"Giving money to J.K.Rowling is the same as giving money to eradicate transgender people. I'm sorry, but it's true."
allosaurusfragilis on tumblr
"Giving money to J.K.Rowling is the same as giving money to eradicate transgender people. I'm sorry, but it's true."
allosaurusfragilis on tumblr
@mikebabcock @transworld this isn't a fallacy though. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" doesn't mean "it's ok to spend money with this person actively funding the eradication of human of a certain category". The dog analogy is literally 1:1.
(Not talking to the transphobe but to anyone else reading; of course I blocked this asshole rather than attempt "discourse" with someone who's already made up they're mind that it's ok for people to die for their consumerism)
@vex @mikebabcock @transworld 1/4
jk rowling’s words and actions against trans people are truly awful. but the art/artist argument is real and complicated.
art becomes so much more than the artist. and yet the originator of something is paid the primary royalties.
if i enjoy the art, how do i reconcile that with the originator’s current actions?
i used to love hp. rn there’s so much other (better) fantasy i have discovered and fallen into. is complex
@theatremaker @vex @mikebabcock @transworld
Art and a human relationship to it is complex. Politics is very practical. You can possibly separate loving the art from the artist (if you can unsee what's under the surface of it), but you can't separate financially supporting the artist from the artist.