Current Events > Can you still enjoy Harry Potter despite Rowling's transphobia?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Blame the military and police for refusing to stop this dude from making obvious threats. It's not my fault they didn't act. I just wanted a burger.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's not my fault

There it is.

CyricZ posted...

There it is.

I'll say it again: It's not my fault. I'm just buying a product because I want the product.

yes and yes

been marathoning the movies this last week off work, just started 6

will be day 1ing hogwarts legussy on ps5

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'll say it again: It's not my fault. I'm just buying a product because I want the product.

Exactly! Why don't people get this?

I just consume. I'm a consumer. I consume consumingly. It's why I buy products that are consumed. When I learnt X company uses slave labour did I stop supporting X company? No! I'm a consumer. It's not my fault if I am giving money to fund slave labour. I consume and nothing can stop that.

Consume.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If the guy didn't blow up a city, they would still be alive. Responsibility is on the person who pulled the trigger, not the person who sold the gun or bought the burger.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Truly is bizarre the leaps in logic in this topic just to tell people how horrible theyre for not boycotting, though its being led by the righteous and holier than thou brigade so I cant say Im all that surprised. I imagine these people care equally as much about stuff like where there clothes are made or how their food was treated.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



This, but thats their opinion also. They can continue to call people horrible for liking a childrens book.

Agree to disagree. No point arguing when either side wont move from their stance.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

not the person who sold the gun

Who's gonna tell him.

All society asks for participation in it is a basic reckoning with how one's actions might affect other members.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Only if he makes a direct threat to do so at the time of purchase. If he bought it before he started making threats, then it has nothing to do with the person who sold it to him.

This is the crux of why your example is unrealistic and extreme, though. Rowling is not saying anything to the effect of genocide or murder.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Rowling is not saying anything to the effect of genocide or murder.

There It Is 2: The Chamber-Pot of Secretions.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Only if he makes a direct threat to do so at the time of purchase. If he bought it before he started making threats, then it has nothing to do with the person who sold it to him.

This is the crux of why your example is unrealistic and extreme, though. Rowling is not saying anything to the effect of genocide or murder.

She is doing her best to remove rights from them and treat them as other. She wants them as second class citizens in the UK and has funded large amounts of money to try and achieve this.

She is open about this and keeps on saying it.

You are willing to fund her after she has done this.

No.

Yeah, most everything we consume can be shown to be part of some atrocity or another, so no point in moral grandstanding on any one particular point unless you're a saint who can go without mass-produced goods. If you don't want to consume it, good for you, but don't act like others need to do so.

Yes.

yup. love the movies. i may or may not get the game , but my decision isn't influenced by rowling's views

so far all the ppl i knew irl who really cared about any of this...have all understood nuance and have all said they understand what she is saying or what she means and they still like harry potter, they don't really care. at least in the west. depending on where the traffic is coming from, some users may be in the east where the norms and laws are different than what they are in the west and the concept of rights is understood differently or reflected differently based on the cultural expectations on relationships and everything in general. in the east, it may be perceived as more of an offense because that is where there are no rights to begin with, so those users may in general be upset that a westerner is saying those types of things, although i haven't actually seen anything that JK Rowling actually said that was something which could be perceived as a justification for why anyone should not continue to have the same rights as anyone else...sooooo

West and east of what

CyricZ posted...

West and east of what

Of North, obviously.

smh cyric.

enjoy harry potter yes but i'm not going to contribute to anything that earns her money

pauIie posted...

enjoy harry potter yes but i'm not going to contribute to anything that earns her money

but is this how it works? with all the franchising and fees and organizations and owners and companies that have rights, does she actually earn anything anymore? does it make a difference? it sorta does, indirectly. but does it really? is it the nature of this board to state indignation in this way regardless of the aforementioned questions? why do you feel the need to express these ideas on this board that way? what about not giving her your money but enjoying her work anyway suggest about you as a person?

sugarysyntax posted...

does she actually earn anything anymore?

Yes she gets royalties.

it sorta does, indirectly. but does it really?

lol

why'd you block me bruh, i was genuinely curious about those things and don't know the answer to those questions. how do people in your era and time communicate to express sincere intent then?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Then we're not going to benefit from continuing this discussion any further. Fundamental disagreement there.

sugarysyntax posted...

but is this how it works? with all the franchising and fees and organizations and owners and companies that have rights, does she actually earn anything anymore? does it make a difference? it sorta does, indirectly. but does it really? is it the nature of this board to state indignation in this way regardless of the aforementioned questions? why do you feel the need to express these ideas on this board that way? what about not giving her your money but enjoying her work anyway suggest about you as a person?

i'm guessing she gets royalties off new movies made based off the ip, games, newly printed books, streams, etc. i bought the movies and books before the terf stuff came out. that's how i'll engage with harry potter if i get the urge. the purchases were made and tossing them won't unmake it. but i won't watch anything on streaming, get any of the games, etc, out of my own power. if i'm at someone's house and they're streaming hp content, i'm not gonna throw a fit.

I sure can.

I just DGAF about the books, the movies, or the creator.

I still could though, but I don't.

Delta_Force posted...

I sure can.

I just DGAF about the books, the movies, or the creator.

I still could though, but I don't.

Yeah you do.

As a side thing since he was brought up on the first page.

Lovecraft was a fuckin hack writer who, despite himself, stumbled into a couple of really fucking neat CONCEPTS for stories, and even those concepts were deeply rooted in his rampant bigotry. The one or two stray stories he wrote that weren't rooted as such, he still couldn't help himself from describing anybody that isn't a white new-england athiest from the city as a literal fucking cave man.

ignoring narratives and assorted bigotry, and just looking at the quality of the writing itself... man wrote like a vaguely more eloquent Donald Trump. He had a small handful of big, smart sounding words that he just loved beating into the fucking ground. Literally EVERYTHING is "cyclopian" this or "non-euclidean" that. The closest he ever came to describing something that humanity couldn't comprehend? "Indescribable". And fucking hell SO MUCH OF HIS SHIT was "indescribable".

I never did in the first place

Fuck Rowling for her beliefs.

I'll still probably play the game sometime down the road.

Yep

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The fact that Rowling is not threatening murder or genocide. You think she is, somehow. I know she isn't.

Hence, fundamental disagreement. Further discussion will be unproductive.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You think she is, somehow. I know she isn't.

Look at this manipulative bullshit.

You don't know shit.

That woman. Says what she says. For a reason.

it doesnt matter because the Harry Potter universe doesnt belong to her. And that is a good thing because a lot of her ideas honestly suck. Some of them are good though. For example, the 4 Hogwarts houses and the lore behind them is great but the actual execution of the 4 houses in the books is pretty bad

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's kinda ironic how you guys keep using meat products for these analogies about supporting injustice with your $ >_>

CyricZ, you aren't vegan/vegetarian are you? I'm just curious because I've noticed that people who appear deeply concerned about the morality of consumption only do so as far as it's easy to and then dust their hands and call it good after that point

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Someone else who gets it.
I feel like the motivation behind boycotting JK's works is primarily spite for JK rather than a genuine concern for trans people and wanting to minimize harm to them. I've noticed this tendency with peoples' voting habits, too. The same people who think buying or not buying something makes no difference still generally go out and vote. I think the difference is that they view the act of voting as "sticking it" to the opposing group, whereas they usually don't see their purchasing habits as being a way of hurting some kind of opposition.

You also see it with the way folks on social media talk about their pet issues. Usually it's not a message of support or something like that, it's usually trying to humiliate or disparage the opposing side in some way

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It definitely makes me pause and consider whether or not some people are much, much worse at it.

uHasNeckHairXFD posted...

CyricZ, you aren't vegan/vegetarian are you? I'm just curious because I've noticed that people who appear deeply concerned about the morality of consumption only do so as far as it's easy to and then dust their hands and call it good after that point

Are you calling me a hypocrite?

Ah, no. Let me rephrase that. Are you shopping for a reason to call me a hypocrite?

Little convenience shopping? Down Aisle 5? Scanning the shelves? Passing over "playing video games" (so many suspects). Being a Star Wars fan (Disney). Driving a car. Paying rent. But you settled on "you eat meat". Not that I guess it matters. Nothing's too good for someone playing the Nirvana fallacy.

Look. I made myself clear on that subject on Post #112:

The "life skill" is coming to terms with what your line is with regards to that, and I certainly respect that for everyone it's different and not a simple question to answer.

I feel pretty comfortable saying that, if nothing else, open bigotry against a marginalized group of people is beyond my line. I feel even more comfortable when the product in question is entertainment.

And I'm allowed to think whatever I want of people who will proudly claim they have no line.

Having no line is not a virtue. It's not having "solved" the game. It's not being above it all. It's just being every other person in this world who thinks for and lives for no one but themselves. We have more than enough of those on this site alone, so it doesn't make you unique, either.

Anyway, I don't even like Harry Potter. I've never spent a single dollar on Harry Potter books, games, merchandise, movies, etc. Rowling has never seen a penny from me.

But if I wanted Harry Potter stuff, I would buy it.

im waiting for some Wingstop to get here, so excited