JK Rowling gave 160 million dollars to charity. The problem is that she liked two tweets that potentially identifies her as a TERF and 20 pages of "milkshake duck." My God, this tiny woman who's done more for children's literacy than any person in Earth's history must be the Devil herself.
J.K. Rowling is 52 years old.
That's 18,980 days.
455,520 hours.
27,331,200 minutes.
1,639,872,000 seconds.
How long does it take to click the left mouse button once? A fraction of a second, right?
Let's grossly overcompensate and say it takes Ms. Rowling a full half a second to perform a single click.
So basically these people want to completely trash a woman they have no idea of on a personal level for something she did that it's really difficult to confidently read into that happened twice but only took a combined
single second of her time.
Does this woman deserve to be ideologically tarred and feathered and written off for life because of an off-hand action we don't know the actual reasoning behind? How can anyone claim to intimately know this woman's character and pass reasonable judgement on her for an action that took 0.0000000003% of her life?
Oh, it couldn't
possibly be that she was reacting to the tweet in the sense that the writer was saying she was yelled at and never felt supported and wanted to just extend a minor bit of support through an off-hand click of the 'like' button.
It couldn't
possibly be that she didn't immediately recognize the "men in dresses" crack as an insult specifically aimed at trans people.
It couldn't
possibly be that she didn't even read the entire tweet or was somehow distracted and otherwise mentally occupied.
No, when someone 'likes' something it automatically means that they agree with any and everything that person has ever said and any even minor sleight was completely intentional and done with malice aforethought.
And then there's people screaming, "Well if it's just a misunderstanding she should issue a formal apology and explanation!"
No. No, she shouldn't. You know why? Because she's a famous figure with troves of people clawing for her attention every single day of her life, and to legitimize the complaint with an apology even if she knows that deep down it was a misunderstanding and did nothing wrong will just be taken as an admittance of guilt by these people, and it'll just snowball and snowball. It'll never be good enough because the people that spend all day online searching for and complaining about this sort of thing and demanding some sort of "justice" don't
want "justice" - they just want a fight they can constantly feel they're in the right about and they will
drag that fight out indefinitely if it means they get to keep feeling self-righteous. Answer this one baseless complain this one time and she'll be doing every day for the foreseeable future. Tons of people will crawl out of the woodwork demanding personalized explanations and apologies for perceived sleights.
Sometimes the only thing you can do is not give your detractors the time of day.
So, I'm sorry, but there's just too much doubt here to not give the benefit of it to Ms. Rowling.
For instance, the idea that she liked this single tweet and therefore must've read and agreed with everything that account has ever said is just asinine.
From what I can gather, that "Rachel" account was just a massively obvious and inflammatory troll, so what really sounds more likely:
A) Rowling had only ever seen this one single tweet from that account and extended the most minor bit of support possible to what appeared to be a woman complaining about an injustice.
OR
B) Rowling read through that account's entire history, or even just visited her profile page which would immediately make it clear that "Rachel" was a massively disingenuous individual only on Twitter to harass but she
still chose to click the "Like" button.
Which of those
really sounds more plausible?