Current Events > Hogwarts Legacy's Boycott Drama Isn't Real

(+) Yeah! (+)

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I'm not treating HP differently. We could be having the same discussion about anything. How some people feel about Harry Potter is how I feel about Marvel Comics, Kamen Rider and Star Wars. The real question is where does the line end?

Again, we live under capitalism. Almost nothing you consume was produced ethically. How much do you ask a person to give up in order to "stay true to their morals"? Happiness matters just as much as, if not more than, your basic necessities and we shouldn't pretend like it doesn't.

Okay, good post, good points.

I do want to, at minimum, ask people to examine the media they consume critically. What do they like about it, why is it important, can they at least acknowledge problematic elements of it?

FaultyCircuitry posted...

Okay, good post, good points.

I do want to, at minimum, ask people to examine the media they consume critically. What do they like about it, why is it important, can they at least acknowledge problematic elements of it?

Absolutely, and I think framing the conversation this way is a lot more productive. It gets people thinking without being accusatory.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Absolutely, and I think framing the conversation this way is a lot more productive. It gets people thinking without being accusatory.

no one is actually being accusatory. lots of people are getting very defensive at mild criticism of a children's book series though

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I'm not treating HP differently. We could be having the same discussion about anything. How some people feel about Harry Potter is how I feel about Marvel Comics, Kamen Rider and Star Wars. The real question is where does the line end?

Again, we live under capitalism. Almost nothing you consume was produced ethically. How much do you ask a person to give up in order to "stay true to their morals"? Happiness matters just as much as, if not more than, your basic necessities and we shouldn't pretend like it doesn't.

Well to this I say:

First: Supply chain problems aren't necessarily the same problem as the problem provoking a boycott. It's certainly worth talking about the lack of ethics in general but they have different causes, motivations, and necessity. For example, the shoes you're wearing were potentially made using unethical child labor. The result of the unethical child labor is you get to purchase them cheaper than you would if they were made in a highly regulated, low carbon factory of well compensated adults. Shoes are also a necessity you can't just not have shoes. People want to pay less, corporations want to make more, and people need shoes. The perfect ingredients for child labor in Asian countries where most people don't have to deal with acknowledging it. At the end of the day, this is all just greed and frugality.

Harry Potter issue on the other hand is vastly different. For starters, nobody needs harry potter. You maybe really like Harry Potter but you'll live fine without it and there's no shortage of alternate entertainment. Secondly, the anti trans platform of the creator is in no way relevant to Harry Potter itself. It's not like tweeting vile shit is a necessary component to production. If JK Rowling was saying the exact opposite shit, Harry Potter would be completely unchanged. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to accept JK Rowling's position as some kind of "necessary evil" and finally the cause isn't pragmatic like more money, but rather she's just a hateful person. This is personal, and not business at all. It's got nothing to do with capitalism. Absolutely nothing about capitalism says you should buy from people making hateful comments about you that threaten your safety and rights. If anything capitalism explicitly endorses the opposite position. Get your video games from someone who isn't a fuckwad on Twitter and let the fuckwad go out of business.

So it's not really about being morally pure when you advocate to not buy this game. It's about working within capitalism to help others avoid an inferior product like it was always intended to.

A coworker of mine actually sent out a message in the work group chat about how bad it is and how you shouldn't support it. Her spouse is male to female transgender though ...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Well to this I say:

First: Supply chain problems aren't necessarily the same problem as the problem provoking a boycott. It's certainly worth talking about the lack of ethics in general but they have different causes, motivations, and necessity. For example, the shoes you're wearing were potentially made using unethical child labor. The result of the unethical child labor is you get to purchase them cheaper than you would if they were made in a highly regulated, low carbon factory of well compensated adults. Shoes are also a necessity you can't just not have shoes. People want to pay less, corporations want to make more, and people need shoes. The perfect ingredients for child labor in Asian countries where most people don't have to deal with acknowledging it. At the end of the day, this is all just greed and frugality.

Harry Potter issue on the other hand is vastly different. For starters, nobody needs harry potter. You maybe really like Harry Potter but you'll live fine without it and there's no shortage of alternate entertainment. Secondly, the anti trans platform of the creator is in no way relevant to Harry Potter itself. It's not like tweeting vile shit is a necessary component to production. If JK Rowling was saying the exact opposite shit, Harry Potter would be completely unchanged. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to accept JK Rowling's position as some kind of "necessary evil" and finally the cause isn't pragmatic like more money, but rather she's just a hateful person. This is personal, and not business at all. It's got nothing to do with capitalism. Absolutely nothing about capitalism says you should buy from people making hateful comments about you that threaten your safety and rights. If anything capitalism explicitly endorses the opposite position. Get your video games from someone who isn't a fuckwad on Twitter and let the fuckwad go out of business.

So it's not really about being morally pure when you advocate to not buy this game. It's about working within capitalism to help others avoid an inferior product like it was always intended to.

https://www.barefooters.org/

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.barefooters.org/

A small group of people doing barefooted things at a luxury do not negate the fact that there will be days where you will literally get second degree burns on your feet just for going outside.

Tyranthraxus posted...

A small group of people doing barefooted things at a luxury do not negate the fact that there will be days where you will literally get second degree burns on your feet just for going outside.

Without going to such an extreme, you could likely take the time to find some local person who makes shoes or somesuch. There are alternatives for pretty much everything, but the question is how much time and money do you want to allocate to doing that? It's fair to advocate for people to do better, to avoid giving money to X, Y, or Z, but anyone making these grand moral judgements is just being a bit silly. You can take the same argument and turn it around on pretty much almost any product, essential or not, with how our supply chains work. We can and should have a discussion about what our purchases impact, but those telling people they're horrible for purchasing is just losing the plot.

yeah the way you described the shoes issue Tyranthraxus feels like it's really a capitalism thing, people buy those shoes because they're cheaper, there are definitely ethical alternative but you're going to have to shell out more money for it

Nemu posted...

Without going to such an extreme, you could likely take the time to find some local person who makes shoes or somesuch. There are alternatives for pretty much everything, but the question is how much time and money do you want to allocate to doing that? It's fair to advocate for people to do better, to avoid giving money to X, Y, or Z, but anyone making these grand moral judgements is just being a bit silly. You can take the same argument and turn it around on pretty much almost any product, essential or not, with how our supply chains work. We can and should have a discussion about what our purchases impact, but those telling people they're horrible for purchasing is just losing the plot.

My point is that there are actual economical reasons why unethical labor exists. There's no reason for making hateful comments about real people. You can get ethically sourced shoes if you're willing to pay more but 1 not everyone can afford that and 2 even if you could afford it, demanding everyone else do the same is tone deaf to the economic struggles many people live with. The fact that people are so poor they can only afford shoes made in a child sweatshop is its own problem that also needs to be addressed.

But there is absolutely nothing about Harry Potter that requires anyone to tolerate the statements of the creator.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Do you have any idea how unethical Google is?

no such thing as ethical consumption I guess, let's just do whatever we want and live with the consequences

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You can't really get any more minimum than just not buying a video game from an asshole.

what if you buy it from someone nice?

If you don't feel comfortable with buying the game, don't buy it. But don't think that a boycott is going to put J.K. Rowling out on the street. She's made and will die made.

It's really just a matter of whether you want the game or not. Or whether or not your personally feel comfortable with it.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You can't really get any more minimum than just not buying a video game from an asshole.

I didn't realize you were going to her house and purchasing the game directly from her.

Tmaster148 posted...

I didn't realize you were going to her house and purchasing the game directly from her.

The money gets to her one way or another it's irrelevant how many middle men are involved

Tyranthraxus posted...

Well to this I say:

First: Supply chain problems aren't necessarily the same problem as the problem provoking a boycott. It's certainly worth talking about the lack of ethics in general but they have different causes, motivations, and necessity. For example, the shoes you're wearing were potentially made using unethical child labor. The result of the unethical child labor is you get to purchase them cheaper than you would if they were made in a highly regulated, low carbon factory of well compensated adults. Shoes are also a necessity you can't just not have shoes. People want to pay less, corporations want to make more, and people need shoes. The perfect ingredients for child labor in Asian countries where most people don't have to deal with acknowledging it. At the end of the day, this is all just greed and frugality.

Harry Potter issue on the other hand is vastly different. For starters, nobody needs harry potter. You maybe really like Harry Potter but you'll live fine without it and there's no shortage of alternate entertainment. Secondly, the anti trans platform of the creator is in no way relevant to Harry Potter itself. It's not like tweeting vile shit is a necessary component to production. If JK Rowling was saying the exact opposite shit, Harry Potter would be completely unchanged. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to accept JK Rowling's position as some kind of "necessary evil" and finally the cause isn't pragmatic like more money, but rather she's just a hateful person. This is personal, and not business at all. It's got nothing to do with capitalism. Absolutely nothing about capitalism says you should buy from people making hateful comments about you that threaten your safety and rights. If anything capitalism explicitly endorses the opposite position. Get your video games from someone who isn't a fuckwad on Twitter and let the fuckwad go out of business.

So it's not really about being morally pure when you advocate to not buy this game. It's about working within capitalism to help others avoid an inferior product like it was always intended to.

This is why people say the left has an issue with messaging....

You're not considering how people feel about something (attachments that happen because people are humans and not robots) and then you wonder why you aren't getting their support.

There probably exists at least one person in the world where Harry Potter had such an emotional effect on them that it might have prevented them from suicide, and you are not willing to acknowledge that these attachments exist in a way that isn't condescending or unsympathetic to the other person. More importantly, you're also not acknowledging that there are other marginalized communities that have equally been helped by things like the Harry Potter books in some way.

The "all-or-nothing" approach is no way to gain allies, especially when you won't make the same kind of sacrifices on their behalves.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The money gets to her one way or another it's irrelevant how many middle men are involved

No matter where I spend my money it's going to trickle up to someone deplorable in some way

https://twitter.com/xTra_Cringe/status/1615360536673222656

See, now the people who buy shit just because it makes people "mad" are immature assholes IMO

ROOTFayth posted...

https://twitter.com/xTra_Cringe/status/1615360536673222656

I'm trans and not playing it at all, or buying any other HP merchandise in the future. Just because they're dumb enough to not care about their rights doesn't mean that I am.

Doom_Art posted...

No matter where I spend my money it's going to trickle up to someone deplorable in some way

It's funny. Everyone is hyper focus on JK Rowling getting money for royalties. But what about the people who made it? Do we know if everyone worked on the game is pro-trans? Maybe one of them is actually anti-trans. What about your local grocery store? Are you certain the money you spend there doesn't go to some person who donates to anti-trans as well?

Somehow it's only now when JK Rowling is involved that suddenly it matters where your money might end up.

I couldn't agree more but that seems to be a very common reaction, everytime I read the comments on social medias below people who are advocating for not buying the game you gets a flood of replies saying "alright I'm pre ordering it then"

Tmaster148 posted...

Somehow it's only now when JK Rowling is involved that suddenly it matters where your money might end up.

I don't think this one is all that difficult.

She's rich and influential and very public about her views. She was viewed as a champion of rights and justice and only recently (last three years) has made her opinions on trans people clear.

She also has a following that she earned for her book series. A BIG following.

I think the first priority is to make sure people are aware of her, and then explain what these beliefs and actions of hers will mean.

Once we establish that then we can move on to "now what does it mean to support her".

And trans rights are a present and ongoing issue. Multiple state legislatures in their newly opened sessions have already drafted anti-trans bills.

CyricZ posted...

And trans rights are a present and ongoing issue. Multiple state legislatures in their newly opened sessions have already drafted anti-trans bills.

You buying or not buying Hogwarts Legacy isn't going to change the already drafted bills. Maybe you should be spending your energy fighting against those bills then to attack people online over a video game.

But it's also possible that you don't really care about trans rights as much as you pretend as this is an easy way to pat yourself on the back for nothing.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is why people say the left has an issue with messaging....

You're not considering how people feel about something (attachments that happen because people are humans and not robots) and then you wonder why you aren't getting their support.

What are you trying to say here? That some feelings are more valuable than others? If someone loves something harmful that we shouldn't tell them it's harmful because they might get feelings hurt? I don't really get your angle here.

There probably exists at least one person in the world where Harry Potter had such an emotional effect on them that it might have prevented them from suicide, and you are not willing to acknowledge that these attachments exist in a way that isn't condescending or unsympathetic to the other person.

Have you checked on the suicide rates of transgender people? This post just reeks of concern trolling. A lot of Harry Potter fans have been deeply hurt by JK Rowling's comments. Not just hurt in a sense of they had their feelings hurt but people become encouraged to physically hurt them as well because of her comments. If someone is having trouble with suicide or self harm, they need real tangible help. A video game should never be the difference between life and suicide for someone.

More importantly, you're also not acknowledging that there are other marginalized communities that have equally been helped by things like the Harry Potter books in some way.

We should absolutely not endeavor to create a society in which we feel it is acceptable to disfranchise one marginalized community in order to support another marginalized community. That thinking is anathema.

The "all-or-nothing" approach is no way to gain allies, especially when you won't make the same kind of sacrifices on their behalves.

This isn't all-or-nothing. It is highly unlikely the personal relationships of anyone will change because they chose to buy/not buy this game. All people want to do is publicly state the justification for why you shouldn't buy it. If you buy it anyway then \ _ ( ) _ / . If you don't buy it, then also \ _ ( ) _ / . You are criticizing people just for saying the reasons they feel you shouldn't buy the game as if they had any power to stop you from doing so.

Are you feeling attacked Tmaster?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Not just hurt in a sense of they had their feelings hurt but people become encouraged to physically hurt them as well because of her comments.

Got a source for that?

ROOTFayth posted...

https://twitter.com/xTra_Cringe/status/1615360536673222656

https://twitter.com/briannawu/status/1615009915814174721

Oh yeah, this is definitely gonna break records.

blackrider76 posted...

https://twitter.com/briannawu/status/1615009915814174721

Oh yeah, this is definitely gonna break records.

Some people are just setting themselves to be surprised when people go off to enjoy the game and not want to be part of a community acting toxic towards them.

Tmaster148 posted...

Some people are just setting themselves to be surprised when people go off to enjoy the game and not want to be part of a community acting toxic towards them.

I feel I can state with pretty firm confidence that trans people will not be surprised.

blackrider76 posted...

https://twitter.com/briannawu/status/1615009915814174721

Oh yeah, this is definitely gonna break records.

wow i didn't think it was possible for my eyes to roll out of my skull

blackrider76 posted...

https://twitter.com/briannawu/status/1615009915814174721

Oh yeah, this is definitely gonna break records.

I didn't know children could have character tests.

Tyranthraxus posted...

What are you trying to say here? That some feelings are more valuable than others? If someone loves something harmful that we shouldn't tell them it's harmful because they might get feelings hurt? I don't really get your angle here.

That maybe we would have more effective and productive conversations with people if we actually tried to engage with them on an emotional basis rather than trying to shame them into doing our bidding? The fact that this entire debate exists (and the fact that the game is guaranteed to be a massive success regardless of this discussion) should be proof that talking to people in this way isn't accomplishing what you think it's accomplishing for exactly the reasons I outlined.

I also don't know how you could possibly get that I'm implying some feelings matter more than others from what I posted without being intellectually dishonest.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Have you checked on the suicide rates of transgender people? This post just reeks of concern trolling. A lot of Harry Potter fans have been deeply hurt by JK Rowling's comments. Not just hurt in a sense of they had their feelings hurt but people become encouraged to physically hurt them as well because of her comments. If someone is having trouble with suicide or self harm, they need real tangible help. A video game should never be the difference between life and suicide for someone.

And this is where your messaging falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter what should happen, what matters is what does happen. From a purely rational and logical perspective, yes, it's silly that people get so attached to things like movies, books, TV shows, etc., but we are not at all perfectly rational and art is fundamentally defined by its ability to connect with and communicate with people on an emotional basis, for better or worse. When you aren't willing to engage with that, you've already lost any chance you've had at effective conversation.

This is not to handwave the suffering that trans people have gone through. But you can't expect people to listen to you when you aren't willing to listen to them.

Tyranthraxus posted...

We should absolutely not endeavor to create a society in which we feel it is acceptable to disfranchise one marginalized community in order to support another marginalized community. That thinking is anathema.

This is a weak strawman. All I'm saying is that we should not go out of way to trivialize how people feel about certain things. Just because we don't think something is important doesn't mean it isn't in reality.

Tyranthraxus posted...

All people want to do is publicly state the justification for why you shouldn't buy it.

This is being very dishonest about what people are doing. We had people in the last topic outright insinuate people were being transphobic because they wanted to buy this game.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

That maybe we would have more effective and productive conversations with people if we actually tried to engage with them on an emotional basis rather than trying to shame them into doing our bidding? The fact that this entire debate exists (and the fact that the game is guaranteed to be a massive success regardless of this discussion) should be proof that talking to people in this way isn't accomplishing what you think it's accomplishing for exactly the reasons I outlined.

I also don't know how you could possibly get that I'm implying some feelings matter more than others from what I posted without being intellectually dishonest.

No. This is a completely unrelated issue that is just about you deciding when and how other people should be allowed to discuss this topic.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

And this is where your messaging falls on deaf ears. It doesn't matter what should happen, what matters is what does happen. From a purely rational and logical perspective, yes, it's silly that people get so attached to things like movies, books, TV shows, etc., but we are not at all perfectly rational and art is fundamentally defined by its ability to connect with and communicate with people on an emotional basis, for better or worse. When you aren't willing to engage with that, you've already lost any chance you've had at effective conversation.

This is not to handwave the suffering that trans people have gone through. But you can't expect people to listen to you when you aren't willing to listen to them.

It's absolutely relevant what should happen because what is happening is specifically what shouldn't happen. This is exactly the kind of defeatist "no way to prevent this" attitude everyone hates & has no purpose except to block attempts at making progress.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is a weak strawman. All I'm saying is that we should not go out of way to trivialize how people feel about certain things. Just because we don't think something is important doesn't mean it isn't in reality.

There's nothing trivial about this. People don't like to be told the things they like are causing harm. It's a very hard pill to swallow but running away from the truth doesn't help anyone.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is being very dishonest about what people are doing. We had people in the last topic outright insinuate people were being transphobic because they wanted to buy this game.

There's nothing dishonest about this at all. You have people, not just on gamefaqs, but literally everywhere on the net proudly proclaiming they're buying the game or extra copies just to piss off trans people.

What word would you use for that if it's not transphobia?

Obviously not everyone buying the game is transphobic, but there's definitely people who are buying the game as a means of expression of their transphobia. Not every vague generalized statement must be interpreted as an absolute "this is literally applicable to every single Harry Potter fan ever regardless of background or age"

Revelation34 posted...

A bunch of people said something without showing evidence so it means it's true?

The devs said they weren't allowed to have gay people until the first expansion

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

This is why people say the left has an issue with messaging....

You're not considering how people feel about something (attachments that happen because people are humans and not robots) and then you wonder why you aren't getting their support.

no, people generally say the left has an issue with messaging because they personally either don't understand the ideas or are deliberately being obtuse and pretending not to understand them

There probably exists at least one person in the world where Harry Potter had such an emotional effect on them that it might have prevented them from suicide, and you are not willing to acknowledge that these attachments exist in a way that isn't condescending or unsympathetic to the other person. More importantly, you're also not acknowledging that there are other marginalized communities that have equally been helped by things like the Harry Potter books in some way.

not "communities." individuals. people can be similarly attached to literally anything. the thing itself is largely irrelevant in that context, and it doesn't have any actual bearing on the quality of the work itself. Harry Potter is a dumb children's book series regardless of anyone's actual opinion of it

The "all-or-nothing" approach is no way to gain allies, especially when you won't make the same kind of sacrifices on their behalves.

no one is being convinced by an online argument anyway

averagejoel posted...

no, people generally say the left has an issue with messaging because they personally either don't understand the ideas or are deliberately being obtuse and pretending not to understand them

Partially this but also partially (and I say this as someone on the left) leftists are WILDLY uncharismatic.

averagejoel posted...

no one is being convinced by an online argument anyway

which is why the tactic of shaming people over a video game is so confusing to me.

like i can sympathize with people not wanting to play it but like getting worked up over other people doing so will achieve nothing other than making yourself feel angry or accomplished and making them resent you

Like I'm not even saying "you'll catch more flies with honey! :)" or "you gotta meet in the middle" or any other dumb neolib shit like that, I'm just saying it just seems like such a pointless hill to die on and such a useless waste of mental energy

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. This is a completely unrelated issue that is just about you deciding when and how other people should be allowed to discuss this topic.

It's not unrelated. Like I said, all this energy wasted and what has actually been accomplished? You didn't successfully convince people to not buy the game, all you've done is get people to argue with you.

Tyranthraxus posted...

what should happen because what is happening is specifically what shouldn't happen.

According to who?

This is exactly the kind of defeatist "no way to prevent this" attitude everyone hates & has no purpose except to block attempts at making progress.

Wat? How is acknowledging that people form emotional connections to things "defeatist"?

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's nothing trivial about this. People don't like to be told the things they like are causing harm. It's a very hard pill to swallow but running away from the truth doesn't help anyone.

This comment comes across as extremely patronizing.

Tyranthraxus posted...

There's nothing dishonest about this at all. You have people, not just on gamefaqs, but literally everywhere on the net proudly proclaiming they're buying the game or extra copies just to piss off trans people.

What word would you use for that if it's not transphobia?

It honestly feels like we're having two completely different discussions because those aren't the people I'm referring to.

I'm talking about regular ass consumers who are buying the game because they're interested in playing it.

Doom_Art posted...

Partially this but also partially (and I say this as someone on the left) leftists are WILDLY uncharismatic.

most people in general are not charismatic, and I don't think you're actually on the left

which is why the tactic of shaming people over a video game is so confusing to me.

it's not really a tactic, and I certainly haven't seen anyone shaming people over it. just people getting upset and mistaking mild criticism for shaming

Doom_Art posted...

Like I'm not even saying "you'll catch more flies with honey! :)" or "you gotta meet in the middle" or any other dumb neolib shit like that, I'm just saying it just seems like such a pointless hill to die on and such a useless waste of mental energy

that's fair

averagejoel posted...

I don't think you're actually on the left

don't you think Sanders is a centrist or something IIRC?

your scale is way off and I'm not really going by it lol

averagejoel posted...

it's not really a tactic, and I certainly haven't seen anyone shaming people over it

>_>

Doom_Art posted...

don't you think Sanders is a centrist or something IIRC?

your scale is way off and I'm not really going by it lol

"centrist" isn't really the best word for it given those connotations, but no mainstream politician in the US is really on the left. Sanders just wants a few mild social democratic reforms