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
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.
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.
I have to say, this is just such an in-the-weeds moral stance that it crosses the boundary of reasonableness. Honestly, it’s this sort of thing that drove me away from left wing styles of thinking a while ago.
The impact you make on the world in any of your possible actions with regard to Harry Potter is miniscule. Like, truly, utterly insignificant. Are you going to organize an anti-potter boycott? Participate in a protest? Harass the actors in an online trolling movement? Throw eggs at JK Rawling’s house? Great! Go do all those things! Actively participate in changing the world for the better! These actions might actually lead to real change.
But denying yourself pleasures in the name of moral purity accomplishes nothing. If all you do is sit at home and think to yourself “I wanna watch the new Harry Potter thing, but I can’t, because then I’m a bad person.” (or in this case, "I wanna talk to my friends about the new Harry Potter thing I pirated, but I can’t, because then I’m a bad person) then you are accomplishing literally nothing except making yourself miserable. Again, if you are going to actually do something, then go do it! But if you don’t have the time or energy or interest or social battery to actually do something, then shaming yourself or others into not doing things is actively counterproductive. Go take a road trip without calculating if the pleasure you will derive is worth the carbon footprint! Eat an ice cream cone without feeling bad about the the suffering of the factory farmed cow it came from! Get one of those good-paying jobs in oil and gas or defence and make some goddamned money! You are simply not important enough for any of these actions to have any actual real-world impact. The only thing that happens is that you convince yourself that if you ever enjoy anything, then you are a bad person. You train yourself to constantly be looking for the ways in which life’s simple pleasures are destroying the world, so you can feel bad about them.
Just stop it. Be happy. Do whatever you need to do to chill out and enjoy your life and gain some sense of contentedness and security. And then go out and make the world a better place by actually doing something. Hyper-anxious, shame-ridden, depressed know-it-alls rarely create effective social change because no one wants to hang out with them. No one see them and thinks “yeah, that’s what I want my life to look like.”
Don’t confuse that mentality for left-wing thinking. It is an entirely liberal, center-right reactionary mentality to be overly concerned about optics and moral purity.
What you have said is actual left-wing thinking. You have essentially described the point of “no ethical consumption under capitalism”. That if people really care about this, then they need to actually do something about it instead of just shaming others for indulging on simple creature comforts.
Guarantee that the people bitching about others enjoying HP media also go home to suck down a bottle of Coke which directly funds militant anti-labor hit squads in South America to prevent their bottling plants from unionizing. Or maybe they are a Pepsi person, where their purchase has helped fund the exploitation of prisoners who are forced for pennies an hour to make their cans. Or any other of the myriad of things under our current economic structure that funnels wealth into the hands of the elite who seek to oppress the working class.
You are hardly the arbiter of what is left wing thinking. Fuck ethics im going to concern myself with my own needs is apolitical. Its neither Left nor right.
Also most people’s actions are on the overall ALL small. Most people make no big ripples. Telling them to either change the world or do nothing is telling them to do nothing.
Ethics are a habit if you can’t give up a tv show what can you do exactly
Ethics isn’t just big things it’s little things as well. I don’t matter I shouldn’t need to do anything just isn’t Left or right wing it is an apolitical thought. Claiming that because you hold yourself to be left-wing and you thought it and thus it is left wing thinking is just flat out wrong. Please explain exactly how Im wrong. Explain how your position is left wing
Congratulations. You successfully managed to both not engage with my point in any meaningful way, and also provided a solution I already deflated in the comment you are responding to.
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.
It’s up to society if we should separate a work from its artist. We’ve collectively agreed that this work shouldn’t survive the century.
Not only that, you can’t separate an artist from their work when they’re literally tangled in it and controlling it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 have to say, this is just such an in-the-weeds moral stance that it crosses the boundary of reasonableness. Honestly, it’s this sort of thing that drove me away from left wing styles of thinking a while ago.
The impact you make on the world in any of your possible actions with regard to Harry Potter is miniscule. Like, truly, utterly insignificant. Are you going to organize an anti-potter boycott? Participate in a protest? Harass the actors in an online trolling movement? Throw eggs at JK Rawling’s house? Great! Go do all those things! Actively participate in changing the world for the better! These actions might actually lead to real change.
But denying yourself pleasures in the name of moral purity accomplishes nothing. If all you do is sit at home and think to yourself “I wanna watch the new Harry Potter thing, but I can’t, because then I’m a bad person.” (or in this case, "I wanna talk to my friends about the new Harry Potter thing I pirated, but I can’t, because then I’m a bad person) then you are accomplishing literally nothing except making yourself miserable. Again, if you are going to actually do something, then go do it! But if you don’t have the time or energy or interest or social battery to actually do something, then shaming yourself or others into not doing things is actively counterproductive. Go take a road trip without calculating if the pleasure you will derive is worth the carbon footprint! Eat an ice cream cone without feeling bad about the the suffering of the factory farmed cow it came from! Get one of those good-paying jobs in oil and gas or defence and make some goddamned money! You are simply not important enough for any of these actions to have any actual real-world impact. The only thing that happens is that you convince yourself that if you ever enjoy anything, then you are a bad person. You train yourself to constantly be looking for the ways in which life’s simple pleasures are destroying the world, so you can feel bad about them.
Just stop it. Be happy. Do whatever you need to do to chill out and enjoy your life and gain some sense of contentedness and security. And then go out and make the world a better place by actually doing something. Hyper-anxious, shame-ridden, depressed know-it-alls rarely create effective social change because no one wants to hang out with them. No one see them and thinks “yeah, that’s what I want my life to look like.”
In order to lead by example you have to show a path to a better world. Not a cell.
Instead of not enjoying something why not enjoy something else there is finite time and far more to enjoy than you shall ever find time.
What of value would be lost?
If being a POS takes half of your income potential away people will be less likely to behave so and others will think it less acceptable.
Dismissing the aggregate effect of small effects is dismissing most actual effects. Its ahistorical.
Don’t confuse that mentality for left-wing thinking. It is an entirely liberal, center-right reactionary mentality to be overly concerned about optics and moral purity.
What you have said is actual left-wing thinking. You have essentially described the point of “no ethical consumption under capitalism”. That if people really care about this, then they need to actually do something about it instead of just shaming others for indulging on simple creature comforts.
Guarantee that the people bitching about others enjoying HP media also go home to suck down a bottle of Coke which directly funds militant anti-labor hit squads in South America to prevent their bottling plants from unionizing. Or maybe they are a Pepsi person, where their purchase has helped fund the exploitation of prisoners who are forced for pennies an hour to make their cans. Or any other of the myriad of things under our current economic structure that funnels wealth into the hands of the elite who seek to oppress the working class.
You are hardly the arbiter of what is left wing thinking. Fuck ethics im going to concern myself with my own needs is apolitical. Its neither Left nor right.
I mean, you’re more than welcome to stay politically ignorant. I’m not an arbiter, but I am just describing facts.
Also, what they said was absolutely not 'fuck ethics I’m going to concern myself with my own needs"
Nice bad faith misrepresentation of what they said.
Also most people’s actions are on the overall ALL small. Most people make no big ripples. Telling them to either change the world or do nothing is telling them to do nothing.
Ethics are a habit if you can’t give up a tv show what can you do exactly
Ethics isn’t just big things it’s little things as well. I don’t matter I shouldn’t need to do anything just isn’t Left or right wing it is an apolitical thought. Claiming that because you hold yourself to be left-wing and you thought it and thus it is left wing thinking is just flat out wrong. Please explain exactly how Im wrong. Explain how your position is left wing
Just pirate it and don’t speak about it. Win win. No monkey for the bigot and you get your pleasure.
Congratulations. You successfully managed to both not engage with my point in any meaningful way, and also provided a solution I already deflated in the comment you are responding to.
You didn’t successfully deflate it
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.
It’s up to society if we should separate a work from its artist. We’ve collectively agreed that this work shouldn’t survive the century. Not only that, you can’t separate an artist from their work when they’re literally tangled in it and controlling it
JK Rowling is rich enough to fund anti trans groups for decades without any input from us. Boycotting HP has no effect on trans rights.
☠️
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?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.