rustyspoon

I will say however, from experience, that there is basically a 1% chance any of this info would affect the opinion of somebody who supports her. But I would hope that your wife would be more willing to listen to you and consider your viewpoint.

It is admittedly difficult to argue that Rowling is transphobic. She's relatively careful with her own words and rarely does more than dog whistle. Instead you have to look at who she associates with and what causes she lends her massive finances to. And unfortunately, conservatives who are stuck in the "racism is when you say black people are bad" mindset, aren't going to be super receptive to an argument which rests on proving that JK Rowling's transphobia manifests primarily in her support of transphobic organizations and systems.

I'll put my copy-paste argument here:

She believes trans women aren't women. She believes trans women are only lying in order to get close to women and rape them. JK Rowling self identifies as a a TERF, or "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist".

Rowling donates money to the LGB alliance a UK "charity" that actively lobbies against trans rights, and has fought for the continued legality of trans conversion therapy.

Rowling has tweeted out in support of one Maya Forstater, a woman who was fired and has become a martyr for intentionally misgendering trans people, and once again perpetuating the idea that trans men are rapists. Rowling keeps pushing the idea and propping up those who agree with her.

Rowling has posted to advertise for an online shop that sells, among other things, anti-trans merch. The store is ran by an Angela C. Wild, a founding member of "Get The L Out", an organization that has in its mission statement "We stand against any kind of misogynistic politics and systems that prioritise men’s interests: queer politics and transgenderism, right-wing politics, left-wing politics" etc.

Under the pen name Robert Galbraith (a name coincidentally shared by a 20th century proponent for conversion therapy), Rowling had published multiple transphobic books, writing one book about a serial killer who dresses as a woman to lure in unsuspecting victims, and another with a self insert character who is killed after "speaking out" against transsexuality.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a great video that goes into much more detail than I have here about the causes she supports and the right-wing activists and think tanks she associates with and gives money to.

If this was about somebody misgendering a trans person because they committed a crime, I'd agree with you. But Mitch is hated because of the immeasurable harm he's done to countless Americans (and non-Americans), and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people give him grace.

I'm not a member of this sub, this just popped up on my feed. I disagree with the general sentiment of this post. I stopped calling myself an atheist years ago because many atheists I interact with are bitter and antagonistic, kind of like how anti-natalists attack people who choose to have kids. People aren't concern trolling, this is a legitimate and common experience. Maybe it's a minority but they're the ones making noise, and I find that these voices take over in atheist spaces.

I'm anti-religion because I dislike the institutional power religious organizations, and because these organizations often champion causes which I believe I prejudiced and harmful. It's not because I believe people putting faith in a higher power are unintelligent, or because I want to wear a shirt that says "if you believe in God, fuck you." And those are the attitudes and actions that made me distance myself from atheism.

My optimistic outlook is that most of the musical spaces I reside in will likely shun or be immune to whatever norms develop regarding AI. I personally care deeply about the fact that the music I listen to is made deliberately and thoughtfully by a human being, and I like to think there are many others who feel the same way.

More cynically though, I'm worried about AI taking market share away from music "made by humans". If this becomes the norm, maybe there just won't be money in doing things the old fashioned way. Maybe the type of musicians I want to listen to would be discouraged from making music in this new climate.

I sympathize with this experience, but I'm not quite sure why you "need" to quit your streaming services in order to achieve the desired effect. I almost exclusively use Spotify, but I use it to listen to new releases from artists I like, listen to way more albums then I could afford to buy physically, and check out music my friends recommend to me. You don't have to use streaming services as a playlist aggregator, there's nothing stopping you from actively enjoying music on there.

Why bother making something new when perfection already exists?

(kidding)