JKR accused of 'quoting hitler'

[Dominoodles]

Within the context of condemning political violence following the murder of Charlie Kirk, she quoted on X a line from Mein Kampf where Hitler talked about how he utilised political violence for his own gain. This was a clear statement in how allowing for political violence against one's rivals can lead to that in power manipulating things in order to harm others.

Unfortunately, articles are springing up across the internet shaming JKR for quoting or referring to this text at all, with many condemning her for 'nazi' views and accusing her of being far right.

(Personally I love JK, and it is such a shame that every single thing she says is twisted to mean the opposite of what she's actually saying!)

That’s simply not true, and you can’t just make up false histories by pretending “every historical political formulation I don’t like was fascism”. All that proves is that you don’t really know what it is.

I’m getting tired of this; people pay £9k for me to teach them political history, and frankly, even the least able of my students isn’t remotely this underinformed. It might wash making stuff up on Tumblr or Discord, but not here on MN where the posters are clever and well-educated women.

Um, JK seems confused. Calling someone a fascist isn't the same as calling for violence. The weird thing is using this irrelevant inflammatory analogy in the context of the murder of someone who stood for free speech absolutism.

Does she even know who Charlie Kirk is or how the far right operate?

There's loads of other quotes she could have used to make the same point.. I do think it was stupid of her. I don't think she's a fascist but I do think it was idiotic and disrespectful to quote Hitler. Which she genuinely did do.. even if to make a reasonable point.

She was replying to a question that was specifically about Hitler.

TRA are so literal minded aren’t they.

Covers it.

Deborah Harry is a Holocaust denying Nazi. She called her band Blondie, which was the name of Hitler's dog. Pure evil. And one of her songs was called Atomic, the Nazis were trying to develop an atom bomb, what more proof do you need?

(For the hard of thinking, this post is taking

Doesn’t the word literally come from Mussolini’s use of the Roman word for a bundle of sticks? Literally in the early 20th century.

Oi sunshine

You will have to break your theory down a little more.

She said this :
Many who scream 'fascist' at opponents fully endorse his methods.

''The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence."
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf.

Explain how Hitler managed his bit of :

Both plans ‘succeeded.’

No hand waving explain in baby steps

He scribblied his ideas on paper and what happened next....

Great post.

But I would push back ever so slightly with It’s ironic JKR doesn’t realise the scaremongering and demonising of others she indulges in was amongst the weapons Hitler facilitated his violence with.

Who is failing to understand the social contexts of the post.

Have you ever been on twitter / X ?

So being asked about Hitler and replying with evidence in the form of a source quote by ...Hitler (in unfavourable terms and being clear that his methods were a Bad Thing) is Holocaust denial, is it?

Interested to know from our current crop of TRA exchange students how History degrees (or indeed A-levels and GCSEs, since not sure they'd be able to speak from personal experience yet) work these days then?

If I'd changed the names and said AOC was responding to a Terf they'd think it was the height of prescience. JKR's shopping list would be taken as definitive proof of her evil at this point.

I can see exactly what she means, but as you say everything she says is twisted and half the people who slag her off don't read her posts they take others word for it.
I don't think she gives a ...... about them anymore.

The main thesis of the thread is that the genderists will misrepresent anything JKR might say in the worst possible ways so it would be best for her not to say anything at all.

My previous post should have had "the piss." at the end.

She’s a writer. Surely she could have made her point without quoting Hitler.
It’s almost as if she thrives on controversy….

She's a writer asked a question about a particular person. She replied using a quote from him to prove her point.

It's almost as if she employs critical thinking and evidence.

Unlike her deranged detractors, who really need to bore off.

Not really when she's responding to a question about hitler

As a general principle, it's wise to inform yourself on what is under discussion before posting about it. Otherwise you look foolish.

If someone asks a question about Hitler, responding mentioning and quoting Hitler, in a way that condemns violence, should not be controversial... to anyone in good faith, at least. Sadly, JKR is not dealing with good faith actors.

Ok, fair point. You’re right - I wasn’t aware of that!

The thing that’s most notable about TRAs currently is how utterly boring they all are. They don’t have a single unique or interesting thought or idea of their own. Every time they pipe up with this sort of nonsense, it just elicits an eye roll, a sigh and “here we go again 🙄”. It’s all so trite.

Don't you have anything original to say other than twisting words of someone you don’t like? Anything?!

Couldn't agree more. In addition to the traditional bingo card (complete with bathrooms, sex is more complicated than you think, just want to pee, JKR is afflicted by black mould, Harry Potter was never any good anyway etc etc etc) I've noticed an increasing number of GC arguments repurposed.

Institutional capture, for example. Where have we heard that before?

I assume it's a product of a terminally-online demographic, passionately wedded to a faith-based ideology that positively discourages critical thinking and independent thought.

It's like they've got memes instead of minds. I find it slightly chilling.

So the new rule is, if someone asks you a question about a specific person you are NOT allowed to in any way, reference that person in your reply.

Ok!

I think that's the whole point. They don't have any arguments that make sense (hence "no debate" for so long), so all they can do is try to smear anyone on the other side who might have a persuasive argument.

It's desperation.