Most of the conservatives I know (myself included) do not have such a black/white view of Rowling, or other left/liberals who are admired for some things by people on the right (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard). We recognize that Rowling (like Gabbard) is not one of us; there are more issues perhaps on which we would disagree than agree. But... Rowling is the kind of left/liberal we wish there were more of. We need them, because it's not healthy in society for everyone to think the same way, or to agree on everything all the time. But we also want them to be reasonable people who are willing to agree to disagree with others, and tolerate different viewpoints. You can work with people like that, and reach workable compromises with people of that mindset. That's better for everyone, and it leads to better results in society, instead of a stifling groupthink, which is bad no matter which side it comes from.
We can also admire Rowling and Gabbard for having the moral courage (a rarer and more valuable commodity than physical courage) to be willing to stand up forthrightly for their convictions and their principles, and weather the vitriol, the attacks, and the attempts at cancellation. We can admire this moral courage, even when we disagree with them
That's the sense in which Rowling has become a hero to the right: she is pushing back against woke intolerance, and we can admire her for that, and the courage she shows in doing it; it's not that we suddenly think she's one of us now.
reply
share
Burk48917 (11113)
a year ago
You nailed it. I guarantee she is a liberal, but there is a huge difference in being a woke recreate outraged liberal and what she represents.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
Nah, she's just like practically everyone else (regardless of whether they're 'liberal' or 'conservative'). She's left-wing when it suits her, and right-wing when it suits her (i.e. when it comes to cis women's rights she's 'left-wing', when it comes to capitalism/elitism and trans rights, she's right-wing).
Socialism/liberalism nor capitalism/conservatism are the real problem. No, the problem is more fundamental and older than that. The problem is selfishness/self-interest.
As for the poster above you, what takes *true* moral courage is standing up for people who are different to oneself rather than simply seeing things from one's own (selfish and narrow-minded) POV.
reply
share
Burk48917 (11113)
a year ago
so she's moderate, and doesn't align to a specific side out of blind allegiance? You made me like her even more. Only fools and tools draw a line in the sand and stick only to the group think.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
I'm not arguing against moderation, and in fact I'm no fan of rigid idealogues who take a blindly left-wing or right-wing stance on *every* issue.
I'm arguing against people who are only driven by self-interest rather than concern for people who belong to a different category to themselves. I've encountered plenty of Black people who support civil rights, but don't care for feminism or gay rights, and plenty of gay people who support LGBTQ+ rights, but don't care for feminism or civil rights, and so on. I personally don't see how any genuine progressive can support one marginalised community, but draw the line at others. IMHO, it demonstrates a lack of empathy and a display of double-standards.
reply
share