There is no ethical consumption of HBO’s Harry Potter series
There is no ethical consumption of HBO’s Harry Potter series
Personally I’m on team black mold
But yeah I’ve had same thoughts. Seems like such a weird hill to die on even when you do have those beliefs.
Wasn’t there one Irish guy, and he had an experiment blow up in his face?
Never gave a shit about the series but remember hearing about token characters having a dose of racism to them.
The only major black character in the series is
*was ;-)
I want to caution about reading -isms into authors works. People often don’t really know their own stereotyping unless it’s pointed out (you, dear reader, probably have some problematic world views that no one has noticed or mentioned…). The fallout afterwards is where the problems exist, when someone doubles down on their viewpoints after being informed of them.
Rowling has clearly done that and is dismissed because of it. I will avoid things that give her a platform, and the original art itself is tainted due to her continued stances; but, back to the general case, just because art might be racist or antisemitic, etc., at the time of creation, if the artist can be convinced that their views are wrong, we should celebrate that – just with footnotes and context.
I was certainly not defending her. She is, as you say, egregious in part because when she was called out she refused to reflect. I was more talking in the general sense. The world sucks right now, but we are quick to attack people on their views without granting them opportunity to change.
I call this out because of the trend of ‘leopards-eating-faces’ kind of jokes. When the leopards eat your face, you might notice they were not friendly to begin with and the rest of civilization can welcome you back instead of mocking you; or they can mock you and you will feel isolated and defensive and the other bigots will welcome and validate you instead.
JK Rowling was always a liberal centrist. From an old 4Chan post:
It very neatly describes the way liberals see the world and political struggle.
Lots of people complain about the anti-climactic ending, but really I don’t think it could any other way. I’d like to imagine that there’s some alternate universe where Rowling actually believed in something and Harry was actually built up as the anti-Voldemort he was only hinted as being in the beginning of the books. Where he’s opposes all the many injustices of the wizarding world and determines to change their frequently backwards, insular, contradictory society for the better, and forms his own faction antithetical to the Death Eaters and when he finally has his showdown with Voldy. Harry surpasses by adopting new methods, breaking the rules and embracing change and the progression of history. While Voldemort clings to an idyllic imaging of the past and the greatest extent of his dreams is to become the self-appointed god of a eternally stagnant Neverland. Harry has embraced the possibility of a shining future and so can overcome the self-imposed limits Voldemort could never cross, and Voldemort is ultimately defeated by this.
But that would require a Harry that believed in something, and since Rowling is a liberal centrist Blairite that doesn’t really believe in anything, Harry can’t believe in anything. Harry lives in a world drought with conflict and injustice, a stratified class society, slavery of sentient magical creatures, the absurd charade the wizarding world puts upto enforce their own self-segregation, a corrupted and bureaucracy-choked government, rampant racism, so on and so forth But Harry is little more than a passive observer for most of it, only the racism really bothers him (and then, really only racism against half-bloods). In fact, when Hermione stands up against the slavery of elves, she’s treated as some kind of ridiculous Soapbox Sadie. For opposing chattel slavery. In the end. the biggest force for change is Voldemort and Harry and friends only ever fight for the preservation and reproduction of the status quo. The very height of Harry’s dreams is to join the aurors. a sort of wizard FBI and the ultimate defenders of the wizarding status quo. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are the big instigators of change and Harry never quite gets to Vold/s level. Harry doesn’t even beat Voldemort, Voldemort accidentally kills himself because he violated some obscure technicality that causes one of his spells to bounce back at him.
And this is really the struggle of liberals, they live in a world fraught with conflict, but aren’t particularly bothered by any of it except those bit that threaten multicultural pluralism. They see change, and the force behind that change, as a wholly negative phenomenon. Even then, they can only act within the legal and ideological framework of their society. So. for instance, instead of organizing insurrectionary and disruptive activity against Trump and the far-right, all they can do is bang their drum about what a racist bigot he is and hope they can catch him violating some technicality that will allow them to have him impeached or at least destroy his political clout. It won’t work, it will never work, but that’s the limit of liberalism just as it was the limit of Harry Potter.
My initial theory is that JK Rowling saw trans women as a threat to her status quo. At the end of the day, that’s all Centrist Liberals care about. Social progress can’t affect their status quo. It’s why Centrist Liberals will always back fascism. Fascism is designed to protect the status quo. The problem is that Centrist Liberals don’t understand that fascism requires an out group to work and those Centrist Liberals will be the out group at one point.
From an old 4Chan post:
Noting that it was a /leftypol/ (8chan era) post. archive.ph/yX2TS#1745693
She became a billionaire and has almost certainly curtailed her social network to sycophants that not only agree with everything she says, they also boost her ego. That plus not wanting to lose the attention of the world will have her respond to whatever provokes the attention of the masses.
I’m not up 100% on how this all started because I genuinely don’t give a shit about Harry Potter but I would not be surprised if she made a controversial statement as a person with a huge platform, got a bunch of flak, and then once the dust settled realized how much “engagement” (read: attention) she got from it and subsequently doubled down over and over.
A great deal of human behavior is attention maintained. We have this ignorance though that “bad” attention is not desirable. Research continually shows that attention maintained behavior is perpetually reinforced by attention, not attention of a certain quality. Eg if your child exhibits an attention maintained behavior and you say “stop doing that or you’re grounded” the likelihood is that the behavior is still reinforced (and will subsequently be more likely) because attention was still achieved. The attention may have higher reinforcement potency if it is “positive” but that doesn’t mean “negative” attention doesn’t have a potentially powerful impact.
This is why the current social landscape of 3rd place community centers being social media, which almost exclusively give algorithmic favor to content that shows high “engagement” (read: annoying bullshit that many simple can’t resist interacting with) is probably one of the most toxic developments in the modern history of humanity. It encourages ugly behavior and reinforces disgusting belief systems. It is also why the age old advice of “don’t feed the trolls” is sage wisdom