Yeah but it's not like this is the best literature has to offer, nobody would really lose anything by just not reading a very mid saga.

I will argue there is something very different between Rowling and Bezos.

Both are rich beyond measure and can fund lobbying efforts indefinitely. But Rowling has something that Bezos doesn't have, cultural capital. When she says something, people listen, from journalists to citizens to lawmakers, and not just because she's rich.

Truth is social capital matters. A lot. Which is good because it's the only thing we, the people, can hope to have that most billionaires don't. But a corollary of this statement is that giving social capital to Rowling is, in fact, worse than giving actual capital to Bezos, all else being equal.

Now I can't tell you how to live your life and we all have our vices. Just giving food for thought.

It's impossible to be perfect so you won't even try?

Sure, a lot of other things indirectly harm queers, but it's pretty fucking clear that support for HP, which includes maintaining it's cultural relevance, is directly increasing the influence, wealth, and power of a single person who's utilizing a lot of their time and energy on specifically trans hate.

Not hard to drop a shitty YA series, accept that it was in the past and there was no harm in enjoying it, but that continued support is pretty directly harmful.

I don't get everyone and their eternal "but it was my childhood" crap. I look back on the content I enjoyed in the worst parts of my life fondly, but I've moved on to enjoying other things? I don't need to keep a series from 20 years ago as a current force in the cultural zeitgeist.

(In relation to the current media landscape as a whole) Why people just consume the same content, the same characters, or the same IP repeatedly, as they continue existing in a more and more profit-driven way is beyond me.

That and if you're not already avoiding big box stores as much as probable, that's kinda on you. People have to eat, and often, work has to be done, and those monopolies often give you literally no other practical choice. HP is just a single series among hundreds and thousands of YA magical boy series.

Sounds like he had a very promising future in the arts!

a very famous Austrian

schwarzenegger is a famous austrian. your painter there was an infamous shitbag. know the difference!

lol love it when hitler fans out themselves

Yeah I've got to firmly agree on that one. Her fame, and the fact that she created such a beloved franchise, gives her a lot of influence. Most people haven't heard of the likes of say, Posie Parker, especially outside of the UK.

The president of the United States is a pretty open anti trans activist and has made deliberate efforts to use being anti trans as a way to whip up his base

I think she's the most famous anti-trans activist, but that's not the same as being the most influential. You might watch ContraPoints' videos on JK Rowling, she discusses the analogy of JK Rowling to Anita Bryant (a famous homophobe)

here is her first video on JK Rowling establishing that she is indeed a transphobe, there was a time when a lot of people wouldn't accept that Rowling was actually transphobic

and then her second video covering the "witch trials" of Rowling as a transphobe.

In the end I agree with ContraPoints that JK Rowling has outsized hate directed at her relative to the harm she actually does, and that there is a misogynist tendency for people to target a woman to take out their frustrations on. Marie Antoinette is another example of this - the perceptions of her as a villain exceeded her actual crimes so to speak.

My point isn't to say Rowling is not a transphobe or not dangerous to trans folks, etc. - I just believe there are plenty of anti-trans activists who are more successful as activists and are more influential than JK Rowling, even if they don't end up in the headlines as much. That is, they are getting more done to strip trans folks of their rights than JK Rowling, and that's what I meant by "influential" - as in having power and influence to achieve the political goals of the anti-trans movement.

Matt Walsh for example has basically made a career of advocating against trans folks - creating anti-trans propaganda like What is a Woman?, and going to state legislatures to help pass laws against trans rights. I think he is less famous than JK Rowling, and has a smaller platform - but I would argue he has been more successful at advancing the anti-trans movement than Rowling, and the tangible harms from him are greater.

As far as I can tell, JK Rowling has primarily tweeted her support for the anti-trans movement, then she started funding women-only spaces that are trans-exclusionary, and only recently (as in since last year) has started a fund to help anti-trans legal cases. None of those activities are anywhere as "influential" or effective as the anti-trans activism by others who have actually influenced legislatures and had laws passed to deny healthcare and legal rights.

I would even say Chloe Cole has done more to advance the anti-trans movement than Rowling, for example. She is flown across the U.S. and now across the world to speak on the news and in legislative sessions to help anti-trans laws to be passed.

It's obvious Rowling is transphobic and is now using her influence to advance the anti-trans movement, I just think the perception of her influence is greater than her actual accomplishments as an anti-trans advocate.

Trump alone has done more to undo trans rights recently than anyone else, people I know personally have lost access to HRT as an adult because of his executive orders. Rowling has never accomplished anything that significant AFAIK.

ContaPoints does a better job evaluating some of this in her videos, I know they are long but I think they're worth watching and considering.