"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 @[email protected] @transworld a person who buy blood diamonds over lab grown diamonds exhibits racism due to contributing to funding the exploitation.
A person who buys blood art exhibits bigotries as well. JKR literally uses money from her franchise to push laws & lies that literally result in fewer rights (i.e. increases exploitation & death) for women & trans men. You being stuck on "art vs artist" when the prior art-free example shows it's irrelevant, is avoidance, not a mistake. You simply want to enjoy your blood media without caring about the blood. & You want other people being ok with you not caring.