I’d consider them young’ns still, as a millennial a couple decades ahead.
One of the things about this generation is the people who arbitrarily decide on generations couldn’t comprehend all the changes happening from like 1982-2002 so don’t see how segmented this generation is.
My partner, a millennial from the end of the 80s has no concept of the childhood I had in the 80s, her younger brother born in 95 can’t begin to comprehend the world I grew up in but we’re still lumped together as if y2k/the millennium was what unites us.
Similarly, if you're born at the tail end of Millenial/start of Gen Z, then you still grew up with a collage of 90s and 00s culture and inconography, offsetting the definitions the groups typically gain over time. Some Gen Z grew up into adolescence without really feeling the advent of the modern internet or social media. The end of that range never knew a world without it.
Generations are useful statistical groupings, but don't represent individual experiences or influences, leading to disparity or outliers that feel excluded from their "peers" so to speak. I'd say I probably share more experiences with Gen Z, but a lot of the cultural aspects of my childhood are closely linked to later Millenial ones. There's a gradient, not a cutoff.
There's a gradient, not a cutoff.
Exactly! I was born on the cusp between two generations and am constantly seeing incorrect assumptions about "my" generation. We're not all the same, and sometimes we mesh with the experiences of adjacent generations.
Im sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a "couple of decades" ahead of the youngest 28 yo millennial, you are GenX and no millennial whatsoever.
My word choice was poor, I mean with the youngest millennials being in their 20s and us “elder” millennials in our 40s the disparity is crazy.
It’s a nearly 2 decade age range in difference
Its not about the age range, but because Rowling wasn't a hate spewing TERF back then. At lest not publicly.
Quoting JK Rowling has serious undertones right now. Even more so if the recipient is nonbinary as OP mentioned in another comment. You wouldn't quote a Nazi to pick up a jewish person, would you?
Quoting JK Rowling has serious undertones right now.
Is it quoting Rowling or quoting one of HP characters?
HP characters are not sentient being who speak for themselves. They are still rowlings words.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
This is a terrible argument because if a man wanted to abuse women in the restroom, he wouldn't need to transition to do so. He'd just walk in. There isn't an armed guard at the door of the women's bathroom.
I'm NB and quoting Harry Potter just sounds like you hate me
Edit: also I get very few people messaging me first
Edit 2: I really don't understand the downvotes outside of maybe just enjoying Harry Potter. This is just a personal experience I've had.
Harry Potter stuff directly funds anti-trans organizations and that leads to the furthering decline of mental health among trans people which leads to them dying.
Sure, an opening message doesn't send any money to JK but it's a massive red flag that someone is willing to send money to JK.
People are allowed to enjoy things, but in turn, I'm also allowed to decide not to talk to someone for funding hate speech.
I guess it is bad in the sense that it's not great pick-up line to use in your case, but I do like the creativity. Would've been better used to someone with some Harry Potter stuff in their bio though
The downvotes are because you dared to be trans.
I'm sorry you have to deal with so many ignorant and apologist people.
Everyone who exuses the hate Rowling spreads because of the Harry Potter cult is partly responsible for the harm and danger this causes to trans and non binary people.
wowwww a trans person sharing their experience being heavily downvoted.
let's all say it together!!
Lemmy is transphobic as fuck!!
edit: the downvotes literally just prove my point ✨
I think the people downvoting took "quoting Harry Potter sounds like you hate me" as "quoting Harry Potter means you hate trans people" (stated as fact). The OP said this is how it feels to them, we shouldn't downvote people for sharing how they experienced something.
Also I think people are reading it as "the worst pickup line." rather than "the worst pickup line (for me as a NB person)"
Maybe just don't be a raging asshole about everything all the time.
in what way was I an asshole in this comment exchange? pointing out transphobic behavior? I can live with that
Victim complex. Maybe instead of making everything about you and your struggles, just take it for a funny post that has literally nothing to do with trans people.
this post literally has something to do with trans people because a trans person posted it and shared how they felt, as a trans person, when receiving this message.
but go ahead, discredit trans people by saying we have a "victim complex". it outs you immediately as a transphobe so it's useful for me
Wow. You seriously just said "everything I interact with is about me". That's some serious, like not even funny, clinical level narcissism. I'm not even joking anymore, you should get therapy for that. It's a really unhealthy outlook.
Did you read the OP's comment and explanation? That I was replying to? You actually seem lost. You're trying so hard to be condescending but boo... like did you read the comment?
Being non-binary is not the same as being trans... and perhaps they were being downvoted for a different reason.
I always find it odd when people assume why someone is being downvoted. You never know why someone votes the way they do.
I'm not the gender I was assigned at birth. What's your definition of trans then???
Gender identity doesn't get assigned at birth. There is no "gender" field on a birth certificate.
Sex gets identified at birth (at the latest, usually before, during pregnancy, unless specifically requested to keep it secret).
Two reasons this is important to point out:
Assignment implies that the act of assigning is what makes it so. It's not. If a doctor says that a male baby is female, it's not now female just because they said so. "Identify" is a much more accurate description of what the doctor is doing.
The whole premise of "transness" being a thing relies on the notion of sex and gender being two distinct, independently-variable traits. So be careful not to conflate them. It causes needless confusion, since conflating them literally undermines the whole thing--after all, if "sex" and "gender" are equivalent, then it's objectively impossible to be trans.
I very much agree with this point. My reaction there was mostly just a gut response to being excluded from trans spaces in the past for not being "trans enough" and I could've worded it better.
It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?
Another major example imo, is using the single word "gender", both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.
The best way to ensure a discussion isn't productive is to make sure that the 'discussers' are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol...
I never claimed to be an expert. I am admitting now that I am somewhat ignorant as to what the exact definitions are, but from what I understand from what my NB friend explained it is that if you transition from one gender to another that makes you trans. NB are neither gender so there was no transition between genders.
I guess one could make the argument that they transitioned from being gender-labeled to being non-gender, but IMO that's a stretch in an attempt to label NB people as trans.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with being trans. I was just trying to make a distinction as was explained to me by a NB person.
I guess what they're getting at is that if "non-binary" is considered a gender identity unto itself, then you could describe one being trans with the transition being "from man to non-binary", for example.
That person's understanding of trans identity is not common. Most nonbinary people consider themselves to be trans.
wowwww a trans person making unfair assumptions/criticisms of people for quoting an extremely popular piece of pop culture.
let's all say it together!!
Being trans does not grant a prejudice pass!!
Someone literally just shared their experience as a trans person, and it was downvoted. Maybe listen to what the commenter said, instead of just down voting it?
She didn't get blatantly bigoted until after the series.
Not blatantly, but there are signs of it even in the first book; and as the books go on, you can see almost in real time her political views shift from criticizing the system to defending it as she started becoming wealthy and benefiting from the system.
I highly recommend watching Shaun's 2 hour video on the subject, as it goes into great detail on the subject and makes for perfect podcast material.
Some highlights include:
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat!
Masculine features as a negative trait for women (sound familiar?) - want to make a teenage girl bad (and ugly) but don't want to make her fat? Just talk over and over about her "mannish hands" and sharp jawline.
Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong), the 12 year old Irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.
The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same arguments that slave owners used before the Civil War in the US mentioned by somebody else, with a bonus criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.
There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It's okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they're the "good guys."
And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn't kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn't change.
I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It's worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.
-Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.
-a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.
-Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she's also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It's worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings "always right about everything" characters
-Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn't in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don't think it's racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.
-I don't think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the "fat cat". There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.
-I'm not sure who you're referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine
I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don't seem to want to nitpick those the same way.
Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.
He's part of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, the closest thing to his job IRL would be something like a cop in a gang task force.
I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.
I had two professors in college named Bing Yang and Chingmin Yang. Both math professors. Had one for probability and statistics and the other for discrete math.
I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda.
Because that's exactly what it is. It's mostly people that were huge fans that know the books well enough for those kinds of analyses, and they mostly didn't start these kinds of positions on them until JK said things about trans people.
And TERFy stuff was still common enough just 15 years ago that when Mary Daly died all the big feminist sites wrote these glowing memorials about how she was so influential to their feminist beliefs and then most issued an apology, retraction or the like when they realized the size of their trans audience.
Id recommend watching the video that was linked in that comment. The points they gave were very much just summaries that don't include the evidence to back them up.
Fair enough, I will check it out when I get the chance.
and Hagrid
I don't think Hagrid is obese. At least in books.
Well, based off the little illustrations in each chapter he's pretty similar to how he was portrayed in the movies. You can look up Mary grandpré hagrid to see what I would guess is Rowlings original vision.
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat
Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn't a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.
Token minority characters that are often stereotypes or border on racism - the black kid is named Shacklebolt, the Asian girl is named two single syllable last names (might as well have called her Ching Chong),
Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling's cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn't have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don't know that it's fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it's own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.
Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don't have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.
the 12 year old irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up, etc.
That's most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.
I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn't an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the "crazy" character is so white she's practically albino.
The defense of the slavery of house elves using the exact same
It's defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it's described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?
criticism of Hermione as a girl with blue hair and pronouns for questioning and trying to change the system.
Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero's of each of the novels? I don't remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.
There are no good or bad actions, only good or bad people. It's okay for the right people to use the torture spell, because they're the "good guys."
Yeah. I agree, there's a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.
And a resolution that basically resolves nothing. Harry doesn't kill Voldemort, he kills himself due to a magic technicality, and Harry goes on to become a magic cop to ensure the flawed system that the early books criticized doesn't change.
Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn't always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval... yup! It's a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.
I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don't always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.
I won't defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.
hermione was criticized a lot by pretty much everyone when she tried to free the house elves and made badges etc.
Isn't that the fate of any activist in a communal group? And, in the end, she was right, wasn't she? Isn't it better to teach that activism will usually be met with resistance, by even your friends, than to teach people to expect your revelation of inequality to suddenly be universally be adopted by your peer group?
the black kid is named Shacklebolt
I'm probably missing context but what's wrong with the name?
Asian girl is named two single syllable last names
But isn't that extremely common? I personally know like three people like that and I know a pretty limited number of people from East Asia.
Shacklebolt = Shackled and bolted down = Enslaved
Not a great name for basically the only black person in the books.
Cho Chang = Both are Chinese or Korean LAST names. 'Cho' isn't a first name in any Asian language, so she's mixing and matching languages and cultures. She also only describes her as 'Asian' in the books, furthering how little effort was put in.
It's like saying 'Lombardi Fernandez' is a European name. Ignorant on multiple accounts.
Shacklebolt = Shackled and bolted down = Enslaved
Oh okay, I didn't make that connection. I wonder if it was intentional, that'd be lol
Cho Chang = Both are Chinese or Korean LAST names. ‘Cho’ isn’t a first name in any Asian language, so she’s mixing and matching languages and cultures. She also only describes her as ‘Asian’ in the books, furthering how little effort was put in.
I don't know, does every character need that sort of specific cultural background associated with them? You give the example of "Lombardi Fernandez" and just describing that person as "European" or Latino or something liket that would seem totally fine to me. Actually the name being a mix could serve as a purposeful way of having their background be more vague not to tie it down in a specific country or even culture.
And with the name not being "correct", doesn't she use some wacky names for characters anyway? So it's not like name authenticity otherwise is respected iirc.
Sort of, but she gave most people realistic names, it's only with people further outside the central narrative that gets weird, and it goes further than just the name. I referred to my made-up character as 'European' and used common Spanish and Italian last names, which would be weird, but fine by itself. However, imagine if they were the ONLY white character in the entire book, and JK only wrote about how "Lombardi loved pasta and naps" as their main characteristics.
Cho Chang is a popular and smart girl who struggles with always listening to her parents, but suddenly becomes dumb around Harry because "she can't focus around him". She's basically just a ManicPixieDreamGirl for Harry to have emotions about.
So, it's not just about the name, it's how the character is treated overall, and the way she's treated is as a generic Asian romantic interest stereotype with a made-up name.
Ah, okay I get the issue now
Shacklebolt = Shackled and bolted down = Enslaved
That's such a fucking stretch you should open a yoga studio
I have kids now so I've read the first two books again and frankly I'm on the Dursleys' side. Harry is a shit
Obesity as a moral failing - want to make a character seem bad? Just make them fat!
I don't remember seeing it. At least in translated version. Who? Don't say Dursleys and Marge, they seem to have inherited condition.
the 12 year old Irish kid is obsessed with turning drinks into whiskey and blowing stuff up
Well, Ireland is not Scottland, but close enough.
Agree on last two, bad writing.
There's an entire section of the books about how slavery is okay because the slaves like it actually
I feel like that was more so her self insert, hermoinie, can be "on the right side of history"
This is my little headcannon theory and not a hill I even wanna fight on, so if there are blatant holes I'm interested I'm hearing but also keep in mind this is just something I "believe" because it amuses me.
Hermione is basically ridiculed and becomes a stereotypical "irrational activist" character during it. If she was trying to make Hermione the one in the right here she did everything she could to make her look like she was in the wrong.
Yeah I know and agree. It is her self insert or who she "identified" with the most, so I hand wave the plot holes of my theory away with the same literary finesse Jk Rowling has exhibited in recent decade or two. Like I said, not a hill I'm even willing to fight on lol.
The reality is she is an awful racist person, but I like to make both things true in my headcannon.
Idk doesn't everyone have loose silly things they kinda choose to believe in for fun?
Yeah head canons make sense in fandom, but you're just putting your head in the sand and then saying "lol I don't care"
Where am I putting my head in the sand? I don't disagree with anyone's remarks at all, fully agree, and see nothing to criticize even. I ALSO amuse myself with this little story.
(The rest isn't really at you and more I am on a roll now)
I DONT actually care ABOUT my headcannon. Shit dude was I not clear it isnt an opinion I actually hold? I guess I should have disclaimed with all the "plot holes" I am aware don't make this fit well too?
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
Oh gosh this is now just a ramble I'm sorry I don't expect anyone to read this) ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
So here they are.... (cuz I was trying to be succinct in my OP and fight the urge to ramble and over explain, here I am giving in fully. )
Every single aspect of the house elves is treated like a joke, haha look at this muggle who doesn't understand and making a big deal of having a species completely and utterly subservient to wizards and witches. They NEED it to live happy lives, pretending it is genetic trait they all have and not idk centuries of being enslaved. How do they even reproduce?? Do they get conjugal visits? Are they set up to breed much like how people do with cattle, horses, purebred pets? Do female pregnant house elves get maternity leave and how does that work someone would please ask JK Rowling about this, I'm sure there is some system in place that looks absolutely nothing like slavery did /s
It is only "bad" for doby and he had a family that abused him. And he knew their plotting to kill a kid that had been a beacon of hope or awe
Hermoine is full blast white savior complex about it and never once LISTENS to what the elves say or ask them what changes they would like to have. Even in the bs fantasy of a species born to serve, there should be things they would still like to have. She isn't even GOOD at it. Which is fine for a kid, just pointing out another way Rowling made hermoine a total joke.
Rowling also gives it the most ridiculous name that is clearly meant to ridicule hermoine even more..
by giving it a name to have her club or whatever be able to be called SPEW for short. SPEW
And she doesn't help a single elf. Harry does and he is also the only one to treat them as individuals.
IRRC Dumbledore does do something in some way maybe just reassure her the elves are treated more like employees at hogwarts but she doesn't feel reassured at all and still keeps at it.
ULTIMATELY what I truly feel and believe about this little story and lore from the books is that Rowling is worse than she is given credit for.
She not only seems to have this at best subconscious belief that some people are suited for slavery
She also shows a similar subconscious belief or bias that progressive people speaking against the status quo are naive, silly, idealists going through a phase and that when they understand how the world actually works they will agree with the status quo. The entire vibe I get is like the characters are giving hermoine head pats and eye rolls and calling her a silly girl.
That said dude it was like, early y2k we were still patting ourselves on the back for Will and Grace. The internet didn't show you so many people's random opinions. We did not have the type of discussions we have now, because now we have SO many points of view we can learn aboit. Now we can be aware of the more nuanced problems of systematic racism, the patriarchy, ableism, and more. Basically if she weren't so awful now I don't think we would be so critical of HER personally and instead critical of the artwork itself but disconnected as a product of the time and not a product of the artist. Jk Rowling makes the former impossible and the latter almost mandatory where she keeps saying more shit that suddenly new aspects of the series has different context with this new light.
Thanks. Sorry, I am in a mood to ramble tonight with poor self editing.
I don't know if Hermione is strictly a self insert any more than her other characters are, we just sort of assume that because she's the girl. Oftentimes we see Rowling pop up in the framing devices and not the characters themselves. We are always drawn to some conclusion the plot wants us to. Often what Hermione does is a lampshading technique. She brings up the issues around moral issues but we are lead to see her concerns and advocacy as invalid as the plot makes them inconvenient or proven to be incorrect. It's the actions speak louder senario. What the characters individually say is not wholly important because from an authorial standpoint some of them are intended to be misguided and Hermione is framed as good-hearted but ultimately misguided.
Hermione's sense of moral objection is treated more often as a flaw, an annoyance to her peers and unneeded or even counter to the needs of by the people she is advocating for. She is more closely aligned to a caracature of how JKR veiws advocates of minority rights then a reflection of her own advocacy. That every other character tends to just ignore Hermione isn't veiwed as a tragic instance. It's played for comedy.
Even if that were the case the salves should been shown that freedom was better ( they like it because of Stockholm syndrome or something). By the end they should have been freed. Instead we're just shown that you should be nice to your slaves (Harry and Kreacher).
Yeah
Instead she made it like hermoine is wrong and the elves really do love being completely subservient to another species to the point of abuse and literally having no choice but to stay unless you're given CLOTHING. It's the most wild fucked up obvious lowest rung of society that desperately needs advocates and just.. kinda stops there. It would be one thing if they just existed and we all later were like wait rhats messed up, like with the goblins.
But no she brought attention to it throughout the book made it a whole side plot and absolutely nothing was ever accomplished. I think even later books sort of call back to this in a humorous way.
But I still like to imagine my headcannon being it. It makes me laugh more than being just a plain bigot does. It's funnier if she is writing something she thinks a moral good character would do as her self insert and just still fails so miserably.
What? Which book? In the original septilogy?
House elves
Do they? We see, what, two examples: the first, one who is overjoyed when freed; the other, a villainous character who echoes the morals of the slave owners. Where's the evidence they like being slaves, outside of slave owners saying they do?
Winky becomes an inconsolable drunk after being freed.
The hogwarts elves cease cleaning the gryffindor common room because they are insulted by Hermione's leaving knitted caps and sweaters around for them, and generally avoid and shame dobby and winky.
To be fair, things like this happened with actual slaves all the time. Abuse and manipulation can make you comfortable with truly horrible conditions.
Ah. Stockholm syndrome. But, probably not what she meant, that's true.
There are many examples of House Elves in the books who treat essentially the single one who was freed and happy about it as an abnormality. Look at how Dobby is reacted to by every other house elf. Hermione's advocacy that they have autonomy is ultimately treated as being something only an extreme minority of their population would want and her continued efforts treated as comedy.
Effectively house elves are narrativly speaking a subservient slave species whom treating poorly is narrativly punished... but emancipation is not desired by the whole and they feel fulfilled as long as their masters treat them well. The profiting from their labor is framed as mutually beneficial.
Hm. I'll take your word for it. I had mostly checked out by halfway through the series; once Potter started acting like a petulant teen (which was probably the most realistic writing of the series, but also the most infuriatingly annoying) I stopped caring. I finished the series through sheer momentum but I think I skimmed too much, because I must have missed most of this.
I concede the debate.
They're a nonhuman species and one probably shouldn't assign human views and norms to them.
But then I've always preferred scifi and fantasy where the various other species aren't just humans with weird ears but are actually very different than humans. Stuff like Three Worlds Collide or the Crystal Society trilogy for examples that are free online.
Death of the author means I can still listen to Ignition, but I have to kill R Kelly if I ever see him.
My mind is telling me "no"...
Stop giving her more money to validate her current views.
Pirate anything JKR from here on out, got it
Acceptable, but I'd rather just indulge in better stories instead.
or don't, your know, she's bad at writing.
That's a fair point, and if someone were to suggest less legal ways of acquiring her work, that would be acceptable.
She does not meet the conditions for Death of the Author to apply, unless you know something I don't
It just means the author's intent is ignored in interpreting the work. Like if you, the reader, decide "the sky is gray" is a reflection of the main character's inner turmoil, that's what it means. Even if the author was just foreshadowing some rain, your interpretation is correct because death of the author means the reader's interpretation is the correct one. It's kind of silly, but it also lets people find new meaning in art and I think that's neat.
People use it as "enjoy the art but fuck the artist" but I don't think that's entirely accurate, unless they're choosing to interpret certain parts of the books as not coming from a problematic place.
From what I've noticed online, (yes I know this is anecdotal) people tend to throw out the death of the author as a way of saying "I know this person is shitty and paying for this is actively funding hate but also I am going to keep giving them money anyway".
Like, yes... You should be allowed to enjoy the things that you enjoy... But also... Stop funding the death of trans people
I just read the fanfic. Though I absolutely don’t talk about it in public because the stuff I like is basically all pornographic. I definitely know all the trivia, but I don’t support jk Rowling financially (anymore, I did purchase the original series as it came out, but I haven’t otherwise paid for anything Harry Potter).
I just like the world and the fanfic possibilities of Draco Malfoy.
My Immortal is the only fanfiction ever
It’s the only one* I talk about in public.
There’s also an erotic squid/castle fic that’s absolutely hilarious
The condition is that the book is available for people to read, isn't it?
It was a morbid joke
After reading this thread I feel like the original post is more like a soapbox than a shitpost. No personal opinion about the politics but I thought this was a humour sub.
It was not originally intended to be a soap box.
I thought my reaction to the pickup line would be found humorous especially with the juxtaposition of JK Rowling being a monster.
I've apparently just spent too much time in mostly trans spaces that I underestimated the support JK has on Lemmy outside of trans communities.
I thought it was funny.
As far as supporting JKR goes: JKR is a horrible person who no-one should listen to but Harry Potter is pop culture. I'm pretty comfortable personally with disconnecting the two in my head. I don't think people enjoying Harry Potter should be seen as "supporting JKR", hell a lot of them wouldn't even be aware of JKRs noise.
Obviously I haven't read the comments here a ton but are people really supporting JKR or are you just treating people enjoying Harry Potter as support for JKR? I think there should be a distinction. It's not really people's job to deep dive into the personal lives of the creators or people involved in every piece of art they enjoy.
It's a little bit of both of what you listed. Enjoying Harry Potter on its own is generally fine... The problem I have with it personally, especially in this case, is that JKR has specifically stated multiple times that the funds from it go directly to anti-trans organizations.
People are allowed to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy, but if that thing directly funds hate... I am likely to think less fondly of them.
Similarly, if someone says their favorite person is Andrew Tate, I probably won't match with them.
Oh right, I was not aware of JKRs comments on funding anti-trans organisations. I guess my point still stands, I.e. that people often don't have deep insight into the creators of the art they are enjoying, so considering liking Harry Potter as a statement about their feelings on the author doesn't resonate with me but I understand why you'd have issues with it with the funding comment in mind.
Entirely agree on liking Andrew Tate being a red flag in the same way liking JKR directly would be a red flag. It's more liking the books that JKR put out years before anyone heard her potentially rotting brain driven opinions on trans people that I don't think should be seen as a red flag without at least some questioning about their thoughts on the author.
Oh right, I was not aware of JKRs comments on funding anti-trans organisations
That's literally the point we've been trying to make for years. I couldn't care less about whatever shitty "opinions" JKR posts on her Twitter profile, that's not what makes her problematic. JKR is problematic because she is actively funding anti-trans campaigns.
I.e. that people often don't have deep insight into the creators of the art they are enjoying, so considering liking Harry Potter as a statement about their feelings on the author doesn't resonate with me
Which is fair, but then the same people get offended when you try to educate them. It's the same debate every time a new Harry Potter medium is announced. At this point, you must be living under a rock if you are a Harry Potter fan and have never heard of the controversy that surrounds JKR.
I think most people don't know about JKR because they don't want to know. They are afraid that when they dig deeper, they will have to let go of their favorite franchise, so they choose denial and ignorance instead. It's hard to give people the benefit of the doubt when a topic has been discussed so many times for so many years.
JKR has been incredibly vocal and actively pushing for anti-trans legislation. It's not a secret, and there are many people who vocally do not care and support her anyway.
Most people disconnect the media from the creator... Not all, but hating on everyone who likes Harry Potter makes you look like a lunatic.
Fuck, Tolkien had some fucked up ideas too, but I'm not going around calling people out on it.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that JK has done multiple massive anti-trans media campaigns and has also stated multiple times that the profits from her creation go towards hurting trans people.
If she kept that a secret or anything then sure... But it's not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.
The fact is, most Harry Potter fans neither know nor care about any of the personal exploits of the author.
If she kept that a secret or anything then sure... But it's not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.
The spaces you hang out in obviously make a big deal of these and broadcast them consistently, I'm sure. But it's clear you spend enough time in them that you've lost perspective in how things are in the 'world at large'.
Although it's very obvious and "not hidden", to you, it wouldn't even have to be hidden from the average Harry Potter fan, because they make literally zero effort to seek it out. They simply don't care about anything she does, outside of writing the books they like to read.
P.S. The way you worded it in a previous comment implies heavily that a lack of explicit criticism of Rowling is equivalent to "support". It isn't.
Literally just look at JK Rowling's twitter feed on any given day, it's not a secret, you're just not paying attention bc you're not a trans ally.
Literally just look at JK Rowling's twitter feed
You're projecting your terminal online-ness onto the general population. The vast, vast majority of Harry Potter, or any book series, fans, pay z-e-r-o attention to the personal Twitter account of the author.
Accusing that huge majority of being transphobic just for that is moronic, full stop.
"you're just not paying attention because you're not a trans ally"
yeah so basically anyone paying attention to trans issues knows about JKR. I don't think I said all harry potter fans are transphobic, so that was a fun little thing for you to make up I guess, but I would say that fans of Harry Potter who don't know the controversy are not trans allies. She is the anti-trans celebrity. Her letter was huge news.
Harry Potter fans have likely at least seen one or two hate comments about the video game or something. Stop bring so disingenuous... most people are online regularly ... particularly the generation of Harry Potter fans. You don't need to be terminally online to have heard about the wealthiest author in the world turning into the most prominent anti-trans advocate.
What?
Where did you get lost?
What is wingardium leviosa?
It's a spell from Harry Potter that causes things to float. Harry Potter is written by JK Rowling who is a massive transphobe
Well, it's a pickup line. Because it's a spell that lifts things... It picks them up!
Can you link me something she said that makes her a monster to you? Genuinely curious.
Generally, she has very questionable views on body image, her "sympathetic" characters are quick to judge and reinforce the status quo, her very questionable story line with S.P.E.W. and the House Elves, which resulted in Harry Potter fans rationalizing race based slavery.
It's not extreme. She is the most active, vocal, and prominent anti-trans advocate out there. She is a huge part of the push that is ruining people's lives in the UK.
My only issue with calling her a "monster" reducing the criticism to childish name calling and melodrama. All the things you said are more accurate and adult criticisms. People aren't going to agree with what qualifies someone as a "monster" and will chip away at your criticisms by getting into the weeds on semantics.
She is a monster, just like Anita Bryant. The result of her activism is trans kids commiting suicide after being on YEARS long wait lists. Maybe if people you cared about were being denied healthcare for years, you would call the person advocating for that denial a monster too
Anyway, I don't care about people like you who only care about semantics so uh yeah 🖕🏻If me calling people a monster and being angry is going to dissuade people from supporting trans rights, let's be real they were not supporters to begin with and are looking for the flimsiest excuse.
Monster is an adult criticism because she's a fucking monster.
I am not pro trans. Because I think anything that is being pushed as an Agenda is not in everyones best interest. Except of course for the medical industry has more people it can leech off of.
Damn echo chambers are real lol. I feel like all I've heard for the past five years is how she's a walking, tweeting shitstorm.
Yeah, I'd keep "monster" for people like Kissinger or Mengele, not for people that make fun of phrases like "people who menstruate". But I was genuinely curious and now I know.
Her rhetoric has been incredibly influential. She is like Anita Bryant. Absolute fucking monster.
she's a terf. if you haven't heard that by now idk how you found Lemmy.
As I understand it, she mocks T people. That's it, as far as I've seen. But I pay little attention to any of these people as I simply don't care.
Not everyone follows what these people say on Twitter. Could be this guy had no idea the Rowling was the kind of person she is.
Same is kind of true with jorden Patterson. On the surface nothing he says is unreasonable. It's not until you really look into him that the problems emerge
That’s a good one
The spell was just gibberish to me and I couldn't read it until I read the answer. Only than I would parse it. If you asked me for a spell to lift things up, I would have no idea but someone both things made it make sense. Curious how brains work.
At least mine. JKR's brain doesn't seam to work anymore for good sadly
It really is junk fake Latin.
Can you just imagine what things must've been like for the Romans, having spells go off left and right whenever they spoke?
Yes I know, but I couldn't read it until I read the answer. It was just a bunch of letters to me
Wing
Levi(tate)
I lack reading comprehension up to the point where I may be illiterate: it took me one fucking day to understand your message. You don't want this. Hell, I don't even want this, but I'm stuck with myself. Get out while you still can.
O hey. Idk if my first message didn't show the right nuance of red on the flag, or maybe it didn't completely send the "turn back now, I'm literally brain dead" idea. So anyway, here's a second message.
Honestly would respond to that kind of self-deprecating humor. Unless I found out they were always putting themselves down, in which case it's not really humor, just depressing and sad.
Now this feels like a vintage meme.
At the peak of Harry Potter craze, this might have worked well. Sounds like an older millennial
All millennials are older millennials at this point. Source: seeing what Father Time has done to my beautiful body
Daddy Time, please.
The recipient might be in the same age range
Aren’t some millennials still in their 20s?
The youngest ones are 28.
Just.
I’d consider them young’ns still, as a millennial a couple decades ahead.
One of the things about this generation is the people who arbitrarily decide on generations couldn’t comprehend all the changes happening from like 1982-2002 so don’t see how segmented this generation is.
My partner, a millennial from the end of the 80s has no concept of the childhood I had in the 80s, her younger brother born in 95 can’t begin to comprehend the world I grew up in but we’re still lumped together as if y2k/the millennium was what unites us.
Similarly, if you're born at the tail end of Millenial/start of Gen Z, then you still grew up with a collage of 90s and 00s culture and inconography, offsetting the definitions the groups typically gain over time. Some Gen Z grew up into adolescence without really feeling the advent of the modern internet or social media. The end of that range never knew a world without it.
Generations are useful statistical groupings, but don't represent individual experiences or influences, leading to disparity or outliers that feel excluded from their "peers" so to speak. I'd say I probably share more experiences with Gen Z, but a lot of the cultural aspects of my childhood are closely linked to later Millenial ones. There's a gradient, not a cutoff.
Exactly! I was born on the cusp between two generations and am constantly seeing incorrect assumptions about "my" generation. We're not all the same, and sometimes we mesh with the experiences of adjacent generations.
Im sorry to burst your bubble, but if you are a "couple of decades" ahead of the youngest 28 yo millennial, you are GenX and no millennial whatsoever.
My word choice was poor, I mean with the youngest millennials being in their 20s and us “elder” millennials in our 40s the disparity is crazy.
It’s a nearly 2 decade age range in difference
Its not about the age range, but because Rowling wasn't a hate spewing TERF back then. At lest not publicly.
Quoting JK Rowling has serious undertones right now. Even more so if the recipient is nonbinary as OP mentioned in another comment. You wouldn't quote a Nazi to pick up a jewish person, would you?
Is it quoting Rowling or quoting one of HP characters?
HP characters are not sentient being who speak for themselves. They are still rowlings words.
It's leviosa, not leviosa.
Levio-SAW
come on harry, you're the chosen one
ACCIO BUM!
That was the worst? If they came up with that on their own and didn't just copy someone then that's pretty creative at least.
Its not what the quote says, but who the quote comes from.
JKR is a hateful, raging TERF. Something like Voldemort for trans people.
You should read this from her own words. I know you won't read it all the way through because your mind is probably made up. Maybe someone will come along and see her in a different light though. I read the whole thing. Zero hate of any kind. https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Yeah, no. It's not just one accidental like.
https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy
Also there is hate in the blog post you linked
This is a terrible argument because if a man wanted to abuse women in the restroom, he wouldn't need to transition to do so. He'd just walk in. There isn't an armed guard at the door of the women's bathroom.
I'm NB and quoting Harry Potter just sounds like you hate me
Edit: also I get very few people messaging me first
Edit 2: I really don't understand the downvotes outside of maybe just enjoying Harry Potter. This is just a personal experience I've had.
Harry Potter stuff directly funds anti-trans organizations and that leads to the furthering decline of mental health among trans people which leads to them dying.
Sure, an opening message doesn't send any money to JK but it's a massive red flag that someone is willing to send money to JK.
People are allowed to enjoy things, but in turn, I'm also allowed to decide not to talk to someone for funding hate speech.
I guess it is bad in the sense that it's not great pick-up line to use in your case, but I do like the creativity. Would've been better used to someone with some Harry Potter stuff in their bio though
The downvotes are because you dared to be trans.
I'm sorry you have to deal with so many ignorant and apologist people.
Everyone who exuses the hate Rowling spreads because of the Harry Potter cult is partly responsible for the harm and danger this causes to trans and non binary people.
wowwww a trans person sharing their experience being heavily downvoted.
let's all say it together!!
Lemmy is transphobic as fuck!!
edit: the downvotes literally just prove my point ✨
I think the people downvoting took "quoting Harry Potter sounds like you hate me" as "quoting Harry Potter means you hate trans people" (stated as fact). The OP said this is how it feels to them, we shouldn't downvote people for sharing how they experienced something.
Also I think people are reading it as "the worst pickup line." rather than "the worst pickup line (for me as a NB person)"
Maybe just don't be a raging asshole about everything all the time.
in what way was I an asshole in this comment exchange? pointing out transphobic behavior? I can live with that
Victim complex. Maybe instead of making everything about you and your struggles, just take it for a funny post that has literally nothing to do with trans people.
this post literally has something to do with trans people because a trans person posted it and shared how they felt, as a trans person, when receiving this message.
but go ahead, discredit trans people by saying we have a "victim complex". it outs you immediately as a transphobe so it's useful for me
Wow. You seriously just said "everything I interact with is about me". That's some serious, like not even funny, clinical level narcissism. I'm not even joking anymore, you should get therapy for that. It's a really unhealthy outlook.
Did you read the OP's comment and explanation? That I was replying to? You actually seem lost. You're trying so hard to be condescending but boo... like did you read the comment?
Being non-binary is not the same as being trans... and perhaps they were being downvoted for a different reason.
I always find it odd when people assume why someone is being downvoted. You never know why someone votes the way they do.
I'm not the gender I was assigned at birth. What's your definition of trans then???
Gender identity doesn't get assigned at birth. There is no "gender" field on a birth certificate.
Sex gets identified at birth (at the latest, usually before, during pregnancy, unless specifically requested to keep it secret).
Two reasons this is important to point out:
I very much agree with this point. My reaction there was mostly just a gut response to being excluded from trans spaces in the past for not being "trans enough" and I could've worded it better.
It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?
Another major example imo, is using the single word "gender", both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.
The best way to ensure a discussion isn't productive is to make sure that the 'discussers' are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol...
I never claimed to be an expert. I am admitting now that I am somewhat ignorant as to what the exact definitions are, but from what I understand from what my NB friend explained it is that if you transition from one gender to another that makes you trans. NB are neither gender so there was no transition between genders.
I guess one could make the argument that they transitioned from being gender-labeled to being non-gender, but IMO that's a stretch in an attempt to label NB people as trans.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with being trans. I was just trying to make a distinction as was explained to me by a NB person.
I guess what they're getting at is that if "non-binary" is considered a gender identity unto itself, then you could describe one being trans with the transition being "from man to non-binary", for example.
That person's understanding of trans identity is not common. Most nonbinary people consider themselves to be trans.
wowwww a trans person making unfair assumptions/criticisms of people for quoting an extremely popular piece of pop culture.
let's all say it together!!
Being trans does not grant a prejudice pass!!
Someone literally just shared their experience as a trans person, and it was downvoted. Maybe listen to what the commenter said, instead of just down voting it?
The Death of the Author.
She didn't get blatantly bigoted until after the series.
Not blatantly, but there are signs of it even in the first book; and as the books go on, you can see almost in real time her political views shift from criticizing the system to defending it as she started becoming wealthy and benefiting from the system.
I highly recommend watching Shaun's 2 hour video on the subject, as it goes into great detail on the subject and makes for perfect podcast material.
Some highlights include:
I feel like most of those things are not accurate, or are not good faith criticism. It's worth remembering that until the whole trans thing, the Harry Potter series was seen as very liberal to the point where some conservatives boycotted it.
-Harry isn't a "cop", like hes not walking the beat arresting people, hes a dark wizard catcher. Which is perfectly rational given dark wizards killed his parents and they're pretty explicitly fascists.
-a pretty huge part of the books is devoted to how good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. Barty Crouch Sr is a whole character who is there to show how the good guys can end up being nearly as bad and brutal as the bad guys because they think the ends justify the means and in times of crisis people are willing to compromise their morals.
-Hermione is ridiculed for sticking up for house elves but she's also right, as Harry starts to realize by the end of the books. It's worth noting that the two most steadfast supporters of house elves are Hermione and dumbledore, aka Rowlings "always right about everything" characters
-Seamus is pretty yikesy in the movies but 90% of the stuff isn't in the books. Idk I thought he was a little racist, although still ultimately a good guy. Cho Chang has a stereotypical name but so what? I don't think it's racist in itself. I literally work with a guy named Ying Yang.
-I don't think obesity is used as a failing, gluttony is used as a failing, as in a favorite expression among leftists, the "fat cat". There are plenty of other overweight characters that are good and righteous like Ms Weasly, Slughorn (kinda), and Hagrid.
-I'm not sure who you're referring to with regards to describing teenage females as unattractive but that seems kinda cherry picked. Harry ends up with Ginny who in the books is described as a tomboy. The biggest female villain is arguably Umbridge who is very stereotypically feminine
I'm not defending Rowling as a person at all, or her statements about trans people, but the criticism of Harry potter feels very much like going back and reexamining them with an agenda. You can do the same uncharitable thing with any fantasy series. Hell, off the top of my head I can think of much worse criticisms of lord of the rings or game of thrones but people don't seem to want to nitpick those the same way.
He's part of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, the closest thing to his job IRL would be something like a cop in a gang task force.
I had two professors in college named Bing Yang and Chingmin Yang. Both math professors. Had one for probability and statistics and the other for discrete math.
Because that's exactly what it is. It's mostly people that were huge fans that know the books well enough for those kinds of analyses, and they mostly didn't start these kinds of positions on them until JK said things about trans people.
And TERFy stuff was still common enough just 15 years ago that when Mary Daly died all the big feminist sites wrote these glowing memorials about how she was so influential to their feminist beliefs and then most issued an apology, retraction or the like when they realized the size of their trans audience.
Id recommend watching the video that was linked in that comment. The points they gave were very much just summaries that don't include the evidence to back them up.
Fair enough, I will check it out when I get the chance.
I don't think Hagrid is obese. At least in books.
Well, based off the little illustrations in each chapter he's pretty similar to how he was portrayed in the movies. You can look up Mary grandpré hagrid to see what I would guess is Rowlings original vision.
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me, I guess. Money changes people; status and power changes people.
Although, there were fat good guys, and many non-fat bad guys. There wasn't a particularly late amount of obesity in the books. That point seems a stretch, to me.
Schacklebolt is pretty bad, but I think we also have to consider Rowling's cultural upbringing. Of she were from the US, it would be blatantly shocking. The UK didn't have systemic domestic slavery based on race; I don't know that it's fair to judge her based on US critical race theory; the UK has it's own version, for sure, but it has different foundations.
As for Cho Chang, it is common for Chinese proper names to have two syllables (2 and 3 character names account for over 99% of the given names - 1 syllable named account for 0.6%). I don't remember her background, but if any of her recent ancestors (parents, grandparents) were immigrants, then it would be less believable and more forced for her to not have a multi-syllable name.
Rowling has enough criticizable behavior; we don't have to exaggerate by turning otherwise non- controversial facts into issues.
That's most 12 y/o boys, but making it the Irish kid is a fair point.
I think nearly all of these ignore counter-examples where, e.g., every other Irish person in the family isn't an IRA stand-in. That also ignore the fact that every true villain is WAS(P), and that the "crazy" character is so white she's practically albino.
It's defense only used by villains. Hermione actively pursues ending the practice, and it's described as being a terrible practice. How does the fact that villains - and only villains, or in one case, inherited - in the books practice slavery condemn Rowling?
Are we ignoring that Hermione was one of the four, central hero's of each of the novels? I don't remember any criticism of her except by the establishment.
Yeah. I agree, there's a lot of questionable justification of behavior in this. I mean, everyone lets slide the exact same justifications in GoT, but, hey.
Agreed. An utterly unsatisfying resolution, which I interpreted as a statement that there are no good and bad people, just good and bad behavior. When the key hero turns out to be not such a hero in the end; when you expect something more noble, but what you get is reality - good doesn't always triumph, people in wars die indiscriminately, and in the end centuries of established practices continue and survive intact despite great upheaval... yup! It's a depressing statement, but I still think it was a statement.
I think Rowling changed as money changed her; she hid bigotry less as she became convinced of the armor of her own popularity; but she also had a kid who grew and changed in time with the novels, and she changed the story to match the loss of innocence and realization that fighting the establishment is hard, expensive, and not guaranteed to succeed. The good guys do not always win; they don't always survive the encounter coming out the same person they started as.
I won't defend Rowling, but I also think some of the criticisms are reaching, merely in an attempt to vilify her as much as possible mainly for her homophobic views. Which, ironically, there were no examples of in her novels, and so nothing to call her out about except by its absence.
hermione was criticized a lot by pretty much everyone when she tried to free the house elves and made badges etc.
Isn't that the fate of any activist in a communal group? And, in the end, she was right, wasn't she? Isn't it better to teach that activism will usually be met with resistance, by even your friends, than to teach people to expect your revelation of inequality to suddenly be universally be adopted by your peer group?
I'm probably missing context but what's wrong with the name?
But isn't that extremely common? I personally know like three people like that and I know a pretty limited number of people from East Asia.
Shacklebolt = Shackled and bolted down = Enslaved
Not a great name for basically the only black person in the books.
Cho Chang = Both are Chinese or Korean LAST names. 'Cho' isn't a first name in any Asian language, so she's mixing and matching languages and cultures. She also only describes her as 'Asian' in the books, furthering how little effort was put in.
It's like saying 'Lombardi Fernandez' is a European name. Ignorant on multiple accounts.
Oh okay, I didn't make that connection. I wonder if it was intentional, that'd be lol
I don't know, does every character need that sort of specific cultural background associated with them? You give the example of "Lombardi Fernandez" and just describing that person as "European" or Latino or something liket that would seem totally fine to me. Actually the name being a mix could serve as a purposeful way of having their background be more vague not to tie it down in a specific country or even culture.
And with the name not being "correct", doesn't she use some wacky names for characters anyway? So it's not like name authenticity otherwise is respected iirc.
Sort of, but she gave most people realistic names, it's only with people further outside the central narrative that gets weird, and it goes further than just the name. I referred to my made-up character as 'European' and used common Spanish and Italian last names, which would be weird, but fine by itself. However, imagine if they were the ONLY white character in the entire book, and JK only wrote about how "Lombardi loved pasta and naps" as their main characteristics.
Cho Chang is a popular and smart girl who struggles with always listening to her parents, but suddenly becomes dumb around Harry because "she can't focus around him". She's basically just a ManicPixieDreamGirl for Harry to have emotions about.
So, it's not just about the name, it's how the character is treated overall, and the way she's treated is as a generic Asian romantic interest stereotype with a made-up name.
Ah, okay I get the issue now
That's such a fucking stretch you should open a yoga studio
I have kids now so I've read the first two books again and frankly I'm on the Dursleys' side. Harry is a shit
I don't remember seeing it. At least in translated version. Who? Don't say Dursleys and Marge, they seem to have inherited condition.
Well, Ireland is not Scottland, but close enough.
Agree on last two, bad writing.
There's an entire section of the books about how slavery is okay because the slaves like it actually
I feel like that was more so her self insert, hermoinie, can be "on the right side of history"
This is my little headcannon theory and not a hill I even wanna fight on, so if there are blatant holes I'm interested I'm hearing but also keep in mind this is just something I "believe" because it amuses me.
Hermione is basically ridiculed and becomes a stereotypical "irrational activist" character during it. If she was trying to make Hermione the one in the right here she did everything she could to make her look like she was in the wrong.
Yeah I know and agree. It is her self insert or who she "identified" with the most, so I hand wave the plot holes of my theory away with the same literary finesse Jk Rowling has exhibited in recent decade or two. Like I said, not a hill I'm even willing to fight on lol.
The reality is she is an awful racist person, but I like to make both things true in my headcannon. Idk doesn't everyone have loose silly things they kinda choose to believe in for fun?
Yeah head canons make sense in fandom, but you're just putting your head in the sand and then saying "lol I don't care"
Where am I putting my head in the sand? I don't disagree with anyone's remarks at all, fully agree, and see nothing to criticize even. I ALSO amuse myself with this little story.
(The rest isn't really at you and more I am on a roll now) I DONT actually care ABOUT my headcannon. Shit dude was I not clear it isnt an opinion I actually hold? I guess I should have disclaimed with all the "plot holes" I am aware don't make this fit well too?
××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× Oh gosh this is now just a ramble I'm sorry I don't expect anyone to read this) ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
So here they are.... (cuz I was trying to be succinct in my OP and fight the urge to ramble and over explain, here I am giving in fully. )
Every single aspect of the house elves is treated like a joke, haha look at this muggle who doesn't understand and making a big deal of having a species completely and utterly subservient to wizards and witches. They NEED it to live happy lives, pretending it is genetic trait they all have and not idk centuries of being enslaved. How do they even reproduce?? Do they get conjugal visits? Are they set up to breed much like how people do with cattle, horses, purebred pets? Do female pregnant house elves get maternity leave and how does that work someone would please ask JK Rowling about this, I'm sure there is some system in place that looks absolutely nothing like slavery did /s
It is only "bad" for doby and he had a family that abused him. And he knew their plotting to kill a kid that had been a beacon of hope or awe
Hermoine is full blast white savior complex about it and never once LISTENS to what the elves say or ask them what changes they would like to have. Even in the bs fantasy of a species born to serve, there should be things they would still like to have. She isn't even GOOD at it. Which is fine for a kid, just pointing out another way Rowling made hermoine a total joke.
Rowling also gives it the most ridiculous name that is clearly meant to ridicule hermoine even more.. by giving it a name to have her club or whatever be able to be called SPEW for short. SPEW
And she doesn't help a single elf. Harry does and he is also the only one to treat them as individuals.
IRRC Dumbledore does do something in some way maybe just reassure her the elves are treated more like employees at hogwarts but she doesn't feel reassured at all and still keeps at it.
ULTIMATELY what I truly feel and believe about this little story and lore from the books is that Rowling is worse than she is given credit for. She not only seems to have this at best subconscious belief that some people are suited for slavery
She also shows a similar subconscious belief or bias that progressive people speaking against the status quo are naive, silly, idealists going through a phase and that when they understand how the world actually works they will agree with the status quo. The entire vibe I get is like the characters are giving hermoine head pats and eye rolls and calling her a silly girl.
That said dude it was like, early y2k we were still patting ourselves on the back for Will and Grace. The internet didn't show you so many people's random opinions. We did not have the type of discussions we have now, because now we have SO many points of view we can learn aboit. Now we can be aware of the more nuanced problems of systematic racism, the patriarchy, ableism, and more. Basically if she weren't so awful now I don't think we would be so critical of HER personally and instead critical of the artwork itself but disconnected as a product of the time and not a product of the artist. Jk Rowling makes the former impossible and the latter almost mandatory where she keeps saying more shit that suddenly new aspects of the series has different context with this new light.
Thanks. Sorry, I am in a mood to ramble tonight with poor self editing.
I don't know if Hermione is strictly a self insert any more than her other characters are, we just sort of assume that because she's the girl. Oftentimes we see Rowling pop up in the framing devices and not the characters themselves. We are always drawn to some conclusion the plot wants us to. Often what Hermione does is a lampshading technique. She brings up the issues around moral issues but we are lead to see her concerns and advocacy as invalid as the plot makes them inconvenient or proven to be incorrect. It's the actions speak louder senario. What the characters individually say is not wholly important because from an authorial standpoint some of them are intended to be misguided and Hermione is framed as good-hearted but ultimately misguided.
Hermione's sense of moral objection is treated more often as a flaw, an annoyance to her peers and unneeded or even counter to the needs of by the people she is advocating for. She is more closely aligned to a caracature of how JKR veiws advocates of minority rights then a reflection of her own advocacy. That every other character tends to just ignore Hermione isn't veiwed as a tragic instance. It's played for comedy.
Even if that were the case the salves should been shown that freedom was better ( they like it because of Stockholm syndrome or something). By the end they should have been freed. Instead we're just shown that you should be nice to your slaves (Harry and Kreacher).
Yeah
Instead she made it like hermoine is wrong and the elves really do love being completely subservient to another species to the point of abuse and literally having no choice but to stay unless you're given CLOTHING. It's the most wild fucked up obvious lowest rung of society that desperately needs advocates and just.. kinda stops there. It would be one thing if they just existed and we all later were like wait rhats messed up, like with the goblins. But no she brought attention to it throughout the book made it a whole side plot and absolutely nothing was ever accomplished. I think even later books sort of call back to this in a humorous way.
But I still like to imagine my headcannon being it. It makes me laugh more than being just a plain bigot does. It's funnier if she is writing something she thinks a moral good character would do as her self insert and just still fails so miserably.
What? Which book? In the original septilogy?
House elves
Do they? We see, what, two examples: the first, one who is overjoyed when freed; the other, a villainous character who echoes the morals of the slave owners. Where's the evidence they like being slaves, outside of slave owners saying they do?
Winky becomes an inconsolable drunk after being freed.
The hogwarts elves cease cleaning the gryffindor common room because they are insulted by Hermione's leaving knitted caps and sweaters around for them, and generally avoid and shame dobby and winky.
To be fair, things like this happened with actual slaves all the time. Abuse and manipulation can make you comfortable with truly horrible conditions.
Ah. Stockholm syndrome. But, probably not what she meant, that's true.
There are many examples of House Elves in the books who treat essentially the single one who was freed and happy about it as an abnormality. Look at how Dobby is reacted to by every other house elf. Hermione's advocacy that they have autonomy is ultimately treated as being something only an extreme minority of their population would want and her continued efforts treated as comedy.
Effectively house elves are narrativly speaking a subservient slave species whom treating poorly is narrativly punished... but emancipation is not desired by the whole and they feel fulfilled as long as their masters treat them well. The profiting from their labor is framed as mutually beneficial.
Hm. I'll take your word for it. I had mostly checked out by halfway through the series; once Potter started acting like a petulant teen (which was probably the most realistic writing of the series, but also the most infuriatingly annoying) I stopped caring. I finished the series through sheer momentum but I think I skimmed too much, because I must have missed most of this.
I concede the debate.
They're a nonhuman species and one probably shouldn't assign human views and norms to them.
But then I've always preferred scifi and fantasy where the various other species aren't just humans with weird ears but are actually very different than humans. Stuff like Three Worlds Collide or the Crystal Society trilogy for examples that are free online.
Death of the author means I can still listen to Ignition, but I have to kill R Kelly if I ever see him.
My mind is telling me "no"...
Stop giving her more money to validate her current views.
Pirate anything JKR from here on out, got it
Acceptable, but I'd rather just indulge in better stories instead.
or don't, your know, she's bad at writing.
That's a fair point, and if someone were to suggest less legal ways of acquiring her work, that would be acceptable.
She does not meet the conditions for Death of the Author to apply, unless you know something I don't
It just means the author's intent is ignored in interpreting the work. Like if you, the reader, decide "the sky is gray" is a reflection of the main character's inner turmoil, that's what it means. Even if the author was just foreshadowing some rain, your interpretation is correct because death of the author means the reader's interpretation is the correct one. It's kind of silly, but it also lets people find new meaning in art and I think that's neat.
People use it as "enjoy the art but fuck the artist" but I don't think that's entirely accurate, unless they're choosing to interpret certain parts of the books as not coming from a problematic place.
From what I've noticed online, (yes I know this is anecdotal) people tend to throw out the death of the author as a way of saying "I know this person is shitty and paying for this is actively funding hate but also I am going to keep giving them money anyway".
Like, yes... You should be allowed to enjoy the things that you enjoy... But also... Stop funding the death of trans people
I just read the fanfic. Though I absolutely don’t talk about it in public because the stuff I like is basically all pornographic. I definitely know all the trivia, but I don’t support jk Rowling financially (anymore, I did purchase the original series as it came out, but I haven’t otherwise paid for anything Harry Potter).
I just like the world and the fanfic possibilities of Draco Malfoy.
My Immortal is the only fanfiction ever
It’s the only one* I talk about in public.
There’s also an erotic squid/castle fic that’s absolutely hilarious
The condition is that the book is available for people to read, isn't it?
It was a morbid joke
After reading this thread I feel like the original post is more like a soapbox than a shitpost. No personal opinion about the politics but I thought this was a humour sub.
It was not originally intended to be a soap box.
I thought my reaction to the pickup line would be found humorous especially with the juxtaposition of JK Rowling being a monster.
I've apparently just spent too much time in mostly trans spaces that I underestimated the support JK has on Lemmy outside of trans communities.
I thought it was funny.
As far as supporting JKR goes: JKR is a horrible person who no-one should listen to but Harry Potter is pop culture. I'm pretty comfortable personally with disconnecting the two in my head. I don't think people enjoying Harry Potter should be seen as "supporting JKR", hell a lot of them wouldn't even be aware of JKRs noise.
Obviously I haven't read the comments here a ton but are people really supporting JKR or are you just treating people enjoying Harry Potter as support for JKR? I think there should be a distinction. It's not really people's job to deep dive into the personal lives of the creators or people involved in every piece of art they enjoy.
It's a little bit of both of what you listed. Enjoying Harry Potter on its own is generally fine... The problem I have with it personally, especially in this case, is that JKR has specifically stated multiple times that the funds from it go directly to anti-trans organizations.
People are allowed to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy, but if that thing directly funds hate... I am likely to think less fondly of them.
Similarly, if someone says their favorite person is Andrew Tate, I probably won't match with them.
Oh right, I was not aware of JKRs comments on funding anti-trans organisations. I guess my point still stands, I.e. that people often don't have deep insight into the creators of the art they are enjoying, so considering liking Harry Potter as a statement about their feelings on the author doesn't resonate with me but I understand why you'd have issues with it with the funding comment in mind.
Entirely agree on liking Andrew Tate being a red flag in the same way liking JKR directly would be a red flag. It's more liking the books that JKR put out years before anyone heard her potentially rotting brain driven opinions on trans people that I don't think should be seen as a red flag without at least some questioning about their thoughts on the author.
That's literally the point we've been trying to make for years. I couldn't care less about whatever shitty "opinions" JKR posts on her Twitter profile, that's not what makes her problematic. JKR is problematic because she is actively funding anti-trans campaigns.
Which is fair, but then the same people get offended when you try to educate them. It's the same debate every time a new Harry Potter medium is announced. At this point, you must be living under a rock if you are a Harry Potter fan and have never heard of the controversy that surrounds JKR.
I think most people don't know about JKR because they don't want to know. They are afraid that when they dig deeper, they will have to let go of their favorite franchise, so they choose denial and ignorance instead. It's hard to give people the benefit of the doubt when a topic has been discussed so many times for so many years.
JKR has been incredibly vocal and actively pushing for anti-trans legislation. It's not a secret, and there are many people who vocally do not care and support her anyway.
Most people disconnect the media from the creator... Not all, but hating on everyone who likes Harry Potter makes you look like a lunatic.
Fuck, Tolkien had some fucked up ideas too, but I'm not going around calling people out on it.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that JK has done multiple massive anti-trans media campaigns and has also stated multiple times that the profits from her creation go towards hurting trans people.
If she kept that a secret or anything then sure... But it's not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.
The fact is, most Harry Potter fans neither know nor care about any of the personal exploits of the author.
The spaces you hang out in obviously make a big deal of these and broadcast them consistently, I'm sure. But it's clear you spend enough time in them that you've lost perspective in how things are in the 'world at large'.
Although it's very obvious and "not hidden", to you, it wouldn't even have to be hidden from the average Harry Potter fan, because they make literally zero effort to seek it out. They simply don't care about anything she does, outside of writing the books they like to read.
P.S. The way you worded it in a previous comment implies heavily that a lack of explicit criticism of Rowling is equivalent to "support". It isn't.
Literally just look at JK Rowling's twitter feed on any given day, it's not a secret, you're just not paying attention bc you're not a trans ally.
You're projecting your terminal online-ness onto the general population. The vast, vast majority of Harry Potter, or any book series, fans, pay z-e-r-o attention to the personal Twitter account of the author.
Accusing that huge majority of being transphobic just for that is moronic, full stop.
"you're just not paying attention because you're not a trans ally"
yeah so basically anyone paying attention to trans issues knows about JKR. I don't think I said all harry potter fans are transphobic, so that was a fun little thing for you to make up I guess, but I would say that fans of Harry Potter who don't know the controversy are not trans allies. She is the anti-trans celebrity. Her letter was huge news.
Harry Potter fans have likely at least seen one or two hate comments about the video game or something. Stop bring so disingenuous... most people are online regularly ... particularly the generation of Harry Potter fans. You don't need to be terminally online to have heard about the wealthiest author in the world turning into the most prominent anti-trans advocate.
What?
Where did you get lost?
What is wingardium leviosa?
It's a spell from Harry Potter that causes things to float. Harry Potter is written by JK Rowling who is a massive transphobe
Well, it's a pickup line. Because it's a spell that lifts things... It picks them up!
Can you link me something she said that makes her a monster to you? Genuinely curious.
"Monster" may be a little extreme, but here's a review of her body of work up to that point.
Generally, she has very questionable views on body image, her "sympathetic" characters are quick to judge and reinforce the status quo, her very questionable story line with S.P.E.W. and the House Elves, which resulted in Harry Potter fans rationalizing race based slavery.
It's not extreme. She is the most active, vocal, and prominent anti-trans advocate out there. She is a huge part of the push that is ruining people's lives in the UK.
My only issue with calling her a "monster" reducing the criticism to childish name calling and melodrama. All the things you said are more accurate and adult criticisms. People aren't going to agree with what qualifies someone as a "monster" and will chip away at your criticisms by getting into the weeds on semantics.
She is a monster, just like Anita Bryant. The result of her activism is trans kids commiting suicide after being on YEARS long wait lists. Maybe if people you cared about were being denied healthcare for years, you would call the person advocating for that denial a monster too
Anyway, I don't care about people like you who only care about semantics so uh yeah 🖕🏻If me calling people a monster and being angry is going to dissuade people from supporting trans rights, let's be real they were not supporters to begin with and are looking for the flimsiest excuse.
Monster is an adult criticism because she's a fucking monster.
I am not pro trans. Because I think anything that is being pushed as an Agenda is not in everyones best interest. Except of course for the medical industry has more people it can leech off of.
Damn echo chambers are real lol. I feel like all I've heard for the past five years is how she's a walking, tweeting shitstorm.
Yeah, I'd keep "monster" for people like Kissinger or Mengele, not for people that make fun of phrases like "people who menstruate". But I was genuinely curious and now I know.
Her rhetoric has been incredibly influential. She is like Anita Bryant. Absolute fucking monster.
Here's some examples though this doesn't appear to be entirely inclusive: https://glaad.org/gap/jk-rowling/
I appreciate that you're willing to learn and reaching out for resources.
Interesting, thanks.
This here is also a good video to find out why one would call her that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou_xvXJJk7k
she's a terf. if you haven't heard that by now idk how you found Lemmy.
As I understand it, she mocks T people. That's it, as far as I've seen. But I pay little attention to any of these people as I simply don't care.
Not everyone follows what these people say on Twitter. Could be this guy had no idea the Rowling was the kind of person she is. Same is kind of true with jorden Patterson. On the surface nothing he says is unreasonable. It's not until you really look into him that the problems emerge
That’s a good one
The spell was just gibberish to me and I couldn't read it until I read the answer. Only than I would parse it. If you asked me for a spell to lift things up, I would have no idea but someone both things made it make sense. Curious how brains work.
At least mine. JKR's brain doesn't seam to work anymore for good sadly
It really is junk fake Latin.
Can you just imagine what things must've been like for the Romans, having spells go off left and right whenever they spoke?
Yes I know, but I couldn't read it until I read the answer. It was just a bunch of letters to me
Wing
Levi(tate)
Honestly would respond to that kind of self-deprecating humor. Unless I found out they were always putting themselves down, in which case it's not really humor, just depressing and sad.
She's my hero.
Who?
Queen Rowling, of course.