3.) It shouldn’t. In an ideal world, all skin colors and genders would have been considered equally for years. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and for years, minority performers have been consistently overlooked. The idea of a true meritocracy is a dream, because it requires basically the entire history of…

Probably not famous, but potentially rich. If there’s one thing kids are willing to do, it’s listen to the same thing over and over.  But a Grammy may not be a big marketing tool for that market. 

But they’re not obscure bands just because you’ve never heard of them, and just because you’ve never heard of this category doesn’t mean no one has ever heard of it. They are, presumably, well-known within the genre that they play in. I doubt they’re trying to achieve crossover rock-stardom with this move.

It’s definitely a real thing, not just something MAGA asshats use.

have the one token diversity nomination in every single category?

Personally I don’t get the appeal. The level of fame I once aspired to was to be known/respected within my field i.e. people who know what I do and did similar work respected me a great deal but the average person on the street would have no idea who I was and certainly not what I looked like.

“but are our resources really so scarce that we have no alternative but the most combative option possible?”

If you think “critiquing famous white people on social media” is the most combative option possible, clearly, you’ve suppressed the events of the entire previous year (not to mention most of human history), and…

This. The whole problem that people have with Rowling’s argument is exactly why Izzard’s defense of her doesn’t work. Just because one group (women) have been historically marginalized doesn’t give that group the right to marginalize or exclude a different group (trans women). Yeah, sometimes being a woman is hard. It…

I mean, she started her political career in the 60s and was the first female Jewish senator in the United States (she was elected to the senate in 1978, the same year the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was signed into law and a year before NASA started accepting female applicants to its astronaut program.

J.K. Rowling should be called out for her harmful views, but she should not be caricaturized and her work should not be burned or boycotted.

Yeah, but the underlying reasoning for each side of the age limits is completely different. Lower age limits are to make sure that the persons involved are mature and experienced enough. Upper age limits are (ostensibly) because old people are too resistant to change, or too likely to be suffering from mental decline.

I don’t see why they should give the money back. It’s not like it carries some sort of magical curse that makes its benefactors transphobic or something.

Not to sound glib but as long as Mel Gibson is out there cranking out movies I’d have to argue that cancel culture is not a real or insidious problem.

Is J.K. Rolling a 20-something suburban American hipster who struts around wearing being ‘woke’ on their sleeve? No she isn’t.

Well, with respect, I don’t think that’s what OP is intimating.  ALL billionaires should be donating enough to charity to get them off the billionaire list, but it’s pretty rare that we see it happen.  So, while I certainly don’t feel sad or sorry for anyone that’s *merely* a millionaire, it was a really good thing…

Wait, not being a 20-something American hipster is an excuse to be a bigot? News to me. And whatever original statement your referring two (the menstruation tweet?) she’s repeatedly doubled down, at every turn, on her transphobia. Calling out bigotry is not “beating up” someone, it’s pushing back against the harm and…

But that’s what bad people do.

At one point she had given away so much money she came OFF the billionaire list.

The original statement isn’t the problem. People read the statement, then asked for clarification, she made it clear how she felt. At that point, her fans tried to help her understand, and she told them off. She made it clear what her stance is several times over.

What’s funny is that there’s this commenter running across multiple articles on Rowling who constantly makes the insane argument that because Rowling donated a lot of money to charity that she should be absolved of her bigotry like some sort of secular indulgence...