Buying Products That Profit Questionable Individuals or Entities

[Debater Slayer]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'd say, there's a time to boycott and a time not to, and that the individual should probably decide based on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with their personal convictions and what they've researched on the subject.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd say, there's a time to boycott and a time not to, and that the individual should probably decide based on a case-by-case basis and in accordance with their personal convictions and what they've researched on the subject.

What's your stance on Hogwarts Legacy, as the main example in this thread? Do you think anyone who buys it is contributing to hatred or harmful activism themselves, or are they separate from the actions of J. K. Rowling even if they buy the game?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What's your stance on Hogwarts Legacy, as the main example in this thread? Do you think anyone who buys it is contributing to hatred or harmful activism themselves, or are they separate from the actions of J. K. Rowling even if they buy the game?

I'd say there's enough information in regards to this subject that with a little research, one can make their own decision. So I'd rather not tell others what to do.

Although, in my own case, I see Rowling's anti-trans stuff as not quite going so far that it makes me want to boycott this Harry Potter game. And let's say for a second that it does get boycotted in general.... in addition to maybe affecting Rowling, it may also affect the publisher, and a team full of developers. So not just Rowling.

 

[Aštra’el]

People game out to have fun. If you genuinely enjoy a fantasy world, just forget the politics of whoever created it and let yourself enjoy the experience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

The market is blind. Majority of people want deals, not ethics.

 

[SomeRandom]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

I think it’s nice to try to but ethical. But in today’s world, that might be a bit difficult, tbh

With Hogwarts Legacy in particular, I stopped supporting that franchise monetarily years ago
Which hurt me since I was a huge Harry Potter Fan and still watch the movies and read the books even now
But most of my favourite artists are jerks in real life. Never meet your heroes indeed
But eh. That’s life

 

[exchemist]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

I am not aware that J K Rowling is an activist against trans people. So far as I know, all she has done is insist on a distinction between biological women and biological men who have chosen to change their sex. That seems perfectly reasonable to me and not a basis for any censure.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am not aware that J K Rowling is an activist against trans people. So far as I know, all she has done is insist on a distinction between biological women and biological men who have chosen to change their sex. That seems perfectly reasonable to me and not a basis for any censure.

Just curious.
What do you classify folks who are born with Swyer Syndrome?
Male or Female?
Swyer syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics

Do you think your background in science might influence that? I’m merely curious

 

[Debater Slayer]

The market is blind. Majority of people want deals, not ethics.

I find that this applies a lot of the time in today's consumerism-driven world. I have no clear answer to the OP, myself, because I know I can't boycott, say, products that generate profit for China or products made by corporations with shady and extremely unethical practices.

 

[Altfish]

I do 'boycott' some products that are owned by individuals or companies I don't like.
I'd never buy a Dyson vacuum cleaner or go in a Weatherspoon's pub

But I'm not good at this and i suppose I buy plenty from China

 

[exchemist]

Just curious.
What do you classify folks who are born with Swyer Syndrome?
Male or Female?
Swyer syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics

Do you think your background in science might influence that? I’m merely curious

I'd call them people with Swyer syndrome.

The existence of a few mules does not mean that the terms "donkey" and "horse" can't be legitimately used.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am not aware that J K Rowling is an activist against trans people. So far as I know, all she has done is insist on a distinction between biological women and biological men who have chosen to change their sex. That seems perfectly reasonable to me and not a basis for any censure.

She has gone much further than that, and some of the conclusions and positions she has derived from that distinction (which obviously exists) extend to supporting legally and socially harmful beliefs about trans people. For example:

She also brings up the topic of "detransitioning," in which a trans person transitions back to their sex assigned at birth, calling it an "increasing" phenomenon. While there is little information available on people who detransition, what is available appears to indicate it is an infrequent occurrence

In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them. And the results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a ‘transphobic manifesto’

Also:

Critics attack JK Rowling for ‘praising’ commentator's 'transphobic' film

Much of what she has brought up as "concerns" is rooted in unfounded, unevidenced fearmongering and stereotypes. It seems to me that when an influential public figure like her voices views that reinforce specific harmful misconceptions, she needs to take into account the cultural climate around her and how her voice can amplify and echo problematic stances that already exist and make life quite hard for a lot of trans people. It's no coincidence that she has been endorsed by the likes of Matt Walsh.

 

[PureX]

Consumer boycott in a culture controlled by commercial greed is a very powerful tool. Because the same amoral greed that drives the behavior of those in control of commerce will change their behavior when that control is being threatened. It won't change their minds or hearts, but it will change their behavior. And that's really the best we can hope for.

I wish consumers would use their ability to boycott commercial entities that promote amoral behavior far more often than they do.

 

[exchemist]

She has gone much further than that, and some of the conclusions and positions she has derived from that distinction (which obviously exists) extend to supporting legally and socially harmful beliefs about trans people. For example:



J.K. Rowling doubles down in what some critics call a ‘transphobic manifesto’

Also:

Critics attack JK Rowling for ‘praising’ commentator's 'transphobic' film

Much of what she has brought up as "concerns" is rooted in unfounded, unevidenced fearmongering and stereotypes. It seems to me that when an influential public figure like her voices views that reinforce specific harmful misconceptions, she needs to take into account the cultural climate around her and how her voice can amplify and echo problematic stances that already exist and make life quite hard for a lot of trans people. It's no coincidence that she has been endorsed by the likes of Matt Walsh.

What Rowling writes in the first link seems quite reasonable to me, though from what you say she may be unduly concerned about the incidence of "detransitioning". I suppose that with the rapid rise in transitioning, it is to be expected that there will be a concomitant rise of detransitioning, i.e. of a certain percentage of the transitioners.

I don't know who Matt Walsh is, so I can't really comment on all the outrage surrounding him.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What Rowling writes in the first link seems quite reasonable to me, though from what you say she may be unduly concerned about the incidence of "detransitioning". I suppose that with the rapid rise in transitioning, it is to be expected that there will be a concomitant rise of detransitioning, i.e. of a certain percentage of the transitioners.

I don't know who Matt Walsh is, so I can't really comment on all the outrage surrounding him.

I hope we have more studies in coming years about "detransitioning," if only to further address movements that seek to ban medical care for trans people while citing that as a reason.

As for Matt Walsh, he's an American far-right political commentator who has a heavy focus on LGBT issues:

Matt Walsh (political commentator) - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

The controversy surrounding Rowling has, AFAIK, been completely blown out of proportion. The idea of boycotting her sounds to me as selective outrage.

As for the idea of boycotting in general, I see it as a valid way to address social issues, as long as one is not an hypocrite when doing it such as supporting/buying products from someone who is doing something even worse.

 

[Rival]

What Rowling writes in the first link seems quite reasonable to me, though from what you say she may be unduly concerned about the incidence of "detransitioning". I suppose that with the rapid rise in transitioning, it is to be expected that there will be a concomitant rise of detransitioning, i.e. of a certain percentage of the transitioners.

I don't know who Matt Walsh is, so I can't really comment on all the outrage surrounding him.

Matt Walsh is a Catholic Trad political commentator. He made a documentary called What is a Woman? Where he interviewed various people from around the world from various backgrounds and asked them these kinds of questions. Basically the point is that many on the 'left' didn't give straight answers or said "I can't answer I'm not a woman" etc. It was a deliberate train wreck.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Matt Walsh is a Catholic Trad political commentator. He made a documentary called What is a Woman? Where he interviewed various people from around the world from various backgrounds and asked them these kinds of questions. Basically the point is that many on the 'left' didn't give straight answers or said "I can't answer I'm not a woman" etc. It was a deliberate train wreck.

I think the difficulty in defining genders is usually only a "trainwreck" from a perspective that overlooks or denies current science, because there is no scientific consensus as to what qualities or traits define each gender. But to Matt Walsh and other anti-trans commentators, sex and gender are synonymous, so they think the latter has an easy, one-size-fits-all definition.

 

[Koldo]

Matt Walsh is a Catholic Trad political commentator. He made a documentary called What is a Woman? Where he interviewed various people from around the world from various backgrounds and asked them these kinds of questions. Basically the point is that many on the 'left' didn't give straight answers or said "I can't answer I'm not a woman" etc. It was a deliberate train wreck.

Ah...
Now that you mention that... I decided to google his name. I have definitely watched a few very short videos of him questioning people.
The one with the person saying he can't say what a woman is because he is not a woman made me facepalm.

Let's be honest, what he really meant by that is that he can't define what a woman is in a way that he feels safe the far-left won't cancel him. He obviously does have a conception of what it means to be a woman, even if he is not able to state as accurately as he would like to.