I guess all the twitter drama around the author matters less to the real world. It's impressive to see how a vocal minority can completely distort what is happening offline.
Hogwarts came out a quarter of a year earlier and released on every platform compared to Zelda only being on one.
I wouldn't take that as a indictment that J.K.'s terf bullshit didn't have an impact on sales.
Yeah, and the fact that people basically can't talk about this game without mentioning it got boycotted because one of the people who makes money from it is a massive piece of transphobic shit is a small step forward all on its own
In that sense, it worked. Let's face it: The people who don't care about the author's raging bigotry were never going to be convinced regardless, but there were a lot of us who didn't even consider playing it because of the TERF.
Anecdotally, everyone I’ve talked to about it doesn’t care. They don’t like she’s a TERF and some even condemn her for it, but every single person I’ve talked to separates the world of Harry Potter from her. It basically has a life of its own and they couldn’t care less about JKR now, that’s what I’ve been able to surmise of people’s view of it now. It’s like having racist parents but not being labeled as one because you’re a separate entity.
I'm a big gamer, and was a massive HP fan. I did not buy the game, or even consider it, specifically because of JKR's bullshit.
I may be in the minority, but I guarantee I'm not the only one in this boat. So now you've talked to someone who cares, if you count this as talking.
And just to say a little more, no I didn't crusade against the game, nor do I villainize people who bought it and enjoyed it. I do think it's possible to enjoy art without liking the artist. Hell, my favorite book series of all time is the Ender's Game series, and Orson Scott Card is probably just as bad as JKR, though maybe not quite as famous/public about it.
But I can't bring myself to buy it. I'm trans, and her rhetoric, and how public it is, has been specifically harmful to me, directly. But that's just me. I won't tell other people how to live their lives or enjoy their free time, so long as they're not actively hurting others. And no, I don't consider buying a game where one person who is profiting from it might spend a sliver of that profit on anti-trans BS to be actively harming others, especially when she already has enough money to do whatever the hell she wants anyways.
This doesn't make a dent, and ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible anyways. I just hope that some portion of people who bought the game heard about the protests and maybe donated a fraction of what they paid for the game to some pro-LGBTQ groups. I have to believe there's at least a handful of people like that. I do believe that people are mostly good, and want to do good.
Yeesh, I wrote a lot more than I planned to here. I'll stop now lol.
Death of the author only applies if she's dead.
So unless there's been some good news in the last day, those people are just coping
So very true.
HP Lovecraft was horribly racist, but his works are in the Public Domain. Neither him, his estate or any causes he supported get any money by engaging with his works. His opinions are still part of his works, but that can be criticized and modified in adaptations and derivative works.
The same can't be said of living creators who still own and profit from those works. Even if some team deliberately tries to gloss over or alter concerning aspects, the money the author gets might still be directed towards concerning movements.
In all fairness there are concerning aspects in many industries and a lot that we consume, and each person has a lot of other issues to worry about, so while disappointing, it's inevitable that people won't care about everything. But I definitely don't feel confortable giving money to someone who's spreading hate about people I care for. I used to be a big HP fan but this situation completely spoiled any interest I had in that world... and also helped me realize it was never that good anyway.
(Thought experiment time) So at what point, if ever, does a universe separate from its creator? Think about Star Wars. There have been a large number of derivative works by multiple authors. However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise? At what point are the two separated, if ever?
However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise?
Yes. I would immediately lose ibr
interest in Star Wars and go do something else. There's plenty of entertainment out there that's not made by shitty bigots.
Fr, why are we acting like this is hard? Or acting like any of these aggressively mid media franchises are so sacred as to be unassailable?
Even if JKR was a literal saint Harry Potter would still be Baby's First Fantasy Series, at best, so the idea that so many people are willing to continually enrich one of the world's most influential TERFs for it honestly blows my fucking mind.
Like just pick and follow literally any other fantasy series folks, jesus.
Star Wars is an awkward example because it's already pretty well tainted itself with mediocre films.
But yes, unironically I would actively stop looking for the shreds of good among the carnage that is the once-beloved franchise if I knew its creator, whose name is still tied to it and who financially benefits at least from the propagation of successful entries under that IP, would be just a little bit more able to get their awful views out there thanks to that success.
When it stops making them rich as fuck
This happens a lot more than you think. It isn't just coping.
How many movies were produced by Weinstein? How many comics were published by bigots that still re-sell in droves today?
How many celebrated tv shows were made by pieces of garbage?
Wrestlemania season is here. THAT company is completely vile from the ground up.
Sometimes, people just pick and choose their fiction and legitimately separate the artist from the art. The Harry Potter franchise has outgrown it's original author, just like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, WWE or almost any franchise.
If you think the world truly is so black and white, you haven't gone out and experienced enough of it.
Thats not death of the author, thats you covering your eyes while handing them money.
Death of the author does not exist while the author makes money off the product.
If you pirated the hogwarts game? Then you have room to speak on death of the author. But jkr has a hefty royalties deal on hp products. If you paid for it, the author is living well.
Im sorry you apparently cant face that truth, but that doesnt change it.
Bruh, if you are going to try and pretend your consumption under capitalism is better than the other, that's cool.
I'm sure you are the most morally sound person you've ever met 🤣
The phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" does not mean "therefore, death of the author always exists for all art the second it is made."
For starters, you will not die if you dont experience all art made. Its not food. Its not shelter. You will be okay if you dont watch some movies, dont read some books, and dont play some games. I promise.
But, more specifically, death of the author means to separate an author and their life from the work they create. If your purchase directly funds the author? You didnt separate the author from the work.
Death of the author is when you accept and understand that reading a story written by a shitheel from the 18th century is not supporting their shitheel opinions. That you can study the work and its influence on culture without that study or consumption being explicit or implicit support of the creators thoughts and opinions.
But when you pay an author for their work, you have supported the author. Period, thats what the word means.
Now you can fibble or quibble about morality of putting money into someones pocket all you like, but if the author is literally benefiting from your purchase, they are not dead. There has been no death of author.
You also don't need an iphone or mac since there are plenty of other smartphones and PCs available, but nobody stopped buying them because foxxcon used slave labor.
Everyone draws the line where they want, this controversy only exists because people were trying to guilty trip streamers and anyone online from playing it, do not try to rewrite what happened.
You mean you didnt stop buying apple products? Lots of people, myself included, avoid slave labor brands.
(And also most jobs and housing do require a phone, and its better to buy a used phone second hand than a brand new phone every time. Utility devices are far more nuanced and intricate about "ethical" choices than a video game.)
E: also, this thread specifically is about death of the author, which I dont think anyone would apply to iphones at any point regradless
Lol I said the same thing a bit ago and was down voted for it.
I mean, I didn't consider playing it because I've never been a fan of Harry Potter, but Rowling's ramblings definitely didn't do anything to change my mind.
I was a moderately engaged HP fan before I learned what a colossally awful human the author is, but her TERF ramblings also made me realize there's quite a lot of racial and ethnic stereotypes baked into the franchise. It's probably the fastest I've ever totally abandoned an interest in a series. Even if we do separate the works from the author like so many fanbois suggest, they're still awful.
The whole situation with house elves, goblins and other intelligent magical creatures treated as inferior doesn't make the story feel to good. It might even be understandable if the heroes realized the deeper problems that couldn't be solved simply by fighting, but the protagonist ultimately just inherits a slave and becomes an enforcer for the status quo.
In retrospect it makes a lot of words about good and love and doing what's right feel like going through the motions rather than any real values.
Doesn't seem to have had a big impact I'd say
You csn say all you like, we literally have zero idea how many lost sales they had.
We know it didn't prevent it from becoming the year's most sold game, so whatever the impact it's pretty easy to shrug off
Buddy, its the worlds 5 largest IP, id be shocked if it didnt sell millions of copies regardless.
For all we know it could have lost out on 20 million sales, but its an untrackable metric.
Did any of the other HP games ever top the charts?
If not, then there must be something special about this one other than IP. Especially since most of the other HP games came out before there was any JKR controversy.
Other than mobile games or Lego versions, there hasnt been a proper Harry Potter game since 13 years ago and from memory they were extremely average movie tie in games.
Its not a series like Pokemon or Zelda that sees frequent releases. It being the first real game, and done beautifully (graphics/ recreation wise) is certainly the biggest selling point.
I mean I'm sure it's a lot more cheerful for the to imagine the number as really high, but the fact of the matter is that in the end it still sold really well, becoming the top seller of that year.
A bit of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ situation
Its nothing to do with cheerful, its to do with not knowing how effective a boycott was.
No one in their right mind would expect it to sell zero copies.
Tell me, how do you tell if a boycott was successful?
I'd expect it to meaningfully affect the sales and the maker/seller/whoever behind it. Being the most sold game of the year and presumably making a fat profit, I don't think it really did either.
So again, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, the fact that it took all year on all 4 major platforms to outsell one game from a much smaller but recognized IP thats restricted to one platform doesnt sound like a meaningful effect on its sales to you?
Because thats a very weird thing. It should not have taken so long to reach this point, given the size of hp as a franchise.
That's the cheerful way to look at it. It sure could've, hypothetically, sold two gazillions instead of one. Take that, game, the boycott must've worked! Yeah...
What exactly do you think detriment to sales means dude
I guess a single person boycotting it would be a detriment but when you're selling a boatload and making a hefty profit you aren't all that bothered by that one lost sale.
Why, because they point out that the entire thing was a lound minority running in their own echochamber?
Sure call me a bigot. The point I was making is this is an echo chamber issue for people who want to eat others because they are not pure enough. And on that you come out swing with the same incessive echo put stuff I was pointing to.
No matter how much you hurt the people you say you are fighting for. Go ahead, run your inquisition on people to see if they match your purity standards, don't be surprised if one day you end up in front of the inquisition yourself accused of being impure.
You spend time fighting with someone who might disagree with you in this fringe of society but still takes on the biggest fights out there.. and you would rather burn them than focus on better, easier, more impactful targets.
It happens every time. Pokémon Sword/Shield and Scarlett/Violet had the biggest launch in the franchise's history despite being (justifiably so) heavily criticized by pretty much everyone online.
People shit on microtransactions and always-online games but the top charts always show online multiplayer games are among the most played.
It doesn't make the criticisms any less valid; it just means that the general public is usually ignorant of them.
Or just don't care that much
JKR is a very vocal TERF that basically wants trans people to dissappear. A lot of people dont want to financially support her because of that. That most people seemingly either dont care about trans erasure or even worse, bought the game specifically because theyre the type to do shit just because people with a conscience told them they shouldn't, says more about most people than it does that "vocal minority"
Oh pipe down, I read the entire thing when it was recent and in no way does she want what you claim. She has an open letter on her own website outlining her views.
Over the course of the years since this happened it has grown, morphed and people are now probably also saying she would be the one herding the trans people into the gas Chambers.
This right here is why Lemmy is often a shitshow. You're absolutely right, but since you're going against the hive mind it's nothing but downvotes. No one's even bothered to reply because there's nothing to argue against in good faith. Just angry downvotes because your facts are getting in the way of fake outrage.
Nah. Both of you just haven't kept up with her history of equating trans women with sexual predators and trans men with poor brainwashed little girls, some of which was hinted, if disguised in polite words, in the article where she talked about the situation and defended how she totally didn't mean any harm to anybody.
Did you see when she said she'd march with trans people if they truly were persecuted? Their rights have been challenged and undermined many times since, and she didn't show any sign of that.
Because, you know, sometimes people aren't completely honest and taking them at their word is not the ultimate measure of their characters.
So don't confuse disagreeing with people here and getting downvoted with being the one clear-minded contrarian. However much internet bandwagons are a thing, you won't get the clear picture unless you go look into it. Sometimes you might get that reaction because you are wrong and that's it.
It's OK, people can read the content themselves. I have a lot of (maybe misplaced) confidence in most people.
And I personally don't see a lot of hivemind but plurality of opinion luckily. The angry downvotes without response is usually telling enough, although someone did reply to tell me to "fuck off" this time.
Seriously! If I say something stupid, others are supposed to show up and educate me on why what I said is stupid! That is how public discourse is supposed to works!
Wait, why aren't the people tired of my ignorant shit jumping to help me learn? Oh I know, that means I'm actually super smart, totally correct and fully informed. Everyone else is just being stupid and mean to me for no valid reason.
Honest feedback (for honest ppl): there are ways to ask people what they think so they'll be inclined to reply earnestly. Starting with "pipe down" ain't it... ya fuckin dingus. lol
I think that the masses are mostly disengaged with terminally-online type discourse. The only reason I knew JK Rowling was TERF was because of reading it on here, so if you are only on social media to follow your old high school classmates on facebook, you'd probably never find out
The masses are largely disengaged with LGBT rights in general, but the declining rights of transgender people in the UK (and the US) shows this is not just a "terminally-online" kind of issue. She is not the only one responsible, of course, but her outspoken antagonism towards transgender people is influencing people.
It concerns me when people can't differentiate "this issue does not affect me" from "this issue does not exist". Even calling matters "terminally-online" in general is a bit questionable when whole ass presidents get elected by meme campaigns these days.
The game has a minor character who is trans too. It uses the world she invented but does not borrow her real world views
Just because a minority is depicted in a work of art does not mean that depiction was made in good faith. Americans are familiar with that concept because of our dark history of minstrel shows and blackface performances.
When the trans woman character's name is Sirona Ryan, it calls into question whether she is meant to be a character or a caricature.
I guess all the twitter drama around the author matters less to the real world. It's impressive to see how a vocal minority can completely distort what is happening offline.
Hogwarts came out a quarter of a year earlier and released on every platform compared to Zelda only being on one.
I wouldn't take that as a indictment that J.K.'s terf bullshit didn't have an impact on sales.
Yeah, and the fact that people basically can't talk about this game without mentioning it got boycotted because one of the people who makes money from it is a massive piece of transphobic shit is a small step forward all on its own
In that sense, it worked. Let's face it: The people who don't care about the author's raging bigotry were never going to be convinced regardless, but there were a lot of us who didn't even consider playing it because of the TERF.
Anecdotally, everyone I’ve talked to about it doesn’t care. They don’t like she’s a TERF and some even condemn her for it, but every single person I’ve talked to separates the world of Harry Potter from her. It basically has a life of its own and they couldn’t care less about JKR now, that’s what I’ve been able to surmise of people’s view of it now. It’s like having racist parents but not being labeled as one because you’re a separate entity.
I'm a big gamer, and was a massive HP fan. I did not buy the game, or even consider it, specifically because of JKR's bullshit.
I may be in the minority, but I guarantee I'm not the only one in this boat. So now you've talked to someone who cares, if you count this as talking.
And just to say a little more, no I didn't crusade against the game, nor do I villainize people who bought it and enjoyed it. I do think it's possible to enjoy art without liking the artist. Hell, my favorite book series of all time is the Ender's Game series, and Orson Scott Card is probably just as bad as JKR, though maybe not quite as famous/public about it.
But I can't bring myself to buy it. I'm trans, and her rhetoric, and how public it is, has been specifically harmful to me, directly. But that's just me. I won't tell other people how to live their lives or enjoy their free time, so long as they're not actively hurting others. And no, I don't consider buying a game where one person who is profiting from it might spend a sliver of that profit on anti-trans BS to be actively harming others, especially when she already has enough money to do whatever the hell she wants anyways.
This doesn't make a dent, and ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible anyways. I just hope that some portion of people who bought the game heard about the protests and maybe donated a fraction of what they paid for the game to some pro-LGBTQ groups. I have to believe there's at least a handful of people like that. I do believe that people are mostly good, and want to do good.
Yeesh, I wrote a lot more than I planned to here. I'll stop now lol.
Death of the author only applies if she's dead.
So unless there's been some good news in the last day, those people are just coping
So very true.
HP Lovecraft was horribly racist, but his works are in the Public Domain. Neither him, his estate or any causes he supported get any money by engaging with his works. His opinions are still part of his works, but that can be criticized and modified in adaptations and derivative works.
The same can't be said of living creators who still own and profit from those works. Even if some team deliberately tries to gloss over or alter concerning aspects, the money the author gets might still be directed towards concerning movements.
In all fairness there are concerning aspects in many industries and a lot that we consume, and each person has a lot of other issues to worry about, so while disappointing, it's inevitable that people won't care about everything. But I definitely don't feel confortable giving money to someone who's spreading hate about people I care for. I used to be a big HP fan but this situation completely spoiled any interest I had in that world... and also helped me realize it was never that good anyway.
(Thought experiment time) So at what point, if ever, does a universe separate from its creator? Think about Star Wars. There have been a large number of derivative works by multiple authors. However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise? At what point are the two separated, if ever?
Yes. I would immediately lose ibr interest in Star Wars and go do something else. There's plenty of entertainment out there that's not made by shitty bigots.
Fr, why are we acting like this is hard? Or acting like any of these aggressively mid media franchises are so sacred as to be unassailable?
Even if JKR was a literal saint Harry Potter would still be Baby's First Fantasy Series, at best, so the idea that so many people are willing to continually enrich one of the world's most influential TERFs for it honestly blows my fucking mind.
Like just pick and follow literally any other fantasy series folks, jesus.
Star Wars is an awkward example because it's already pretty well tainted itself with mediocre films.
But yes, unironically I would actively stop looking for the shreds of good among the carnage that is the once-beloved franchise if I knew its creator, whose name is still tied to it and who financially benefits at least from the propagation of successful entries under that IP, would be just a little bit more able to get their awful views out there thanks to that success.
When it stops making them rich as fuck
This happens a lot more than you think. It isn't just coping.
How many movies were produced by Weinstein? How many comics were published by bigots that still re-sell in droves today?
How many celebrated tv shows were made by pieces of garbage?
Wrestlemania season is here. THAT company is completely vile from the ground up.
Sometimes, people just pick and choose their fiction and legitimately separate the artist from the art. The Harry Potter franchise has outgrown it's original author, just like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, WWE or almost any franchise.
If you think the world truly is so black and white, you haven't gone out and experienced enough of it.
Thats not death of the author, thats you covering your eyes while handing them money.
Death of the author does not exist while the author makes money off the product.
If you pirated the hogwarts game? Then you have room to speak on death of the author. But jkr has a hefty royalties deal on hp products. If you paid for it, the author is living well.
Im sorry you apparently cant face that truth, but that doesnt change it.
Bruh, if you are going to try and pretend your consumption under capitalism is better than the other, that's cool.
I'm sure you are the most morally sound person you've ever met 🤣
The phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" does not mean "therefore, death of the author always exists for all art the second it is made."
For starters, you will not die if you dont experience all art made. Its not food. Its not shelter. You will be okay if you dont watch some movies, dont read some books, and dont play some games. I promise.
But, more specifically, death of the author means to separate an author and their life from the work they create. If your purchase directly funds the author? You didnt separate the author from the work.
Death of the author is when you accept and understand that reading a story written by a shitheel from the 18th century is not supporting their shitheel opinions. That you can study the work and its influence on culture without that study or consumption being explicit or implicit support of the creators thoughts and opinions.
But when you pay an author for their work, you have supported the author. Period, thats what the word means.
Now you can fibble or quibble about morality of putting money into someones pocket all you like, but if the author is literally benefiting from your purchase, they are not dead. There has been no death of author.
You also don't need an iphone or mac since there are plenty of other smartphones and PCs available, but nobody stopped buying them because foxxcon used slave labor.
Everyone draws the line where they want, this controversy only exists because people were trying to guilty trip streamers and anyone online from playing it, do not try to rewrite what happened.
You mean you didnt stop buying apple products? Lots of people, myself included, avoid slave labor brands.
(And also most jobs and housing do require a phone, and its better to buy a used phone second hand than a brand new phone every time. Utility devices are far more nuanced and intricate about "ethical" choices than a video game.)
E: also, this thread specifically is about death of the author, which I dont think anyone would apply to iphones at any point regradless
Lol I said the same thing a bit ago and was down voted for it.
I mean, I didn't consider playing it because I've never been a fan of Harry Potter, but Rowling's ramblings definitely didn't do anything to change my mind.
I was a moderately engaged HP fan before I learned what a colossally awful human the author is, but her TERF ramblings also made me realize there's quite a lot of racial and ethnic stereotypes baked into the franchise. It's probably the fastest I've ever totally abandoned an interest in a series. Even if we do separate the works from the author like so many fanbois suggest, they're still awful.
The whole situation with house elves, goblins and other intelligent magical creatures treated as inferior doesn't make the story feel to good. It might even be understandable if the heroes realized the deeper problems that couldn't be solved simply by fighting, but the protagonist ultimately just inherits a slave and becomes an enforcer for the status quo.
In retrospect it makes a lot of words about good and love and doing what's right feel like going through the motions rather than any real values.
Doesn't seem to have had a big impact I'd say
You csn say all you like, we literally have zero idea how many lost sales they had.
We know it didn't prevent it from becoming the year's most sold game, so whatever the impact it's pretty easy to shrug off
Buddy, its the worlds 5 largest IP, id be shocked if it didnt sell millions of copies regardless.
For all we know it could have lost out on 20 million sales, but its an untrackable metric.
Did any of the other HP games ever top the charts?
If not, then there must be something special about this one other than IP. Especially since most of the other HP games came out before there was any JKR controversy.
Other than mobile games or Lego versions, there hasnt been a proper Harry Potter game since 13 years ago and from memory they were extremely average movie tie in games.
Its not a series like Pokemon or Zelda that sees frequent releases. It being the first real game, and done beautifully (graphics/ recreation wise) is certainly the biggest selling point.
I mean I'm sure it's a lot more cheerful for the to imagine the number as really high, but the fact of the matter is that in the end it still sold really well, becoming the top seller of that year.
A bit of a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ situation
Its nothing to do with cheerful, its to do with not knowing how effective a boycott was.
No one in their right mind would expect it to sell zero copies.
Tell me, how do you tell if a boycott was successful?
I'd expect it to meaningfully affect the sales and the maker/seller/whoever behind it. Being the most sold game of the year and presumably making a fat profit, I don't think it really did either.
So again, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, the fact that it took all year on all 4 major platforms to outsell one game from a much smaller but recognized IP thats restricted to one platform doesnt sound like a meaningful effect on its sales to you?
Because thats a very weird thing. It should not have taken so long to reach this point, given the size of hp as a franchise.
That's the cheerful way to look at it. It sure could've, hypothetically, sold two gazillions instead of one. Take that, game, the boycott must've worked! Yeah...
What exactly do you think detriment to sales means dude
I guess a single person boycotting it would be a detriment but when you're selling a boatload and making a hefty profit you aren't all that bothered by that one lost sale.
Echo.. Echo.. echo..
Bigot...Bigot...bigot...
Why, because they point out that the entire thing was a lound minority running in their own echochamber?
Sure call me a bigot. The point I was making is this is an echo chamber issue for people who want to eat others because they are not pure enough. And on that you come out swing with the same incessive echo put stuff I was pointing to.
No matter how much you hurt the people you say you are fighting for. Go ahead, run your inquisition on people to see if they match your purity standards, don't be surprised if one day you end up in front of the inquisition yourself accused of being impure.
You spend time fighting with someone who might disagree with you in this fringe of society but still takes on the biggest fights out there.. and you would rather burn them than focus on better, easier, more impactful targets.
It happens every time. Pokémon Sword/Shield and Scarlett/Violet had the biggest launch in the franchise's history despite being (justifiably so) heavily criticized by pretty much everyone online.
People shit on microtransactions and always-online games but the top charts always show online multiplayer games are among the most played.
It doesn't make the criticisms any less valid; it just means that the general public is usually ignorant of them.
Or just don't care that much
JKR is a very vocal TERF that basically wants trans people to dissappear. A lot of people dont want to financially support her because of that. That most people seemingly either dont care about trans erasure or even worse, bought the game specifically because theyre the type to do shit just because people with a conscience told them they shouldn't, says more about most people than it does that "vocal minority"
Oh pipe down, I read the entire thing when it was recent and in no way does she want what you claim. She has an open letter on her own website outlining her views.
Over the course of the years since this happened it has grown, morphed and people are now probably also saying she would be the one herding the trans people into the gas Chambers.
This right here is why Lemmy is often a shitshow. You're absolutely right, but since you're going against the hive mind it's nothing but downvotes. No one's even bothered to reply because there's nothing to argue against in good faith. Just angry downvotes because your facts are getting in the way of fake outrage.
Nah. Both of you just haven't kept up with her history of equating trans women with sexual predators and trans men with poor brainwashed little girls, some of which was hinted, if disguised in polite words, in the article where she talked about the situation and defended how she totally didn't mean any harm to anybody.
Did you see when she said she'd march with trans people if they truly were persecuted? Their rights have been challenged and undermined many times since, and she didn't show any sign of that.
Because, you know, sometimes people aren't completely honest and taking them at their word is not the ultimate measure of their characters.
So don't confuse disagreeing with people here and getting downvoted with being the one clear-minded contrarian. However much internet bandwagons are a thing, you won't get the clear picture unless you go look into it. Sometimes you might get that reaction because you are wrong and that's it.
It's OK, people can read the content themselves. I have a lot of (maybe misplaced) confidence in most people.
And I personally don't see a lot of hivemind but plurality of opinion luckily. The angry downvotes without response is usually telling enough, although someone did reply to tell me to "fuck off" this time.
Seriously! If I say something stupid, others are supposed to show up and educate me on why what I said is stupid! That is how public discourse is supposed to works!
Wait, why aren't the people tired of my ignorant shit jumping to help me learn? Oh I know, that means I'm actually super smart, totally correct and fully informed. Everyone else is just being stupid and mean to me for no valid reason.
Honest feedback (for honest ppl): there are ways to ask people what they think so they'll be inclined to reply earnestly. Starting with "pipe down" ain't it... ya fuckin dingus. lol
I think that the masses are mostly disengaged with terminally-online type discourse. The only reason I knew JK Rowling was TERF was because of reading it on here, so if you are only on social media to follow your old high school classmates on facebook, you'd probably never find out
The masses are largely disengaged with LGBT rights in general, but the declining rights of transgender people in the UK (and the US) shows this is not just a "terminally-online" kind of issue. She is not the only one responsible, of course, but her outspoken antagonism towards transgender people is influencing people.
It concerns me when people can't differentiate "this issue does not affect me" from "this issue does not exist". Even calling matters "terminally-online" in general is a bit questionable when whole ass presidents get elected by meme campaigns these days.
The game has a minor character who is trans too. It uses the world she invented but does not borrow her real world views
Just because a minority is depicted in a work of art does not mean that depiction was made in good faith. Americans are familiar with that concept because of our dark history of minstrel shows and blackface performances.
When the trans woman character's name is Sirona Ryan, it calls into question whether she is meant to be a character or a caricature.