1261
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
1261 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5846 readers
2213 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Did the person bringing up "Aristotelean or Socratic logic" say someone sounded like a 4chan user???
🤣 holy shit thanks for the laugh.
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
You must not be able to enjoy anything from older than 20 years ago.
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
Why not sail the high seas?
AARGH MATEY!!!!!🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Last time I checked it was a little more complicated than that. I think the Wizarding World is now owned by WB, whereas Harry Potter is where Rowling gets royalties. That's where the distinction between the two lives, which is why there are so many things being spun up lately.
I don't know how involved she still is but I know back in 2010ish when universal was opening the wizarding world in Orlando they had to run all the design desicisions through Rowling. The park ended up changing the color of the name tags for just the workers in that area of the park because she thought the white on them was to bright.
You mean the world where slaves like to be slaves and trying to release them is wrong, apartheid is right because the other sentient people look different, the bankers are antisemitic stereotypes and the main character becomes a literal cop enforcing all this?
It's really a magical world /s
If they're a reader of fanfiction that is typically one of the major changes to the story that's done. Fanfiction has effectively rewritten the entire series to be more palatable at this point. Bonus points that you can read it without giving Rowling any money too.
If the fanbase needs to rewrite the entire series to be "more palatable" that might indicate something about the series itself.
Might be time for people to just move on to a different series.
That's a tall order with how most people act. Disney vibes anyone? There were few things that could capture a whole generation's imagination so strongly, and people want to bond over it. My stance is taking what you like and making new things is how we get new series's, and fanfic has it's place in that.
None of that is correct.
Oh, and thanks for the '/s'. You know, otherwise I really would've thought you were giving it a compliment after a full paragraph of invective.
Have you seen the two hour video by Shaun on the books? I highly recommend it for a look back on the books and the issues that we couldn't have picked up on as kids but are pretty obvious on a reread.
They're not as great as we remember them to be (if I have to read the phrase "mannish hands" or another word about a 16 year old girls "square jawline" again I think I might vomit) and if the best parts of the world are the bits created in spite of the author, why continue to associate it with her work. Obviously, it's easier said than done when you're talking about an entire community, but there's plenty of other worlds created by nicer authors.
The best thing to come out of the series was the cast from the movies being as cool as they are today, but any time I think of the world, all I can think of is the token diversity characters named things like Shacklebolt and Cho Chang (almost, but not quite Ching Chong), the young Irish boy obsessed with whiskey and explosives, and the defense of slavery that's identical to arguments from actual slave owners in the US.
Plus, there's the whole thing with the hook-nosed bankers that totally aren't Jewish stereotypes. You know who created a fantasy race based on Jews that doesn't feel like an offensive stereotype? Tolkien. Tolkien's dwarves are based on Jewish stereotypes, but don't come off that way at all because of how they're presented in the world.
While I agree with you in most things (especially the jewish stereotype, yikes) I must call you on the defense of slavery. I always got the impression we weren't supposed to agree with the magic world view of house elves. I think the only point of Hermione going over the top was showing how something so hideous had become so normalized and accepted by good people in the magic world. Hermione being an outsider sees how fucked up it is and calls it.
Things are not black white. As fucked up as JK Rowling is, it doesn't mean everything she says is bad. She tried to make some good points...others sucked ass. It is what it is.
One of the only freed house elves we hear about literally drinks herself to death because she can't 'handle' freedom, which was a defense of slavery back in the day.
Also, even more eerily, Joanne has tried to retcon Hermione as black. When you then read her as the only character to try and free the house elves, something everyone makes fun of her for, it becomes EXTREMELY unsettling. Even if she weren't black, it's upsetting, and not because we're meant to see how problematic the Wizarding World is. May I remind you, Harry also thinks she's being crazy for trying to free them, and he's just as much of an outsider as she is. When all characters from all walks of life in a work believe the same thing like this, it feels very much like it's the author who believes it and is putting it into the work.
To me, the Hermione thing had always felt like JK was trying to make her out to be a "blue hair/pronouns" feminist who shouldn't be taken seriously and in the process she accidentally walked face first into making the same argument that actual slave owners made to justify themselves. I don't think she intentionally meant to justify slavery, but she ended up there trying to criticize Hermione.
This is why I recommend Shaun's video to people, as it tries to take an impartial look at the books. He points out how it feels like JK's point of view shifts as the books go on, and she goes from criticizing the system to defending it as the money started rolling in and she began to benefit from that same system. But there are some constants with her open bigotry now even as far back as the first book, some of which I've already mentioned, like the stereotypical characters (which could easily come from growing up in a sheltered environment, but she claims to deeply research a culture before creating a character) and applying masculine traits as a negative to female characters. Whether or not she supports slavery we can only guess at as she's never made a statement on the subject, and I can't imagine that she does, but her bigotry can be seen to not be a recent development, just a more deeply entrenched or worsening belief.
hateful removed
At my last job, the only who was in his 50s or older and was nice to the trans employee had HP tattoos. He saw JK being a terf (we taught him the word) as her (referring to Rowling) own problem to solve.