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
Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It’s easy unless you start justifying it.
Your logic is performatively neutral and comes from a place of callousness and complacency.
All of this counter-discussion on this topic is bad faith and/or political trolling and should be treated as such by mods and future readers.
The minute you step back and realize that somebody is really trying to argue against letting go of Harry Potter from such a weird angle, you realize how bad a take it really is. It’s so bad, that it’s hard to even be taken seriously beyond political strategy and wasting the time of the real people here who believe in standing up for what’s right in such a shitty time in the world.
It’s petty and shitty. You can consume Harry Potter and similar content if you wish, nobody will stop you. But anybody with half a brain realizes that the ethical move is to just let it go. Move on.
The minute you step back and realize that somebody is really trying to argue against letting go of Harry Potter from such a weird angle
I haven’t argued that at all. What I have argued is that context and intent matters when it comes to an individuals actions and, while you’re free to judge away, just because someone lives there their life in a way you don’t like doesn’t automatically make them transphobic or mean they are literally promoting transphobia.
Edit: I had to come back for this bit.
Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It’s easy unless you start justifying it.
I’m guessing this wasn’t your intent but it reads like you should only take a stand when it’s easy.
You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right? You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can’t be bigoted. And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.
You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right?
I don’t know but I don’t disagree with it. It’s also not what I said.
You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can’t be bigoted.
I’m not. My feelings on the subject, hate or lack thereof, have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that consuming Harry Potter content or talking about it online is not equivalent to literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. To make that determination requires context and intent.
And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.
They are not directly equivalent though it’s interesting that’s the only example I provided you’re addressing.
You’re not forced. You have the choice to not and face those consequences. It’s an awful and unfair choice that nobody should even have to consider but it’s there. By choosing not to refuse to pay doesn’t mean you’re literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia and that’s the point.
You can disagree with someone’s choice to consume HP content or their decision to discuss it online but that doesn’t make it literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. That requires context and intent.
Transphobia, by definition, consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Consuming HP content or talking about it does not meet that literal definition, until or unless there’s context to support it and/or expressed intent, e.g. someone says “I hate trans people so I bought all the HP books to show my support”.
That is “classic” bigotry, if you will. Systemic bigotry does not need these feelings, as you thoughts on the subject mean nothing to those who are the targets of the bigotry, as buying things that enrich their persecutors, and actively donating to those people ideologically, bears no significant difference to the persecuted, in any practical manner. Also, if it is something I can practically avoid, living in the world I was born into, then I do. Entertainment is like the poster child of things you can choose to avoid. Suggesting people live an impossibility does no good, but that is not what is happening with people telling people to drop JK Rowling’s IP.
Systemic bigotry refers to ingrained biases and discriminatory practices within institutions and systems that disadvantage certain groups of people. An individual consuming Harry Potter content is not “systemic bigotry”.
buying things that enrich their persecutors, and actively donating to those people ideologically, bears no significant difference to the persecuted
I’ve never said anything about “donating to those people” as a direct donation to JK Rowling in the current context would demonstrate intent to support that ideology. The sole act of purchasing a product, in and of itself, does not, regardless of how the persecuted feels about it.
that is not what is happening with people telling people to drop JK Rowling’s IP.
No it’s not. It’s quite clear that the messaging is “drop JK Rowling’s IP (do what we as a group want) or you’re literally transphobic and/or promoting transphobia”. Again, a single choice to consume HP content without context or intent factually and by definition does not mean someone is being literally transphobic and promoting transphobia.
Edit: as I continue to learn things from Lemmy it’s come to my attention that the stance that Consuming Harry Potter content or talking about online makes you guilty of literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia is a form of purity testing.
Just not supporting jkr is a lot more clear-cut than all those other examples. It’s easy unless you start justifying it.
Your logic is performatively neutral and comes from a place of callousness and complacency.
All of this counter-discussion on this topic is bad faith and/or political trolling and should be treated as such by mods and future readers.
The minute you step back and realize that somebody is really trying to argue against letting go of Harry Potter from such a weird angle, you realize how bad a take it really is. It’s so bad, that it’s hard to even be taken seriously beyond political strategy and wasting the time of the real people here who believe in standing up for what’s right in such a shitty time in the world.
It’s petty and shitty. You can consume Harry Potter and similar content if you wish, nobody will stop you. But anybody with half a brain realizes that the ethical move is to just let it go. Move on.
I haven’t argued that at all. What I have argued is that context and intent matters when it comes to an individuals actions and, while you’re free to judge away, just because someone lives
theretheir life in a way you don’t like doesn’t automatically make them transphobic or mean they are literally promoting transphobia.Edit: I had to come back for this bit.
I’m guessing this wasn’t your intent but it reads like you should only take a stand when it’s easy.
You know systemic bigotry needs not intent, or context, from the individual, right? You seem to be arguing that your personal lack of hatred towards a group, and lack of direct harm, means your actions can’t be bigoted. And no, being forced to pay taxes is not the same as choosing to buy into something funding bigotry.
I don’t know but I don’t disagree with it. It’s also not what I said.
I’m not. My feelings on the subject, hate or lack thereof, have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that consuming Harry Potter content or talking about it online is not equivalent to literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. To make that determination requires context and intent.
They are not directly equivalent though it’s interesting that’s the only example I provided you’re addressing.
You’re not forced. You have the choice to not and face those consequences. It’s an awful and unfair choice that nobody should even have to consider but it’s there. By choosing not to refuse to pay doesn’t mean you’re literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia and that’s the point.
You can disagree with someone’s choice to consume HP content or their decision to discuss it online but that doesn’t make it literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia. That requires context and intent.
Transphobia, by definition, consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender or transsexual people, or transness in general. Consuming HP content or talking about it does not meet that literal definition, until or unless there’s context to support it and/or expressed intent, e.g. someone says “I hate trans people so I bought all the HP books to show my support”.
That is “classic” bigotry, if you will. Systemic bigotry does not need these feelings, as you thoughts on the subject mean nothing to those who are the targets of the bigotry, as buying things that enrich their persecutors, and actively donating to those people ideologically, bears no significant difference to the persecuted, in any practical manner. Also, if it is something I can practically avoid, living in the world I was born into, then I do. Entertainment is like the poster child of things you can choose to avoid. Suggesting people live an impossibility does no good, but that is not what is happening with people telling people to drop JK Rowling’s IP.
Systemic bigotry refers to ingrained biases and discriminatory practices within institutions and systems that disadvantage certain groups of people. An individual consuming Harry Potter content is not “systemic bigotry”.
I’ve never said anything about “donating to those people” as a direct donation to JK Rowling in the current context would demonstrate intent to support that ideology. The sole act of purchasing a product, in and of itself, does not, regardless of how the persecuted feels about it.
No it’s not. It’s quite clear that the messaging is “drop JK Rowling’s IP (do what we as a group want) or you’re literally transphobic and/or promoting transphobia”. Again, a single choice to consume HP content without context or intent factually and by definition does not mean someone is being literally transphobic and promoting transphobia.
Edit: as I continue to learn things from Lemmy it’s come to my attention that the stance that Consuming Harry Potter content or talking about online makes you guilty of literally being transphobic or promoting transphobia is a form of purity testing.