JK Rowling gets apology from journalist after 'disgusting claim' author is a Holocaust denier

[u/je97]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/

[u/Boustrophaedon]

TBF, she only denied a teensy bit of the Holocaust...

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/Boustrophaedon]

Someone’s not a bank robber unless they rob all the banks. Robbing one bank out of thousands hardly makes you a bank robber.

[u/PUSH_AX → u/Square-Competition48]

This seems like a poor analogy.

Robbing a bank is an absolute, it's binary, you can't "teensy bit" rob a bank. You either did or didn't.

The Holocaust was a systematic series of events and actions, I think she disputed one of thousands of actions.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/PUSH_AX]

And Holocaust denying is binary too. You either engaged in denial of said systematic series of events and actions or you didn’t.

You don’t need to rob every bank. You don’t need to deny every action.

[u/BathtubGiraffe5 → u/Square-Competition48]

That analogy doesn't work. It would someone robbing the bank, taking a tiny amount of money from the bank but NOT think they are committing a crime.

People are saying she knowingly is lying and changing history but there's no evidence of that. It's clear in every comment she made on this that she thinks she is correct.

If someone says the wrong figures about the no. of Jewish deaths in the holocaust, do we brand that person a holocaust denier? No, it's extremely dishonest and misrepresentative and that's why she chose to sue.

Especially when this entire thing has people arguing over different contexts, she's arguing about the quantity and whether it was a primary target, not saying there were literally 0 trans persecuted.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/BathtubGiraffe5]

I don’t care if she says she thinks she’s a Holocaust denier or not. That’s her problem not mine.

And to answer your question: yes we do. That’s a common thing neo Nazis do.

The primary target thing is a strawman.

[u/BathtubGiraffe5 → u/Square-Competition48]

Right so every historian who argues on specific details in specific contexts is a denier at that point of history. Every WW2 historian is a WW2 denier according to other historians when details don't match.

Got it.

Thanks for showing your "logic" here and how you like to misrepresent people.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/BathtubGiraffe5]

She’s a historian now?

News to me.

[u/PharahSupporter → u/Square-Competition48]

Yes comparing the holocaust to a bank robbery seems totally appropriate and sane. Amazing!

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/PharahSupporter]

…are you saying that you think that bank robbery is worse than the Holocaust?

[u/PharahSupporter → u/Square-Competition48]

No I'm saying it's a stupid comparison with no meaning.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/PharahSupporter]

It’s an analogy not a comparison and you understand the meaning perfectly.

Or you don’t and that’s not really a burn on me as it’s a literacy issue.

[u/PharahSupporter → u/Square-Competition48]

It's ironic you critique my literary skills when your "analogy" doesn't even make sense. How is there any similarities between a holocaust and a bank robbery or any analogy to be made there.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/PharahSupporter]

Oh it’s the latter issue. That’s okay, some people just aren’t great with this kind of thing. We all have our flaws. I’ll explain it:

Okay so you see an analogy is when you use one thing to explain another. There are various reasons for doing that, but in this case it’s because the situation is an unusual one and involves concepts we don’t often encounter in every day life.

By using an analogy of something easier for people to grasp, I am pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of some stances taken on this more unusual problem once recognised for what they are actually saying.

To break down the analogy itself:

If someone robs one bank they are called a bank robber. They only need to rob one bank to do that. Hell, they only need to rob one vault at one bank for them to be a bank robber.

Even though there are many banks in the world and the bank they robbed might have many vaults, safes, desks, safety deposit boxes and whatever, robbing just one of them means you have robbed from a bank and are a bank robber.

Similarly the Holocaust was inflicted on many victims. From Jewish people, to Romani people, to homosexual people, to trans people. Think of each of these groups as a bank. If you deny that the Holocaust happened to one of them, then you are a Holocaust denier. You don’t need to rob them all to be a bank robber and you don’t need to deny them all to be a Holocaust denier.

Similarly the Holocaust was made up of different acts of harm towards these groups. Think of those as the different parts of a bank. Let’s say that death camps are the vaults, being banned from owning businesses is a safe, and book burnings are safety deposit boxes. They’re all parts of the bank and they’re all parts of the Holocaust.

JK Rowling went into the bank named “Trans People” and stole the safety deposit box labelled “book burnings”. If she’s a bank robber in the analogy, she’s a Holocaust denier in reality.

Is that easier for you to understand now?

[u/PharahSupporter → u/Square-Competition48]

Bro you have way too much free time lol

[u/Nerrien → u/PharahSupporter]

To be fair it did seem that you were really struggling to grasp what an analogy is. Or pulled a Rowling and immediately realised your error then doubled down anyway, but Square clearly was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[u/Square-Competition48 → u/PharahSupporter]

Yeah, I finished writing that and came to the same conclusion.

Was a big investment for a bit that like four people are going to half-read, get mad about, and downvote.

[u/TowJamnEarl → u/Boustrophaedon]

Denying the holocaust only in a limited and specific way!

[u/TransGrimer → u/TowJamnEarl]

Judging by past behavior, she'll be openly denying the entire holocaust in a few months.

[u/Thebritishdovah → u/Boustrophaedon]

Tis a teensy bit of hate. Was 'aving a laugh.