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. 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.
Fuck the whole HP franchise.
It was always shitty writing and the plot was garbage. The whole story was a thinly veiled glorification of British exceptionalism.
The only saving grace of that stinking turd of a franchise is that, in the '90s, it seemed like a good way to get kids to read.
The online portion of the community that is complaining about all this may be valid, but it's still a small portion of the actual public. Regardless of all the negative press, if this show is good, it's going to be a commercial hit.
John Lithgow reacted to the open letter mentioned in this article, sent to him by "a very good friend who is the mother of a trans child" by saying "Why is this a factor at all?" and expressing sympathy for the transphobic bigot.
So it's unfortunate that he probably wouldn't know what a social media is if it slammed him right in the asshole - which is the entirety of him - because he certainly sounds deserving of decades of hell. Especially from his now hopefully former "very good friend."
Hopefully he dies early in production. How's that for winding down?
I wonder if he'd be ok with others wishing he would die. Or is it only acceptable when he's playing a character or working for bigots? In any case I'm sure he finds it all very exciting.
Reminder: "separating the art from the artist" is an approach to engaging with an artwork, and is a separate question from whether or not you should engage with an artwork when doing so has real life consequences.
Whether or not you should consume HP Lovecraft media despite the fact he was a racist is entirely up to you because he is long dead. He doesn't make any money. He isn't even racist any more. Because he's dead.
When you consider whether or not you consume Harry Potter media, you must consider that JK Rowling will make money and will donate that money to anti-trans groups. If you still go on to buy licensed merch, or pay a streaming service to watch it, you will literally be helping to propogate transphobia. Continue to enjoy anything you currently own if you want. That is where separating the art from the artist comes into it. But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
☠️
But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
I agree with everything you wrote up to this point. I'm not really a Harry Potter fan and I certainly don't think much of J.K. Rowling since she revealed her true nature but this last bit is a very slippery slope.
You know the slippery slope fallacy right?
I had not seen that before but I'm not sure it applies. Perhaps the wording was poor to indicate my intent but it was not my intention to indicate "a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends" as that article says.
I was trying to communicate that making a broad statement, like OP did, that promoting Harry Potter online indicates transphobia or transphobic behavior by itself ignores both intent and context, which I think matters.
Can we pirate it. Or will that just make it more popular
Edit: or should we just boycott
I think its best to move on
Pirating it wouldn't make it more popular if you kept it to yourself, but talking about it after you watched it probably would.
I have to say, this is just such an in-the-weeds moral stance that it crosses the boundary of reasonableness. Honestly, it's this sort of thing that drove me away from left wing styles of thinking a while ago.
The impact you make on the world in any of your possible actions with regard to Harry Potter is miniscule. Like, truly, utterly insignificant. Are you going to organize an anti-potter boycott? Participate in a protest? Harass the actors in an online trolling movement? Throw eggs at JK Rawling's house? Great! Go do all those things! Actively participate in changing the world for the better! These actions might actually lead to real change.
But denying yourself pleasures in the name of moral purity accomplishes nothing. If all you do is sit at home and think to yourself "I wanna watch the new Harry Potter thing, but I can't, because then I'm a bad person." (or in this case, "I wanna talk to my friends about the new Harry Potter thing I pirated, but I can't, because then I'm a bad person) then you are accomplishing literally nothing except making yourself miserable. Again, if you are going to actually do something, then go do it! But if you don't have the time or energy or interest or social battery to actually do something, then shaming yourself or others into not doing things is actively counterproductive. Go take a road trip without calculating if the pleasure you will derive is worth the carbon footprint! Eat an ice cream cone without feeling bad about the the suffering of the factory farmed cow it came from! Get one of those good-paying jobs in oil and gas or defence and make some goddamned money! You are simply not important enough for any of these actions to have any actual real-world impact. The only thing that happens is that you convince yourself that if you ever enjoy anything, then you are a bad person. You train yourself to constantly be looking for the ways in which life's simple pleasures are destroying the world, so you can feel bad about them.
Just stop it. Be happy. Do whatever you need to do to chill out and enjoy your life and gain some sense of contentedness and security. And then go out and make the world a better place by actually doing something. Hyper-anxious, shame-ridden, depressed know-it-alls rarely create effective social change because no one wants to hang out with them. No one see them and thinks "yeah, that's what I want my life to look like."
In order to lead by example you have to show a path to a better world. Not a cell.
Don't deprive yourself of happiness to spite her. That being said the books have several reasons to not read them on their own merits. Don't forget "dobby is weird for not wanting to be a slave" is an actual plot point in the books. Not to mention the goblins. If you want to revisit a beloved fantasy series, give LOTR another read/watch.
It’s pretty simple. Rowling is an avowed bigot who is using all of her means, financially and socially, to punish trans people for existing. She is a hateful person who should be judged harshly and ostracized. It will be a good day for the world when she is no longer able to or allowed to espouse her bigoted views.
Supporting her in anyway, be it paying for her works or even enjoying her content should be stigmatized to the maximum degree. Actors agreeing to work with or for her should lose everything, as they are even worse for helping to continue her pursuit of hate and villainy.
If she were to fall down a literary flight of stairs, I would be most pleased—especially if this were to happen daily until she were unable to fall any further.
Here’s to hoping that anyone that hitches their wagon with hers suffers pain and ruin.
In addition to my loathing of the author, I have to say I am also really bothered how the books normalize slavery, glorify blood purity and elite privilege, treat systemic child abuse as comic relief, use goblins as thinly veiled anti-Semitic caricatures, reduce fat characters to jokes, sideline women or box them into tired tropes, justify authoritarianism with a shrug, romanticize magical servitude, paint non-human creatures as inherently dangerous, and act like destiny is a substitute for character development — all while the wizarding world runs on a caste system and no one ever questions it.
So I will be passing on this series, personally.
JK Rowling sounds like an incredibly talented author. Most people just massage things into place. Reuse tropes. But you're saying she baked her worldview into practically every sentence?
If I see ugliness in the world, I might express it as I see it. I don't have to think something is right for me to include it in a story. Do you think I'm special? Am I the only person capable of writing things that I don't necessarily support? Everyone else is forced to include things they personally would vote for. If you write about slavery, that means you love slavery. Is it weird that I'm capable of being against slavery, yet it's possible for me to include it in stories? Should I be using this power?
I didn't realize Rowling was one of the best authors. I thought she just reused things without really thinking. I never knew it was 100% meticulous and so... thought out. I don't think even Tolkien can be said to inject so much meaning into every single page.
Am I the only person capable of writing things that I don’t necessarily support?
I can't speak to that. But I can say that I don't think that sentiment applies to her. And I think there's a difference between a viewpoint that one can objectively examine from both sides, and a bias, that is so deeply ingrained to one's psyche that it colors how one perceives the world. And yes, I do think both things exist.
You realize she didn't write about slaves right? She made the main character a slave owner and had a plot point about how much the slaves love being slaves and dobby is just weird for not wanting to be a slave.
I have no idea what book series you read (or if you've read it at all) but you are...very off on this take.
Don't get me wrong, JK Rowling is a total piece of shit, but the books themselves are distinctly anti classism, "blood purity," slavery, misogyny, and a whole host of other things you listed.
Are they without any flaw? Certainly not. Is it okay if people boycott the media because of Rowling's ongoing transphobia? Absolutely. But most of what you've listed about the book series is blatantly untrue...
I think people like to take all the poorly written parts of HP and conflate them with bigotry. Its possible, but jk Rowling is just a shitty writer who does not plan ahead at all. I still think fans wrote the last three books via posting theories on HP forums.
sideline women or box them into tired tropes
Which makes it mind bogglingly insane how many claimed “feminists” support her because of her stance on trans people.
Hermoine and Ron ending up together is shit. He treats her like garbage throughout the series.
Bellatrix is presented as this fucked up “Daddy’s Little Monster” to Voldemorts Joker.
All of the “good” women are passive little teachers and moms.
What happens to Tonks is especially gross as shit. You have a GNC women. Goes by a shorten, masc-ish name. Short hair, colors, dresses ambiguously.
Then she gets married off to the other queer coded character. (Werewolf = HIV, I’m pretty sure she straight up said that at one point.) He calls her her extremely feminine birth name, and iirc the text even mentions that she is vaguely uncomfortable with that? Then gets knocked up and killed off. She gets to die a “proper woman.”
TERFs say “trans men shouldn’t transition! Just be a non confoming woman!” But it’s a fucking front. They are a conservatives in disguise. They don’t want GNC people to exist, just like they don’t want trans people to exist. “Just be non-binary! But also, shave your legs and wear makeup and make sure to present in a feminine way.”
If I was a billionaire feminist who could buy courts, I could think of several better priorities.
If I were a billionaire, the amount of low-to-no cost housing, green energy, and fiber internet I would build would be off the charts. And with Elon Musk money, I'm fairly certain I could ensure that NO ONE in the US would ever have to worry about where their next meal would come from. Certainly not schoolchildren. Also, I would commission a third season of the classic 1999 anime Big O, with the original writers and showrunner.
this what most of the people are elucidating her meaning of her books, its her subtle way to express her transphobia, anti-semititism, etc.
Ok fair, and kind of obvious now that I think about it. But a lot of people seem to also be arguing that the books can stand alone and be enjoyed separate from the author’s discriminatory beliefs. And if that is the case, then let’s take the books separately, and examine what they really are presenting to the audience that loves them so much. Even forgetting about Rowling, can these people really say they feel it’s totally ok to enjoy a classicist story about discrimination, slavery, and child abuse, etc.? And that they should be allowed to enjoy such a story without anyone casting aspersions against them?
I'll agree to examine the books separate from the author the day buying them doesn't mean giving her money to finance her backwards agenda. Until then, they are 100% linked.
It's always moraly right to pirate any harry potter media.
More morally right to never indulge in any Harry Potter media at all. Don't reinforce the hype by watching that crap, even if by piracy.
I don't pirate things I boycott. Professionals have standards.
Because they're supporting the anti-trans hag?
The parents of the child actors should be getting plenty of pushback. Exploiting their kids like this is gross.
It's like seeing pictures of kids in KKK robes.
Wanting children to get hate for some other woman's opinions is wild lol
Before I get more down votes. They clearly said. "Should".
It's almost like we shouldn't blame others for another. I dunno. Maybe I'm a trans hater like the trans community wants to paint anyone that enjoys Harry Potter.
Maybe I’m a trans hater like the trans community wants to paint anyone that enjoys Harry Potter.
That kind of wild generalization certainly makes you sound like a trans hater.
No one is claiming that everyone who likes Harry Potter hates trans people. But any interaction you have with Harry Potter books, movies, merchandise, etc. makes money for one of the most prominent trans haters in the world and helps her to spread her hateful message. At least pirate her stuff if you care.
What is there to even enjoy? The world building is trash, the characters are shallow, and the setting is mid and bland. You really going to die on this hill?
Read another book, I'm begging you.
In your opinion.
Learn to let people enjoy what they enjoy and stop hating people's personal opinions when they don't align?
Yes. You are. We are asking you not to engage with a very specific thing, and you are refusing. You are stamping your feet like a toddler that we are asking you not to give money to someone that is using that money to fund anti-trans lobbying.
So yes, you are a "trans hater" and need to do better.
Also what money. I haven't given anyone money. I'm a pirate you dunce.
Brother, it’s Harry Potter which is not exactly a thing you can’t live without lmfao
You’re making it sound like they’re asking you to give up breathing
If you’re going to make broad generalizations about every trans person like that, I mean, maybe. There are trans people that read HP and trans people that don’t GAF.