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?!

Yes, and we’re all still confused. What shady things has JCR done?

What, by quoting the post? Ok. Is this not you….

Well three are named - two convicted, one not.

in reference to Jimmy Saville?

Who are you quoting here?

In response to a post helpfully letting you know that this wasn’t a thread about not liking JKR, but rather questioning equating her with a convicted sex offender you replied.

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.

So, rather than acknowledging what the thread was about you decided to remind everyone that Savile wasn’t convicted. Some people have seen that as ‘coming into bat’ for him. Not unreasonable. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone jump in so quickly to remind people JS wasn’t convicted of anything.

Let’s accept that wasn’t your intention though. Why raise the fact he wasn’t convicted and go on to suggest why in the context of this thread?

Some people have no capacity for moral reasoning. JKR Rowling is a rare, and outstanding, example of moral goodness in public life: not only setting up and wholly funding a rape crisis centre for women, but standing up for women’s rights, and continuing to do so, despite the onslaught of death threats. We know these people are violent: her decision to speak out against them is an act of extraordinary bravery.

I’m going to disagree with you saying she’s not brave. Yes it isn’t a cult, she isn’t our leader ya de ya de yaya. I do think it takes immense bravery (insulation of having plenty of money aside) to stick her head above the parapet of the immense onslaught of “accepted” opinion - particularly when this started and there were very few other voices openly saying the things she did. Sure, her wealth (built entirely off the back of her own talent and success) protects her from the threat of having her livelihood destroyed, but lets not play down all the death and rape threats, the hideous hate mail she must receive, and the general toll it must take to receive so much criticism, however uninformed.

Maybe you can give us an example?

She doesn’t have a ‘woman’s refuge’. Where are you getting your incorrect information from?

Which bit of what she says don’t you agree with?

So you are implying that when JKR is dead we will discover that she secretly raped little boys and covered it up using her wealth? I rather think that that is libel should you actually write it down.
I can' think of anything bad she has done (though I don't agree with her reported idea that using she/her pronouns to her nice transwoman friend is a good idea).
Go away, alcove.

alcove doesn't need evidence. Whole cloth weaver.

I see no clarification on the ‘shady things’ alcove …

I would be tempted, OP, to say to your college that if he thinks being a predatory pedophile is the same as funding a RCC for women and wanting to protect women only spaces, he should be looking for monsters much closer to home.

Most monsters are known/related to their victims, good advice.

Wow. And that's your concept of equivalence to serial sexual abuse of children?

Next you'll be mentioning that she once bought chocolates after 8 pm.

She did WHAT??!! The sheer monstrosity! And I bet it was a Cadburys Dairy Milk!!