[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5957[View All]

File: 1596044749833.jpg (86.41 KB, 600x600, 1:1, T142577329704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Now that the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a terrible person, can we all finally agree that Harry Potter was never good? That you were all just easily-impressionable kids and that with the hindsight of adults the whole franchise kinda sucks? Can we make this the official stance going forward? It would really hinder J.K. Rowling's ability to say bigoted stuff AND be listened to.
129 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6087

>>6083
I'd suggest you give him the benefit of the doubt because you agree with his politics, where as you presume anything Trump says in the worst possible light due to disagreeing with his politics.

in my book, what Biden said is far, far more racist than anything Trump has ever said.

 No.6088

>>6086
Not really. Someone not thinking something is racist doesn't mean it isn't racist. You could tell someone the N word isn't racist, it still is.

>>6087
>in my book, what Biden said is far, far more racist than anything Trump has ever said.

Numerous people have heard him using the N-word and other racial slurs. But even out of the things we can confirm he's said, you really think that saying someone "isn't black" is more racist than ALL of this? https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

 No.6089

>>6088
Look, i'm done. Start a Trump thread if you wanna lick his boots and excuse his racism. I don't want anything to do with this conversation anymore unless it's about J.K. Rowling.

 No.6090

>>6089

Kinda came up earlier, but let's loop back to it, 'cause it's the core of the question:

Is it possible to enjoy something if its creator holds views you're strongly opposed to?  It's been a big question lately, and everyone has different answers.

 No.6091

>>6081
OK, so we seem to agree that, at least in some cases, it is acceptable to vote for a racist if the other candidate is worse.  Well, I do that in all cases.  I try to evaluate the badness of each candidate, and then vote for a viable candidate with the least badness.  So, assuming arguendo that Trump is racist, I hope you can realize that my choice to vote for Trump didn't make me racist.  Instead, it just means that you and I disagree on whether the Second Amendment has the potential to be vitally important to preserving our Constitutional republic and preventing a tyrant from seizing power.  

 No.6092

File: 1596073024497.png (693.43 KB, 960x600, 8:5, 995295_700246260000497_355….png) ImgOps Google

>>6091
>>6089
I too, vote for a return to talk about Magical Mystery Novels

 No.6093

>>6088
You explicitly said know.
>"Telling them "hey, that's racist" does nothing because they KNOW it is"
are you saying that was a mistake? Are you suggesting that instead what you meant was that it was racist, anyway, and therefore even if they don't know it, they're guilty of racism?

I do not agree that it is wrong to commit a sin without knowing you did so. That seems horrifically backwards to me. How could we assume somebody is evil when they had absolutely no idea what they were doing?

>Numerous people have heard him using the N-word and other racial slurs.
I am not inclined to take people simply at their word. Not when it's somebody as divisive as Trump. Especially not when it's somebody they've already made clear there more than happy to lie about.

And to be fair, I would say the same about Biden. It's why I rely on the actual footage I saw, where he literally said the words, rather than hear say of something he did ages ago.

 No.6094

>>6089
The point on hand was that you call her evil for being a bigger, but you are more than happy to be a bigot yourself.

 No.6095

>>6091
The Second Amendment wasn't in danger. That was propaganda. The threat has to be real for "lesser of two evils" to apply. If it's the "lesser of two evils based on an imaginary thing that doesn't exist." then it's not really the same.

>>6093
I refuse to be called a bigot for being anti-racist. You being blind to racism/making excuses for racism to excuse your own (not sure which applies to you) does not make the racism non-existent, nor does it make being against racism bigotry.

>>6092
Ok, I won't respond to any posts beyond this one that aren't about Harry Potter and how it sucks and how we should admit it sucks to take away J.K. Rowling's ability to spread hatred. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand go!

 No.6096

>>6095
>Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand go!

I did go!

>>6090

 No.6097

>>6095
I never said being against racism makes you a bigot.
That is not my position
That is what is commonly referred to as a strawman.

I explicitly said calling Trump supporters evil because you presume every single one of them is racist is bigoted

 No.6098

File: 1596073661119.jpg (396.54 KB, 824x1200, 103:150, clownpiece_52062508.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6090
>Is it possible to enjoy something if its creator holds views you're strongly opposed to?
I'd say so.  Hell, I'll even admit that I enjoy listening to the USSR National Anthem and appreciate it for its musical quality, even though I hate Communism and believe that the Soviet Union was one of the most malevolent governments in the world.

>>6095
>The threat has to be real for "lesser of two evils to apply". If it's the "lesser of two evils based on an imaginary thing that doesn't exist." then it's not really the same.
I disagree.  It's not fair to accuse a voter of being racist simply because he is mistaken about facts that are totally unrelated to racism.

 No.6099

>>6097
We're not talking about that anymore.

>>6090
Ok, so this concept is called "death of the author" I think. Basically the idea of a work being completely separate from the person who made it and if such a thing is even possible.

I think it really depends on the work. For example, one of my favorite movies is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie from 1990. In that movie, Master Splinter is played by Kevin Clash, known for his work in puppetering and as being the voice of Elmo on Sesame Street for many many years. A few years ago, it came out that Clash was a child molester, and he was removed from all Sesame Street productions.

Knowing this, is it possible to still enjoy TMNT the same way? Another story happened with the Simpsons. The producers of the show decided to remove the episode featuring Micheal Jackson from rotation because a person who accuses Jackson of molesting him as a child claims Jackson used that episode of the Simpsons to impress his victims. That adds another layer onto the discussion because in the case of Master Splinter, his role (likely) wasn't used directly to aid his crimes, but in the case of Micheal Jackson, it was.

 No.6100

>>6090
>>Is it possible to enjoy something if its creator holds views you're strongly opposed to?
For the most part, yes. Reviews can be a little sticky sometimes, or other places where they are making judgments, but in terms of more artistic representations, like stories, games, or pictures, I find it rarely matters. Not unless that particular disagreement is very present in the art. And, then, it's not so much I disagree with them, as that I now disagree with the piece.

But I can absolutely enjoy art made by people I don't like, disagree with, or even find largely immoral. I know this primarily because I follow a whole lot of different furry artists. Plenty of whom I disagree with strongly

 No.6101

>>6099
Then to bring it back to the original point; what makes JK Rowling a bad person?
Bigotry?

 No.6102

>>6101
Being transphobic makes her a bad person, specifically.

 No.6103

>>6102
So some kinds of bigotry are acceptable?
Why?

 No.6104

>>6102
What exactly do you mean by "bad person"?

 No.6105

>>6103
>So some kinds of bigotry are acceptable?
I'm not sure how that follows from his post.  Can you explain further?

 No.6106

>>6103
Please stop trying to derail the discussion or I'm going to report you.

>>6105
He's trying to derail and talk about (i.e. defend) Trump again. Just ignore him.

 No.6107

>>6104
She is a person who's ideology is harmful to people within a marginalized group. This is not the ONLY way to be a bad person, but it's what makes HER a bad person. The fact that she is spreading her harmful ideology through the use of her platform and fame is also bad.

 No.6108

>>6099

So since you've now asked me, I would say yeah, it's definitely possible to enjoy those things.  Though it does depend on exactly what happened, and obviously it's a personal decision.

Though in both of the cases you mentioned, those are like, things we discovered later and can't impact future performances.  Like Jackson is dead, so it's easy to say "Well I like all the albums I've built up over the years I'll just keep listening to them."  Rowling isn't dead, and I think it's harder to justify continuing to purchase her books or movies or whatever knowing that she is using her platform to spread hate.

Harry Potter has a pretty huge fanbase, and Rowling is often cited as this great success story, but there's no question that her fandom is upset by this.  People made it through the whole series and became huge fans in spite of Rowling being a TERF because it didn't show up in her novels, but for the hardcore fans who would like go to events to meet with the creator, are they able to do that still now that some portion of the fandom knows Rowling hates that they exist?

Death of the author can also go in the other direction, where people infer something from the text and the writer has to be like "No, that's...you're just making that up."  Probably the most famous example is Tolkien and Lord of the Rings.  A lot of people said "This sounds like it has an anti-war message in here.  Tolkien was a soldier coming back from a world war, this story is a metaphor for World War 1."  (Or 2, I can't remember which.)  And he's on the record as saying "No, it isn't, it's just a story, I don't hold those views and this wasn't meant to spread them."  Which brings up the question of whether the author's intent is important in terms of what lessons people are taking away from a text.

 No.6109

>>6105
He wouldn't need to specify if all forms of bigotry were bad.
Her being transphobic would be irrelevant in regards to a judgment on her character; answering my question >>6101 wood then only require a yes.

>>6106
I am not trying to do so. Please, report away, as I'm sure the staff will tell you the same.

Your own hostile assumptions of others does not demonstrate a violation of the rules.

>He's trying to derail and talk about (i.e. defend) Trump again
That is not the case. This is, once again, a strawman on your part based off of your own hostility and bigotry.

This is not accurate. Stop lying about me please. If there's one thing I absolutely despise, it's people lying about me

 No.6110

>>6108
What is a TERF?

Yes, the fact that Rowling is still alive does change the dynamic a bit. I think that, if people don't want to support her or her work because of her views, they are right to do so. But are the people who continue to support her indirectly supporting her bigotry? That's a much harder question to answer definitively.

Also, yes, I've seen "death of the author" work the other way. It's a very interesting question. On the one hand, audience interpretation is important, and without it, no works anywhere have any meaning. But on the other hand, what the author set out the say with their work is also important. Tolkien served in WWI. Even if he did not intentionally include elements of that in the Lord of the Rings, its still possible they found their way into the work through his life experiences. Which is what I was getting at earlier when I was talking about a work having an author's worldview as part of by default. But what if someone comes up with some crazy off-the-wall interpretation of the work? That the Smurfs represent Communism or something? Is that just as valid a reading?

 No.6111

File: 1596075535924.png (438.44 KB, 640x640, 1:1, 1446319864181.png) ImgOps Google

>>6110
>But are the people who continue to support her indirectly supporting her bigotry?
Are people who buy items manufactured in China indirectly supporting the Chinese government?

 No.6112

>>6111
I would say yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're bearing some responsibility. Especially if they didn't know.
I do not believe you can unknowingly commit a sin.

Even if they do know, however, while you might say it's not good, it's not bad either. It's a neutral act as I see it.

 No.6113

>>6110
>What is a TERF?

A "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist".  Basically a feminist that believes transgendered people are trying to co-opt women's rights.  That people born as men don't deserve to benefit from the advancements in rights for women.

>But are the people who continue to support her indirectly supporting her bigotry?

To some extent, maybe?  Another big example recently is Chik-fil-A.  They make donations to anti-gay organizations, so a lot of people quit eating there, worried that their money might support causes opposed to them.  Of course, other people immediately signed on to buy even more Chik-fil-A, and they're still doing quite well, so I don't think any kind of boycott has had any effect.  Arguably the same thing might be the case for Rowling, like, all the casual fans that just buy new books as they come out?  They haven't seen her Twitter account, they probably know nothing about Rowling's views, and they're likely where she makes the majority of her income.  Boycotting her books may have absolutely no effect on what she's able to do.  Not to mention that she may one day come around regardless.  Chik-fil-A did.

>But what if someone comes up with some crazy off-the-wall interpretation of the work? That the Smurfs represent Communism or something? Is that just as valid a reading?

I've heard it said that all readings are valid, and a work doesn't have only one meaning.  There are many lenses you can view a work through, and through the appropriate lens you can interpret any work as being about anything you want.  In which case upon the death of the author, a work has no inherent meaning, and what's important is to learn what you can about your appropriate lens from the story.  I think that was from a movie review youtuber or something, let me see if I can find the video.

 No.6114

>>6113
>let me see if I can find the video.

I think I've found it, and not only is it literally labeled "Death of the Author", I think it might exist because of Rowling.

 No.6115

>>6111
I mean... kinda? It's a tough question to answer.

>>6113
>That people born as men don't deserve to benefit from the advancements in rights for women.

But that's dumb, because feminism is (or should be) about making sure women's rights are on par with men's. That they are equal. So if everyone has the same rights, then it doesn't matter which team you're on.

Well, even if a boycott won't send her to the poor house or even diminish her wealth in any notable way, is it still the right thing to do to not support someone who is spreading hate? I don't think your actions have to have wide-reaching effects for someone to still strive to do the right thing.

I'm not sure I agree that "all" readings are valid. Just look to "shippers" and things like that. People who will swear up and down that two characters who only spoke twice had a romantic relationship within the text itself. There a line between intepretation and imagining things that aren't there.

>In which case upon the death of the author, a work has no inherent meaning, and what's important is to learn what you can about your appropriate lens from the story

That's also a thing to remember. Rowling isn't dead, but she will be, someday down the line. And it's possible, likely even, that Harry Potter as a work will outlive her. For centuries. And when that happens, her personal views and life will become less and less important to the work and audience interpretations of that work will become more and more important.

 No.6116

>>6115
>But that's dumb, because feminism is (or should be) about making sure women's rights are on par with men's. That they are equal. So if everyone has the same rights, then it doesn't matter which team you're on.

Yeah, so you can imagine why they're so widely hated.  It's a small distinct group that no one anywhere seems to like.

>Well, even if a boycott won't send her to the poor house or even diminish her wealth in any notable way, is it still the right thing to do to not support someone who is spreading hate?

That is very philosophical in nature and I don't think we've really answered that question.  It's a battle between morality as an absolute and morality as a practical approach to living.  Should your actions be guided by "the right thing" or should your actions be guided by what effect they will have on the world?

>I'm not sure I agree that "all" readings are valid. Just look to "shippers" and things like that. People who will swear up and down that two characters who only spoke twice had a romantic relationship within the text itself. There a line between intepretation and imagining things that aren't there.

It's valid in the sense that they took that from the story for themselves.  Reading is ultimately about imagination, so it's at least a little weird to say that you can imagine things that aren't there.  None of it is there, it's all imaginary to begin with.  What you can't do is imagine your version of the story and then try to claim that's what the story is about, because in this case all other readings are also valid, so the validity of a reading isn't even relevant to anything.

 No.6117

>>6116
>should your actions be guided by "the right thing" or should your actions be guided by what effect they will have on the world?

Lots of actions have no tangible affect on the world but should still be done. Does giving your friend a hug affect the world? Not really, not in a grand sense. But you still should do that. Thinking otherwise lends itself to inaction because it won't have a big enough effect. Which is dangerous thinking. It leads to selfish action.

>What you can't do is imagine your version of the story and then try to claim that's what the story is about,

I'm not sure I agree. Stories are (usually) about SOMETHING. The author wrote it with an intention. I wrote a story for school last year. The story had a message and a story. If someone read my story and said "I think this story is about white supremacy!" I would be like "No, that's... that's wrong. That's not in my story. You are dumb." Because it's not part of the story.

 No.6135

File: 1596146368105.png (177.67 KB, 384x383, 384:383, 1595964695895.png) ImgOps Google

>>5957
Considering every aspect is stolen, i think it would be accurate to say that the original, non-hodgepodged source stories are a whole lot better.

I think we should be able to call transphobes bad people, if thats an accurate fact about them.  After all, its a justification for murder so the belief itself legally rises to a clear and present danger to life and rights.

Bad does not mean irredeemable.  If someone wants to be good, they can stop being bad.

>>6117
Hey what gives, mr hoity toity named poster on the forced-anon board.  No fair!

 No.6136

>>6135
>After all, its a justification for murder so the belief itself legally rises to a clear and present danger to life and rights.
Uh, what?
You can't just kill people for opinions. That most certainly is not a justification for murder.

unless you mean to say she's justifying murder, in which case, citation needed

 No.6137

>>6136

I think he means that "they were trans" is still being used as a defense in murder cases, not that you can kill JK Rowling.

 No.6139

>>6137
Ah, I see.

Even so, I do not believe an opinion represents a "clear and present danger".
Beliefs are not actions

 No.6141

>>6135
I think it's because the thread was moved. Whatever program generates the /townhall/ animal names seems to only do so in threads and posts that originated there. I might talk to the mods about that, but I never intended for this thread to be here in the first place so I'm not too concerned about it.

 No.6235

>>6139
All action begins with belief.  

>>6137
Right.

I mean its still a legal defense for murder and as long as this remains true, every trans or suspected trans person's life is in danger.  How that relates to the topic, i forgot.

>>6136
I like what i said better, the way you heard it.  I want to change my answer to that version.

 No.6236

>>5957
>That you were all just easily-impressionable kids and that with the hindsight of adults the whole franchise kinda sucks?

Hold on a second.  This is more about MLP than that fake magic series, isn't it.

>>6141
Its still not fair, harrumpf.

 No.6239

>>6236
I don't think any of us were "kids" when  MLP started. If you were... yikes. Go back to TikTok or whatever.

 No.6240

File: 1596423832879.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>6239
>Go back to TikTok or whatever.

Didn't Trump just ban that?

 No.6241

>>6240
I think he was talking about it, but he says a lot of things.

 No.6242

>>6239
Might be wrong, but, I remember a fairly large number of teens. Seemed to me to make up the main bulk.

 No.6243

>>6242
Most people I knew were in their 20s, and the show started 8 years ago.

 No.6244

>>6243
Different areas, maybe. I'm pretty sure I was 16 or 17, and I know I knew some guys younger than that.

 No.6245

File: 1596502562890.png (442.87 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1338982425036.png) ImgOps Google

>>6243
> the show started 8 years ago.
It's over 9 years ago now!  How time flies!
First episode date: October 10, 2010

>>6239
>I don't think any of us were "kids" when  MLP started.
Mint Horse was only 10 years old or so.  But he didn't find Ponyville.us or Ponychan.net until a year or two ago.

 No.6246

Isn't the Harry Potter "problem" essentially that it's too incredibly derivative of previous fantasy works? Like a mish-mash? Akin to J.J. Abram's 'Star Wars'?

 No.6248

>>6244
I don't tend to hang out with literal children, you're right.

>>6245
Minthorse isn't a good example for anything.

 No.6249

>>6246
J.J. Abrams problem is that his Star Wars movies sucked, not that they were too much like Star Wars.

As for Harry Potter's story being derivative, I mean... yeah? It's for literal children. Most things for children are. But it also sucks.

 No.6250

>>6248
So when you were young, you hung out with older men the entire time?
That's messed up.

 No.6251

File: 1596558151396.png (19.46 KB, 544x408, 4:3, 268520__UNOPT__safe_artist….png) ImgOps Google

>>6250

Is it that weird?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]