return2ozmaThere is no ethical consumption of HBO’s Harry Potter series
lathDisagree. It’s ethical to support the young actors and the actors who took a chance. It’s ethical to wrestle control over a harmless idea initiated by harmful people. It’s ethical to not hate something for something it did not do.
You think it’s ethical to attack Rowling by destroying her work and crippling her funding instead of attacking the politicians who accept her funding and rethoric? You think it’s ethical to destroy something liked by many because its usage funds those who harm? Well, that will go sideways fast because wow, there’s just so much to be destroyed. Why start with Harry Potter when there’s much more important things to end first?
I’m not saying stop. Just that the priorities are wrong, the focus is wrong and the painted target is illusory. Why not focus on the real instead of the imaginary?
Ethical consumption. Hah.
CatoblepasYou think it’s ethical to attack Rowling by destroying her work and crippling her funding
Yes, it is ethical to boycott a work that monetarily directly benefits a bigot, and if you don’t get that I’m not sure how else to explain it. Joanne lining a bunch of doe eyed kids up in front of her doesn’t change how much harm she’ll do with that money.
Instead, the people on fire would rather boo the gas attendants for doing their jobs at the gas station while they sit on their ass and burn.
That’ll show the bigot! I’m sure that afterwards they’ll mop up the ashes themselves!
Who the hell is bothering anyone for working at a theater showing the movie? That’s weirdo behavior. Boycotting the freak after your rights isn’t.
If you’re describing the trans community as sitting on their asses right now because they’re also taking a dump on Joanne every time the opportunity presents itself, you frankly have a distorted view of what is happening on the ground and how much energy it takes to say “Joanne is a bigot a and sucks shit”.
Yes, there are weirdoes who do go after everyone associated with that which they boycott. And it should be shunned as weirdo behaviour, agreed.
I’m not seeing a trans community here, but a small group of individuals who believe themselves righteous, charging in the wrong direction. My sight of the happenings is limited as i am an outsider peering through whatever window is available. And this window shows me actors harassed for daring to work on this project or separately, the black actor getting death threats for daring to play Snape as a black actor. That is weirdo behaviour.
You may think you’re coming after Rowling’s money, but are you really? Do you really think this might not end up as time wasted when the focus could have been on the other, more direct aspects of her hate campaign?
Series and movies have failed when they couldn’t enrapture the audience. If this series sucks, it will fail without the ruckus. Instead, if it captivates the audience, this attention will only end up making it even more successful than it would have been. That’s why I think this fight is pointless and you’re wasting effort. No idea if it’s wrong, but it’s what I think about it.
I’m not seeing a trans community here, but a small group of individuals who believe themselves righteous, charging in the wrong direction
I don’t really know any trans people that still fuck with HP. They all think Joanne is a fucking bigot, because she’s successfully campaigned away the rights of trans people in the UK.
You may think you’re coming after Rowling’s money, but are you really?
Do you really not understand that when you give money to a property owned by a billionaire, they get some of that money? Any money you don’t give them is objectively less money they have. That’s why they’re so, so incredibly mad when people boycott. If it didn’t work they wouldn’t care if you did it.
Instead, if it captivates the audience, this attention will only end up making it even more successful than it would have been
Somehow I don’t think you’re going to find ‘shut up about transphobia or you’ll make it worse’ to be an argument that resonates with many trans people.
Yes, Harry Potter boycotts definitely work and definitely make Rowling very mad.
SaurokSo your evidence of saying boycotts don’t work is to show an example where people did not in fact boycott something? Of course a boycott won’t work if only a small group of people boycott. That’s not the fault of the people calling for the boycott. It’s the fault of the people who didn’t boycott lol.
Trans person here, we try not to make a point of outing ourselves. She is awful and her shitty work shouldn’t have a platform if it enriches her and allows the spread of the dreck she puts into the world.
fallaciousBasisFor fuck’s sake… Rowling is an idiot and I totally disagree with her, but let’s not pretend she’s Hitler or something.
I hate these fabricated pearl clutching controversies.
So we all agree that if Hitler were profiting from a new HBO series, none of us would watch that. How far away from Hitler does one have to be to no longer warrant a boycott?
I think being an idiot doesn’t warrant this inane reaction.
She is not a criminal in any way shape or form.
How about people worry about not giving money to actual criminals like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, etc?
She funded a campaign that resulted in the loss of human rights for transgender people in the UK.
She is not an idiot, she is an actively harmful bigot that you are funding if you watch her shows.
What human right did transgender people lose on account of the campaign she funded?
I think your thinking of this as a reason not to consume it but its a good point. If they have one drunk driving offense. If they jay walked. What is a light enough offense to overlook. Like there is a ton of movies that Harvey Weinstein had a hand in and so don’t watch any of those.
What if the offense isn’t in the past? What if it’s ongoing, and giving the person more money enables them to be even more harmful in the future?
I could see that as being a good place to draw the line. Like maybe I’ll watch an old Kevin Spacey movie, but I won’t give money to someone who is going to use that money to harm innocent people.
Rowling is an idiot and I totally disagree with her, but let’s not pretend she’s Hitler or something.
No, she isn’t Hitler. But when asked “Why didn’t the wizarding world stop Hitler?” Her response wasn’t something like “Nazis have wizards too” it was “Someone tried and they were the villain of the movie because stopping Hitler is worse than Hitler.”
Kilgore Troutlet’s not pretend she’s Hitler or something
She would totally be Hitler if she had the power, any you know it.
But I want to use this comment to stress my firm belief: Hitler was not the problem. He was just one person. The real problem is everyone who supported him, the majority of the German voters.
Don’t support her.
there’s no way to watch this show without supporting Rowling’s bigotry and the structural violence she’s inflicting on a vulnerable minority.
Ahem🏴☠️
But that does drive engagement and discussion and all the things that make it popular, so just don’t.
The people talking abour piracy as if this is just a monetary battle. Its not. With each piece of content we consume we are changed. What content you consume has influence on what you think, what you say, what you do. By choosing to consume content, even if no money changes hands, is still consenting to be changed by content sourced from a person with hate in their heart.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
There are other options to consume, and potentially even, maybe the time spent consuming harry potter would be better placed meditating and introspecting to become a better person outside of additional influences, or even interacting and sharing experiences and insights with family and friends.
Choose love, reject hate. Money is a secondaey medium.
Sometimes consuming content that isn’t good can be a way to see just how disagreeable it is. Though admittedly all my consumption of awful content is usually through a third party analysing what went wrong.
Ok, so, I have a few problems with this take.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
First, I question the very premise. That consuming otherwise benign content is somehow “not […] healthy” if the creater is themselves hateful, whether or not that hate is present in their content. A) by what do you mean it is unhealthy? For your mind? Your eternal soul? What? B) If the content does not display any of the specific hatred of their creator, by what means would that hatred effect me at all? Psychically?
Second, let’s assume the premise is true. Tell me then, how would you ever avoid this unhealthy situation in your life? Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful? Many a creator of beloved works, has turned out to bit an asshole or a bigot. And many of those were only revealed as such after those works became beloved. Surely, many more were also created by hateful people who were and may never never be publically revealed as such. Given you have concluded that the content and monetary support is not all that matters, but the also the internal character of the creator, how do you know your health isn’t be constantly compromised by consuming work by people you don’t know are actually hateful in some way.
Third, it seems kind of a moot point anyway. Rowling only started revealing her transphobia in 2019. By that point the entire novel series, the entire film adaptation series, a spin off play and companion book, the first two of three spinoff films, and any number of video games, toys, and other merchandise had all been released and consumed by billions. The vast majority of our generation has consumed a ton Harry Potter media in many forms before her bigotry was on full display. I personally ready most of the books over and over as a kid. I gotta tell you, if my health was damaged because she was a hateful bitch at heart, then that damage is done.
I get wanting to take a moral highground, being disgusted by the association, and just wanting to distance yourself from Rowling and leave it behind. I truly get that and think it is entirely justified. But don’t project some sort of damage onto people who don’t do the same, or attribute some sort of complicit immorality to them because they don’t take the same stance as you. That’s where I strongly disagree.
Those are completly valid problems with my statement, we might have different perspectives and wont find agreement, i accept that and still love you and anyone who chooses to consume the content. Ill also say that i was major harry potter fan in my youth, went to the book and movie releases, etc, etc. Harry potter had a special place in my heart.
1a: the distinction between mind and soul is one better discussed in person over hours and hours, ill let you choose whichever fits best within your model of reality. But as far as unhealthy i mean it in the same way as getting mcdonalds - even if you get a salad and water at mcdonalds, you are still reinforcing a pattern where mcdonalds is an acceptable place and source of food, even when we know the food isnt healthy and how they source the food isnt healthy (references to slavery, abuse, theft, environmental degredation, etc - if unfamiliar with these concerns from mcdonalds and other fast foods ill make it your homework as itd be a lot to type out and im no expert to speak authoritatively) - harry potter has a number of stereotypes and problematic areas baked into its universe - maybe eveb innocently from jkr’s perspective - but weve seen what shes manifested into - and further - because of the links and references to other issues it can soften your rejection of other harmful content (for example, theres a very specific representation of goblins in harry potter, and becoming familiar with that representation, innocently, can make you desensitized to other problematic sources that move that interpretation of goblins to antisemitism, just one example of unhealthiness i talk about)
1b: this is what i reference to as underlying patterns, by watching the new hp, is a knife going to jump out of the screen and stab you? No. But you might internalize some concepts from the universe and story that later forms the seed of hatred, or sends you on a path/rabbit hole that does do damage to you. in a certain perspective im sure someone would call that psychically. Just as one double cheeseburger dosent kill you on the spot and even tastes good, in aggregate and over time and repitition, it will decrease your quality of life and if unlucky, might actually kill you.
2: have i consumed unhealthy content before? Certainly and plenty of it, further its likely ive consumed unhealthy content even today unknowingly. But i am now aware and am actively trying to manage the content i consume and being more aware of how it can influence me because i want to think and act in a certain way, and that requires dilligence, just as im dilligent about weeding my garden, just as im dilligent about going to the market for groceries and not going to mcdonalds. I didnt know jkr was hateful as a kid, but now i do. I cant and wouldnt change the past, but i can and would change the present. Its what we do now.
I hope that answers your questions, i dont know how to make my answers shorter, and typing this on the phone is exhuasting, this is a conversation better had with voice and a back and forth dialog.
valid points on the books/movies but this new series will directly fund transphobia and bigotry.
It’s a cash grab and an attempt to distance the original cast, all of whom viciously disagree with Rowlings bigotry.
Joyless, souless propaganda and funds drive. If you were such a dedicated potter fan, why would want to see its corpse puppeted to pay for hate?
Right but they were specifically making a point that it wasn’t (just) a financial question. That consumption of content with a hateful source is enough to be detrimental regardless of the benign nature and qualities of the content itself. I wasn’t arguing that you should financially support hateful creators. I was questioning their premise that the creator’s nature determined how the content affects you even if the content doesn’t reflect their nature.
It is a whole other thing to financially support it. And also another thing to consume new media that may or may not be me little more than a cash grab. It is also further complicated by the fact that this is an HBO property, meaning that financial support technically comes from subscriptions, whether or not you actually watch the content in question or other shows entirely. I wasn’t getting into any of that though.
All science is built on the backs of the “content” created by generations upon generations of our predecessors, many of whom were far from saintly.
Schrödinger was a pedophile, but his equations are some of the most important and beautiful equations in physics.
Newton was an asshole, but his contributions to math and science are unavoidable in any STEM field.
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Maybe it is beneficial to boycott the consumption of Harry Potter media in general. But you are wrong to assert that content created by a hateful person is fundamentally unhealthy to consume.
Im cautous to call discoveries a form of created content, likewise those things are peer reviewed amongst a group - you could theoretically rediscover shrodingers equations without ever learning from shrodinger, but almost certainly you could never rewrite harry potter without having read harry potter - thats because on some level, hp is a reflection of jkr herself - shrodingers equations are not a reflection of shrodinger, but of reality itself (possibly!)
Didnt know he was a pedo though, yuck: forbes.com/…/schrdinger-pedophilia-the-cat-is-out…
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
Is an odd take to me, should we all read mein kampf? Its just content right? Is it hateful to not read mein kampf? I dont think so. I dont think myseld ignorant for not having read mein kampf either. Seperate the art from the artist? I do not. You seem to think i should tolerate intolerance - but it is good, in my mind at least, to draw boundries - but by your argument, any intolerance is hatred - all nazis, pedos, other evil-doers can be tolerated at your table, but not mine, i will blanket disregard them and protect my table from their influence.
At most generous, ill look at their content through a purely analytical and guarded lense - treating it as dangerous, because i beleive it really is.
I’ll give you that math is discovered not created (mostly), so those were some bad examples.
Is it hateful to not read mein kampf?
No…? Why would it be hateful to avoid reading a book because you don’t like its contents? But it is wrong to assert that it is impossible for a hateful/evil person to create non-hateful/evil content.
While mein kampf is a piece of negative media, it is not the only content created by Hitler. I would wager that if I showed a person some of Hitler’s paintings (without telling them who authored it), they would not become more hateful just from viewing the landscapes and buildings. In fact, people tend to like paintings in general so it might even have a positive affect on their mood despite it being content created by an evil man.
If you don’t like content, it is not hateful to ignore it. But to assert that absolutely nothing good can come from a person who has done evil things is wrong. You cannot be certain that there is no good within the bad anymore than you can assert there is no bad within the good.
Any intolerance is hatred
That is not what I said. Furthermore, I fully believe it is okay to hate things. I hate cruelty; I hate the bourgeoisie; etc. My point was that your assertion was backwards and contradictory. You were the one advocating for hatred while ending your statement with “choose love, reject hate.” I was pointing out that contradiction not asserting the morality or immorality of hatred.
mojofrododojoSchrödinger and Newton didn’t create stories, they discovered laws that explain reality. Their contributions were tested repeatedly. There’s nothing fundamental about Rowling’s work; this is a specious comparison.
True, but their proofs had to be read. Their papers and books had to be read in order to be tested. Furthermore, those books and letters and papers contained content that was not purely mathematical. Especially in Newton’s case. Hell, iirc he disses on other mathematicians frequently in some of his works. But did that make everyone who read them hateful? Did people reading his works negatively impact the world? Would it have positively impacted the world if everyone had decided not to read any of newtons work? Or Schrödinger’s?
No. Of course not.
Now I’ll admit math was a poor choice for comparison to Harry Potter, but the point remains that bad people can make/discover/influence good things. And consuming media related to a bad person is not guaranteed to have a negative impact on your wellbeing.
you want someone to excuse you, it’s not going to be me.
I have no clue what this means but okay thanks I guess
This is the take. And also, piracy is still support. Every creator who supports the free sharing of information recognizes that piracy is basically free word of mouth advertising.
I grew up with the books, but as I learned about Rowling’s shittiness, I stopped consuming any Harry Potter content. Now the franchise is something I don’t care about, don’t even generally think about unless someone else brings it up. More of my time can go to those creators who deserve it.
kateJoanne Rowling.
Don’t use her preferred name. The cunt wants to take that right away from others, don’t give her any exemption.
I can get behind that. Also Just Killing Readership, and Jaundiced Kvetching Rimjob.
Her other pseudonym is Robert Galbraith, which is… fascinating?
Holocaust denial? Oh please.
She shares all her opinions publicly.
As someone (you) who is clearly incapable of capitalization or other grammar, periods and things like that…
I’m going to go out on a limb here – it’s not a very far limb. It’s probably about a nanometer or so in length, but you might have misunderstood what she was saying.
Citation or go fuck yourself
she supports nazi, and funds anti-trans laws in the uk.
socsaOh no, but what about my floopydoop fiddlewink hobstuffs?!! The magic words are all so cool and not cringe at all!
I’m pretty sure that’s all just ish baby talk.
I’m so glad I have Americans around to lecture me daily on the morality of pop culture whilst they simultaneously accelerate extinction-level events and start new wars that fuck the cost of living for the rest of us.
you think this view is unique to the US?
something tells me there are intelligent and decent people in every country. and it is a worldwide franchise, hardly unique to the US.