And just think how few people are actually boycotting JK Rowling. Simply the fact of doing it, as visible protest, even if it does make a difference, is still activism.
It is just like how Marx/Lenin wrote about electoralism: the point is not to win, but to vote for the socialist candidate so they get more media exposure, so other people know they have political allies.
In addition, boycotting is a type of activism for which you have to do effectively nothing, so in terms of cost-benefit that is damn efficient.
Also I am totally going to watch the Mulan movie, probably pirated, but definitely seeing it.
When she sues other publications that are also calling her transphobic, but do not also call for a boycott (and are within UK jurisdiction), then maybe I would consider taking your worthless critique here seriously.
You think that kids news website was hurting her bottom line?
It obviously was, perhaps marginally, but that is not the point. In so far as you personally do not support that boycott, her proactive suppression of that sentiment is now protecting her bottom line.
And for fucks sake, how do you not understand that chlidren's news websites are exactly what affect her bottom line the most. It is precisely children that beg parents to spend money so they can watch movies or read books.
That is why most toy advertising targets children, not the parents who actually buy those toys.
Yea I'm really going to take issue that children's news sites are going to hurt her bottom line the most. I get that kids are her audience but they're not all exactly waiting in line to read children's news sites. This billionaire or almost billionaire or whatever she is will not lose a penny from that site, it's almost comical to think otherwise. The lawsuit she was threatening would cost more.
Here's an article where she threatened to sue a trans person who wasn't organizing a boycott. We can do this all day. Just be critical for a second and take a deep breath no one's attacking you.
https://604now.com/jk-rowling-lawsuit-coquitlam-transgender-activist/
9 times out of 10, when I see people saying boycotting isn't activism, or no ethical consumption under capitalism so why bother being vegan, it is just because they do not want to do it.
Not seeing a movie doesn't count as political activism. One of the few half-decent comments I saw on one of the mess of posts about this dumb idea.
Yes it does. Boycotting a movie reduces their profits, reduces its cultural reach, and reduces producers incentives to make more of the same.
Edit: even if you commented ironically, many people don't read it that way, and actually believe that crap. Why do you think JK Rowling actively sues people about it if a boycott were not effective?!
And just think how few people are actually boycotting JK Rowling. Simply the fact of doing it, as visible protest, even if it does make a difference, is still activism.
It is just like how Marx/Lenin wrote about electoralism: the point is not to win, but to vote for the socialist candidate so they get more media exposure, so other people know they have political allies.
In addition, boycotting is a type of activism for which you have to do effectively nothing, so in terms of cost-benefit that is damn efficient.
Also I am totally going to watch the Mulan movie, probably pirated, but definitely seeing it.
She sued them because she's petty and didn't like being called a transphobe. You think that kids news website was hurting her bottom line?
Not getting into whether boycotts work or not, they obviously do sometimes and don't sometimes but that Rowling example isn't good.
When she sues other publications that are also calling her transphobic, but do not also call for a boycott (and are within UK jurisdiction), then maybe I would consider taking your worthless critique here seriously.
And the BBC for example specifically does not call her or her tweets transphobic, instead only quoting other people think that.
It obviously was, perhaps marginally, but that is not the point. In so far as you personally do not support that boycott, her proactive suppression of that sentiment is now protecting her bottom line.
And for fucks sake, how do you not understand that chlidren's news websites are exactly what affect her bottom line the most. It is precisely children that beg parents to spend money so they can watch movies or read books.
That is why most toy advertising targets children, not the parents who actually buy those toys.
Yea I'm really going to take issue that children's news sites are going to hurt her bottom line the most. I get that kids are her audience but they're not all exactly waiting in line to read children's news sites. This billionaire or almost billionaire or whatever she is will not lose a penny from that site, it's almost comical to think otherwise. The lawsuit she was threatening would cost more.
Here's an article where she threatened to sue a trans person who wasn't organizing a boycott. We can do this all day. Just be critical for a second and take a deep breath no one's attacking you. https://604now.com/jk-rowling-lawsuit-coquitlam-transgender-activist/
9 times out of 10, when I see people saying boycotting isn't activism, or no ethical consumption under capitalism so why bother being vegan, it is just because they do not want to do it.
And need I remind people of that extremely bad Vuash take on child pornography, that is where no ethical consumption ultimately leads.