The false equivalency drives me mad...

[Toastess]

I was chatting with a group of colleagues today. Somehow the conversation moved onto Rolf Harris, and one woman said how she'd loved Harris's music as a child and how horrified everyone was to discover his paedophilia. A few other names were mentioned (Stewart Hall, Jimmy Savile etc.).

Then a man said "Oh that's like with JK Rowling, I loved Harry Potter and now she's a monster." I don't know the group well at all, we're at work, I'm not proud but I just said "she's not a paedophile, it's a bit different!". His response - "she's still an absolute monster".

How on earth can JK be in the same category as convicted sex offenders?! How has the blind hatred reached this level?!

He probably has no idea what her opinions actually are. I can understand why you wouldn't want to raise it again but if you feel able you could share her letter with him and ask what's monstrous about her opinions. Also, it's completely fine to say what you said. Not wanting a drama with work colleagues you don't know very well is ok too.

I guess he's young and obviously fully captured. Probably hasn't read further than Reddit about it. Even so, absolutely nobody to my knowledge has called her a paedophile or conflated her with the likes of Saville. But this what we're dealing with ladies.

Christ! Even if you disagree with her stance (I support JKR!), to compare her having an opinion to literal child rapists and abusers is unbelievable!

Yes indeed, for a billionaire to pay tax honestly, endow charities, give millions of children a love of reading and HAVE OPINIONS ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS.

Monstrous indeed.

Well to be fair, he's a bloke, and maybe young enough not to have to think about a daughter with a male sports coach, or a wife on a night out, or a mother wanting a female carer...

It does us no good to pretend JK has behaved impeccably. She's done some very shady things and even I - who share most of her views - will not defend that. It's OK if people don't like her - I doubt she cares so why should you? GC isn't a cult so it would be great if some of you could remember that.

The thread isn’t about people ‘not liking her’ it’s about people equating her with a convicted sex offender.

Well three are named - two convicted, one not. The one not was sainted in life and used his power and money to protect himself from facing justice for his secret vile actions.

What’s your point?

I don't have to think someone is a saint to object to them being held in the same category as those who have committed heinous acts.

That we're not a cult and she's not a leader. She's not brave - she's not a saint. She's an insulated billionaire who does immense good - while occasionally making mistakes and doing things that no-one else would get away with without criticism.

Which has what to do with equating her with a convicted sex offender again now?

I never said we were a cult; I never said she was our leader. Again, she doesn't have to be a saint - I can still object to the idea that having her views must be considered equally "monstrous" as committing horrific sexual offences.

You asked what my point was. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here. You accuse others of being blind when the reality is they just have a different opinion to you.

She hardly gets away without criticism, she's criticised all the time.

Not that I think she should be.

Haha what an embarrassing knob. Do these people even hear themselves.

What a bellend.

What's the bet that he 'identifies' as a feminist?

Point proven.

Nope. They asked “How on earth can JK be in the same category as convicted sex offenders?” It’s right there in the OP. You can keep ignoring it and pretend the thread is about something else, but everyone else can read.

How? Please do explain how me saying that she shouldn't be criticised all the time (e.g some of the time may be fair) proves any point you think you have made?

I’m pretty certain that if you’d asked him which of her public statements made her a “monster,” he’d have been left stuttering and without a leg to stand on.

He’s just read some online bollocks, or his kids have parroted the Reddit line about her to him, and regurgitated it. So very ‘progressive’ of him 🙄

Speak for yourself. I think she has behaved impeccably.

Do you think she 'behaved impeccably' when she publicly pictured and called out a male abuser at a protest? Only to delete it and remove her own criticism when it was pointed out that he was on the gender critical side and not a TRA as she had assumed? Or what about when she revealed that her women's refuge records vulnerable women without making them aware against all established protocols? Those are two pretty big things I think deserve criticism.

"A few other names were mentioned (Stewart Hall, Jimmy Savile etc.)." is also in the OP. I wonder who the etc is? And also Jimmy Savile was never convicted of anything, so it can't just be about convicted sex offenders.