system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: When determining/discussing whether a person is bad, we should consider all of the actions of the person, rather than focus solely/mostly on the worst aspects.

This post is more than just about JK Rowling, but I'll still use her as an example, as the situation fits well to my view, and most people are aware what's going on with her.

Since she outed herself as transphobic (not sure if the term 100% correct here), there have been plethora of people who have been ready to condemn her as a bad person, and most have already done so. She has received lot of hate for it, and I agree and understand if people are upset about her views in this specific area and I support if people want to question/challenge her beliefs publicly.

What bothers me is that these people, and masses in general, seem to be forgetting all the other stuff she has done, in order to make the label of a bad person fit easier. Mainly people ignore/forget that she has donated hundreds of millions of pounds to charities for sick and poor children, probably directly helping hundreds of thousands of people in need. I'm not an expert in Rowlingology, but even I know that she donated so much of her money that she famously lost her billionaire status (she is still a multimillionaire, for what's it worth). And in my view, that alone weights a lot more than what garbage she wrote in social media. We could also discuss about the good her books have done to people around the world.

I think in the big picture JK Rowling is a good person, not a bad one. She has done much more good in the world than bad, and the world is (so far) a better place because of her, not worse. Think about this way: If Rowling died and stood before Osiris (or St. Peter or whoever), and Osiris weighed her good deeds and bad deeds on a scale, I think the good deeds (donated lots of money and helped people in need) would vastly outweigh the bad ones (tweets transphobic stuff). But this is not the image you would get from reading what people write about her these days.

When determining whether she is good or bad, people are quick to point to the worst aspects of her (her dated/wrong beliefs), forget everything else, and down comes the stamp. It makes life easier I suppose. If you've done anything bad in your life (and especially if you are too stubborn to learn from your mistakes), if one thing on the good person checklist is left unchecked, you are a bad person, period. No room for moral complexity.

I honestly believe this is all too common happening in the current world, where liberal/left-wing people are too quick to judge and devour their own, and cast people out of their good graces as soon as something suspicious comes up. I've heard people say that Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are all equally bad, and that Gandhi and Mandela are bad people, a conclusion which you can only arrive at if you focus on their worst aspects (Gandhi being racist, for example) and forget all the rest. Only perfect is good enough.

I don't think it's fair for anyone and we are doing ourselves a disservice. Most people are not good or bad, but somewhere in the middle. We have our good moments and bad moments. We should consider them all when delivering our public judgment.
gpt
I think what matters is what people do with the power that they have.

If she was transphobic in private amongst her friends, it's not ideal but she's not doing huge amounts of harm. But she's not doing it in private. She is doing it extremely publicly, wielding her enormous reach and influence to do real material harm to people.

She is going to continue using that power to damage trans rights probably for many years.  When people say she is a bad person, they're not cracking out the scales of Osiris, they are looking at what impact she is having *right now*. She is bad *now* because she is actively harming people. We're not evaluating the sum total of her contribution to society, we're *trying to get her to stop*.