JK Rowling promote holocaust denier

[nATAH 49,832]

3 hours ago, babyboo said:

Omz we should totally cAnCel hEr !!

Seriously guys she's allowed to endorse/support whoever she wants. I'm so over these dumb outrage about someone else personal choice.

what even is this comment

[alsemanche 93,886]

Just now, NATAH said:

what even is this comment

To put it their way:

3 hours ago, babyboo said:

dumb

 

[Ziggy 11,870]

38 minutes ago, alsemanche said:

To put it their way:

 

Alsemanche. Period.

[PartySick 160,614]

2 hours ago, NATAH said:

what even is this comment

My 13th reason.

Spoiler

Did I use that right?

 

[nATAH 49,832]

1 minute ago, PartySick said:

My 13th reason.

  Reveal hidden contents

Did I use that right?

 

i think you did, bestie

[HorusRa2 5,005]

3 hours ago, Nathan said:

Nah, let’s call out bigots and fascists.

We don’t need go ‘allow’ people say anything they want with no accountability.

That’s what free speech is. 

Separate from the JKR aspect of this conversation, but free speech is not creating consequences for speech. What you are actually advocating for is censorship and authoritarianism. To be clear, I am not defending this said, "speech," but I am a free speech absolutist. People should be free to say whatever they want, right, wrong, true or false. It's a principle. I do not apply modifications to things just because I don't like them. 

 

I need to do more research on this specifically though because I've only seen the screenshots. 

[Pennywise 36,079]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

but I am a free speech absolutist. People should be free to say whatever they want, right, wrong, true or false. It's a principle

People ARE free to say whatever they want to say, at least in countries where free speech is constitutionalized. However, that doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE or PRIVATE ENTITIES cannot react to the bullshit that comes out of their mouths 

Like, you can be as homophobic as you want even in my face, for example, but you have no right to be surprised if I ****ing deck you in the face for it  

[AbhainnTirim 368]

21 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

. People should be free to say whatever they want, right, wrong, true or false. It's a principle. I do not apply modifications to things just because I don't like them. 

But what if it’s literal lies and misinformation? What if it’s spreading conspiracies? Should we just sit back and let this poison filter into people’s minds? 
 

And I’m not talking about opinions, by the way, but FACTS. Stone cold, hard, harsh facts.

[GAYHEMikey 8,043]

Can she just piss off 

[PartySick 160,614]

46 minutes ago, Pennywise said:

People ARE free to say whatever they want to say, at least in countries where free speech is constitutionalized. However, that doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE or PRIVATE ENTITIES cannot react to the bullshit that comes out of their mouths 

Like, you can be as homophobic as you want even in my face, for example, but you have no right to be surprised if I ****ing deck you in the face for it  

F*cking thank you.

Too many people do not understand what free speech is

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, Pennywise said:

People ARE free to say whatever they want to say, at least in countries where free speech is constitutionalized. However, that doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE or PRIVATE ENTITIES cannot react to the bullshit that comes out of their mouths 

Like, you can be as homophobic as you want even in my face, for example, but you have no right to be surprised if I ****ing deck you in the face for it  

Right, that is my point. People should have the right to say whatever they want. Doesn't mean they have a right to be praised for it. Once speech is said, it should be open to criticism in public forum. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, AbhainnTirim said:

But what if it’s literal lies and misinformation? What if it’s spreading conspiracies? Should we just sit back and let this poison filter into people’s minds? 
 

And I’m not talking about opinions, by the way, but FACTS. Stone cold, hard, harsh facts.

Yes. Even if it is lies. Because then there would be an institutionalized arbitrator of what is true and what is false. And we are or should be aware that institutions are susceptible to corruption and abuse of power. 

[nATAH 49,832]

4 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Right, that is my point. People should have the right to say whatever they want. Doesn't mean they have a right to be praised for it. Once speech is said, it should be open to criticism in public forum. 

then what is your point for debating if we're all on the same page about this? 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 minute ago, NATAH said:

then what is your point for debating if we're all on the same page about this? 

The post I quoted initially does not say that or it seems to imply that speech should be censored. Maybe I interpeted it incorrectly but that is what I got from it. 

[luckyanderson 379]

I'm not endorsing any of Lampert's comments or J.K.'s promotion thereof but is questioning something like the number of actual deaths in a genocide or tragedy blatant "denial?" Are the estimated numbers not ever changing? I am not endorsing extreme right wing antisemitic conspiracy theories or claims but the principle notion and standard you have to believe all newly introduced factoids concerning the Holocaust is somewhat intellectually concerning. If it is proven fact, it is fact and there shouldn't be further question about it, yes. However, if it is theory or estimate, are not people allowed to discuss its plausibility without it being considered outright denial? I know in Germany skepticism and denial of the Holocaust is an offense and that is Germany and the German people's decision to make. That said, at one point does basic inquisition and inquiry become outright "denial" and why does said standard SOLELY apply to the Holocaust? Perhaps the answer is more nuanced and emotionally charged because the Holocaust was so impactful and when it happened the world did turn a blind eye and antisemitism does still exist today, but does separating a Zionist agenda (like with Israel's illegal occupancy of Palestine) from the plights and experiences of Jewish people both in the Holocaust and today equate to "denial" or lack of empathy?

(TL;DR Sorry I was more intrigued by the commentary the woman posed and how it is viewed sociologically speaking than J.K. being the trash we all already knew she was and endorsed. )