You must log in or register to comment.
Same thing but with homophobic chicken sandwich.
I’ve never understood the love for their food. It’s not that good. I wouldn’t eat there even if they weren’t owned shitty people.
In 1997 fast food chicken sandwiches were garbage, and Chik Fil A was amazing in comparison. By the late 2000s there was plenty of good fast food chicken and CFA was already mid. Today we live in the chicken sandwich golden era and CFA is hot trash.
Yeah it’s… fine. Nothing to go crazy over. I don’t get it lol
I’m not going to condemn anyone who likes Harry Potter. I just want it to be part of the equation. For me, the new show would be something I might check out. But with her directly profiting, I’m just not wasting my time on it.
There is a solution. 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
according to this comic, does it make it okay if you pirate everything so that there’s no financial transaction involved?
edit i guess i should state: i dont fuck with harry potter stuff. it was just something i thought of. i’m more of a wizards in space kinda guy (sci fi lol)
It’s kind of muddy and depends on your personal beliefs on how much you think interacting with a terrible person through uncritical devouring of their works is likely to taint your own worldview. Various factors include how many people were involved, did they have the views at the time, are you capable of reading the text in a manner where you seperate yourself a bit from it, etc.
I don’t think it’s worth the risk personally, but I tend to view art as a communication from one person to another, rather than a commodity or a consumable. I don’t particularly go out of my way to communicate with terfs who are immune to critical thinking. Also if we get down to brass tacks, it’s not that good of a series.
At that point you’re someone standing next to the dude in the “I ❤️ HP” shirt. Supporting a fandom that is owned by bigots is still not great. At the end of the day you’re perpetuating it’s existence.
It’s not nearly as bad, but it’s not good.
Dune gang rise up!
man, somewhere around here i have hardback copies of the prequel trilogy his son wrote from frank herbert’s notes. i don’t remember if they’re any good but that was my introduction to dune back in high school.
If you absolutely must read those collections of poor writing and thinly veiled racism, you can get them from a used bookstore as well. The point is to not give fuckface money
The only risk you have is that someone will see you playing a Harry potter game, or reading a book, and they will then go and buy it. If you pirate it just keep it relatively private if you really want to make sure jk Rowling doesnt benefit in any way.
I’m recently back on dating apps. There’s just so much of this.
is this about the NEW movie?, everyone said the new “lookalikes” of the og cast look like AI generated, and JKR have been criticized for trying to white wash the og cast because they dont like jkr for her transphobia…
They didn’t whitewash Snape. They made him black. Not Sirius Black, though.
this is all warner bros. they have an ip that isnt making money. thats all this series is.
I just scrubbed through the trailer and it truly looks AI generated. Like they just remade the movie with different actors instead of re-imagining it to make something unique.
I was looking for books to read for one of my students to read. (He loved the classroom edition for The Martian.) The book store had all of Harry Potter on the bottom shelf.
I don’t know if its just not selling well, or the store owners are trying to promote not buying it. I hope its the latter.
I hope it’s the former. That author is reinvesting that money in lawyers, political campaigning and funneling investment into groups that actively are pursuing Supreme Court cases to errode trans rights. Kinda more important than a bookshop owner being a total bro is that she’s not getting more money to do that.
Even if it weren’t for JK Rowling I just don’t care about this remake. It’s unnecessary why are they doing it it’s just weird.
No one seems to have a compulsion to remake other early 2000 movies into TV shows I don’t know why they’ve got to start with Harry potter of all things. I would sort of get it if they just want to do tell more stories in the same universe but they’re just going to rehash what’s already being done. Why?
Yeah I was tired of it before I became aware of her bigotry and it was an open secret in the trans community for a few years before she became open about it
100% Agree. More rehashing of old content instead of something similar and original? Who is asking for this?
The explanation is that the movies famously cut out a LOT from the books, and fans were kinda sad about it, and the show aims to restore a whole bunch of that. In a vacuum, this would be a nice thing actually, like a Lord of the Rings show that restores the full content of all of Tolkien’s books properly, the people want the Bombadil cut (oh look, what’s Stephen Colbert doing over there?). Fans wanted it, and a lot of people will be very happy about it as long as it doesn’t bomb. It’s just a shame that Rowling will also be very happy about it, couldn’t even wait for her to die so that they don’t have to pay her.
You pretty much summed it up. This new TV series is aimed more towards the people who loved the books but we’re disappointed by the movies. The first 3 seasons though are probably going to be pretty similar to the movies because the first 3 books were pretty short And the movies did a decent job of following them. However, the 4th movie was where they really veered away from the books in a lot of ways. Its basically the equivalent of someone remaking The Hobbit, since there’s a lot of Lord of The Rings fans that hated The Hobbit movies because they added a bunch of random shit to them that weren’t in the book.
I love HP. Hewlett-Packard? Oh fuck, that’s worse.
I love hitpoints. A nice way to handle health in games.
I remember a guy in college for whom English wasn’t his first language calling them hitting points. Makes sense!
I’m going to start using that. It’s streets ahead.
There is always piracy though.
Better to not engage with her output at all though. Plenty of other good shows and books in the world to enjoy, without providing further engagement and interest for her hate.
Nah, I’ll probably just pirate it
But no seeding!
I’d argue that’s still indirectly helping to a smaller extent by keeping the fandom alive. Although, one could pirate the game and donate the money that would go towards buying it to a trans related charity or something (Trevor Project?)
I recon this is a fringe opinion but i would much prefer embrace and transform the fandom into something explicitly inclusive and progressive, many aspects of the wizarding world have so much whimsical potential to explore human expression and identity. This is also why so many (ex) potterheads are queer.
I reject Rowling as the creator, most of it builds on pre existing ideas (The worst witch, existing folklore). All she really did was stumble on a good mix and then copyrighted it.
The fandom took that mix and have expanded it much further then Rowlings tiny brain can handle and it brought them together, i hate to lose what we had because of some corporate leech that sucks money out of it.
Now about this series, obviously she is going to profit from any profit its gets, so giving them profit is unethical, likewise hyping up the show without a critical perspective is also bad because others may then buy it or merch.
But it’s still that same mix of potential. The people who make the show may not all agree with Rowlings and reflect their own visions into it. Just like the original cast distance itself from her and also managed to project more than Rowling could even comprehend that world could contain. It’s at least worth a pirated watch to celebrate what it could be, while holding a critical perspective of the flaws it will certainly have.
Hatsune Miku wrote Harry Potter
I reject Rowling as the creator, most of it builds on pre existing ideas (The worst witch, existing folklore).
So embrace a fandom that is not created by Rowling. If the fandom loves the setting but hates Rowling then start embracing the non-trademarked “Wizard School” genre. The ‘similar to but legally distinct from’ school of “Pigwarts” that had the famous student “Garry Cotter”.
The only thing coming out for Harry Potter that is any good is redoing what has already been done. You already have the books and movies I’m sure, no reason to acquire a remake. Anything knew is going to involve bigoted wizards shitting their pants, Garry Cotter fan fiction is going to be much more interesting.
Id much prefer this series was focused on a non trademarked version and was telling new stories with new rather than recycle Rowlings tale.
But they didn’t make that series, they made the one thats coming. As much as i hate i do recognise they had resources to do new things that i would like to know about.
Besides the worst witch and that one Netflix anime i have not seen much tv that explores this setting.
Its the same with the hogwarts legacy game, sure some indie titles explore similar worlds but there is only one that explores such a big world as a beautiful 3d rpg.
You’re delusional for your own benefit to convince yourself it’s ok to continue doing what you’re doing… It’s so common though as to be comical.
Winky got fired from her job as a slave and became an alcoholic. That’s what slave owners said would happen to black people when abolition came. The books are evil.
I loathe the part in the fourth book where Hermione tries to advocate for freeing the elves working in Hogwarts kitchen and everyone else just doesn’t give a shit. Even Harry who didn’t grow up believing that the elves wanted to be slaves just couldn’t have cared less. Hermione just eventually gave up. The best thing about the movie is that, that part didn’t make it in.
Those books are really mean to Hermione and the other women for no reason. We all thought Hermione was the self insert, but it’s Harry.
Didn’t JK say that the closest thing to a self-insert in the books is that reporter? You know, the one that takes pictures of teenagers in the bathroom while disguised as a fly on the wall?
Why does that sound so familiar? 🤔
harry experiences a lot of how the government is bad especially in books 5 and 7 but still becomes a cop
The house elves are the single most fucked up parts of the books for a number of reasons. And Winky is a particularly unfortunate example.
But devil’s advocate, Winky didn’t become an alcoholic because she as no longer a slave, per se, and definitely not because she was lazy or whatever stereotype slavers would suggest of black people. She became an alcoholic because she was extremely depressed. A) She grew up indoctrinated into this service role and felt like she had failed her mother’s memory by being removed from serving the family like she had. B) She was separated from her surrogate child that she’d single-handedly cared for for over a decade (who turned out to be a murderer and a wizard nazi, but she didn’t know that) and couldn’t even tell anyone about it. Not saying the situation isn’t fucked and more than a little gross. But I don’t see the alcohol use a problematic aspect with any deeper racial meaning here. It isn’t a character failing to fall into depression in this situation, given the character’s background.
Also, for what it is worth, after the initial shock of finding out what Barty Couch Jr had done and that he’d been kissed by the dementors, she did eventually accept things and come out of her depression. And she was among the elve’s that fought in the Battle Of Hogwarts, making her a hero as well. It’s a mixed bag, man.
I’m not sure it’s the most fucked up. There’s also the time Harry, Ron, and Hermione were staying at Grimmauld Place over Christmas, and when they decorated the those, they put little Santa hats and beards on the severed slave heads by the door.
I can see the reasoning, although those expansions would be better off connected to a different work.
The age-old question…Can you separate the art from the artist?
“Can one separate art from artist?”
We need to stop having that conversation because That stopped being the question!
That WAS the question in the beginning when we as a society were really trying out a new form of advocacy where millions of people could have a parasocial relationship with an author in real time and learned that their “friend” was being a jerk but that is far from the question now.
JKR used her fantastic wealth to fund the lawyers that made the landmark decision to change the legal definitions of woman and render UK Gender recognition certificates moot. This decision has legitimately caused a surge in workplaces siding with transphobic employees, attacks on trans and cis people in bath and changing rooms, disqualified trans women (a population who is known to have high rates of domestic abuse, rape and human trafficking), from shelters and medical/mental services they desperately need.
And she lit a cigar and patted herself on the back for a good use of 700,000 pounds stirling.
There are other groups and causes she funds and supports through attention capture through her activism and bank account. This isn’t separating art from artist - it is cutting off revenue streams to a hateful popular activist campaigning to make vulnerable people die because she finds them intellectually inconvenient.
I always get nervous when someone else tells me I am asking the wrong question. That is usually closely followed by “You don’t understand”.
In this case, the situation just changed.
Yeah but only after they’re dead when they’re not getting royalties anymore.
after they’re dead when they’re not getting royalties
Or actively trying to do harm.
This is not that question though.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don’t even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
https://vger.to/sopuli.xyz/comment/22643123 evidence for my claim.
To be fair, Harry Potter is bad because its poorly written. The author is also an idiot who didn’t plan her books out and started crowd-sourcing ideas halfway through.
Based and nuance-pilled
It’s Rowling, btw
I don’t respect her enough to care.
Yes, but you can’t separate your money you spend on their products from them. That’s why pirating is the morally correct thing to do in that situation.
I can, but why would I? There’s already more art than I can consume in a lifetime, made by people who weren’t evil
As someone who lives under the rock. I heard her opinion on trans but made me wonder what was with the trans character in Hogwarts Legacy? Did the company placed the character to troll her or something?
The lead designer was a neo Nazi youtuber. The trans character was probably studio mandated diversity for PR reasons, or a rebel faction of actual progressives on the dev team.
Except that for all of her anti-trans stuff, she never advocated for killing trans people or anything of the sort. Or did I miss something?
EDIT: Holy shit, so many downvotes for an honest and open question? I fully realize that what she advocates for is harmful (which was what I alluded to in my original question), but there’s still quite a difference between that and advocating for the murder of every trans person, jfc.
shes harming through rhetoric and influence, and also funding anti-trans bills, and that leads to death or injury.
If you take healthcare away from trans people, suicide numbers go up. And she wants to take healthcare away from trans people and shove us back in the closet. She’s chosen to attack kids, the most vulnerable of us. I believe she’s already taken lives through her lobbying.
I might be wrong as I haven’t looked too much into it in recent years, so maybe her rhetoric has changed, but isn’t even that a little beyond what she actually has said? From what I recall, isn’t her entire stance just that trans women are not the same as biological women?
Again, I could be wrong, I might be going off of outdated info, but has she ever actually argued that trans people shouldnt exist, or that they should be denied medical care? From what I’ve seen, it’s all boiled down to not wanting trans women in sports or bathrooms. Which, yea, that’s problematic, but that’s not the same as saying they shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t have healthcare.
Here’s a fun one: She accused cisgender women’s Olympic gold medalist in boxing, Imane Khelif, of “being a man”. Seemingly just because she’s black.
Anyway, back on topic: https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-k-rowling-uses-harry-175223238.html?guccounter=1
Ok, but that article doesn’t actually say anything different? She’s donating to organizations that are pushing against legislation that say trans women are the same as biological women. They aren’t saying trans people shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t have healthcare. Or am I missing something? Again, still shitty, and it doesn’t change my opinion of her either way, but am I crazy to think that’s not exactly the same as trans erasure?
Oh, I see the misunderstanding. Affirming a trans person’s preferred gender is healthcare. It’s a thing society does which improves their health. You know, like wheelchair ramps and flouride in water. Taking away legal recognition is taking away healthcare.
She’s also praised and encouraged the Cass Review, which claimed medical treatment for trans teens isn’t safe or effective, and is being used to excuse the new ban on puberty blockers.
Lemmy unreasonably hates her because she’s a successful woman that won’t nicely shut up and know her place. Misogyny runs deep here. Nobody will provide you with justification for the hyperbole in the OP because it doesn’t exist.
People are quite clear in their criticism of her based on the things she says she does. You’re trying to shift the conversation to something unrelated.
If criticisms of Rowling’s Transphobia are invalid they should be easy to dispute instead of trying to build an ad hominim Strawman.
They’re not clear at all. They’re histrionics. People don’t bother reading what she wrote. They read someone’s shit take worst possible interpretation of what she wrote
Image Khelif is biologically male and has said so directly:
People really want to hate on J.K. Rowling for that, but she was 100% correct.
Not what that article says at all.
Yes, it is
Okay, you’ve convinced me that the article says something that it doesn’t say at all. Good job.
I haven’t looked too much into it in recent years
“I haven’t kept up to date on this topic that you seem to have a lot of interest in, but let me tell you why you’re wrong based on my vaguely remembered outdated information”
Did something change recently, or are you just being contrarian? I did a quick search before posting to see if there was something I missed, but I didn’t do a deep dive because I have better things to spend my time on. So yes, I based my response on things that I knew while being open to the possibility that I was wrong. What exactly do you want dude?
because I have better things to spend my time on.
Like arguing with people about it on social media? Any time you’re spending here is time you could have been spending looking into it, so you are literally saying it is a more valuable use of your time to argue with people about a subject you don’t know much about than to look it up yourself.
What exactly do you want dude?
To point out the sheer arrogance of saying “I’m not up to date on this but you’re wrong.” A better response would have been “I’m not up to date on this, what has been said recently?”
Fine. I’m not up to date on this, what has been said recently?
the suicide numbers go up?
So, a common metric people bring up in discussions of trans people that make their way into politics is ‘trans suicide rates’. Right-wingers tend to mention it in reference to “We shouldn’t let anyone be trans, because trans people commit suicide often,” and left-wingers tend to argue “Trans suicide is so high because they get degraded by society, and aren’t allowed to express themselves.”
Edit: As for why it gets mentioned, transgenders overall commit suicide far more often than the average population.
so different people have different “explanations” for the suicide rates. has there been any unbiased evidence to explain it?
Yeah, sure. Here’s some research by the government that assessed the impact of gender affirming care and legal recognition on suicidal thoughts. More healthcare meant fewer suicidal thoughts. https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/lgbtqia-sb-people/gender-affirmation
thanks, i’m reading this link and looking for data about suicide rates. this report is talking about a collection of self-reported data about suicidal thoughts, which many people can have and fortunately not go through with it.
I also see a statistically significant correlation, and i’m still looking for a reliable causation and data on suicide rates. how do we know if the lack of gender affirming care directly leads to increased suicides in a systemic pattern? perhaps the same people who cannot access it also are likely to have other things in life that could cause terrible suicidal thoughts or actions. i’m wondering how we can rule this out.
You want causation? How about a study that looked at the suicide attempts per year before and after anti-trans state laws were passed? https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01979-5
Hyperbole
Yes. That appears the be what the comic is going for.
I don’t like Harry Potter but I’m not much of an ally either.
