Skip Navigation

‘Please walk away from Harry Potter’: why the stars of HBO’s new TV show are in for decades of social media hell

www.theguardian.com ‘Please walk away from Harry Potter’: why the stars of HBO’s new TV show are in for decades of social media hell

The internet is already exploding about Katherine Parkinson, John Lithgow and Paapa Essiedu signing up to the new Hogwarts adventures – and it hasn’t even started filming

‘Please walk away from Harry Potter’: why the stars of HBO’s new TV show are in for decades of social media hell
131

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
131 comments
  • "I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I'm interested to see the new [whatever]" is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.

    It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.

    This isn't an analogy, it's not dramatic license, or over exaggeration.

    You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent.

    If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.

    By itself, it doesn't mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.

    • It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.

      adverb: literally in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

      It literallyis not. I posted the definition in case you needed it. Purchasing or consuming a product is not exactly the same as promoting transphobia.

      By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you've ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you're promoting transphobia. If you've ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you're promoting transphobia. Doesn't matter if you know it because, as you put it, they directly benefit from your money.

      If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.

      The only part of this that's true is "advocating for continued consumption of her work" and even that's a stretch because a person could have any number of reasons. Also, simply expressing interest in something is not advocating for it, it's sharing an opinion or preference.

      By itself, it doesn't mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.

      It doesn't mean that, that's what you're assuming because that's what it means to you.

      You do not make the rules for other people.

      I am so tired of this "fall in line or else" attitude everyone seems to have.

      You want to preface it with "in my opinion" you go right ahead and we'll have to agree to disagree but it is by definition and factually not literally promoting transphobia.

131 comments