>

You said "some of us may die." I said "people die all the time." Both dumb arguments that have zero relevance to the conversation
I think the biggest thing here is that you are saying that we don't need to boycott her work due to the fact that there are other interpretations of it. 

implying that Rowling's not-so-recent public persona saying a ton of 
wrong things destroys HP or automatically means that we ought to stop 
supporting their work is just as wrong.

I would say it's much worse to do things to support a person that has these views, by, for instance, paying for their media, than it is to alienate their media. Losing a bit of media can be sad but is quickly gotten over. Racism, antisemitism, and anti-trans stuff is not. 

JK Rowling's views can be completely separated from their work 

You can completely separate it from your own subjective standpoint, but with things like this, it's more important to as a society, in no way support people that have these stances. We should do everything we can to make these worldviews as unwelcome as possible. And I wouldn't say this is different whether that person is alive or dead. 

it's very hard to see a world where the impact of "boycotting" her actually matters

The effect, just like many other small choices we make on a day to day basis, is a larger and larger group of people speaking out against people like this. If you are willing to give up media due to how you feel about the creator, which is saying a lot for most people living in first world countries, then it's an idea that's everpresent in your mind, and in the minds of those around you. And that's powerful, in a positive way.

only really affects a small section of the population,

That is a terrible, and apologist view of it. Just because something terrible someone is doing is only effecting a select few people, that doesn't mean it's not wrong, nor does it mean it shouldn't be stopped. If someone had a specific serial killer criteria that only effected 0.0000001% of the population, they're still doing a horrible thing by killing those people, and especially when all you are talking about doing is to NOT consume their media or openly support them, it's really not a large price to pay. No discrimination towards any marginalized group should be tolerated, really ever.

"creator bad work bad" is not a good analysis of art

Sure, terrible people can create amazing things. Probably the most valid point you've had. That doesn't mean that consuming those things is worth supporting terrible people. 

you should not be guilt-tripping people into anything

With something like this, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the people who do the bad thing, are good. The only reason I'd say don't guilt trip people into it, is because that's manipulative, fucked up and, maybe, your judgement isn't perfect. But not because it's somehow acceptable to support a fucked up individual. >


Losing a bit of media can be sad but is quickly gotten over. Racism, antisemitism, and anti-trans stuff is not.

I feel like this is a very joyless view of media. Art is extremely important to everyone. All of the things you mentioned after that are very bad, but I would not say they are more important than having big connections with art. 
Getting over your favorite world is not "something is quickly gotten over".
I also don't feel like consuming these works inherently supports their bad ideas, even if the creator is alive and profiting from it, because there are more things to consider other than this. 

it's more important to as a society, in no way support people that have these stances.

I don't agree. I'd rather have a TERF that does good art, than a TERF who doesn't. 

And I wouldn't say this is different whether that person is alive or dead.

The same goes here. If Rowling was dead, I wouldn't even bother making this thread, because it should be obvious to everyone that consuming HP is okay. It's only how she's the figurehead and how she has benefitted from it that makes it something worth talking about. 

The effect, just like many other small choices we make on a day to day basis, is a larger and larger group of people speaking out against people like this

Yes, I realize this, I'm not saying we should never boycott; I'm saying this specific boycott doesn't make sense. For example, I'd say veganism's urge to not consume meat is justified, even if I don't agree with it, because from their PoV we are making something horrible to animals. But I don't see this boycott as something that has sense, even as someone that is not into HP anymore, and who is very much pro-trans. 

Just because something terrible someone is doing is only effecting a select few people, that doesn't mean it's not wrong, nor does it mean it shouldn't be stopped.

Sure, but that's not what I said. Maybe I didn't express myself correctly: what I meant to say is that, given that Rowling has done a lot of other things other than TERF rhetoric, it's important to keep that in mind when we decide whether she's even worth boycotting in the first place - given that people are taking that she's worth boycotting as a given.
Note that I am not saying that it's not worth boycotting her. I am saying that it's not obvious enough for people to be urging others to do the same in the way it's being done.

That doesn't mean that consuming those things is worth supporting terrible people.

I would not make this prescription. Also, supporting terrible people, and that person being able to spread their bad ideas, are two different things. 

The only reason I'd say don't guilt trip people into it

I also disagree with this. Some issues are worth pressuring others, and trans issues are one of those, but even if boycotting Legacy was the correct move, it's not being done correctly. >


I also don't feel like consuming these works inherently supports their bad ideas, even if the creator is alive and profiting from it, because there are more things to consider other than this.

The creator being alive and profiting is literally supporting them.

I don't agree. I'd rather have a TERF that does good art, than a TERF who doesn't.

What about no TERFs? Why is your binary between a useful/useless bigot rather than bigot/not bigot? >


The creator being alive and profiting is literally supporting them.

Not necessarily. I'd argue that Rowling's TERF influence is not attached anymore to HP. 

What about no TERFs? Why is your binary between a useful/useless bigot rather than bigot/not bigot?

That's not my binary, but I'm taking for granted that TERFs exist, because they do.  Of course if I could press a button and make eveyrone had only good views I'd do it but that's not what we're discussing here. >


I'd argue that Rowling's TERF influence is not attached anymore to HP.

Can you please actually share that argument? >

You mean as in, elaborate on it? >


we need to actually engage with her ideas, interpret her work in a different way

Why is this better than simply not paying her any attention at all? >

Well, you could do that too, but that's not what people asking to boycott her are doing. 
Also, people enjoy her work, so that's one good reason to talk about it. >

What do you think a boycott is if not simply avoiding that persons product/associated brands? >

A boycott is an active attempt to not support something, it is not simply ignoring it. As in, you pressure others to not consume the product. Simply not buying it is not enough. 
I think it's fine to call for boycotts when it makes sense (though I don't have a hard position on this; maybe boycotts never actually make sense) but even if I was sure that boycotts where good practices I don't feel like this one is justified. >

Then there's no need for you to call for a boycott. But can you understand the position of someone who does call for a boycott? When you say nothing good can come of it don't you mean nothing good for you, rather than those who are promoting one? >


But can you understand the position of someone who does call for a boycott?

I understand it and I don't think it's conductive to the results they are looking for. >


3) This is probably an unpopular argument, but in the gran scheme of things, Rowling's views don't actually hurt that many people. Trans issues are important for more than trans people, of course, given that it has ramifications on how we see gender roles, but it only really affects a small section of the population, and disregarding other good things Rowling has done (like a ton of charity work) for something that she has for some reason obsessed on is also not okay. HP is very huge comparatively; it was a very formative work for a lot of people and guilt tripping

Yeah, this really should be an unpopular argument. It may shock you to learn, but I'm not exactly a fan of being a sacrificial lamb for the sake of the "good stuff" you imagine Rowling brings to the world. >

Well, I wouldn't either, but thankfully, I didn't call anyone to be sacrificial lamb. >

Your argument is that trans people aren't a big deal relative to the good she's done. Some of us may die, but that is a sacrifice you are willing to make. >

People die all the time. >

Is this intended to be a meaningful argument? >

Not at all, just wanted to show you how dumb you sound. Clearly it worked >

You wanted to make me sound dumb by creating a non-argument that bears no resemblance to anything I said, except insofar as both comments included the word "die"? You doing okay?