Scustin Bieburr
Baby baybee baybee UUUGH
It's pretty simple: If you agree with her views, you don't think there's anything wrong with what she's saying. If you don't you'll feel she's a terrible person.
Because these days our economy is service based and algorithms are woven into everything, if you want to make money, you need to give the most extreme position on anything you're talking about to generate interest, engagement and grow your platform. Right wingers will frame the thing as cancel culture gone crazy, the left will frame the thing as literally leading to genocide.
Look no further than Andrew Tate for an example. To his fans, he's the last defender of masculinity and so they'll say and do anything to protect him. To his critics, he's a fascist who wants to turn women into chattle slaves. To a person who is uninterested in profiting from the discussion and has basic critical thinking and research skills: He's a guy who is trying to make money off men who are desperate for the two things society tells them they are worthless without: Female attention and money.
JK Rowling is someone who doesn't understand or really care to understand the transgender community. She's speaking on them at this point because it generates more engagement with her social media, and thus potential advertising money. The people angry at her know deep down that it's not that hard to just block her on social media and refuse to buy her books or anything with her name on it--but that doesn't build up their social media pages and help them make money so they have to talk about her to their audience who will tune in because rage is addictive.
It seems like this is everywhere because both sides of the argument need it to be so they can make money off you the person who will choose a side and give them your attention, attention is currency in the digital space.
Because these days our economy is service based and algorithms are woven into everything, if you want to make money, you need to give the most extreme position on anything you're talking about to generate interest, engagement and grow your platform. Right wingers will frame the thing as cancel culture gone crazy, the left will frame the thing as literally leading to genocide.
Look no further than Andrew Tate for an example. To his fans, he's the last defender of masculinity and so they'll say and do anything to protect him. To his critics, he's a fascist who wants to turn women into chattle slaves. To a person who is uninterested in profiting from the discussion and has basic critical thinking and research skills: He's a guy who is trying to make money off men who are desperate for the two things society tells them they are worthless without: Female attention and money.
JK Rowling is someone who doesn't understand or really care to understand the transgender community. She's speaking on them at this point because it generates more engagement with her social media, and thus potential advertising money. The people angry at her know deep down that it's not that hard to just block her on social media and refuse to buy her books or anything with her name on it--but that doesn't build up their social media pages and help them make money so they have to talk about her to their audience who will tune in because rage is addictive.
It seems like this is everywhere because both sides of the argument need it to be so they can make money off you the person who will choose a side and give them your attention, attention is currency in the digital space.
