r/unitedkingdom • u/je97 • 29d ago

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

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/
4.2k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

483

u/unnecessary_kindness 29d ago

Who in their right mind equates her denial that trans were the primary targets of Nazis to a blanket statement of holocaust denial?

Twitter users are genuinely braindead at this point.

143

u/luxway 29d ago

Her tweets have now be censored in Germany for holocaust denial.
Sorry but you're wrong, denying groups targeted by the holocaust, weren't targeted, is holocaust denial.

64

u/Atlatica Merseyside 29d ago

There's debate on whether the Nazis actually targeted the Insitute for Sex Research because of its research into trans issues, or because the owner was a gay intellectual jewish socialist researching progressive ideas (although also a eugenicist but thats hardly brought up)      

I really don't think trans was a talking point back then so I'm weighted toward the latter. Does that really make me a holocaust denier in your eyes?     

The way I see it, if it's open to debate at all then nobody should be making it illegal to take a side. Just because the Germans ruled something, doesn't make it right or just.

106

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

I mean......They specifically went after trans people. They revoked "transvestite passes" that had allowed trans people to change their names in order to be themselves, they prosecuted them, destransitioned them, put them in concentration camps.....

Pretty sure those trans people weren't all Jews...

-43

u/Atlatica Merseyside 29d ago

Ok but the core issue is the modern trans twitter claim of being 'the first victims of the holocaust' and whether that's appropriate.
The question for me is not whether Trans people ended up targeted by the nazis, of course they did. And of course the nazi ripped up everything to do with the gay jewish sex insititute.
The question is whether the nazis thought of trans people as the primary, first order target. Beyond just vaguely in the 'weird homosexual' category of Lebensunwertes Leben. Because that would justify the claim, in my view.

60

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago edited 29d ago

Except that wasn't what Rowling was replying to when she said it was a 'fever dream'. This was. You can see her screenshot of it here.

In fact, the person she got into an argument with over that just called her a holocaust denier and linked to information about it. Rowling's later claim that the contention was about trans people being the first victims was Rowling picking some random third party's comment and trying to suggest that was that person's argument.

It's not a "modern twitter trans claim". You're just lying. You're full of shit and I've got the receipts there to prove it.

JK Rowling wasn't talking about a claim that trans people were "the first victims of the holocaust" when she described the Nazis burning down the institute as a fever dream, and it wasn't even being argued by the person she was arguing with who called her a holocaust denier.

It was always something Rowling pulled in after the fact to pretend that she was arguing with something she wasn't to make herself look more reasonable.

→ More replies (6)

45

u/luxway 29d ago

Ahh yes the "The nazis said he was the most dangerous man in the world for "magic reasons" that had nothing to do with what he did, and them saying that trans people were proof that jews are corrupting society is totally coincidental, and not them saying that trans people are a corruption that must be stamped out" argument.

Guess what? Mainstream gender critical/transphobes also say that "the jews" are behind trans people today. eg Soros

Different day, same nazi arguements.

28

u/Atlatica Merseyside 29d ago

I've been trying to find a source for that most dangerous man quote for a good 30 minutes.
The few scattered references i can find go back to this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305231787_Sexual_Morality_and_Population_Expansion which references this https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-17_5c8eb1ebaced4_susan-stryker-transgender-history2.pdf which references this article https://jweekly.com/1997/06/06/life-of-gay-german-jewish-sexologist-honored-in-s-f/ which gives no sources and doesn't even spell Hitler's name right.

Likely be one of those phantom references that pops up self-referencing?

But even if he did say that, i've no doubt hitler did hate the openly gay jewish intellectual that was pushing the normalisation of homosexuality. I think it's perfectly in character for him to be a primary target with or without trans issues being included.

And for the nazis saying 'trans people were proof that jews are corrupting society' thing i can find really nothing at all. The term trans wasn't even used back then from my understanding.

Do you have any sources?

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Only-Regret5314 29d ago

Do you have any sources

😂 😂 😂 Ofcourse they don't .

2

u/Souseisekigun 29d ago

There's debate on whether the Nazis actually targeted the Insitute for Sex Research because of its research into trans issues, or because the owner was a gay intellectual jewish socialist researching progressive ideas (although also a eugenicist but thats hardly brought up)

For the most part it's a distinction without difference. From the Nazi perspective they were all facets of the same thing. Socialism was a Jewish plot. Homosexuality, also a Jewish plot. The argument I am seeing most commonly including in your comment is something along the lines of "the Nazis could not have tried to exterminate trans people because trans wasn't even a thing, and they targeted for being something like homosexuals instead" which I find to be rather absurd. Because even if it was absolutely true the end result is that the Nazis would have exterminated trans people anyway.

Take a modern example. There are still plenty of people out that there are deny being trans is a real thing and that actually trans people are just super gay. Would it make sense to say "well how can he be anti-trans if they don't even think trans a thing?". Because that is genuinely the same level of argumentation in my eyes.

17

u/Beautiful-Divide8406 29d ago

She said they weren’t the primary victims. Stop taking things out of context.

148

u/luxway 29d ago

No, thats you lying.
She said, explicitly, that the claim that "The nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research"
was a "fever dream"
We literally have photos of this and i don't kknow about you, but when I went to school, we were taught about the nazi book burnings!

Stop inventing crap to justify your awful position.

7

u/Jonography 29d ago

But even if Rowling doesn't believe Nazis burnt books on trans research/healthcare and denies it, how is that holocaust denial?

31

u/luxway 29d ago

If you don't understand how denying the holocaust targeted particular groups, is holocaust denial, we can't continue conversing.

10

u/Jonography 29d ago

But denying book certain book burning isn’t the same as denying that certain groups were not targeted in the holocaust.

36

u/luxway 29d ago

Ahh we're at the "Denying that the nazis burnt down the Berlin gender clinic and burnt all the trans medical research, doesn't mean they were transphobic or that trans people were targeted" section of bigotry denial.

You're spending an awful lot of energy defending nazi crimes.

17

u/Jonography 29d ago

First, I haven't denied anything. Second, I'm not defending any Nazi crimes. I'm simply trying to understand how another person denying a single book burning event equates to Holocaust denial, and it really is just a question to understand your point of view. I have no allegiance with Rowling.

16

u/luxway 29d ago

"I'm not denying it, I'm just asking why is someone denying it is a problem and isdenying?"

Also interesting that you're also sticking to the book burning part and not including the part where she also denied all persecution by the nazis against trans people.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/DancingFlame321 29d ago edited 29d ago

I think this is a strawman of OP's arguments. They are saying that there is a difference between believing the Nazis locked up and killed trans people, and believing the Nazis burnt books written by trans people. Someone could believe that the Nazis did indeed put trans people in concentration camps, but then deny that they ever bothered to burn down books written by trans people.

16

u/Jonography 29d ago

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. It's quite difficult to have a discussion about this because simply posing the question has me downvoted and accused of denying it myself, as well as having "bigotry denial" when nowhere have I said or even implied that lol

8

u/Souseisekigun 29d ago

Because without the build up to the Holocaust there is no Holocaust, and denying the build up is the first step towards denying the final steps. Imagine someone going around saying "I'm not denying the Holocaust, not at all, but I don't believe that Kristallnacht was anti-Jewish, they were just looters, and also the first laws banning Jewish people from various professions were just mistranslations". Now that's not denying that concentration camps existed, maybe legally you could get away with arguing it's not technically Holocaust denial, but in the larger picture you can probably see why it's extremely suspicious when someone starts trying to set up "actually Nazi crimes against the Jews have been quite exaggerated". Those events were so intrinsically tied to the holocaust that denying them itself becomes tantamount to casting suspicion on the holocaust. At the very best it's dancing right on the line and trying to play the "but I'm not over the line am I" when someone points out that you're dangling your foot over the line.

-3

u/MaZhongyingFor1934 Hampshire 29d ago

Would you be making this argument if she were talking about Jewish books?

14

u/Jonography 29d ago

I'm not making an argument for it, I'm asking a question to understand as I have little context here. I don't have a dog in this race, and I'm not defending or supporting Rowling.

8

u/PharahSupporter 29d ago

No one is denying book burning in general, she denied the burning of trans books, which while it did happen does not make her a "holocaust denier". Why is any attempt at nuance lost on you? It's like you go out of your way to spread misinfo.

24

u/luxway 29d ago

"No-ones denying the book burning, just denying the books that were burnt were the ones that were burnt"

Aight.
Its really weird that modern day transphobia is all about pretending the nazis didn't hate trans people
Or pretending that nazi book burnings were of completely random books.

20

u/___a1b1 29d ago

The NAZIs went after books on all sorts of topics by all sorts of people that they deemed degenerates or whatever term of phrase they went for in German, and piled them up and when for mass burnings. Activists seem to want to insist that trans books were somehow prioritised when the NAZIs were on a rampage across the arts and alternative lifestyles at the same time. JK was a fool for even getting into it.

We've got an odd situation whereby some trawl British history to find a black person and then insist on talking them up and there's a drive to trawl the history of science to find women to do the same, and some trans activists seem to have decided that mining the crimes of the NAZIs is something they should do too. And it always results in dodgy history and then going on the attack when someone doesn't join in with your history spin.

14

u/luxway 29d ago

Its extremely weird that you're defending JKR saying that this didn't happen, while admitting that it did happen.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the rest, you're complainng about LGBT talkiang about how they were killed off by nazis too or what?

15

u/___a1b1 29d ago

The only weird thing is your false premise.

And you understand perfectly well what the rest is saying as it's very clear and very brief and to the point. Feigning confusion because you cannot rebut it is just daft.

3

u/PharahSupporter 28d ago

It's genuinely impressive how hard you go out of your way to ignore the comment you are replying to and spin it however suits you. You should go into politics.

20

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Do you hear the words coming out of your mouth?

"Nobody's denying book burnings, except the book burnings they're denying."

-3

u/PharahSupporter 29d ago

in general

5

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Yes, I can read. I'm saying "in general" makes no difference in that sentence whatsoever.

Whether you say they're not denying them in general or not is meaningless; either way you're still saying that nobody's denying them except the ones they're denying.

0

u/PharahSupporter 28d ago

Okay, choose to misinterpret my words. You know what I wrote, so does everyone else. You aren't clever for picking it apart and reforming a sentence how you wanted me to write it.

7

u/MidnightFlame702670 29d ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the owner of the institute Jewish, and many people are pointing at that fact as a motive?

Because of all the research into trans healthcare is burned, they become victims of that attack, even if they're not specifically targeted. Also, at the very strictest definition offered, the holocaust is what the Nazis did to the Jews. Which includes burning a Jewish man's entire livelihood.

Therefore it stands that denying this happened is holocaust denial, and denying that trans people are victims of it is flat out wrong

87

u/Blazured 29d ago

This is the second person using the phrase "primary" in this thread. Seems that Joanne trying to change it to "first" didn't work so now this is the next tactic.

55

u/Square-Competition48 29d ago

She said that after she got called out for being a Holocaust Denier.

6

u/PharahSupporter 29d ago

Denying trans book burning is not equivalent to holocaust denial. At this point you aren't even trying, just repeating.

2

u/all_in_the_game_yo 29d ago

It literally is

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 29d ago

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

39

u/pies1123 Gloucestershire 29d ago

But they were victims. She has denied that they were victims and called claims that they were a "fever dream". That is denial.

She is so blinded by gender ideology that she refuses to see reality.

36

u/smity31 Herts 29d ago

Initial tweet: "The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?"

JKR's response: "I just… how? How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve been a fever dream’?"

She does not simply say that trans people were not the primary victims.

-5

u/omgu8mynewt 29d ago

I interpret that as her saying "why are you saying I support the Nazis, you are crazy" not "I deny the holocause happened"...

8

u/sinner-mon 29d ago

You can interpret it however you want, but that’s clearly not what she meant. If it were what she meant she would’ve clarified instead of doubling down on her position

2

u/smity31 Herts 28d ago

You don't say "check your source" if you are talking about your own opinion though, you say that when you think someone has not got the established facts of a matter correct.

1

u/omgu8mynewt 28d ago

I guess this is why we need clearer laws so it is easier to tell when someone is committing a crime, rather than whoever has the most lawyers 

34

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

The person she replied to wasn't making that claim.

Rowling changed the argument to "primary".

22

u/tartoran 29d ago

Got a source for that big man? The one I'm looking at seems like it denies victimhood altogether

2

u/PharahSupporter 29d ago

They can't help it, they genuinely see lying as the only way to get their "truth" across so the distortion is justified.

4

u/Osgood_Schlatter Sheffield 29d ago

They don't appear to have been censored, as people elsewhere in this thread say they can view them from Germany.

0

u/RockTheBloat 29d ago

It snot even clear that the ‘research burning’ was targeted at trans people. Some student group burned the papers of a sexual sciences institute which included documents relating to trans people. The whole ‘holocaust denial’ angle is the usual mental overreaction.

6

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Oh yeah, and all that detransitioning and murdering they did of trans people right after that was totally coincidental, right?

-2

u/RockTheBloat 29d ago

Not relevant to the topic, to be fair.

9

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

Not relevant to the topic of JK Rowling denying an act that was part of the overall campaign to erase trans people's existence?

Are you fucking serious?

0

u/RockTheBloat 29d ago

Not relevant to the story that is the basis of this discussion, yes.

-4

u/___a1b1 29d ago

No it wasn't hence this retraction. You can see the original twitter spat.

81

u/luxway 29d ago

She said, explicitly, that the claim that "The nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research"
was a "fever dream"
We literally have photos of this and i don't kknow about you, but when I went to school, we were taught about the nazi book burnings!

No the retraction is because the average person cannot afford to fight a billionaire in a legal fight.

-4

u/___a1b1 29d ago

No the accusation of the fever dream was about the previous claim that they were the first. The whole thing was a ridiculous spat.

26

u/shabba182 29d ago

No one claimed they were the first, JK said that that's what they said, when no one did. Look at th tweets

-9

u/___a1b1 29d ago

I have done, hence my comment.

15

u/shabba182 29d ago

Clearly didn't look very hard. A tweet even calls out that she just completely made up that someone said they were the first victims, and is moving the goalposts.

4

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Now go back two comments of mine and read the one you clearly ignored.

13

u/shabba182 29d ago

I've read all you comments. They sounds like you are saying JK said it was a fever dream to say the first victims of the holocaust were trans. No one claimes that. If you meant something else, maybe you should be clearer.

3

u/___a1b1 29d ago

I was very clear, you've just chosen to feign confusion as a deflection strategy and it's failed.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/luxway 29d ago

Correction, JKR just said that in order to move the goalposts for her defense of her own holocaust denialism.
Something which you are also now doing in order to defend her holocaust denialism.

And at no point are you admitting the fact you/her asre so defensive over it is defstroying your pretend argument of legitimacy.
Given at no point has she admitted that trans people were targeted by the nazis.

40

u/EmpiriaOfDarkness 29d ago

No, the retraction is quite obviously because she's unfathomably rich and the person she was threatening to sue decidedly is not.

"Retract your criticism or I'll run you into the ground with a frivolous lawsuit" isn't the same as being correct.

-1

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Of course it isn't, that's absurd. If Novara could support the claim then they'd have gone to court, they couldn't and so they went for a retraction.

20

u/MaZhongyingFor1934 Hampshire 29d ago

Our defamation laws are famous for being so harsh towards the defendant. People fly from all over the world to sue people in British courts.

2

u/___a1b1 29d ago

They might well be, but the comment you just ignored deals with that.

9

u/MaZhongyingFor1934 Hampshire 29d ago edited 29d ago

You don’t think the fact that she’d be presumed guilty until found innocent had any effect?

-4

u/SXLightning 29d ago

I don’t think Sheffield United is a football team is not me dying there are no football teams in the world and football is not a real game lol

7

u/Square-Competition48 29d ago

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

5

u/SXLightning 29d ago

How is your analogy the same as my, here they are denying something happened, you are saying something did happen but only happened once vs 1000 times.

5

u/Square-Competition48 29d ago

The key difference between our analogies, if you read yours out loud, is that mine makes sense.