"can be weaponized" - not "has been" - is a pretty big disclaimer. Threats & harassment are (sadly) quite common on-line. And "speaker getting cancelled"is your criteria, not rippercushions'.

In any case, a "Looks promising, ... in practice." sounds like a pretty reasonable reaction, these days.

Here's the backstory, complete with a long list of Hollywood celebrities including Harry Potter stars dissociating themselves from her:

https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...

That is about J.K. Rowling, not about someone who said “I like Harry Potter”.

No, it's also about everybody associated in any way with Rowling, who were also forced into servile apologies to avoid getting cancelled themselves.

Which is still unrelated to your original claim.

Yes, associating with an outspoken bigot like JK Rowling has a price.

But this isn't about the books, but the author (many LBGTQA+ people read the books as coming out story, and still hold them dear for that, regardless of the author's vile opinions of those very same readers).

surely at this point you must realize it was just a story about wizards and witches, lol

I wasn't too fond of the books when they were first published (showing my age here), and I don't feel a need to reread them. But here's the fun thing about stories: you can find whatever you'd like in them. As a reader, you are allowed to put part of yourself into the story; it is no longer just the author.

If you want Harry Potter to be a story about queerness, it is yours to make it so. If you want it to be a story about the problems of British education, it is just as much.

> LBGTQA+

I believe it’s just the “T” in this case, snotrockets.

An injury to one is an injury to all – if you single out the T, you're no A.

What I got from your reply is that even you don't believe your previous statement we unfortunately live in a world where the statement "I like Harry Potter" can be weaponized.

I'm not linking evidence here, but there are tons of examples of this happening on Twitter.

Without linking, there’s no value to that statement as the reader can’t evaluate whether those statements are true, leaving out significant details, or representative of some trend.

Not sure if such pedantry is necessary, this is something that can be trivially searched up.

It absolutely cannot be. What you're claiming to exist in fact does not. You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course.

I'm waiting for the link too!

Pedantry would be trying to make some kind of unnecessarily fine distinction like arguing that the situation was totally different because the person claimed to be a Harry Potter super-fan.

This is basic media literacy of the type taught to school children. Without a source, we don’t know whether anyone is even talking about the same thing or evaluate how trustworthy it is. People write lots of things on the internet and since search engines customize results there’s no guarantee that anyone will get the same result.

This matters because someone who is confident that they’re honestly representing the facts rarely needs to be evasive. When you see so many people commenting about something which they assert is true but won’t even name, it’s usually an in-group shibboleth which they are not confident will stand up to scrutiny.

A nurse helped fund an "I heart J. K. Rowling" billboard and is having her job threatened. Close enough.

https://www.newsweek.com/nurse-being-investigated-i-love-jk-...

A billboard she offered to fund, but in the end did not. Not that it matters, a selfie of herself smiling in front of it was sufficient evidence of thoughtcrime.