this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
1114 points (88.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5412 readers
1337 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i feel bad for all the people i know who got harry potter tattoos 15 years ago
edit: it's really fucking weird how people are trying to invalidate my criticism of the bigoted bigot who loves bigotry, j.k. rowling
Why? I have a HP tattoo and don't regret it. The fandom has gone past the author at this point. She's a hateful removed but that doesn't mean that we can't still love the world and characters she created. We've made it our own.
Except she still gets royalties and uses those to donate to political organizations, so you know
Tons of ways to enjoy the fandom without giving her any money.
I'm happy for you being able to pretend these things are separate from the weird cringe asshole who created it. personally, hp shit just makes me think bigot
You must not be able to enjoy anything from older than 20 years ago.
Or pretty much anything younger than 20 years ago either
It is pretty unpleasant to be watching old media and be slapped in the face with overt homophobia and transphobia treated as a joke, thanks for your concern.
back to the main point though: fuck j.k. rowling, and fuck harry potter
Better apply that energy to other things, too.
Like the rolling stones? You're a pedophile.
Enjoy Top Gun? You support scientology.
Ever played any Blizzard game? You support sexual harassment.
Ever ate anything related to Nestle? You support slavery.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You better get used to it.
The fuck did the rolling stones do?
Not really a part of this conversation but I just wanted to say that I literally do subscribe to all these statements lol. I try to reduce harm where I can, and not playing a game made by Blizzard is so easy.
Pretty much everything you listed is a convenience that can fairly easily be cut out of your life. Except for Nestlé, because keeping tracking of what brands are under any given food companies umbrella is not an easy task and the lack of competition means that oftentimes there are simply no good alternatives.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't mean that I'm under any obligation to respect somebody who continues to give money to an author who has openly said that they consider buying their merchandise as explicit support of their politics and donates a portion of their proceeds to extremist political groups with ties to far-right Christian groups in the US. The same as I'm not obligated to respect Republicans who say that they're not racist, homophobic, etc, but still continue to vote for extremist candidates year after year who openly run on bigoted policies.
It's one thing to have no alternatives to buy or to simply not know of an issue with a company, it's an entirely different thing to continue to buy something from a company because it would be a minor inconvenience to avoid them.
Nobody is saying that we should go without things that make us happy, but there are plenty of other books to read, movies to watch, and games to play that don't support the FART.
Where can I read more about this?
Enjoying Harry Potter doesn't mean they have to engage with JK Rowling.
It can mean talking about it with fans, getting a tattoo, cosplaying, or just rereading a book.
If you see a harry potter tattoo and the first thing you think is "bigot", youre just a prejudiced dickface.
Unfortunately, Death of the Author does not apply here. Engaging with her media keeps her relevant and continues to introduce her and her beliefs to new people. Plus, the media itself (especially the books) has its own issues. Her bigotry is not a new thing.
As a bisexual trans woman living in the US, my daily life is dictated by the laws bigots like her have enacted and my ability to keep myself safe by spotting red flags. There are parts of this country - entire states - that I would never visit without an M249 SAW loaded and ready.
Being able to continue to engage with a piece of media without the problematic parts of it and the opinion of the author about those who do engage with her media as supporters of her politics bothering you doesn't make someone a bigot, but it is a red flag. And much like those who say they support trans rights and continue to vote for people like Trump anyways, I'm not gonna trust you to have my back. Because you've shown which of the two you value more.
not the person you were answering to (I specify as someone already got confused).
I think I see your point but I personally disagree with some of the premises.
I think this is at least partially inaccurate. Private conversations with people who already read the books/watched the movie have virtually no effect whatsoever. Introducing it to new people may have an effect, but I think it's marginal to the point of being irrelevant. I still agree that an impact exists though.
Here I am not sure what exactly you imply, but I believe that it's perfectly fine to engage with media that has ideas, or language, we don't agree with (a point beautifully conveyed in the movie American Fiction). Regarding the "problematic" parts, they are all pretty much related to abstract analysis that are simply irrelevant for the target audience. It doesn't even matter if globins are actually inspired by Jewish stereotypes or not, even if it was the case and if it was done with bad intentions, none in the target audience will actually understand any of it or be conditioned by it.
I think this is a very unbalanced comparison. Voting has direct impact on policies, engaging with HP does not, and when it does (money to J.K.R., donation to parties, policy) is very indirect. If we need to apply the same standard for any indirect relationship, we fallback to the "As soon as you buy anything you are guilty" (doesn't even matter what you buy if you do with a card, for example). Obviously you are free to consider what you want a red flag, but personally I consider support of certain ideas, and concrete actions to provide that support, something to judge people on.
It may not be marginal so I have to think about that one…
Can take away private discussions with past readers who don’t & won’t [financially] support JK over my dead body though :p (that one is super hard to argue against IMO)
LOL
If someone got a tattoo before rowling "came out" as a giant dickface, does that make the person with the tattoo a bigot?
Just try thinking for a moment. There is a pretty simple conclusion here.
i think 2 things when i see a HP tattoo: 1) that IP was created by a bigot; and 2) i would have made it a pretty high priority to get that tattoo covered or redone into something else, out of respect for the trans people i know
Gonna be honest, if someone is making snap judgements because another person enjoys of the most popular stories of all time, im not sure theyre worth anyones time.
Guess ill go tell my trans friend with a deathly hallows tat they are bigoted.
They are definitely interesting at least. Do they just not connect the two in their mind? Or maybe its just a great tattoo.
i don't like the rolling stones or any of that other shit, but you make a good point. literally everything we do is immoral.
the thing is, i'm still going to shit on rowling and harry potter. YOU better get used to it
You'll find most are particularly unconcerned about your fervent desire to shout into the Internet void. We're not going to get used to it because we really don't care.
and yet........you reply
Because I'm an avid shit poster that can't resist low hanging fruit.
fair enough. don't forget: fuck j.k. rowling
Lol, then thanks for spreading hatred in an unjust system?
That's super cool of you.
Youre using Lemmy right now, a system created by an unabashed tankie.
Congrats on the genocide support you fascist.
/s
yea. and i live in america. so i guess you'll also say i "support genocide" too right?
If im using your logic, yes.
But im not. You are.
what is the goal here? to get me to stop criticizing rowling? um, no.
yes, it's likely you're going to find some asshole in the group of people who created the thing you're consuming.
but also: fuck j.k. rowling, and fuck harry potter
i don't know what else to tell you
Just trying to point how ideologically inconsistent you are.
I dont know what else to tell you.
do you live in a capitalistic society? do you criticize anything at all, ever? do you consume literally anything? thank you for also being "ideologically inconsistent"
There are critiques to be made, that is very clear.
But just lumping everyone into the bigot pile because the author of one of the most beloved children's stories decided to lose her mind 15 years afterwards is kind of a bad idea, no?
I think its pretty safe to say youre just being prejudiced.
I think you are missing the point in the heat of the discussion. The point is that you make quite far logic jumps from "I like Harry Potter (because I read the book when I was a kid, because of...whatever)" to "I am a bigot (because the author 20 years later went bananas)". You are making these jumps for other people, but people are trying to show that this logic has only one logical conclusion: everything you do is wrong. However, the inconsistency is in not applying this logic to everything but selectively.
It's really easy to just give something up when it has no impact on your health. If this were something that had decent support communities, it'd be one thing, but even long time fans that organized relating to HP (the quidditch league) have since dropped anything to do with her or the intellectual property. If people profiting from the series can drop it over JK, so can you. I literally understand people going to chik-fil-a more readily than I understand people who enjoy HP over any other fantasy author, particularly when there's good high fantasy and modern fantasy all over the place now. Not to mention, the HP fanbase can't even take criticism.
Homestuck fans are literally more reasonable. Please, read some Jim Butcher (the Dresden Files). It has been well over 20 years since wizard rock, and the hate has been spewing from rowling's mouth for over a decade. You are clinging to a series that people want nothing to do with on a large scale out of allegiance to a children's novel, full of ideas you claim you don't support but you will argue with people for criticizing, written by an actual lunatic. It's unconscionable.
You've been told throughout the thread that it makes people uncomfortable when someone talks about harry. Every time, you've doubled down and gone full middle school debate club, pretty much showing everyone who said so they were right. Hell, some of these people were replying to someone else and you felt the need to jump in and defend the world of spells conceived in one look at a latin dictionary. Some of the least interesting magic ever written, and you're not even involved, and at the drop of a hat you'll defend it.
You may not be a bigot but you railroad arguments like one, your ethics are confused, your "seperate the artist" line of thinking works a lot better when the artist is dead and not constantly feeding a hate machine with money. Hell, every time a new licensed harry potter product comes out, idiots like you are INSISTING that rowling will get no funds from "muh royalties" despite her getting estate getting equity in the product.
Also, for the love of everything, stop using the word "Logic". You clearly haven't studied Aristotelean or Socratic logic, and you sound like a 4chan regular. Great way to defend your beloved series.
I have the books that I have read about 20 years ago. That's pretty much my "involvement" with HP. I don't care about it, I was just pointing out how that kind of rationale is destructive (or better, reinforcing what others did). You say:
Sure. The problem though is that if the premise "someone with shitty ideas created or profits from me buying/interacting with this thing" is supposed to hold, then pretty much everyone should give up essentially anything. I can guarantee that 99% of the stuff you buy partially ends up enriching some shitty billionaire, buying military equipment that kills people or is straight up made by people I would disagree with. Therefore, my argument is that it's an unsustainable way to see the world. It is only sustainable when applied selectively based on purely arbitrary criteria. And if one can apply it as they want, then it's perfectly OK for some people to apply it to HP.
So my argument has nothing to do with HP (I can't care less to be honest).
Obviously, I will start from the fact that I can do what I please. Also I am not arguing with the criticism itself, but with a specific line of thought that I find inconsistent and ultimately hypocritical.
At this point I am not even sure you understood who you are responding to, since what you are answering to was my first comment in the whole post. That said, people also feel uncomfortable when 2 males kiss, should I honor that? No, right? So we agree that ultimately what matters is my belief in what I think is right and what is wrong. I don't think anybody is going to chase people with HP books like Jehovah's witnesses, but on the other hand it's also an incredibly weird expectation that people should just purge from their lives something they might care about or like if they don't believe it's the right thing to do, considering there is no direct harm in any way in "talking" about HP.
Yep, you are definitely answering the wrong person.
Since I did mention "logic", I will still answer this bit. I did study logic as it's part of the regular curriculum both in Math and Philosophy, both subjects that are studied in high school. Let alone in University, considering the strong relationship with computer science. If you were so kind as to point out why you think the use of logic was wrong, when the whole comment was insisting on what is essentially a misapplied syllogism, maybe your argument can be worthy of note. At the moment, much like your comment, it seems just a weird internet attempt at insulting someone else rather than their arguments. All this conscious that you did answer to me thinking to be answering to someone else...
You posted this and then blocked me lmao. You've misrepresented yourself, argued in bad faith, and STILL done all this in support of a bigot and their work. Stay stupid, I guess!
I didn't block you... dude, read usernames?
Did the person bringing up "Aristotelean or Socratic logic" say someone sounded like a 4chan user???
🤣 holy shit thanks for the laugh.
What, you really think middle school debate club over here uses the word "logic" for anything but browbeating? If you're not using syllogisms, it's 4channer buzzword speak and not logic.
If you buy/interact with something made by a person with shitty ideas, then you support those shitty ideas. It is a syllogism, and the whole point of the above comment is that if we accept it, then we have to apply for everything, and that is impossible.
If you want to go even further, you can also easily prove that the above is fundamentally flawed by showing how easy it is to prove that a person supports both sides of basically any argument on Earth, by buying or interacting with products that are made by people holding those views, which is obviously a contradiction.
A single syllogism requires 3 steps, you have 2 here. Back to debate club, kiddo
The last parts are obvious: if you interact with HP you support JKR ideas. In fact I only presented 1 part of the syllogysm above, not 2, so you can stuff that smug comment where it belongs :)
Maybe next try you can also address the actual merit of the conversation, since so far you resorted to embarrassing ad hominem when you didn't make a bad trip and confused me with someone else.
The guy still think that logic didn't evolve past Aristotle and basic syllogisms, even after a couple of millenia, and argues about a supposed Socrates logic (?) that involves them (????)
They have no idea what they're talking about other than some random information that they found online, probably. I wouldn't expect any kind of real logical argument from there.
The funniest thing is that you showed them a perfect example of socratic reductio ad absurdum, but it completely flew over their head because they are too busy trying to argue about syllogisms...
Yeah indeed! Like if syllogisms also had not been discussed at length, specifically the necessity to have absolutely scientific axioms as both premises, which is an obvious problem here as the major premise is not impossible, but definitely not proven.
Yep... I think that user is not really in for a discussion, so possibly they just ignored whatever could not be attacked with a silly personal attack. I was going to block, but then after this comment I decided to wait, just to make the situation even more surreal :)