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
2421 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
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 :)