leftists/progressives in the UK by some magazine.
There's no revisionism at all. I didn't say her success wasn't valid. The books were huge. But they weren't billionaire huge because no book ever is. Her extreme wealth has been from toys, merchandise and her chunk for allowing the films to happen. She would always have been beyond comfortable and into the realms of rich, but she'd have been, like, Gary Barlow rich, not a billionaire. Does Jacqueline Wilson get her opinions onto the front page of The Times? Why's that then?
GREENS!I think I might be doing a Keir Starmer and actually flip flopping on whether I should be voting for Labour at all…
Most likely at this point!GREENS!
Honey you don’t ALWAYS have to play devil’s advocate!
There's always this man, and his lovely dog, vying for a voteI think I might be doing a Keir Starmer and actually flip flopping on whether I should be voting for Labour at all…
There's no revisionism at all. I didn't say her success wasn't valid. The books were huge. But they weren't billionaire huge because no book ever is. Her extreme wealth has been from toys, merchandise and her chunk for allowing the films to happen. She would always have been beyond comfortable and into the realms of rich, but she'd have been, like, Gary Barlow rich, not a billionaire. Does Jacqueline Wilson get her opinions onto the front page of The Times? Why's that then?
There's always this man, and his lovely dog, vying for a vote
But that's exactly what she's done. Sweatshop toys, scarves, banners, Hallowe'en costumes, M&S chocolates etc etc. The people who make them earn fuck all.My revisionism point was actually about her just “creaming hundreds of millions off other people’s hard work”.
Equally, we then go down the route of the actors in the movies “creaming” their money and fame off her writing. Which is exactly what the TERF brigade used against them when they came out against her lunatic rantings and which we all (rightly) rallied against.
Makes Rishi and Starmer feel like amateurish charisma vacuums by comparison. If this were You Decide, they wouldn't stand a chance.I have to say … that’s a pretty great piece of political communication.
But that's exactly what she's done. Sweatshop toys, scarves, banners, Hallowe'en costumes, M&S chocolates etc etc. The people who make them earn fuck all.
Trying to revert it onto the actors is ludicrous - without them, the films could have flopped. The notion that they should kow-tow to Rowling is ridiculous; the reverse is true - their talent came to define her characters to mutual benefit. Radcliffe has a career because he made good choices, Watson used her celebrity as a positive and became an actual UN ambassador for women's rights - indeed, her activism makes for a fascinating contrast with Rowling and, again, we might like to ask why we hear so much less of her, given the scale and positivity of her work.
When someone is acting against the best interests of society, their wealth and influence comes up for interrogation. If Elon Musk had invested his dad's money and spent his days painting stick figures, no-one would give a fuck what he thinks. There are wealthy people, often inheritors, who just go about their business - Mackenzie Bezos naffed off with a fortune and seems to be wandering around choosing philanthropy. But when you choose to use your platform to abuse, defame, harm and belittle, to lie, distort and hurt, the game changes. Rowling has chosen to be an nasty, sneering presence, using her wealth to bully and exclude. So, yes, she comes up for review from every angle. She is against basic social progress, basic human rights and against a meritocracy. Ultimately, we are now interrogating how people become billionaires because there's an increasing view that a civilised society doesn't allow people to hoard wealth when others are starving, regardless of how it is earned.But then again, surely that is the people who buy the licence for those things who are making money off HER work rather than a JK Rowling evil money making machine? This just wouldn't have come up if she wasn't a TERF and she was (supposedly) donating to left wing causes and doing good with her money. We can't just apply the argument where we like because we don't LIKE someone, no!?
And AGAIN, I know I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but the second point response doesn't actually make any sense as an argument to my point- I said we rightly called people out for that. But it's just the other side of the same coin.
Well HELLO Robert!In LITERATURE NEWS despite being turfed out and amalgamated with something called EDDISBURY we're getting another chance to vote for BYELECTION LOVELY ROB although he's starting to look a bit WORN
I've got TWO from him and two from MANCUNIAN UNION JACK FAN ANGE. Also one from APHRA BRANDRETH but THAT went straight in the recycling as apart from anything else we don't FARM in the SUBURBS
![]()