The Rowling Roll works like this:
“Urrgh, I hate X so much. Did you know X does Y? Isn’t that awful”.
“I agree X is bad, but I don’t think Y is a problem, I quite like Y".
“URGH! Why are you defending X.”
E.g. A person who hates X & Y criticizes both of them by associating them with each other and then suggests that anyone who says “Hey, I don’t hate Y” must thereby be defending, excusing or standing up for X. You roll two things up together in a common sentiment- you try to make them a package deal. It’s particularly effective on Twitter, where caveats and nuances go against the grain of the form.
The eponymous example is criticism of J.K. Rowling. The Harry Potter books, for those who haven’t read them, have a kind of dream-like logic in relation to the institutions of wizarding society- a chaotic and messy jumble- sort of a milder version of the unlogic of Alice in Wonderland. A debate developed on Twitter about whether this is good or bad writing- I was very much in the good writing camp- I feel it brings an almost magical-realist quality to the books. Then a meta debate developed along the lines of “Why are you standing up for a bigot”:
In truth, I just kind of like a dreamy vibe in fantasy,
The Rowling roll, pretty obviously, weaponises cognitive dissonance. It is hard for humans to simultaneously believe all three of:
A is bad
B is good
And A & B are closely associated with each other
But sometimes this is just how the world works. Sometimes bad people have good taste, keep good company, or even do good things.
The main problem with the Rowling roll isn’t unfair criticism of the subject- because we’re taking it for granted that X truly is bad, even if the criticism is unfair, it’s not that unfair. Rather, the main problem is with the distortion of things associated with the person. Our views on related matters- which might even be important matters! become twisted. We might be induced to unjustly hate anything from a genre to a person to a whole group of people simply through the cunning use of the Rowling Roll. If we try to escape the Rowling Roll and distinguish the two associated things from each other, we risk looking like we’re apologists for the bad person, that's the trap the Rowling Roll lays.
The Rowling Roll wouldn’t be such a problem if it were just accidental and random, but people deliberately and strategically weaponize it to mobilize hatred of one subject and move it to another. I’ve chosen a pretty innocent example regarding literary style, but you watch. Next time a scandal comes out about a celebrity see how people with an axe to grind, perhaps an ex-partner they’re still bitter about, will go for it, and try to prove something they hate is bad by associating it with the now-hated public figure:
“So and so was always the worst, even before this bullshit, I could tell by his whole ‘sensitive’ guy thing. Never trust a man who cries in public 🙄”.
I resent this. I hold the dorky view that we should evaluate all things carefully and with sense rather than turning them into a vibe stew. The fact that Joe Bloggs was bad and Joe Bloggs was a sensitive man tells us little about being a sensitive man. But the problem is, it’s really difficult in a lot of contexts of public discourse to defend Y without looking like you’re also defending X. If you come out to say “Actually Joe Blogg is bad, but being a sensitive man is good” you’re already losing, and it looks suspiciously like you might be trying to take some of the heat off Joe Bloggs. The Rowling Roll is a sneak attack.
Of course, the really ominous uses come out when we leave the realm of interpersonal relations and get into politics. I’m sure you’ve seen many examples there.
It’s also a problem because like all the most destructive deceptions it’s not always wrong. Sometimes the fact X & Y are associated really is evidence Y is bad after all. In particular, if Y is a strong predictor of badness that might be evidence that it itself is bad. Sensible discretion and careful reflection are needed to judge the merits of each case- but that seems to be the exact opposite of how people feel around the Rowling Roll.
The positive version of the Rowling Roll- X is good, X is associated with Y, therefore you must love Y- is also real. However, it’s not as dangerous because it’s not as effective.
Edit: This discussion with John Quiggin in the comments might make what I’m saying clearer:
John:
Assuming the speaker is truthful*, this argument seems perfectly valid to me, though it is best read in reverse
“So and so was always the worst, even before this bullshit, I could tell by his whole ‘sensitive’ guy thing. Never trust a man who cries in public 🙄”.
In the correct order
Never trust a man who cries in public 🙄. I predicted that so-and-so was a bad character because he cried in public. Now my prediction has been validated, and his badness has been exposed"
This is logically the same as "Einstein's theory predicted the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit, and his prediction was validated, therefore we should believe, or at least give more credence to, Einstein's theory"
*If dealing with a person who might not be perfectly truthful, I would want to see evidence that the prediction was actually made.
Me:
The problem with the Rowling Roll isn't that it has no argumentative force for the conclusion that, say, sensitive men are terrible- it does have some argumentative force. The problem with the Rowling Roll is that it cunningly makes it difficult to push back against the claim that sensitive men are terrible without looking like you're defending the bogeyman of the week.
I guess this is just an extension of your principle, but when people do give reasons why they think Harry Potter as literature is bad beyond Rowling, I get frustrated (because critiquing and rating fiction is a general hobby of mine). I agree with some of the harsh criticism of HP, while some of the other critiques seem like silly motivated reasoning. Whether those flaws are enough to give the work an overall bad rating is a subject for another day (I myself enjoyed Harry Potter as a kid and don't regret it, I would be more critical of it today as an adult hough), but the reluctance to admit its potential merits and explore why it became so popular is unfortunate. It might even mask more interesting critiques that go unnoticed. We were able to do so for Lord of the Rings, despite Tolkien's politics being arguably worse.
Assuming the speaker is truthful*, this argument seems perfectly valid to me, though it is best read in reverse
“So and so was always the worst, even before this bullshit, I could tell by his whole ‘sensitive’ guy thing. Never trust a man who cries in public 🙄”.
In the correct order
Never trust a man who cries in public 🙄. I predicted that so-and-so was a bad character because he cried in public. Now my prediction has been validated, and his badness has been exposed"
This is logically the same as "Einstein's theory predicted the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit, and his prediction was validated, therefore we should believe, or at least give more credence to, Einstein's theory"
*If dealing with a person who might not be perfectly truthful, I would want to see evidence that the prediction was actually made.