I disagree, I liked harry potter a lot. I think they’re good books. I don’t think we have to pretend like this is about literary taste and not the author’s political views. I think people should be up front with what the real message is: “I think that the authors views are abhorrent and therefore you should not support her financially”. The age appropriateness of the books or their quality is just a disingenuous personal attack on the fans and is just childish

Alan Moore agrees:

https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/watchmen-creator-alan-moore-hates-superhero-movies-1234591751/

“I haven’t seen a superhero movie since the first Tim Burton ‘Batman’ film. They have blighted cinema, and also blighted culture to a degree,” Moore said. “Several years ago I said I thought it was a really worrying sign, that hundreds of thousands of adults were queuing up to see characters that were created 50 years ago to entertain 12-year-old boys. That seemed to speak to some kind of longing to escape from the complexities of the modern world, and go back to a nostalgic, remembered childhood. That seemed dangerous, it was infantilizing the population.”

but what if the slaves are racially distinct and portrayed as weaklings and ugly?

also, it’s important for them to know who are those greedy long nosed bankers with the star of David in their building.

God, that franchise has so many red flags you might think it’s soviet propaganda

… did you see the ASS on that ASSault?

From what I’ve read, they did cancel the 3rd season - maybe not directly because of what Gaiman did, but for sure because it’s not very cash money to do productions with him right now

He was investigated by the New Zealand authorities. What has happened with the other women has not been investigated as far as I know.

The New Zealand case became a civil lawsuit.

With the UK woman who accused him of pressuring her to give him oral when she could no longer pay her rent, Gaiman has sued her for breaking a nondisclosure agreement.

I’m not sure what has happened with the other women. Gaiman’s own statements on it have not endeared him to people.

I get that, but I tend to think the burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than the burden of proof to believe a victim outside of a courtroom.

In this case I don’t think there is any reason to doubt the victims, and the pressure and evidence points to victims tending to not come forward, the fact that there are multiple accusations from multiple victims indicates to me a much higher probability that Gaiman is guilty of some sexual crimes than not. Luckily my opinion or assessment of Gaiman’s behavior doesn’t have consequences like jail time, so my beliefs do not demand the same scrutiny as a judge’s or a jury’s.

Not that it’s wrong to think about the evidence, but culturally I think we tend to discount survivors and victims more than we validate them, and that can make questions about evidence really difficult, even harmful. Still, we obviously can’t ignore the problem of evidence, but luckily that’s primarily a concern for the courts (not that being cancelled doesn’t have consequences, and “cancel culture” can be reactive, essentializing, and unfair - that’s probably something we should collectively think about more).

As someone who loves the graphic novels, the show just didn’t do it for me. I don’t think any show could do it justice.

It wasn’t bad or anything, but it was lacking something that made the books so special imo

i’m a believer that we should just consider the works forfeited to the public domain and let the author’s name be forgotten to time, let the future think of it as we think about german fairytales.

Before trans rights became a ‘culture war’ issue, most people didn’t give a shit what your identity was or what you wanted to do in private - that was just between you and your doctor.

Naw man I’m 40 and I can assure you being trans in the 90s was shit. Considered a sickness or even a crime. Gender Dysphoria was basically Climate change now treatment wasn’t transition at all. Now there is resistance yes but they have much more than the ones before.

Doesnt that only apply if it when to court as a criminal case? At the moment this is people talking to the press and it hasnt gone to criminal court.

Heres what you can do:

Encourage people to pirate his shit

Remind people what he did. In detail.

Start with me! I know he did… Some rapey shit? Pro ably wizard flavored?

Holy shit, what the fuck? I think I read one edding’s book and didn’t think much of it, but what the fuck?! Where’s my interrobang button!?

Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it.

The stories aren’t good.

Why do you think they’re so popular then?

Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?

It is the latter, kind of

It’s also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same).

So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish.

Bigotry, rape, and stick drift. Yup, totally comparable.

You’re right, that’s what I’ve seen too, and I’ve seen ‘reactionary’ used as well.

Lmao, in my haste to share the new thing I confused the ‘R’ with the one in the original acronym.

I prefer the term “Genital Worrier” or more accurately because they only really worry about one type of transgender person “Penis Panickers”.

Irk? Keeps them nicely sectioned off from being associated with feminism too.

Or maybe I just don’t agree with you

Genocide is technically a process and a sliding scale. It exists by degrees. It may seem hyperbolic to classify some actions as genocidal particularly when they are slow or the number of deaths do not seem absolute but it is still genocide.

What defines a genocide via international Convention is any of five acts intended to diminish the population of a cultural community. None of these have to be a totality of the group it can be only in part. The important thing is victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly. The five acts of genocide are :

• Killing members of the group

• Causing them serious bodily or mental harm

• Imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group

• Preventing births

• Forcibly transferring children out of the group

While a number of countries are full five for five in regards to trans people you only really need one to qualify. Things like the lack of reporting of Trans deaths, the removal of services needed by the group including medical care or critical mental health resources as is happening with the closure of LGBTQIA+ specific crisis support in the US, the labelling of Trans people as pedophiles or removal of children from the custody of supportive parents into state custody by labelling gender affirming attitudes as “child abuse”, the forcing of trans people to endure security risks because of laws that often get them arrested for following them such as bathroom bills… All of these are genocidal measures they just aren’t fast acting.

While it may seem like the point of the word is to be splashy and attention grabbing that need not be the point of it. The cultural expectations that genocide need only be wartime type measures of systematic elimination is a disservice to a lot of other genocides that are happening globally.

First of all, yes, I think some people find it controversial to use the term “genocide” to refer to what’s happening to trans people. Part of the debate about the term “genocide” is whether it can apply to non-ethnic groups, for example. I would argue the spirit of the term does apply to any group, but some people disagree. I’m not sure why it’s so important for the term to be limited to ethnicity, I tend to think these arguments are not in the spirit of validating or recognizing very real oppression and violence intended to completely eliminate a certain group.

The motivation to use the term “genocide” is that the anti-trans movement has explicitly stated as their goal the total erasure of trans people:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cpac-speaker-transgender-people-eradicated-1234690924/

During his speech on Saturday, Knowles told the crowd, “For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”

Knowles subsequently claimed that “eradicating” “transgenderism” is not a call for eradicating transgender people and demanded retractions from numerous publications, including Rolling Stone.

Erin Reed, a transgender rights activist and writer, tells Rolling Stone that it’s an absurd distinction. There is no difference between a ban on “transgenderism” and an attack on transgender people, she says: “They are one and the same, and there’s no separation between them.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/matt-walsh-supreme-court-erase-trans-ideology-earth-1235192666/

“We are not gonna rest until every child is protected, until trans ideology is entirely erased from the earth. That’s what we’re fighting for, and we will not stop until we achieve it,” he said.

Specifically, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has described the anti-trans movement as genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-alert-for-the-anti-trans-agenda-of-the-trump-administration-in-the-united-states

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security condemns the anti-trans agenda of the second Trump Administration and warns Americans that the recent spate of executive orders, which are in line with a genocidal process against the transgender community that has been emerging in the United States for over a decade, are meant to pave the way for greater state repression against all individuals and other groups in the future.

…

The Lemkin Institute believes that current anti-trans hysteria within the government is meant to serve three purposes within a wider genocidal process. First, the Executive Orders constitute the paper marginalization and ‘paper persecution’ of an identity group that has recently gained rights and greater acceptance in order to lock in evangelical support for the Trump administration. Second, the executive orders create a fictitious ‘cosmic enemy’ that will justify radicalization of government in general, leading to ever-more power for the executive branch; and third, the executive orders, over time, aim to normalize the destruction of identity groups by desensitizing the public to state-sponsored persecution of people based solely on their identities.

Taken together, the Trump Administration’s executive orders related to trans people would effectively destroy, if fully implemented, trans people as a group, in whole, to summarize the text of the Genocide Convention. The orders begin the process of removing a trans presence from collective life and preventing trans people from existing as themselves, forcing them back into invisibility and isolation. This attack on trans identity is reminiscent in the US context of the Native American Boarding Schools, where the goal was to “kill the Indian … and save the man.” Not only would the effort to deprive trans Americans of gender affirming care constitute a form of torture (and medical malpractice) with terrible mental health repercussions, but also such measures are a common phase in genocidal processes and generally lead to ever greater persecution.

Trans people in Florida prisons are being forcefully detransitioned and forced into pseudo-science conversion “therapy”, I don’t think it’s hyperbolic at this point in time to say the intentions of the anti-trans movement are genocidal, and I think the movement is largely succeeding in their goals.

So far necessary medical care has been denied to trans youth in many states, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that discrimination against people on the basis of “gender dysphoria” is legal. We already have data that the ban of gender affirming care (and in some cases, forcing physicians to detransition trans youth) has significantly increased the rate of suicide attempts among those trans youth.

We are also seeing tools used in previous genocides, such as “social death” where the concept of being trans is eliminated from the law and thus on a social and legal level trans people cannot “exist”. Laws in some states have already achieved this (which results in trans people never being able to fix their birth certificates or update their legal documents, for example), and now the federal government is operating under executive orders that establish the same (making it impossible for trans people to have accurate passports or federal documents, for example - but the policies impact much more, including forcing male TSA agents to pat down trans women and vice versa).

So the methods and goals are all genocidal, the only problem is that trans people as a group are not a national or ethnic group, so this would fail a narrow definition of genocide that way.

the anti-trans movement’s achievements like taking away gender-affirming care have directly been shown to result in increased suicides, as far as I know Gaiman’s actions have not directly killed anyone, while Rowling’s advocacy does directly support a movement that results in deaths - I think the per-person severity of harm when a trans person self harms, attempts suicide, or succeeds in suicide (not to mention when anti-trans bigots rape, torture, and murder trans people) are all worse AFAIK

utilitarianism: for when you need the worst possible take delivered in the most insufferable manner using the least amount of critical faculty to answer the questions nobody asked.

Or just buy his books used, he sees no money from that

Anecdotal, but I read the Mists of Avalon years ago and enjoyed it enough to want to read more. Then I found out about the author (and her husband) sexually abusing children, including her own daughter, and I absolutely cannot bring myself to read any more of her books.

Fuck abusers. I’m glad she’s dead and I don’t give two shits what she had to say about anything when she was alive.

I wonder if I am unusual in that I am able to read good books by bad people without feeling gross. (I’m not claiming that I would support a bad person, just that reading their books doesn’t generally cause me particular anguish.) Is this something that is unusual about me, or do people just assume that it should be difficult to read books like that, but most people aren’t bothered? Same with movies and music. Listening to Michael Jackson or David Bowie from my personal archives, I don’t feel any particular difficulty despite the allegations against them.

it’s tainted by the knowledge that the creator is a disgusting monster who convinced me that he was just the coolest dude, so i can’t enjoy it anymore.

Except I’m the one saying “and”. They both suck, and it doesn’t matter who sucks worse since they’ve both crossed the threshold and people shouldn’t be giving either of them money. Where on earth did you get anything else from out of my comment?

I haven’t read a lot of Sanderson, but I’ve read enough to sense that this difference is in true personal disposition.

Sanderson’s drive seems to be more of wonder, curiosity and adventure, and the stories delve into morality and justice as a source of plot tension.

In contrast, I think OSC has always been more of a black-and-white thinker. I think his best stories have been ones where he is exploring a moral struggle or thought experiment. But at the end of the story, you can pull out what OSC has concluded morally about those characters - who is good, who is bad (and always has been), and maybe who is a necessary evil.

All of OSC’s stories are about categorizing people, behaviors and decisions into ‘should/should not’ buckets. And I’ve just never gotten that sense from Sanderson’s books.