Not really sure who this is even for. Most people who were excited for Harry Potter shit the first time round are in their 40s. The author has fallen into a rabbit-hole of right-wing nut-baggery. The movies did a decent job and weren’t really that long ago. It’s not like some 70s movie where everyone is clearly flying on strings.
It’s the kind of thing I expect two seasons to be shat out on Netflix or Amazon or one of the ad funded services, and then everyone forgets about it and agrees not to do it again.
I just don’t know what HBO are doing in this. I normally associate them with high quality shows and a streaming service that isn’t available in the UK. It just doesn’t feel like something they’d be doing. Maybe they’ve just fallen that far.
Yeah, I really don’t understand who the target demographic is for this? It’s not like they are doing anything interesting with the universe, it’s just the same story again.
They could have done anything with this but they are doing this. Do a different time period or something.
I’m so glad I have Americans around to lecture me daily on the morality of pop culture whilst they simultaneously accelerate extinction-level events and start new wars that fuck the cost of living for the rest of us.
You think those that are lecturing about the idiot raging against trans and others are the same ones that are running the country into the ground?
The people talking abour piracy as if this is just a monetary battle. Its not. With each piece of content we consume we are changed. What content you consume has influence on what you think, what you say, what you do. By choosing to consume content, even if no money changes hands, is still consenting to be changed by content sourced from a person with hate in their heart.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
There are other options to consume, and potentially even, maybe the time spent consuming harry potter would be better placed meditating and introspecting to become a better person outside of additional influences, or even interacting and sharing experiences and insights with family and friends.
Choose love, reject hate. Money is a secondaey medium.
Ok, so, I have a few problems with this take.
I do not think it healthy to consume content made by hateful people.
First, I question the very premise. That consuming otherwise benign content is somehow “not […] healthy” if the creater is themselves hateful, whether or not that hate is present in their content. A) by what do you mean it is unhealthy? For your mind? Your eternal soul? What? B) If the content does not display any of the specific hatred of their creator, by what means would that hatred effect me at all? Psychically?
Second, let’s assume the premise is true. Tell me then, how would you ever avoid this unhealthy situation in your life? Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful? Many a creator of beloved works, has turned out to be an asshole or a bigot. And many of those were only revealed as such after those works became beloved. Surely, many more were also created by hateful people who were not and may never be publically revealed as such. Given you have concluded that the content and monetary support is not all that matters, but also the internal character of the creator, how do you know your health isn’t be constantly compromised by consuming work by people you don’t know are actually hateful in some way.
Third, it seems kind of a moot point anyway in this case. Rowling only started revealing her transphobia in 2019. By that point the entire novel series, the entire film adaptation series, a spin off play and companion book, the first two of three spinoff films, and any number of video games, toys, and other merchandise had all been released and consumed by billions. The vast majority of our generation has consumed a ton Harry Potter media in many forms before her bigotry was on full display. I personally read most of the books over and over as a kid. I gotta tell you, if my health was damaged because she was secretly a hateful bitch at heart, then that damage is done.
I get wanting to take a moral highground, being disgusted by the association, and just wanting to distance yourself from Rowling and leave it behind. I truly get that and think it is entirely justified and valid. But don’t project some sort of damage onto people who don’t do the same, or attribute some sort of complicit immorality to them because they don’t take the same stance as you. That’s where I strongly disagree.
Sure you could avoid the openly hateful creators, but how would you ever know who is secretly hateful?
You don’t know what you don’t know. Nobody should be blamed for liking HP while they were unaware of Rowling’s bigotry and how she funds hate groups.
But once you do know, you now have agency and responsibility. Absentminded consumption of content is not consequence-free, the information landscape you inhabit changes you. Do you ever catch yourself using a word more often after hearing your favorite YouTuber use it? That’s just one small perceptible example of what OP means.
This is why it’s important for articles like this to inform and remind people to be critical viewers, to be skeptical about what they watch, who they follow.
So a better educated / more critical thinking audience is able to consume content from a malicious or hateful creator with better shielding?
I think this entirely misses the point.
The point of bringing critical thinking to bear is to discern the garbage and choose not to consume it.
Educating people about the harm bigoted content brings with it is the right thing to do.
Educating people about the harm bigoted content brings with it is the right thing to do.
But I do not think HP is bigoted content, no matter how bigoted its author is. It certainly has some problematic aspects to it, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t think that it ultimately champions, supports, or frames in a good light any form of bigotry. It, in fact, often does the exact opposite. I think part of what is so jarring about Rowling’s bigotry is that it came out of nowhere for fans of her work. It is entirely unexpected because it is straight up antithetical to much of the messaging in her books. The irony is not lost on me, but I would rather use the anti-bigotry messaging in HP to inform my life and use it against the creator herself than to feel guilt or disgust over enjoying those stories, just because she is a cunt.
These stories that have been a part of my life since the time my first grade teacher read the first book to us until I drove myself to the midnight release of the 7th book 10 years later and even beyond that. The first book series that I ever willingly picked up and read myself after hating reading because of my ADD, that showed me I could actually love reading if I found the right story and stuck with it, even if I read slow. These stories will always hold a special place in my heart, and no one judging me on the internet nor that hateful bitch of an author will change that. I make no apologies for it.
But I do not think HP is bigoted content, no matter how bigoted its author is.
you don’t, uh, find anything problematic with the goblin-like depiction of their bankers?
wow.
well you do you bud, there’s no informing some folks no matter how obvious it is I guess.
Did you even read my comment? Like the very next sentence? I said that there is defintely problematic stuff. Very specifically I was alluding to the goblins, as well as house elves.
All science is built on the backs of the “content” created by generations upon generations of our predecessors, many of whom were far from saintly.
Schrödinger was a pedophile, but his equations are some of the most important and beautiful equations in physics.
Newton was an asshole, but his contributions to math and science are unavoidable in any STEM field.
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
I don’t have a horse in this race. Maybe it is beneficial to boycott the consumption of Harry Potter media in general. But you are wrong to assert that content created by a hateful person is fundamentally unhealthy to consume.
Im cautous to call discoveries a form of created content, likewise those things are peer reviewed amongst a group - you could theoretically rediscover shrodingers equations without ever learning from shrodinger, but almost certainly you could never rewrite harry potter without having read harry potter - thats because on some level, hp is a reflection of jkr herself - shrodingers equations are not a reflection of shrodinger, but of reality itself (possibly!)
Didnt know he was a pedo though, yuck: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacoffey/2022/01/24/schrdinger-pedophilia-the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag-box/
To blanket disregard content simply because it was authored by a bad person is not a valid stance at all, but also, it is quite literally the hateful option since you are asserting your hostility towards a person and even to anything remotely related to them. That is the definition of hatred, not love.
Is an odd take to me, should we all read mein kampf? Its just content right? Is it hateful to not read mein kampf? I dont think so. I dont think i am ignorant for not having read mein kampf either. Seperate the art from the artist? I do not. You seem to think i should tolerate intolerance - but it is good, in my mind at least, to draw boundries - but by your argument, any intolerance is hatred - all nazis, pedos, other evil-doers can be tolerated at your table, but not mine, i will blanket disregard them and protect my table from their influence.
At most generous, ill look at their content through a purely analytical and guarded lense - treating it as dangerous, because i beleive it really is.
(And for clarity, im not equating mein kampf and harry potter, nor jkr and hitler, its just a clearer example to make my case with)
Is it hateful to not read mein kampf?
No…? Why would it be hateful to avoid reading a book because you don’t like its contents? But it is wrong to assert that it is impossible for a hateful/evil person to create non-hateful/evil content.
While mein kampf is a piece of negative media, it is not the only content created by Hitler. I would wager that if I showed a person some of Hitler’s paintings (without telling them who authored it), they would not become more hateful just from viewing the landscapes and buildings. In fact, people tend to like paintings in general so it might even have a positive affect on their mood despite it being content created by an evil man.
If you don’t like content, it is not hateful to ignore it. But to assert that absolutely nothing good can come from a person who has done evil things is wrong. You cannot be certain that there is no good within the bad anymore than you can assert there is no bad within the good.
Any intolerance is hatred
That is not what I said. Furthermore, I fully believe it is okay to hate things. I hate cruelty; I hate the bourgeoisie; etc. My point was that your assertion was backwards and contradictory. You were the one advocating for hatred while ending your statement with “choose love, reject hate.” I was pointing out that contradiction not asserting the morality or immorality of hatred.
