‘Please walk away from Harry Potter’: why the stars of HBO’s new TV show are in for decades of social media hell
‘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
You're viewing a single thread.
Reminder: "separating the art from the artist" is an approach to engaging with an artwork, and is a separate question from whether or not you should engage with an artwork when doing so has real life consequences.
Whether or not you should consume HP Lovecraft media despite the fact he was a racist is entirely up to you because he is long dead. He doesn't make any money. He isn't even racist any more. Because he's dead.
When you consider whether or not you consume Harry Potter media, you must consider that JK Rowling will make money and will donate that money to anti-trans groups. If you still go on to buy licensed merch, or pay a streaming service to watch it, you will literally be helping to propogate transphobia. Continue to enjoy anything you currently own if you want. That is where separating the art from the artist comes into it. But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
Only applies to artists who can no longer enjoy the spoils.
Can we pirate it. Or will that just make it more popular
Edit: or should we just boycott
Pirating it wouldn't make it more popular if you kept it to yourself, but talking about it after you watched it probably would.
I think its best to move on
Anyway, will most probably be shit. 99% of series these days are bad and just money grabs.
There are usually some good scenes or themes or characters that make some of the 99% worth a watch. The Netflix Avatar series was shit, that didn't understand the tone of the original, except for the scenes added for Lu-Ten's Funeral and the 41st Division. These alone added enough for me to begrudgingly accept the existence of the live-action series. There are usually some things like that in most of the new ones I've seen.
Don't deprive yourself of happiness to spite her. That being said the books have several reasons to not read them on their own merits. Don't forget "dobby is weird for not wanting to be a slave" is an actual plot point in the books. Not to mention the goblins. If you want to revisit a beloved fantasy series, give LOTR another read/watch.
Count the number of times female characters are described as "shrill" or "screeching" etc. There's a weird misogyny and dedication to patriarchy that just oozes out of the books.
Wheel of Time!
And Hobbit!
I was actually planning on qatching Star Wars, we have a long weekend, but LOTR is also a great idea. Thanks.
But if you still actively promote the material online and thereby increase the demand for it; again, transphobia, arguably.
I agree with everything you wrote up to this point. I'm not really a Harry Potter fan and I certainly don't think much of J.K. Rowling since she revealed her true nature but this last bit is a very slippery slope.
You know the slippery slope fallacy right?
I had not seen that before but I'm not sure it applies. Perhaps the wording was poor to indicate my intent but it was not my intention to indicate "a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends" as that article says.
I was trying to communicate that making a broad statement, like OP did, that promoting Harry Potter online indicates transphobia or transphobic behavior by itself ignores both intent and context, which I think matters.
They're not saying it's transphobic, but it is promoting transphobia. Which isn't really any better in my books.
it ispromoting transphobia
It literally is not, not without context and intent.
Somebody going online and posting, "I grew up with Harry Potter and loved it and I'm interested to see the new [whatever]" is not equivalent to promoting transphobia.
You cannot make a black and white determination like that without context and intent. Without those you're just making assumptions.
"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.
As I said, if not voluntarily giving money to or making excuses for someone who will use that money to hurt people is too much to ask of someone, then their context and intent is quite clear.
Including yours.
As I said, if not voluntarily giving money or making excuses for someone who will use that money to hurt people is too much to ask of someone, then their context and intent is quite clear.
Its not.
Including yours.
Thanks for demonstrating. You can imply I'm transphobic or promoting transphobia but I'm literally not. I'm pretty comfortable with the balance I've struck and, quite honestly, I'm not being transphobic or promoting transphobia because I don't care if someone's trans or not. It's not really any of my business.
My general philosophy is that people are free to be whomever they want, believe whatever they want etc. as long as they aren't hurting others or forcing it on other people against there wishes.
This is why I don't like JK Rowling, but I wouldn't like her if she was actively working against black people or people with physical or mental disabilities or funding Israeli efforts in Gaza or any number of other things.
I don't agree with lots of people's beliefs but I actively dislike them when they begin to weaponize those beliefs.
Except they aren't giving money to someone who will use it for harm. They are giving it to whatever production company has created the series.
It is only after this, and through a convoluted system of ownership and IP laws, that the production company is forced to give a percentage of its proceeds to the hateful bigot.
If you want to criticize anything, criticize that system. Not individuals for wanting to engage in simple creature comforts that they find enjoyable.
Except for the fact that the money spent on the movie directly funds transphobia via JK Rowling....
You get she's literally doing that right?
You get that the only person who controls what JK Rowling does is her, right?
You don't have to like that someone may choose to continue to consume Harry Potter but trying to claim they are directly promoting transphobia unless the context and/or the intent is there.
Someone with a track record of transphobic behavior, sure. Someone who is posting about it in spaces intended for trans people, especially if that space has already clearly communicated their stance on it, maybe.
Context and intent matter.
Excuse me while for not caring about the difference when all the same, the money is still harming my community.
Your money is harming your community.
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, they directly benefit from your money.
Everyone has choices to make, however the context and intent behind those choices matters.
I love how you chose an example I literally can't control like taxes.
And your right, I can't pick and choose every single thing. But you better believe there's a lot of media I won't enjoy because of actors either. Tom Cruise being one.
Intent matters. But when a community tells you hey, this action, that you could easily not not do, is harmful to me and my community.
Yes I do judge you for that choice.
No, it indirectly funds her through a convoluted system of ownership and IP law.
The problem isn't people consuming media. The problem is the system that funnels wealth into the pockets of bigots.
☠️