News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Good. Did Rowling ever apologize or walk back her outrageous tweet?
These people never walk back their bullshit. When called out on it, they will double down. When proven wrong, they will change the topic. But they need to be seen as strong, and right. Admitting that you're wrong or even apologising is neither - it's weak, and it can create doubt. If they were wrong about this, then what else are they wrong about?
They radicalise their followers with lies and falsehoods, and they can only keep that up if they are not seen as being wrong about what they say. They spread their lies with confidence and zeal, and if reality disagrees, then reality is wrong.
I remember seeing a tweet of hers where she doubled down on this by linking to some right-wing blog that claimed Khelif has XY chromosomes. Not sure if she's changed course ever since the lawsuit or if she decided to triple down.
Edit: Looks like she was still tweeting about Khelif 6 days ago, but hasn't tweeted since.
JK "I'm protecting women" Rowling?
JK "Not those women" Rowling.
JK "I get to decide who is a woman" Rowling.
JK "At least the Taliban know what a woman is" Rowling.
She never apologizes for anything. She just moves on as if she hadn't said it if she's called out.
Has she walked back or apologized for any of her bullshit? Last I could stomach to listen she was denying Nazi war crimes.
I feel like this is important. Beautify can sprout from ugly. We can grow.
What fame does to you.
The core theme of Harry Potter is about the power of love; and yet now she is being an insufferable, bigoted bitch. Wasn't she also for accepting refugees but then when right-wingers told her to allow refugees to stay in her house, she went silent?
Ground breaking stuff. No one has ever dared touch on such themes before. Truly a visionary. /s
nah, she's always been a terrible writer that only found success through her editor and media hype.
Fucking seriously. Like I get that people have nostalgia for the children's books they read when they were younger, but most of us moved on and grew out of it.
Adult Harry Potter fans are worse than Disney adults. It's like they found a series of (again, children's) books and decided they never had to read anything else.
Also the fans wrote her books after the 2nd or 3rd one.
Harry Potter is racist AF. Rowling named the black guy Kingsley Shacklebolt and the Asian girl Cho Chang. The books are pro-slavery too, and argue that if you free slaves they'll turn to alcoholism. Rowling has always been a white supremacist.
There are a lot of layers of arbitrary interpretation here. Can't we just stick to criticize opinions JKR actually expressed and is known to support, without having to make shit up? There are plenty of them anyway.
P.s. Even in the worst case scenario, not every book is a manifest for what the author thinks. People are able to write stories that do not reflect their worldviews.
She invented a world with race based slavery and only addressed it by normalizing the slavery whenever an outside took issue with it. It would have been easy to have the Weasleys be opposed to House Elves, but they also wanted one and the reader is suppose to feel pity that our poor, loving, relatable family can't have a house slave.
See, it's little things like that, building up over time, while I quit half way though. Way too many "that was weird" moments for me.
Are you sure? Like, regardless of JK's politics, where else is an author going to get ideas from? People are able to write characters that don't reflect their world view, but the thesis of a story is going to reflect the writer's beliefs and morals.
This discussion is the kind of stuff I really don't care about. I read the book when I was a kid and I remember clearly feeling for the injustice of elves being slave, cheering when Dobby was freed and for Hermione and her movement (she started one, I believe). So I am not sure what's the point to discuss what the author "could have written" or what you think she meant you to feel when writing. These are both assumptions that I can't even relate to, so they fit perfectly into what I was talking about: starting from "she is racist" and then trying to find bits and pieces in the books that can be used to support the claim.
Assuming this is true in every case, which is debatable, none of the stuff mentioned is the thesis of the book. In fact, I answered to a comment that was claiming she was a white suprematist based on character names and stuff like this. On the other hand, a HUGE role in the story is taken by the opposition to the "pure blood" movement (embodied by the main villain), and basically every positive character is or supports mixed-bloods (in English they are called mud-bloods? Not sure). To me this in complete anthitesis with white suprematism, but I would use neither to try to infer what JKR views are on race/society.
My point is that in 7 books and thousands of pages you will find details that you can use to suggest her views are anything you want. The main plot of HP is generally a positive story, nothing that can be linked to racism, white suprematism etc. and so are the main characters. So why picking minor details or creative interpretations of the books instead of her actual words as JKR? Like yes, a transphobic, racist, whatever wrote a nice book series, possibly before becoming transphobia, racist etc.
You're misremembering how the slavery plot goes, for what it's worth. In Chamber of Secrets, yes, Dobby is meant to be a sympathetic figure who we're happy is freed. However, following her pattern of "returning to a plot point that got pushback two books ago to justify it", in Goblet we learn that Dobby is a little sicko for wanting freedom and payment, and Hermione's efforts with SPEW (btw that's slang for vomit in the UK} are consistently portrayed as misguided and naive.
I think it's incredibly silly to suggest that you can't make some judgements about an author based on literally a million words that they pulled directly out of their psyche. Another classic example is Joanne's portrayal of women. If a woman is evil, she's fat, mannish, and ugly. If a woman is good, she's motherly and, in the case of Hermione, Luna, and Ginny, not like other girls. Nobody is really saying she was a hateful bigot while writing those books, but the seeds were certainly there.
I will leave out interpretations of stuff in the book. You can interpret it in multiple ways, the author might have meant it in multiple ways, plus there are probably way more facts to keep into consideration that revolve around a character in the book that is pivotal for the whole plot.
You can make some judgements, of course. But there
The first comment in this chain, which is the reason why I am discussing at all...:
So, the nuance of the characterization of women, whatever that actually means in practice, sounds already more reasonable. Stuff like this quote are completely insane IMHO.
Fair enough, that person is definitely engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric, but I don't think their point is entirely wrong. This feels like a classic case of racism and bigotry being seen as all-or-nothing situations. Those character names are obviously not coming from a place of cultural sensitivity (it's been pointed out that Cho and Chang are both family names from entirely different cultures), and while you refuse to engage with the point, portraying slavery as anything other than abominable is just a terrible decision. I would not agree with the comment OP that Rowling has always been a white supremacist, but I would say that she is/was a rather thoughtless liberal, in the centrist definition of that word.
Fair enough.
Just for fun I opened LinkedIn, and I have found 2 pages of people called Cho Chang. This doesn't say anything, of course, and I know nothing about Asian names and cultures, but I still found it interesting.
She's pretty racist, dude.
Even the kindest interpretation there shows that she has some incredibly stereotypical concepts of black people.
I specifically suggested to use her actual opinions (like the shit she tweets) instead of making stuff up from the books.
So I guess we agree...?
It seemed to me like you were disagreeing with the claim that she's racist. If you were not, then yes, we agree.
What JK Rowling has actually expressed is that when a black woman wins a medal for boxing, she is obviously a male, regardless of genetics, anatomy, endocrinology, the law, or her own personal history. Rowling thinks black women are below womanhood, and are only granted it by the grace of "real women" such as herself. She's a white supremacist.
So there is no need to make triple jumps to infer her political stance based on elements in her books.
I am glad we agree.
Why does it bother you to analyze her writings?
It doesn't bother me, it seems just a silly and far fetched way to retrofit opinions on her, using an invalid methodology (I.e., you don't have to agree with every detail you write about in a fictional book - I don't think the books are a good argument to show she thinks school should start at 11 and last 7 years, for example).
On a greater scale, IMHO it makes the arguments against her less compelling, as I can't honestly take seriously an argument that is based on choosing a name for a character or something like this, or a person who unironically uses this argument.
So you believe that a writer can somehow completely remove their opinions, morals, and political leanings from their writing? I mean we literally go through books in high school English and pick a part their themes in relation to their lives, beliefs, etc.
But I'm sure Lovecraft kept his fear of foreigners and contempt for minorities out of his writings tho
I do believe that is possible and I can tell you why- Roald Dahl was an unapologetic bigot. He absolutely loathed Jews. Even the museum devoted to him talks about it quite openly. But he never put any hint of that into his children's books. To the point that my (Jewish) father, who was aware of it and very sensitive to antisemitism, still bought me Roald Dahl books.
I've read a fair amount of his adult fiction and don't remember any antisemitism there either.
I don't think that is the case for Rowling, however. I think her books, from what I have seen, are pretty openly bigoted.
No, I believe that not everything an author writes is a political manifesto for their ideas. I believe some is, and in fiction this could be a very variable amount. The chance of minor plot or character features being such a clear representation of the author's views is even smaller, compared to general and major plot dynamics or characteristics of main characters. Your Lovecraft example I think is very fitting, as even I (who studied few of his works) know a bunch of short stories entirely focused on the issue of "others". It's way more reasonable to infer the views of the author when this is a recurring theme, core to some works etc.
BTW from a logical standpoint, the negation of "everything" is not "nothing". Me saying that I don't think every element in a book is a manifesto doesn't mean no element is.
She ruined her IP, I used to look at death eaters as fascists and the good guys as people who were kind, welcoming, wacky, they transfigured, they were free to be whatever they wanted without having to prove their purity, now I'm not sure what she thinks death eaters are...and have to look at all the hidden stereotypes in the book in a different light.
Not to shit on one of your favorite works of fiction but this is exactly why it's a book for kids/teenagers. There are VERY FEW cases were the bad vs good is so black and white. Life is made up of shades of grey and as I've gotten older I've lost respect for writing that paints such a simple view of right and wrong. Without nuance either side can look at themselves as the good guy and the other as pure evil.
But that nuance exists in the books, there are family ties that cut across faction allegiances, double agents, traitors, misunderstood people, ambiguous characters. However, faction construction and ideology is very reminiscent of 20th century european history, so there is a grounded sense of black and white, unless you consider elitism, classism, racism and gratuitous violence to subjugate others as something that can be seen in a good light, somehow.
So there's nuance in everything but the plot?
Theres nothing grounded about magic Hitler. Hitler himself and the rise of nazi German had more nuance other than they were all just _pure evvviiiillll _. Works of fiction that have these black and white struggles between the knight in shining armor and the devil incarnate who wants to destroy the world lack depth. It's easy to make yourself the good guys in Harry Potter when all you have to do is not be the devil. It's like the old school Disney formula of pretty white and charming is good. Ugly, vaguely ethnic, and awkward is bad.
I'm not going out in cloaks and masks killing minorities so I can't be the bad guy. Making it harder for them to vote is no big deal. The death eaters go around killing unwarranted. There's no way they're pro-life like me. Clearly they'd love abortions! The Trans community is trying to corrupt and covert our kids just like voldemort! It's literally that easy
Looks like you feel stronger about this than I do, buddy. I'm not close enough to being a fan to reply to all that :D Yeah, I guess abortion is a moral grey area...I don't remember if that was in the book, but it would certainly have added some depth to it.
Lmao wtf.
"Yer a cunt, Joanne"- Hagrid probably.
“Joanne Roowwling, you cunt”. -Snape maybe
Robby Coltrane stands out among the HP cast members as having taken JKR's side on the culture war stuff.
Hagrid was a transphobe??
Oh that’s so disappointing.
Source?
https://people.com/movies/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-defends-j-k-rowlings-comments-about-trans-people/
It's worth mentioning that article is from 2020, around the time she had started pivoting from TERF-lite to TERF-MAX. It was...reasonably possible to assume at the time, for someone who wasn't paying close attention, that her opinions were still rooted in misguided concern rather than open bigotry.
She had only just posted her manifesto a few months earlier, according to Vox's helpful timeline, which reads reasonably if you're unaware of the multitude of false and misleading claims she parrots.
It's always interesting whether people consider getting offended vs allowing offense as being a strong-man attribute depending on the situation. Like, he's defending JK for being offended at other people living their lives, but people standing up for the oppressed makes them weak.
Maybe defending people is strong and getting offended by other people existing is weak.
Thanks, at least he admits he’s an old grumpy man.
Admitted. He died in 2022.
Well that's unfortunate.