To the first part - I may not be able to change anything by not spending money on an asshole artist, that's true.

I may not be able to stop a corrupt politician from getting elected by voting for their opponent. Isn't it still worth it to cast my vote?

For the rest - I guess I think about it this way - an artist's art is an extension of their humanity, and what they think it means to be human. It is in many ways how they view the world.

So a) I find it hard to believe that their views don't make it into their work either overtly or covertly, and b) by commercially supporting these people I am endorsing their views. Now (b) might be a stretch for people, and I'm not saying that everyone must do this, but it is an ethical standard that costs me relatively little (oh no I don't get to consume to whatever vehicle the HP universe is putting out this month) and gives me a benefit (I feel good about keeping my money spent on people I feel worthy of my support).

There's so much art out there ready to consume, and so many artists to support. I can be picky and still have a rich and full life.

We agree that most speech should not be punishable by the state.

But I think it's reasonable, if not obvious, that all actions will have reactions - or in this case consequences.

Some of those consequences are good! Some of them are bad! If you say something unpopular, people respond by showing displeasure. This is natural and normal, and also changes based upon where and when you find yourself.

Indeed, many consequences for Rowling's views have been positive! Many groups have heaped praise on her and supported her both culturally and commercially.

However, she has also faced many negative consequences. None of them have risen to the level of life destruction (despite what Rowling would at times want you to believe).

Now, do I believe that someone is allowed to "do as she pleases" if they don't cross a blurry line that takes it to the level of a crime?

Let's try to see some real world examples:

I work in restaurants. It's not illegal for people to be rude to servers and bartenders. It's not illegal for a customer to argue with every person at the bar whenever they speak.

However, they do not have the right to "continue doing as they please" at the expense of the restaurant as a whole. We are well within our rights to deny them service. In fact, all the other people should have the right to do as they please without him being annoying the whole time.

Did I destroy this person's life? Or did they face the consequences of actions they could have stopped at any time?

Certainly they have the right, and probably the inclination, to continue being horrible to every establishment they step foot in. But it would be a far cry to say they were victimized by a biased restaurant industry.

I do not believe that a person should face no consequences for denigrating people in a public forum. I also firmly believe that if a person in a position of influence demonstrates clear prejudice it is permissible for society to determine, on their own, whether or not they want to accept that prejudice to have the opportunity to influence that position (to use your case of doctors or lawyers that behave poorly - racist doctors and lawyers have a clear opportunity to use their position to do real harm, even if they never commit a crime).

It feels like you and I have a bit of a gulf between us and I'm not sure we'd be able to do much more than say "x is impermissible but y and z would be so long as we consider a, b, and c." But I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and responses.

Bad people, or people with bad ideas, always have am opportunity - they can stop being bad.

I'm not in any way obligated to pay to support someone's being terrible, and I reject the idea that for JK Rowling, the choice is "famous author who screams about trans people on social media" or "a life of crime".

There are so many options in between those two! She could be "famous author who doesn't scream about trans people" or she could be "anti trans author who is now broken and bitter and working at Subway" or she could be "famous author who took some time to reflect and apologized for the impact of her words"

All of these actions are under HER CONTROL.

I, as someone who exists in the universe with JK Rowling, have but a scant few options.

I can't force her to not be an asshole. I can't make it illegal to be an asshole (nor do I think that a law like that should be permissible).

So I can do a few things - I can ignore her. I can refuse to monetarily support her. I can encourage others to support my view.

With your thoughts on cancel culture it seems clear that you believe using the power of your speech or your money has an effect on people. So why is it ok for Rowling to use her words and money to actively try and hurt one group of people, but it is not ok for society to use their money and their words to convince her and other people that they are, in fact, acting badly?

How about this though - when bad people do bad things while being protected by their good acts.

Bill Cosby's bad acts were PROTECTED from justice by his good work. He didn't have to choose at all. In fact, the more good he did, and the more we enjoyed his good work, the worse he was allowed to behave.

Harvey Weinstein made a lot of great movies. Movies that would otherwise never be made. His philanthropic efforts undoubtedly helped a lot of people. The only cost was the rape of a few women.

If we hadn't stopped him or brought him to justice, he could have made literally hundreds of good movies, and probably given millions more to charity.

Should he continue to do the good work, even if the cost is a few more rapes? Is the opportunity cost worth it?

I've always thought about this, too! I knew a lot of would-be stoics in college and, besides how stoicism in general is misinterpreted, the Meditations is always particularly thorny for me.

Like no one ever seems to talk about Aurelius' philosophy from the point of view that he was the most privileged person (arguably) in the known world.

OF COURSE he would want people to do what's good for the state without emotion or worry about strife - he needs them to in order to justify his rule.

Go at your pace. Read what you like. There are no rules.