I don’t because they’re not really comparable. Not in their intended effect nor their feasibility.
There are many other electrics cars, many of them better and/or cheaper and entirely interchangable. Boycotting Tesla just means getting a direct substitute instead. There aren’t any substitutes for HP games because the IP itself is the whole point.
Another point where they’re not comparable: Tesla isn’t the problem here, Elon is and he needs to go. And he can be gotten rid of, which is the entire point of the boycot. Meanwhile, there is no mechanism legal or otherwise to remove Rowling from the equation. She owns the IP and no amount of boycots will change that. The only thing boycotting HP products achieves is making the companies involved fail and preventing any further HP products from being developed. So what does that achieve?
Finally: we are talking about a woman saying mean things about trans people on the Internet versus a man actively dragging the USA into fascism as if these are equal problems requiring equal responses. As much as I empathise with trans people in that this issue can be much more real for them than it is for me, I still don’t think they’re anywhere near the same level of urgency. I have yet to see Rowling have any kind of meaningful effect, while Elon is currently rampaging through every institution he can reach.
So: given that boycotting Tesla is both easy, effective and urgent, while boycotting HP is a personal sacrifice for no real effect, surely you see the difference?
The skinhead can be partially right about some things even if they’re monstrously wrong about the overall picture and what conclusions they draw. A neonazi would probably also say the earth is round, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
What, in particular, did that poster say that is so wrong? Are their numbers off? Did the other genocides not happen?
edit: To be clear: I’m talking about the poster you’re replying to here, not the deleted post above b/c who even knows what that said.