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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Its not.
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.
What are some other fictional universes that you like?
I’m not sure I understand. I made no reference to fictional universes.
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.
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.
You do have a choice; you could choose not to and face whatever consequences with your moral conviction intact.
This is you’re right but it still doesn’t make it literally promoting transphobia.
If it quacks like transphobia and it promotes transphobia…
This is about the response I expected. Too bad.
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.