...but really must tell others of us with less personal investment about the nature of what and why. I knew she was controversial and probably a bad person due to headlines in the periphery, but I didn't know she is a genocidal monster type of a person. H.P. was a little late (in film) for my childhood, but it is still good to know why exactly she is to be avoided at the peripheral awareness cultural level.

It's in her HP books. The editor just tampered it down, but you can still see it now that we have a pattern. It's why I hate the people who say, "hate the artist, but love the art" bullshit. The art is bad as well and I'm proud I bailed on that series half way though.

Lovecraft is also a different case. It should be obvious now that he was a clinical xenophobe and was afraid of most things. He wasn't really looking to put other people down to compensate for his own shortcomings. If Lovecraft was still alive, I wouldn't argue with people boycotting him, but he's not the same as JK.

Yeah and Lovecraft came to see his racism was wrong before the end of his short life. Rowling so far has only clamped down harder on her detrimental bullshit.

Trans Wizard Harriet Porber by Chuck Tingle unironically slaps.

You would think that of all the non-heteosexual sexualities that asexual people would be the least likely for someone to be prejudice against. I understand that asexuality is a spectrum and any generalization about any large group of people lacks accuracy but, generally I've found aces just want to be left alone. Something I think we can all appreciate every now and again. They're just not interested in romantic and/or sexual relationships. The first decade of my life was like that, I think the first decade of most people's lives are like that. What's so hard to understand about people who just don't feel that attraction?

"These people aren't fucking exactly the right amount."

You should watch Shaun's video on the Harry Potter series. He goes into a deep dive of how the books are littered with her political views - even the first one - and how you can watch her become more conservative as they progress and she became more wealthy: the books start out criticizing the system, but by the end, the message becomes that the system should never be questioned.

Throughout the books are a pattern of borderline racist stereotypes (the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names - might as well be named Ching Chong - the 15-year-old Irish kid is obsessed with whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc), but you can also see where her transphobia came from. Everytime she wants you to hate a woman in the books, she describes them as having some kind of masculine features, from a strong jawline to "mannish hands."

As people become more wealthy or famous, they're given a bigger microphone to cast their garbage opinions with and it's never been easier to tell the world your shitty political beliefs than it is right now.

Scott Adams was always insane. Behind the Bastards covered him. Before twitter, we just inserted our own meaning into the short comics. When he had more time to write a story in the cartoon, there were signs. I remember the Bob Bastard episode and how he views people who give to charity.

Money/power doesn't corrupt, it liberates you from the consequences of your actions. It allows you to freely be fully true to yourself without fear of repercussions.

I think it just takes quite a few moral failings to even achieve that level of wealth in the first place in the vast majority of cases.

Here specifically, these people are authors and IP holders in a society that places a lot of value in ignorance and in very chauvinist and racist ideas. By hook or by crook, they've made something original. They have some merit, and you would expect them of all people to see those societal failings for what they are. To not comment on them, or to uphold them, or to mask them, (arguably all the same thing) is a decision they made in their work. I think we vastly overestimate how easy it is to do that across an entire body of independent work if it doesn't align with your beliefs.

It makes sense that a person who has the merits and will to do something like that, again, entirely without challenging such obvious failures (as most in their position would), would be chosen to win the broad favor of a society that desperately does not want to be challenged or its failings acknowledged (esp ruling class, the ones with something to lose and wealth to spare to push these things), and would gain a lot of its wealth. Especially in ye old early-internet world when people weren't discovered as easily. Then, when their platform is secure, the mask slips.

It's not a conspiracy or an aberration, it's survivorship bias. These people are a product of our society. We have to reckon with that.

edit: I realized I could expand on what I meant in a few places so I sprinkled a bit more in.

Enders Game (and the whole series) is a bit different, as unlike Harry Potter they are actually trying to teach a lesson in empathy and understanding instead of just being a fun magical romp.

To this day I have literally no idea how the Orson who wrote those books became the man he did. He lives his life by the antithesis of the ideals he preached.

People made Harry Potter their entire personality to the point of their school/house or whatever basically amounting to astrology to them. JK Rowling could shoot their child in front of them and they'd still take any chance to throw money at her they can get.

Because it became a multimedia franchise and fans still want to keep consuming it despite how much she sucks, so there's a lot of mental gymnastics.