Swift backlash from 2SLGBTQ+ community over series author J.K. Rowling
Natalie Stechyson · CBC News · Posted: Jul 28, 2026 1:10 PM EDT
Swift backlash from 2SLGBTQ+ community over series author J.K. Rowling
Natalie Stechyson · CBC News · Posted: Jul 28, 2026 1:10 PM EDT
The bulk of the words were pointing out that a part of being able to separate an artist from their art is not caring if enjoying their art led to a financial benefit for the person you dislike. I enjoy some music made by serial adulterers. I’ve enjoyed movies that include actors who are generally known to be complete pieces of shit to most humans they interact with. I’m not researching everything about the lives and views of everyone involved with every piece of media I enjoy. And it’s very possible for awful people to make wonderful things. I’m not going to stop enjoying those things because of that, even if I strongly dislike the artist as a person.
tl;dr: I don’t fucking care if she gets a penny because I buy a dozen donuts. She has a mountain of money. You’re not financially harming a billionaire by not eating a donut.
The question was about how you see buying these doughnuts as appreciating the art more than supporting the artist, not how much you care about giving the artist a penny.
Removed by mod
You’re arguing about brand recognition, not separating the art from the artist. This is a consumerism campaign to tie a commercial product to another business brand, not an artistic endeavour to encourage or appreciate the books directly as if it’s a public reading or a themed event. Nobody had an issue with the fan-generated gathering at King’s Crossing Station a few years ago for the anniversary of the books.
So how does buying these doughnuts show an appreciation for the art more than it enriches the artist? This is what needs to be explained since you believe the concept of separating the art from the artist apparently is the concept at play here.
Removed by mod
No, the question was always if you’re sure you’re applying separating the art from the artist properly. Not anyone else who just go in and eat a doughnut because they like Harry Potter and they like doughnuts so why not. That makes sense, that’s what normal human beings do. What they don’t do is start justigying their description as an ability to separate art from the artist.
I’m wondering why you saw people who oppose this because they hate JK Rowling and any opportunities where she generates revenue and decided this was a case of an inability to separate art from artist, as if Harry Potter was a doughnut flavour and not a book series. This is why I keep asking you to explain how buying these doughnuts is closer to showing appreciation for the art than it is enriching the artist since you are operating on the belief that rejecting this marketing opportunity means rejecting the art.
The more you keep insisting that all hate for JK Rowling is performative virtue signaling, the less I’m convinced you’ve actually thought any of this through. How do you figure nobody could actually hate JK Rowling specifically if they don’t go around finding reasons to hate any and all artists? Do you go around telling people who say they hate broccoli they are performativity virtue signaling because they’ll eat lettuce without considering it shares vitamins and nutrients with broccoli too?
Removed by mod
Of course it’s senseless. That’s why I’m asking why you think it’s happening here. There’s no reason to accuse people of being unable of separating the art from the artist because they reject any brand marketing otherwise. The implication of identifying that as the driving factor suggests that you believe engaging in buying these doughnuts is a statement that you are separating the art from the artist and it is very unclear how that’s the case.
You’re saying I am personally virtue signaling because you want it to be happening, not because it’s actually happening. You’ll notice I actually haven’t said a word for or against JK Rowling, Harry Potter, or this marketing campaign this whole time. You’ve been arguing with a boogeyman everytime you want to accuse of virtue signalling, not me.
Frankly you just don’t seem to understand any of these terms or concepts your using, including “moving goalposts” now if you think restating the same question over and over is a form of it. This is what it means to use a term “properly”: using the term according to its actual definition and connotation, not according to whatever talking points sounded good to you from a Facebook comment.
Block me all you want, but you’ve already shown everyone how little you understand of what you’re saying that you can’t even defend from from simple followup questions without going apeshit.